Chapter 8: By It, We See Everything Else – The Explanatory Value of Christianity for Meaning and Ethics, by Samuel J. Youngs
Samuel Youngs writes that this chapter is about the “question of meaning, of purpose.” (85) Youngs argues that Richard Dawkins believes that there is no purpose in the universe. He quotes a November of 1995 Scientific American article titled “God’s Utility Function.” This article was an adaptation of a chapter of the same name in Dawkins’ book River Out of Eden [1].
When pressed on the “question of meaning,” an increasingly vocal regiment of Western thinkers resonates with Richard Dawkins’ dour pronouncement that, if one was to plumb the very depths of the universe itself, there is only to be found “blind, pitiless indifference.” […] Such is the universe; the center of meaning, according to Dawkins and his brand, is the absence of meaning. (85-86)
In the fourth chapter of River Out of Eden Dawkins describes how Darwinian evolution cares not for the suffering it inflicts upon its creatures. However, this does not mean that human beings cannot find purpose in their own lives. This question was explored in a series hosted by Richard Dawkins titled Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life (2012). In the third episode the “meaning of life” was discussed at length. Dawkins explains how we can find our own meaning in life, whatever that may be. Maybe it’s helping others or any number of things. Ask most any atheist or freethinker of sorts and you will likely get the same answer. Dawkins interviews atheist and satirist Ricky Gervais who believes that family, relationships, and friends are an important part of the meaning of life. Dawkins adds “understanding” to that list, with his love of science and the pursuit the of understanding of the world in which we live. Finally, an important point stressed is the fact that this life is all we have so we better make it a wonderful one; don’t waste it because you will not get another one. Cherish it and make the most of it. I would agree with all of these, as would most atheists I suspect. Needless to say, it would be wrong to say Dawkins does not believe there is any meaning to life.
Later on Youngs writes, after quoting Friedrich Nietzsche (”Whither is God? […] We have killed him […] Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? […] Is there still any up or down? […] Has it not become colder? […]”),
[W]hat do our conceptions of our universe mean for the lives we lead, for the people we love, for the questions we ask? The response of the naturalist, when faced with honesty, comes across as rather fruitless and depleted. It asks us to accept a universe with indifference at its heart, where no ultimate meaning can be ascribed to anything. What becomes of humanity, of life itself, of interpersonal interactions, in such a situation? (88)
Had Youngs quoted Dawkins from his other writings and other sources, he would have found plenty of meaning from “naturalists.” Christians are fond of citing the likes of Nietzsche and other atheists who did not always take a positive view of the world, but these bleak voices are few and far between. Christians ignore (I believe purposefully) these other voices because I often wonder if they are scared of acknowledging the existence of fulfilled, content, and thriving freethinkers. It demonstrates that godlessness is a real possibility, and so they quote the most downtrodden quotes they can find and argue that this represents the atheists’ view of life. They are leaving out a majority of voices who would strongly disagree with this bleak view of life. Youngs and other Christians would likely argue that these views are simply “honest” accounts of what a godless life has to offer and these are the few atheists who are not afraid to admit this. But I wouldn’t call that an honest outlook. I’d just call it depressing and, most of all, unnecessary. There is more than enough meaning in the world for one to find. The only problem is that it’s not handed to you as with religion; you have to search it out for yourself.
Youngs continues and says that Nietzsche’s views lead to “Nazism and fascism” and that for Nietzsche, “the meaning of life was simply the acquisition and exercise of power: the one who overpowers, overcomes, dominates is the person who truly understands the meaninglessness which mires us.” (88-89)
He continues to argue that given this view of the world it is “not enough” to “continue bemusedly onward as if it mattered little; it is not enough to declare our universe ruinous or indifferent, brush your hands off, and go on making statements that still brim with meaning for which you have denounced any possible source.” (89)
First, I must address this common misconception about Nietzsche and how his views are often said to have lead to Nazism and fascism. The facts are much different. It appears that much of Nietzsche’s thoughts have been distorted, no thanks in part to his sister who didn’t seem to understand her brother’s ideas and who did a great disservice to him by publishing various books that were a patchwork of Nietzsche’s notes. This caused several issues. It created many misunderstandings of Nietzsche’s actual beliefs, which made his philosophy seem scattered and contradictory, and imparted views to him that he did not hold. [2] Nietzsche was not an anti-Semite and even advocated the mixing of races. He once wrote,
The Poles I considered the most gifted and gallant among the Slavic people; and the giftedness of the Slavs seemed greater to me than that of the Germans – yes, I thought that the Germans had entered the line of gifted nations only through a strong mixture with Slavic blood (XI, 300) [3]
This view can be found throughout “almost all” of Nietzsche’s writings: “[T]he belief in the heredity of acquired characteristics and the conviction that race mixture might favor the attainment of culture – both in nations and in individuals.” [4] Clearly, this view is nowhere near those held by the Nazis.
Youngs’s other error regarding Nietzsche was his idea of the “will to power,” which he seems to believe attributed to the Nazi atrocities. It is hard to see how this “will to power” influenced the Nazis (unless they just didn’t understand it) because it was nothing more than a concept he developed to describe the psychology behind mens’ actions. Nietzsche saw the “will to power” from two different perspectives,
First, he thought of it as a craving for worldly success, which he repudiated as harmful to man’s interest in perfecting himself. Secondly, he thought of the will to power as a psychological drive in terms of which many diverse phenomena could be explained; e.g., gratitude, pity, and self-abasement. The phrase “will to power” is not yet used, except in one note, and Nietzsche far from approves of this urge. While one cannot, on the basis of the evidence so far considered, make any sweeping statements about Nietzsche’s philosophy, it seems worth insisting that, at least at first, Nietzsche used the will to power as a principle to explain behavior – as a psychological hypothesis. More often than not, he used it to explain behavior he happened to dislike. (emphasis mine) [5]
It should be clear how badly Nietzsche’s views have been distorted and it’s unfortunate that Youngs aids in this distortion, and is perpetuating long-debunked myths about how Nietzsche’s philosophy supposedly influenced the Nazis.
