The Absurdity of Life Without God: Meaning and Morality in a Post-Theistic World
ARTICLE • Notable atheist, Bertrand Russell, once opined that we must “build our lives on the firm foundation of unyielding despair.” Atheism provides no ground for mankind’s universal longings for meaning and morality. This article surveys the reality that one can either live happily or consistently with the atheist worldview.
Read time: 31 min
Having failed even at committing suicide, a distraught George Bailey of “It’s a Wonderful Life” wished aloud that he had never been born. Seeing a perfect chance to teach George the value of his life and the positive impact he had made on Bedford Falls, George’s guardian angel, Clarence Oddbody, grants him his death-wish for a few hours. George is quickly brought to see how dreadfully different the township would have been had he never been born. Similarly, modern man is distraught at life: beyond weary of a world teeming with “God-talk.” But despite Nietzsche’s pronouncement of the death of God in the 1950’s, it seems that most of mankind is in denial. For contemporary atheist, Richard Dawkins, belief in God is a genetic “Darwinian defect:” the sooner the genome mutates onward the better. But what if modern man had his wish granted? What if God did not exist? What impact would such a disappearance have on our world? Could the gaping void of God’s nonexistence ever be filled?
Both theistic and atheistic philosophers have contemplated the existential ramifications of a Godless world. Notably, both sides unanimously conclude that life without God is ultimately absurd. Atheist existentialist Jean Paul Sartre’s first notable work, La Nausea, reduces human existence to “nausea.” It goes without saying that Christian philosophers hold life absurd without God. What then are the implications of an absurd, orphan universe? Can modern man behave consistent with such a denial of God—and do so happily?
The Human Predicament
Sartre’s accurate and bleak evaluation of life in a Godless universe forms the basis of the modern “human predicament.” Contemporary Christian apologist William Lane Craig defines this predicament as the insignificance of human life in a post-theistic universe.[1] If there is no God, there are no absolutes, there are no hard rules, there is no objective meaning, value, or morality, and there is no goal toward which humankind advances. Man, a tiny speck on a minuscule planet in a vast, impersonal universe, lives momentarily and dies, reentering eternal nothingness. Worse still, his brief life is plagued by loneliness, meaninglessness, boredom, anxiety, and hopelessness. This is no mere claim. On the large scale, this describes modern man. In his passion for autonomy, he has sought to “kill God.” But as Nietzsche queried, “How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?”[2]
Twentieth century Christian philosopher, Francis Schaeffer, observed a trend of despair in modern man. He noticed the grim effects of God’s decease in philosophy, literature, the arts, and liberal theology. Simplistically put, Schaeffer then argued for God’s existence based on the miserable aftermath of God’s alleged death. He was the first to base a Christian apologetic on the human predicament. His argument is existential in nature, which he defined as “relating to and dealing with moment-by-moment human existence; empirical reality as opposed to mere theory.”[3] It also could be called a “cultural argument,” being based on a critique of post-Christian culture. Finally, it is a “negative argument,” as it argues for God’s existence from the existential un-livability of the contrary. In this last respect, it differs sharply from Classical apologetics and its positive proofs for God’s existence (e.g. the Cosmological Argument, etc.).
Schaeffer’s argument also differs from Presuppositional apologetics, as it is existential in nature, dealing with human existence and the un-livability of atheism. Whereas presuppositionalism is epistemological in nature, dealing in the abstract with preconditions of true knowledge. Presuppositional apologetics, however, does argue negatively too, but does so against theoretical atheistic inconsistencies, demonstrating God’s existence as a necessarily prerequisite to reliable knowledge of anything, arguing from the epistemological impossibility of the contrary. In summery, such negative arguments thus show the irrationality of atheism in the realms of human life (existentiality) and knowledge (epistemology). They do not positively demonstrate the existence of God; they create a felt need in man, often making him open to the option of God’s existence.
