Theism vs Nihilism

The question of the meaning of life is indeed as old as philosophy itself, and throughout the centuries it has generated a wide array of responses. When approaching this profound inquiry, it becomes evident that the understanding of purpose is crucial, reflecting two contrasting worldviews and the logical conclusions drawn from each. It is imperative to note that when referring to “purpose,” it extends beyond merely filling one’s life with activities aimed at personal and collective happiness. Instead, it delves into a more foundational essence, encapsulating objective qualities of meaning, value, and purpose that require exploration and understanding. Without such a pursuit, these fundamental aspects can be perceived as illusory, underscoring the significance of earnestly uncovering their true nature.

From a Christian theist position a logical syllogism might look something like this:

P1. If God exists then life has objective meaning, value, and purpose.

P2. Life has objective meaning, value, and purpose.

C1. Therefore, God exists.

In order to be proved wrong one or both premises need to be shown more likely false than true. I contend that both are more likely true than false and therefore the conclusion follows. 

The Christian theist believes in a transcendent, perfectly good Creator who is considered the first cause – uncaused and eternal. This maximally great being, often referred to as God, offers the promise of eternal life to all who freely choose to receive it. Central to the Christian faith is the belief that God desires to establish a love relationship with the individuals whom He has created. The concept of a loving and personal relationship with God is foundational to the Christian worldview, shaping the way believers understand their purpose.

By “objective” the Christian theist means that which is outside of ourselves, non-subjective, and therefore God is the most likely source.

The concept of objectivity in the context of Christian theism is fundamental to understanding the belief system. When referring to something as “objective,” Christian theists are describing elements that exist independently of individual thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. In essence, it is a notion that transcends personal biases and interpretations. Within this framework, the belief is that God represents the ultimate source of objectivity. God’s nature and existence are considered to be outside the influence of human subjectivity, making Him the most plausible origin of this objective reality. This perspective influences various aspects of Christian theology and epistemology, shaping the way believers perceive truth, morality, and the world around them.

The concepts of “meaning,” “value,” and “purpose” are indeed closely related, yet they each encompass distinct aspects of human experience and perception. When defining “meaning,” one might consider it as the significance or sense behind events, actions, or phenomena. It is closely tied to the idea of finding purpose and fulfillment in life. On the other hand, “value” often relates to the qualities of being good and right, as well as the worth or importance of something. This can extend to moral or ethical considerations, assessing the importance of principles and actions, or recognizing the worth of individuals or objects. Lastly, “purpose” embodies the idea of having a goal or chief end, guiding one’s actions and decisions towards a specific direction or outcome. Understanding the nuances of these concepts enriches our comprehension of the complexities and depth of human thought and experience.

If we reverse the syllogism it would look like this:

P1. If God does not exist then life has no objective meaning, value, and purpose.

P2. Life has no objective meaning, value, and purpose.

C1. Therefore, God does not exist.

The logical conclusion to atheism often leads to nihilism, both on a cosmic and personal level. This unsettling prospect is one that has been contemplated and discussed at length by atheistic philosophers and thinkers. As we delve into their perspectives, it becomes evident that the absence of belief in God can ultimately lead to an existential void. This void can manifest as a lack of purpose or meaning in the grand scheme of the universe and within an individual’s life. When we consider the existential quandaries posed by Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus, among others, the weight of this implication becomes even more profound. In their discussions and writings, they have grappled with the profound implications of a universe devoid of inherent meaning or purpose, and the resulting impact on the individual’s search for significance and value. This contemplation brings to the forefront the stark reality that atheism can often intersect with nihilism, prompting individuals to navigate their existence in a framework devoid of inherent ultimate meaning.

“Atheism is a long, hard, cruel business.”

– Jean-Paul Satre

“Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the sold habitation henceforth be safely built.”

– Bertrand Russell

“If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance.”

– Albert Camus

“I think we are just insects, we live a bit and then die and that’s the lot. There’s no mercy in things. There’s not even a Great Beyond. There’s nothing.”