Later, Youngs responds to this common retort that we create our own meaning and responds:
A “highly satisfying meaning to life” [quoting an atheist from an article who claimed we make our own meaning] is not what shimmers in the distance when he shrugs his shoulders and says that […] humans have to make their own way in the search for meaning. The bleakness rears its ugly head again, albeit less aggressively. (93-94)
I find it sad that Christians wish to discount the fact that it is possible for one to find their own meaning in life. Just because this self-created meaning isn’t grounded in some magic mumbo jumbo in relation to some transcendent being does not mean it is not special and provides no true meaning. Does he really believe his family means nothing? That his relationships are “bleak?” Does the world and their families not mean enough to them for that to be enough of a reason to live a good life? Furthermore, as I’ve addressed already, how is the Christian god a source for meaning in the first place? Christians can never seem to articulate this rationally. “He just is,” is the typical response. How though?
Youngs writes,
We interact with each other in many ways – and some would argue in every way – as though those interactions have meaning, have significance, have weight. But why should we do this? If the accidental mixing of gases and the meaningless march of blind natural processes are all that can be said for history’s progression, why would I be inclined to interact with others as through they mean something? Why would I be inclined to be kind to them, apologize to them, sacrifice for them, or give to their charities? Yet we do all of these things, and innumerable smaller and more mundane things, as though our actions mean something. (91)
Human beings largely cooperate because it’s conducive to a healthy and thriving society. Human beings are social animals, therefore, we will commonly help one another and be kind to one another because it feels good to help others and it helps to smooth the wheels of society at large. I know Christians do not like that answer, but what else can I say? Once again, is helping others and being kind to them not worthy of their consideration if they’re not being watched over by their powerful deity? Is being a productive member of a society not enough? If not, why not?
Before I move on I will say one last thing to sum up: This is the only life we have. This planet is our home that we share with one another. These facts make it imperative that we all seek to work together to not only help each other in times of need but also to help preserve this planet, the source of everything that we with which to survive. If these are not good reasons for cooperating and helping one another, I don’t know what is.
On the other hand, religion tells us that we will live on after death. This life does not really matter, hence what is keeping theists from treating their fellow humans badly? All they need to do is accept Jesus as their savior and they are good to go. It ultimately doesn’t matter what they do.
Furthermore, as with the meaning of life, human societies create their own moral standards, which are by far and away better than anything religion has come up with. Take for instance the Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration is a body of moral and legal standards that define what we as a society value and what we want to protect. This Declaration is arguably the gold standard of ethics today; it is a universal standard that we can use to judge other nations and even individuals, and it has near universal consensus among nations.
I will now contrast the Declaration of Human Rights with the only known record of what god asks of his creations, the bible (all passages are from the NIV).
(1) Bible:
Ephesians 5:22-33: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
(1) Declaration of Human Rights:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (Art. 1)
(2) Bible:
Leviticus 25:44-46: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
(2) Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. (Art. 4)
(3) Bible:
Deuteronomy 25:2: If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves.
(3) Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Art. 5)
(4) Bible:
Exodus 20:17: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, his ox or donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor. (This is a law handed down by god himself enshrining inequality between the sexes.)
(4) Declaration of Human Rights:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. (Art. 7)
(5) Bible:
Genesis 22:1-12: Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.” Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?” “Yes, my son?” Abraham replied. “The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together. When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
Deuteronomy 21:18-21: If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders. “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.
(5) Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Art. 5)
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (Art. 3)
(6) Bible:
Exodus 20: 3: You shall have no other gods before me. (This is another law handed down by god himself, which enshrines a lack of freedom of conscience and a freedom of thought.)
This verse is clearly restricting a person’s freedom of thought and freedom of belief.
(6) Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. (Art. 18)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. (Art 19)
I had been looking for Young’s response throughout the entire chapter about how he believes his god is the foundation for morals, values, and a meaning of life and I hadn’t seen anything. In the very last paragraph of the chapter Youngs finally provides his justification for his claim that the Christian god is the source of values and morality. He says, “Because [values, meaning, and morality] finds its source in a great Creator, a Creator who desires humans to cherish one another and fight against those things which reduce meaning, truth, beauty, and goodness.” (95)
That’s it??? That’s his great Christian insight?
As with the Euthyphro dilemma, how does Youngs know his god wants goodness? Is torturing a child by threatening his or her life “good?” Is the keeping of slaves moral? Is treating outsiders as lesser people “good?” Is treating women as chattel and as unequals “good?” He provides no response to these questions. Quite frankly, Youngs has pulled this response out of thin air. It has no biblical basis and no evidence for it whatsoever.
Non-believers are more than capable of finding meaning and purpose in the universe. The only difference is that a non-believers’ meaning and purpose is not handed to them, as it is with religion. In the real world one’s meaning and purpose must be discovered via self-discovery and education.
Humanity already has a standard we can measure up to. It is the Declaration of Human Rights. These ethical and legal guidelines are clearly better than anything the Christian god came up with and are surely better ways of living. While it is certainly true no nation has fully lived up to these standards, they are a standard we can try to hold ourselves up to, a standard that the vast majority of the human race agrees upon. Religion has continually failed to offer humanity this.
1. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, by Richard Dawkins, BasicBooks, 1995; 95
2. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, by Walter Kaufmann, Princeton University Press, 1974; 3-18
3. Ibid.; 284
4. Ibid.; 287-288
5. Ibid.; 185