Schaeffer’s Existential Argument
Basically, Schaeffer’s existential argument for God’s existence reasons that without God there are no absolutes, and without absolutes, man’s endeavors degenerate into absurdity, and this absurdity is unlivable. Although Schaeffer explored how atheism also precludes any possibility of objective meaning and significance for man’s existence, his primary concern was the inevitable denial of objective morality, and the relative, subjective (and thus arbitrary) version that fills the vacuum. After establishing the patent absurdity of human existence without God (a point of agreement between atheists and theists) he argues that atheism is unlivable, because an atheist can either live happily or consistently.
To live happily, one must affirm some degree of meaning, value, purpose, and morality—and must therefore act as if God exists. However, to live consistently with atheism, one must utterly reject any notion of objective meaning, value, purpose, and morality. But living consistently with atheistic dogma is to live the existential nightmare, leaving one either miserable or consistent. This is the essence of the human predicament. Schaeffer challenges atheists to justify their behaviors—behaviors that betray a belief in some degree of meaning, value, morality, and purpose. Though he lauds anyone asserting such values, he presses them to account for the philosophical grounds for such inconsistent behavior, given their denial of God. In short, atheism has no rational basis for theistic optimism. Life is nausea, whether one pretends the contrary or not.
Atheistic Leaps of Faith
Schaeffer illustrates the inconsistency of atheists and the un-livability of atheism by writing of a two-story universe.
“In the lower story, on the basis of all reason, man as man is dead. You have simply mathematics, particulars, mechanics. Man has no meaning, no purpose, no significance. There is only pessimism concerning man as man. But up above [in the upper story], on the basis of a non-rational, non-reasonable leap, there is a non-reasonable faith which gives optimism. This is modern man’s total dichotomy.”[4]
In other words, modern man makes “leaps of faith” and lives in several key ways as if there is a God—all the while denying the fact. We will look at two common, inconsistent, and irrational leaps of faith, for which the atheist cannot account.
1. The Unlivability of Denying Ultimate Meaning
First, if there is no God, there obviously is no ultimate, objective meaning, significance or purpose for mankind. In fact, nothing that occurs in life or that man does is ultimately meaningful. The atheist Sartre affirmed this: “It amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone or is a leader of nations. We must, in fact, reject the assumption that there are absolute or objective values and accept the basic absurdity of life.”[5] Nonetheless, Sartre inconsistently affirms elsewhere that we can authenticate our own existence and create meaning for ourselves by the exercise of our wills.[6] Schaeffer discarded this notion as arbitrary, arguing that although stopping one’s car to pick up a man in the rain may feel significant in one’s existence, it is no more an act of the will than choosing to run him over. At the end of the day, one act of the will is no more meaningful than any other. Only “relative meanings”—and those subjective and arbitrary—may be prescribed to one’s self and mankind in an atheistic universe. This is by definition contradictory and absurd. If there is no objective, ultimate, overarching meaning, any “relative meaning” is also meaningless: you are left with objectively meaningless subjective meaningfulness: literally, meaningless meaningfulness.
This sort of absurdity is seen today. One example is the environmentally conscious “go green” trend. The slogan is so popular that it alone is a selling point for many products, whether organic, “ozone safe,” or biodegradable. It is of note that eco-conscious, humanistic causes, recycling campaigns, and even animal rights activist efforts are supported by theist and atheists alike. The question is begged rather obviously by the atheist, however, and they may well be asked: “Why does it matter if people recycle, or if animals are abused?” The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter in a meaningless universe. But it’s simply too hard (and immoral!) to live like a consistent atheist. So most don’t.
Meaningful Leaps of Faith?
Begging the question is commonplace even among well known atheistic intellectuals. William Lane Craig tells of a conference at which “new atheist” Daniel Dennett unwittingly demonstrated atheism’s inconsistency and un-livability.
