One justification often offered by believers sounds something like this, "If I didn't believe in God then my life would have no meaning, but I can't life without meaning; therefore, I believe in God." As stated it seems to be something like, "I feel like thinking this way, therefore I do so." But it is helpful to compare this argument to the following argument, which commits no such fallacy:
"If my life is meaningful, then there is a meaning for every other thing and for the totality as well; but my life does have meaning; therefore..."
The above argument relies upon the reflective recognition of one's own life as being meaningful as a basic truth. But it links this to a claim that goes beyond the individual who makes the reflection. And the logical form is such that, to deny the consequent (i.e., that "there is a meaning for every other thing and for the totality as well") is to deny the antecedent (i.e., that "my life is meaningful").
We can look at the so-called subjectivist argument for theism as a confused version of the above.
The real debate, then is the relationship between the meaningfulness of my life and that of the totality.
"If my life is meaningful, then there is a meaning for every other thing and for the totality as well; but my life does have meaning; therefore..."
The above argument relies upon the reflective recognition of one's own life as being meaningful as a basic truth. But it links this to a claim that goes beyond the individual who makes the reflection. And the logical form is such that, to deny the consequent (i.e., that "there is a meaning for every other thing and for the totality as well") is to deny the antecedent (i.e., that "my life is meaningful").
We can look at the so-called subjectivist argument for theism as a confused version of the above.
The real debate, then is the relationship between the meaningfulness of my life and that of the totality.
Comments