Things can have a purpose, even if God didn't ordain it.
Whether people suffer or not, whether people are good to me or not, whether I am good to other people are all important, even if our life here is temporary. Yes, in the long run all will be forgotten, but in the short run, the long run doesn't matter. Suffering and joy are to be managed in the meantime; we can experience both directly, and we can get satisfaction and meaning indirectly by helping other attain joy/avoid pain. That is something that we can demonstrate to be true here and now, something that is beyond dispute.
It seems to me we should work on the here and now and not spend so much energy trying to curry favor to better our position in a hypothetical afterlife.
The one argument about religion I find especially hard to understand is that of needing some higher entity to give your existence meaning.
It sort of comes off to me as a lighter way of asking how you can be a moral person without the threat of eternal suffering in the afterlife (not to suggest that you actually mean that).
I consider myself agnostic, practically an atheist, I just don't really like associating myself with the "hurr durr sky daddy" types, I think religion and the idea of a creator are valuable to help people cope with situations which are totally out of their control, but I can't really relate to needing a creator to give me purpose. I give myself purpose by doing and supporting the things that I feel are right/important.
I don't think existence needs any overarching purpose offered by a creator, it's fine that everything is ultimately meaningless. If anything I find it relieving since it also means that our failures also only have as much meaning as we ascribe to them.
> It sort of comes off to me as a lighter way of asking how you can be a moral person without the threat of eternal suffering in the afterlife
This is a very common argument that comes from a misconception of what theists argue. There's a difference between knowing what's good or bad, and doing it. What theists argue is not that only who believes in God can do something good. They argue all human beings know something good or bad because God imbued humans that ability, regardless of what they believe in, or whether they want to do it or not.
Interestingly, Christianity is unique regarding this matter. While most, if not all, religions say you have to earn it in order to go to the desirable afterlife (heaven/paradise/etc.), Christianity says no one, whatever good things they do, can earn it. Only because of God's grace they can be saved. Also, we love because God loved us first. We do good things not for earning an eternal life, but for an act of gratitude that God has saved us.
Ah that's an interesting explanation I hadn't heard before. It makes a lot more sense than the idea that theists are only moral because of a fear of hell.
I'm an agnostic (absolute, textbook definition) but I disagree. As a human with consciousness and free will (whether that's an "illusion" doesn't make a difference from where I'm standing), I define meaning in my life. Not all consciously, but I have thoughts and desires. If it'll all be irrelevant when I die, why should I care? I'm not dead yet. If there is no afterlife, I won't be around to care. If there is, I'll figure it out on the fly.
What actually changes if there is a creator though? Isn't it exactly the same, it "just happens" that a creator created a species and that species survives and reproduces. As you yourself say, it's merely a tautology to define purpose into existence, but the same is true even if a creator is involved, it's still just something that "happens".
Something was created by a creator. Now what? Where did purpose come from?
The purpose comes from why the creator created it. Whether the created likes and accepts its purpose is a different question.
George MacDonald was quoted as saying something to the effect of: "did it ever occur to you that God created you for one purpose: simply to love you". All the stuff that we do would then flow from experiencing that reality. This would suggest a view of us as God's children (indeed, in Gen 1, the point is arguably that in the end, God reproduces after his kind [as much as is possible]). I don't have kids, so I don't no, but it seems like that is ideally why people have children--to love them.
The Westminster Catechism is related: "What is the chief end [purpose] of Man? The chief end of Man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever." It is less satisfying, since it seems to sound like it requires toil on our part, although I doubt the authors saw it that way.
Imagine an earthquake occurs along a fault line, and causes a cliff to shake asunder, sending lots of pebbles and rocks flying down to the ground below. After the earthquake is done, on the ground there, we see a rock.
Why is the rock there, in that particular location? Well, we know why, it's because it fell from the cliff above, which was sundered by the earthquake, which was caused by the tectonic plate movement.
So we have a reason why the rock is there. Does that mean the rock has a purpose? No? But that's why it's there though!
What if I deliberately picked up a rock and placed it on that location instead. Does it have a purpose now? Does my hands have that power?
The idea that a creator imbues their creation with purpose by creating them is just as arbitrary as an earthquake. It's wordplay at best, where the layman's "purpose" is being confused with a sort of higher cosmic meaning "purpose". The purpose of a hammer is to drive down nails, but that doesn't mean the hammer has a purpose in the way we are talking about here. But that's exactly the mixup you do when you say that the creator gives the creation it's purpose. It's kinda funny because it elevates hammers making them fulfilled and meaningful, but rocks are left to suffer in their nihilism.
The person you replied to didn't say "the purpose comes from any why", but:
> The purpose comes from why the creator created it.
Some higher being might impulsively created the universe out of boredom, in which case there would be no ultimate purpose at all. But maybe they created it intentionally, with a purpose, which is the ultimate purpose of universe and everything inside it.