“Dennett opened his talk by showing a short film that encapsulated what he wanted to convey. A silent narration played across the screen, describing the unfathomable vastness of the cosmos in space and time and contrasting the tininess and brevity of human existence. We are here for a mere twinkling of an eye and then gone forever. The punch line of the film finally came: ‘We’d better not blow it.’ That was the end. ‘What a strange film!’ I thought to myself. ‘What does it mean on an atheistic view to blow it?’”[7]
If there is no ultimate meaning, no objective rubric that may grade our short existence, it is impossible to botch, blow, or waste life itself, and it is an unjustifiable leap of faith for an atheist to act as if he or she can. Craig also tells of Nobel Prize winning Physicist, Steven Weinberg, addressing a group of scientist with a talk entitled “The First Three Minutes.”
“It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more is seems pointless.”[8]
Despite avowing the pointlessness of life, Weinberg continued on to praise the labors and advancements of scientists, as they “elevate [human existence] above farce to tragedy.” Again, on what grounds do advancements in science matter at all? Why is industry and productivity more meaningful than being lazy and detached? How can Weinberg justify his use of “tragedy,” an evaluative term, while he denies objective meaning and value? Inconsistency is the hallmark of atheism with regard to meaning and significance.
2. The Unlivability of Denying an Absolute Standard of Morality
Secondly, without God, there can be no objective moral standard of right and wrong. No sanctity or dignity is conferred from outside of man upon humans any more than upon animals or objects. Atheist Richard Dawkins says it as well as anybody: “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference . . .. We are machines for propagating DNA.”[9] Atheistic ethicist Richard Taylor underscores the same in “Ethics Faith and Reason.”
“To say something is wrong because it is forbidden by God is perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong, even though no God exists to forbid it, is not rationally honest. The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.”[10]
Atheistic Un-livability: Moral Leaps of Faith
A classic example of the gaping void that the denial of an absolute moral standard leaves is the Nuremberg Trials at which Nazi officers were tried for war crimes. One late Christian apologist tells of it in a lecture, “Why I am not an Atheist.” The men on trial were men who had ordered mass homicides of defenseless Jews and gypsies among others. These men were responsible for unspeakable atrocities against humanity: compulsive murders, torture, rape, gruesome human science experiments, mass graveyards and work camps in which those who survived were treated worse than cattle. The list of horrors is endless. It is said that the defense attorneys representing the criminals argued that the men were only obeying the laws of the land by obeying the authorities above them. The question came, “But is there no a law above our laws?” Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Sartre, Camus, and atheism itself answer in unison, “No, there is no law above our laws.”
Of course, quite inconsistently (and gratefully so), many leading atheists were and are very socially conscious and active. Bertrand Russell was such a vehement advocate for human rights and sexual freedom and an opponent of war in his latter years that many thought him mad. Yet philosophically, he had no grounds for his actions. He admitted that his own views were “incredible,” and confessed, “I don’t know the solution.”[11] Dawkins is also unjustifiably outspoken against certain social practices.
“He vigorously condemned the harassment and abuse of homosexuals, for example, religious indoctrination of children, the Incan practice of human sacrifice, and prizing cultural diversity in the case of the Amish over the interests of their children.[12] He even went so far as to offer his own amended Ten Commandments for guiding moral behavior.[13]
So how do atheistic ethicists and philosophers account for their ethical stands and moral codes? Ravi Zacharias helpfully listed four bases of atheistic morality:
Utilitarian: the “good” is the maximum good for the greatest number of people.
Pragmatic: the “good” is doing what works for me and advances myself.
Subjective: the “good” is whatever I decide it to be. I am my own authority.
Emotive: the “good” is what feels right, and the “wrong” is what feels wrong.
Note that each of these moral foundations is randomly dictated. Each begs the question, “why this basis and not that one?” Any answer will also be arbitrary. Each invites and indeed necessitates moral relativism. But if morals are relative, any assumed “right” to speak out against another is undermined. Relativism is thus self-defeating, as Malcolm Muggridge pronounced: “By rebelling against everything, modern man has lost the right to rebel against anything.” In fact, to be consistent with moral relativism, basic “human rights,” as outlined in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, for instance, are reduced to “conveniences.” If there is no God-endowed, absolute ethical code, human rights are mere amenities that make the sailing smoother and life more manageable. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. But if you shoot me in the back, my friends will lock you up.” If there is no objective morality, upon what authority can anyone say Stalin was less moral than Mother Teresa? He was not necessarily “wrong” by violating the basic human conveniences (“rights”) of others. Any moral evaluation, any talk of the violation of human rights is inevitably meaningless and arbitrary, double-talk.