– John Fowles

“I whispered to my heart ‘Is everything meaningless?’ “’It doesn’t really matter,’ It smiled. ‘Nothing matters.’”

― Juansen Dizon

“I touched something in them because they identified in my writings the anguish and despair that they all felt. I spoke to the meaninglessness and uncertainty, the basic tenets of which I am uncertain I still believe.”

– Albert Camus

The notion that if atheism is true and theism false, then any meaning, value, or purpose in life is illusory is a thought-provoking perspective. It raises significant existential questions about the nature of human experience and the foundation of ethical and moral frameworks. This line of inquiry delves into the essence of what it means to lead a meaningful life and to find purpose in a universe that may appear indifferent to human aspirations.

Duke University philosopher Alexander Rosenberg, an atheist who suggests coping with the meaninglessness of life through drugs, introduces a controversial and deeply unsettling dimension to the discourse. Such a statement challenges traditional notions of coping mechanisms and raises critical concerns about the human condition in the absence of transcendent meaning.

These philosophical considerations are not merely abstract conjectures but touch upon the very fabric of human experience. It is within these profound inquiries that individuals grapple with questions of their own existence, the pursuit of happiness, and the moral framework by which they choose to live their lives. The juxtaposition of atheism and theism as they relate to the human search for meaning invites contemplation and introspection about the nature of reality and the human condition.

Some have argued that although life is ultimately meaningless, we can find some meaning in what we make, what we do, in our friendships and family. I agree that these are all important. But what if those things are removed from your life? Does your existence still have meaning?

Of course, I don’t believe life is meaningless, valueless, or purposeless – I’m a theist. Nevertheless, some atheists have argued that life can have meaning, value, and purpose (as subjective as they may be) without God. Atheist philosophers Jason Megill and Daniel Linford put forth “a new argument for atheism” stating four propositions that life without God can have meaning. I will address the two strongest.

A1. The Possible Worlds Argument – here they contend that there could be a possible world where God does not exist, a perfect duplicate of the actual world, but where our lives have meaning. This ontological argument fails because it neglects the maximal greatness of God and only argues for exceptional greatness (I discussed this in my article on the Ontological Argument). Once one comprehends the meaning of maximal greatness then it becomes necessary that such a being exists in all possible worlds.

A2: The New Euthyphro Argument – (the original Euthyphro argument by Plato asks “Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good?”) – here Megill and Linford have a twist on the Euthyphro moral argument in asking if salvation is God’s plan because it is independently meaningful, or is it independently meaningful because it is God’s plan? It attempts to draw a distinction between God and meaning. But this argument fails (as does the original argument) when we introduce a third option – God is the meaning (or God is the good). For the Christian theist God is by His own nature the standard of goodness, and by His own nature the meaning of life. As the Westminister Shorter Catechism states, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”

I realize that to the atheistic mind this would seem more like their own personal hell (and one reason why it is not forced on anyone) – but for those of us who are Christian theists it is the fulfillment of our love relationship with God. If the Christian God exists, then He would want meaning, value and purpose for His creation. And, as His creation we would find those things in our relationship with God (Romans 8:28, Romans 12:1-2; Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 1:16, 1 Peter 2:9). And God being Eternal would mean that meaning, value and purpose would be lasting (and objective) even if all else fails (such as jobs, family, friends, health and so on).

If atheism is true and the meaning, value and purpose of theism is false – why on earth would the atheist wish to deprive the theist of their illusion? Perhaps it is because they are not illusionary?

So, are meaning, value and purpose subjective illusory concepts? Or are they objective and real? If they are real I believe God is the best answer for their objectiveness and existence. Which would, of course, argue for His existence. But it would also argue for these qualities to be available for you for the asking.

“Modern man resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to since he does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent when he makes this leap because these values cannot exist without God, and man in his lower story does not have God.”

– Francis Schaeffer

If you are going to make “leaps of faith” regarding meaning, value and purpose; then I would invite you, as Schaeffer notes, to simply move on up.