So no, it's not what you condescendingly said "wordplay at best." There can be a relationship between the purpose of a creation and the reason why the creator created it. In fact, for many everyday things, the purpose of their existence is exactly the reason why the inventors created them.
(I'm not arguing that there exists a creator of the universe. I'm just showing how irrelevant, to put it mildly, your seemingly strong argument is to the post you replied to.)
I get that, and my response did probably not convey what I meant to explain very well.
How about this angle: Does that creator itself have any purpose or meaning? If God exists, is he utterly nihilistic and void of meaning? After all, there was no creator to give God purpose.
If God does have purpose somehow, that shows that purpose does not only come from being created. Problem solved.
If God does not have purpose, then that creates a rather strange situation where a being without purpose can create beings with purpose. Presumably we too can create things with purpose, in a godless universe, and thus infuse the world with purpose ourselves.
Personally, I think people are too quick to mix up purpose (the how) with meaning (the why). There are all kinds of mechanical reasons as to how you came about, from nature, your parents, circumstances. And some of those reasons even include agency, for example, your parents might have decided to have a child. That's a decision they took, not just random luck.
But these are reasons as to how you came about to exist, not the actual meaning behind your existence. Meaning is something else entirely, it's a very difficult topic to struggle with. But we diminish it greatly by dumbing it down to "the meaning with your life is whatever intentions behind what created you". Our lives does not belong to our parents, nature or our creator, but rather, ourselves. And thus it's only we who can imbue that life with meaning, nobody else.
Presumably the creator created with purpose. If I make a chair, it fulfills its purpose when it serves as a place to sit. It does not serve its purpose if someone uses it to awkwardly dig a hole.
Likewise if God made me to, say, love and forgive others, I can either serve my purpose or not. But the purpose is given to me by the intent of the creator.
If "purpose" is simply the intent of a creator, the words used to describe what the creator intended when they created, then I don't see the great loss in not having it.
Imagine your father always wanted a child, and for the child to take over the family business. Is your life without merit, utterly void of value, if you become a fireman instead? After all, you are not fulfilling the purpose, the intent, of those who created you. Anything outside their specifications is meaningless nihilism, right?
Personally, I think there is more to "purpose" than this definition, it's a very small definition that does not truly compass what people mean when they talk about purpose.
> Then I realised feeling dreadful about it was ultimately pointless ... And I moved on
But when you really think about it, moving on is as pointless as feeling dreadful. In fact, anything is as pointless as anything else. It might seem like an insane question, but why exactly is moving on somehow more desirable than feeling dreadful, if everything, including the universe itself, will be gone?
Life is about the journey, not the end, many people would argue. But in reality, most people live their life with long-term thinking. People study hard, so they can get a good job. Then they work hard, so they can retire comfortably. There's always delayed gratification in most life stages and even life activities (saving, exercising, dieting).
If life were all about the journey, we wouldn't need to feel pity for those who "wasted" their life, as long as they enjoyed it. Being drug addicts and die at twenties would not be "less" then being a president, they would be just.. different. But no, most of us think they are not just different, and it says something about human beings.
> But when you really think about it, moving on is as pointless as feeling dreadful.
Yes.
> In fact, anything is as pointless as anything else.
Absolutely.
> It might seem like an insane question, but why exactly is moving on somehow more desirable than feeling dreadful, if everything, including the universe itself, will be gone?
It isn’t. Once we’ve reached the conclusion that anything and everything is vain and pointless, we are simply faced with a choice. One that sure is as pointless as everything else. And one to which everyone is ultimately free to find whatever answer, or lack of answer they please. For better or worse we are alive, whatever that means, and it will probably only last so long. What will we do with that?
Edit: basically, to be unoriginal, "To be or not to be".
Some will believe they are entitled to have an opinion on others’ answers. Some will say it’s nobody’s business. Some are convinced they somehow have a somewhat universal answer. Others try to coerce others into what will benefit them.
> Life is about the journey, not the end, many people would argue. But in reality, most people live their life with long-term thinking.
I’d argue many believe they do, but few actually do. Considering their many long term impacts on quality of life, obesity and tobacco addiction are a few examples that come to mind.
> People study hard, so they can get a good job. Then they work hard, so they can retire comfortably. There's always delayed gratification in most life stages and even life activities (saving, exercising, dieting).
> If life were all about the journey, we wouldn't need to feel pity for those who "wasted" their life, as long as they enjoyed it.
I would argue that most have no clue as to what they are talking about. Myself included.
> Being drug addicts and die at twenties would not be "less" then being a president, they would be just.. different. But no, most of us think they are not just different, and it says something about human beings.
It's actually no more of a purpose than a tautology. It just happens that a species that survives and reproduces will continue to live.
Without a creator, there is no real “purpose” at all. Everything came from nothing, will end as nothing, and is ultimately irrelevant. Everything.
As a Christian, I sometimes look over into that chasm and wonder how atheists bear it.