Morality as the Consensus of the Masses
There is an authority to which atheists appeal: the authority of the masses. This, of course does not philosophically substantiate any moral judgment, by reason of committing the ad hominum fallacy: a large number of individuals espousing a particular idea does not make it any more or less sound. Nonetheless, atheists profess that moral standards are basically social constructions. There is no law higher than man. Man is the measure of all things: homo mensura. This supposedly—albeit artificially—earns atheists the right to call human sacrifices “wrong” and contributions to reputable charities “right.” Many will tell you that they admire ethical behavior and even try to be a moral person, are shoulder-shoulder with theists decrying crimes against humanity, and alongside religious folk calling the abduction, molestation and brutal murder of children “evil.”
To be fair, some atheists use moral language and some do not. Those who do not are more consistent, at lease linguistically, with their denial of God. I will address both.
Atheistic Moral Language
First, how does an atheistic worldview justify the use of moral language (e.g. right, wrong, good, evil) while also denying any objective, absolute morality? It’s simple: one must modify the definition of “evil.”
A Theistic functional definition of evil: “Evil is the violation of absolute, objective, universal, divine law based on the nature of God.”
An Atheistic functional definition of evil: “Evil is the violation of relative, subjective, socially constructed law based on the consensus of the masses within a culture.”
The latter definition strips moral law of any transcendent property, making it local, universally arbitrary, mutable, and relative. In this sense, atheism treats moral law as if it were civil law: In Town A it’s illegal to park on the grass, but in Town B it’s not. Civil laws are based on mass consensus. But we don’t often call parking on grass “evil,” only illegal in some places. By changing its definition of evil, atheism may say Hitler committed “evil” against humanity. But one does not necessarily mean the same thing as the theist. Again, as Richard Taylor opined, “The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.”[14]
Secondly, some atheists do not use moral language, yet they insist there may be and should be ethical standards of some sort for the preservation of society. This reasoning may draw from utilitarianism (i.e. ethical standards are what constitute the most good for the most number of people), or pragmatism (ethical standards are what advance an individual’s cause), or perhaps a mixture of both. In the event that a man’s cause conflicts with the society’s common good, he can either submit to the law of the land or break the standard. If caught, he may pay for his crime.
A standard of conduct is sometimes asserted on emotive grounds—what I feel to be right is functionally “right.” An atheist using this basis for ethical standards might respond to Francis Schaeffer’s existential argument in this way:
“I don’t believe in God. But I do know that I don’t like to hurt, and I do like to feel happy. Therefore, I hold that there should be standards of conduct for the preservation of society, so that ultimately the individuals of that society—including myself—can minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Furthermore, on these grounds, decrying Hitler for his maltreatment of innocent people is appropriate, not for any moral reasons, as I don’t think objective immorality can exist where God doesn’t. Harmful human behavior, though not ‘evil,’ is still hurtful and thus should be stopped, not on philosophical grounds, but because I don’t want to hurt. And I don’t need a god to account for my aversion to pain and my desire for pleasure and survival. Genetics accounts for this primal instinct.”
This fictitious though ubiquitous person has honestly followed atheism to its natural conclusion: nihilism.
The Problem of Evil
Now we move to the most strident inconstancy of atheism and its denial of universal morality: the Problem of Evil. This classical argument against the existence of the Christian God is as follows: if an all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful God existed, he (it) would not allow evil to occur in his universe. The argument connects emotionally to us all. It certainly feels to be the case. However, the so-called Problem of Evil is really atheism’s problem on two levels. If professing that God does not exist, on what grounds does an atheist call anything morally evil? Fyodor Dostoyevski, the renowned Russian novelist explains.
“If the existence of God is denied, then one lands in complete moral relativism, so that no act, regardless of how heinous, may be condemned by the atheist. To live consistently with such a view of life is unthinkable and impossible.”[15]
There are two ways the Problem of Evil may be posited by an atheist.
The first way may go like this:
Evil exists. Therefore, the Christian God cannot exists, since such a God—being all-knowing, all loving, and all-powerful—would never allow such evil to exist.
The argument begins by assuming evil’s existence in its first premise. But does “evil” really exist? If there is no God, by what standard is evil defined? In a world lacking absolutes, any standard is an arbitrary one, a relative one, and thus inadequate to make any authoritative moral judgments. If the atheist begins by affirming that evil exist, the theist need not, theoretically, address the objection. The atheist should be kindly pressed to produce grounds for his calling anything “evil” in the first place.
There is a second and wiser approach that an atheist may take when leveraging the Problem of Evil. She may argue existentially via an argumentum ad absurdum, as did Schaeffer and as do Christian presuppositionalists. That is, she may assume the basic Christian presuppositions as premises, and trace them to their natural conclusions. The argument may go something like this.
Let’s begin by assuming the Christian God exists. Absolute and objective moral standards must also then exist. Actions that violate that moral standard constitute “evil.” Such actions occur in the world. Thus, evil exists. But if the Christian God were to exist—omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent as he would be—he surely would not allow such evil to exist. By its Christian definition, evil exists. Therefore the Christian God cannot exist. But perhaps a non-Christian god exists. However, if this god is not omnibenevolent but is omnipotent and omniscient (almighty and aware) of evil, he (or it) would be an accomplice to evil if it did not stop evil, as it is in his power to stop evil from occurring. He would be immoral as an accomplice to evil. Evil exists; therefore, an all-knowing, all-power and simultaneously good (moral) God cannot exist.
This second approach evades begging the question of “how can an atheist call anything evil?” by starting the argument with the rational assumption of the Christian God’s existence. When it then affirms that evil too exists, it does so still assuming the Christian position (which has rational grounds for calling something “evil”). The atheist finally tries to show the logical incongruence between the two propositions; that the Christian God and evil cannot simultaneously exist.
This second way cannot be dismissed as irrational like the first, but it still can be shown to be inadequate as an objection to the Christian God. Its framing of the Problem of Evil does not show a logical inconsistency in the Christian worldview. The objection is not logical but psychological. In other words, the substance of the objection is really, “If I were God, I would not allow evil to exist.” Or, “An all-knowing, almighty God that allows evil to exist does not seem good to me.” Ultimately, however, how we feel about a certain proposition may be completely irrelevant to the truth of that proposition. The Christian may respond to the objection by affirming that for moral, good reasons perhaps known only to God Himself, God allows evil to exist. There is no logical contradiction here.
The objection that “an all-knowledgable and almighty God is accomplice to any evil he allows” must too be answered. Omnisciently, the Christian God may transcend human perceptions of good, though he never contradicts actual good. His moral standards originate in his own nature, which is good.
Per a hypothetical example, if a father stands by and watches his ten-year-old strangle an infant to death, in our courts of law, he would be accomplice to the evil and convicted of the crime of not intervening (especially if there were no physical threat to himself in intervening). In the case of God, however, if he does not intervene when he sees an infant strangled to death, it must be for good reason and not antagonistic to the ultimate good. The ultimate good may be accomplished by the death of an infant (though psychologically it may be difficult to imagine). God knows, let’s say, that perhaps the infant would have grown up to one day drive a car full of explosives into a children’s hospital. The reason a human is convicted of the crime of not intervening is because he neither knows the future nor as a mere creature has the right to take life without due warrant. The limits of human knowledge and authority dictate that killing an infant is a violation of God’s law and nature. God’s absolute knowledge of a seeming infinite complex of causes and effects making up human history, past, present, and future, means that God is on a different level of moral accountability. That said, he never violates his own upright nature by anything he allows.
In summery, the Problem of Evil is—philosophically speaking—atheism’s problem. But even psychological tension can resolve when one accepts that not only does God have moral reasons for allowing evil to be but he purposes the ultimate judgment of all evil and the ultimate redemption of the ravages of evil. Only in a theistic universe is real evil ultimately either judged or redeemed.
Living a Lie
One must wonder how those who deny a transcendent Creator cope with such inconsistencies between their denial of God and their pretense of meaning and morality in their behaviors. Richard Dawkins calls compassion and generosity “Darwinian mistakes,” but nonetheless “noble emotions.”[16]
In a remarkable address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in 1991, Dr. L. D. Rue boldly advocated that we deceive ourselves by means of some “Noble Lie” into thinking that we and the universe still have value.”[17]
Noble lies, he said, inspire people to reach out beyond self-interest and contribute to society. Rue concluded, “Without such lies we cannot live.” From an atheist’s mouth, self-deception is the answer to the human predicament.
Scripture weighs in on the psychological condition of modern man in revolt:
“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).
They “willingly are ignorant” (2 Pet. 3:5).
They “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” because “when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Rom 1:18, 21).
They “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 1:25).
Many are comfortable living inconsistently with their own atheistic faith and are not ashamed of the inadequacy of their worldview to account for the way they assume meaning and morality in their daily lives. They do so because it’s completely natural to live as if there is a God. Man is made in God’s image, rational, relational, sanctified, and endowed with universal senses of meaning and morality (Rom. 2:14-15).
A parting word from Jesus
Jesus spoke of two types of people: the morally wise and the morally foolish. Both may build outwardly similar lives. The difference is their foundations. The wise one builds on firm soil. The foolish one builds on shifting sand. When the rains come and the floods sweep against the houses, the house of the wise stands firm. But the abode of the foolish comes crashing down. This illustration applies to atheism. King David inscribed, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Atheists can build lovely houses (their lives) and may even build them as beautiful as their theist neighbors. They can live as if there were objective meaning, significance, value, and morality, but the rains will come and reveal that they have not the proper grounds upon which to erect their lives. The words of Bertrand Russell will just not do. Russell wrote, we must “build our lives on the firm foundation of unyielding despair.”[18] Could it be that existential, “unyielding despair” is because one’s life is without theistic warrant?
Despite man’s best efforts to contrive meaning and morality, he is utterly helpless. Is there an answer to the human predicament? Man cannot hold up the very ground on which he stands. Is there one outside of man’s existence that can reach into the human condition and prescribe objective, universal, and absolute meaning, purpose, value and morality? The Christian God has done just that in his Son, Jesus Christ.
According to John 14:6, Jesus is the answer to the human predicament: to those without moral compass, and likewise unable to satisfy the moral demands of a morally perfect and just God, Jesus says, “I am the Way.” To those despairing beneath the tyranny of a meaningless, pointless, and hopeless existence, longing for real sanctity in a world of “Noble Lies,” Jesus says, “I am the Truth.” To those who feel to be chained to a cruel, unforgiving universe hurling itself toward extinction, fated by inescapable mortality, Jesus says, “I am the Life.” Jesus is the definitive—and only—answer God has given to the human predicament. And he is enough. ❖
References
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. (2008), 65.
Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Gay Science,” in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. W. Kaufmann (New York: Viking, 1954), 95.
Francis Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Fracis A Schaeffer, Vol. 1. Escape from Reason (1987), 200.
Ibid., 237-238.
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (2000), 682.
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 78.
Ibid., 84.
Ibid., 85.
Ibid., 81.
Ibid., 75.
Bertrand Russell, “Letter to the Observer” (October 6, 1957).
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006), 23, 313-17, 326, 328, 330. Cited in Craig, Reasonable Faith, 81.
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 81.
Ibid., 75.
Ibid., 69.
Dawkins, The God Delusion, 221.
Craig, Reasonable Faith, 85.
Ibid., 78.
