Happy or consistent... or both?!

Posted 15 Jun 2015

Just started reading a very interesting book by William Lane Craig, entitled “On Guard – defending your faith with reason and precision”

The first chapter is looking at philosophy & particularly Atheism & some clever thinkers: Jean-Paul Satre, Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus, Prof. Richard Dawkins. In the first chapter William Lane Craig is examining the difference between an atheistic worldview & a Christian worldview. In its definition, atheism “sees” no higher divine power, & therefore no objective (ie beyond ourselves) meaning, value or significance. Atheism produces subjective meaning, value or significance, whereas Christianity, being derived from a supreme being, has objective (ie larger than “merely” our own!) meaning, value or significance.

Here’s a couple of quotes from the first chapter that have impacted me:

“If God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent – for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.” – page 41.

“The atheistic worldview is insufficient to maintain a happy and consistent life. Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value or purpose. If we try to live consistently within the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. If instead we manage to live happy, it is only by giving the lie to our worldview.” Page 45.

There is clearly a correlation, or connection between living happily &/or living consistently. William Lane Craig’s observation is that atheists can either live happily (but not consistently with atheism) or consistently (but not happily with atheism) since the atheist worldview is either/or.

I guess one or the other is OK, but I’d rather have both happiness AND consistency – which is what Christ & being a follower of His provide!

Lion & man 255x255px col


  1. Oh boy.

    OK, first of all, NEVER read a creationist book if you want to learn about Atheism. If you want to learn about Atheists, read an Atheist book or a Science book.

    Second, Atheists do not “presuppose”. Assumptions in general are inherantly stupid and should be avoided as much as possible, and where they can’t be avoided they must be scruitinized. Presuppositions in paticular are downright evil. “Presupposition” are the result of a brainwashed closed-minded Theist projecting their way of thinking onto Atheists. Assumptions? Maybe. To subconciously get an idea in your head with insufficient evidence is unavoidable but can be counteracted with skepticism. Presuppositions? Assuming something before you even start and then never eve questioning that assumption? NO! Only a brainwashed moron does that.

    Third, in my experience, philosophy is the subject Atheists disagree on more than anything. Asking “what philosophy do Atheists subscribe to” is like asking “what do animals eat”. It varies, all over the place. For example, Ayn Rand is the oposite of Karl Marx, Dawkins believes Altruism is an evolutionary trait whereas Nietzsche is a self-described “immoralist”, etc.

    Therefore, anything a creationist says about what Atheists think about “the meaning of life” will never be accurate.

    “If God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless;”
    (Impossible, meaning is Subjective.)
    “but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless;”
    (That would require us to paradoxically know for a fact both what the Meaning of Life is and that it’s meaningless)
    “so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning.”
    (You know the Meaning of Life is a complete mystery that has stumped smarter people than you, right?)
    “But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent “
    (With what?)
    “– for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.” – page 41.
    (That depends. A piece of crap is very significant to insects, a diamond is meaningless to a pig.)

    What do you mean “observation”? Craig didn’t “observe” anything, he just makes a bunch of assumptions.

    I’ve read the paper before. He claims depression is “inevitable” and “inescapable”, except it can only actually happen if you both think about it way too much and give a crap about a mystery no one knows the answer to because the question honestly doesn’t make any sense. You also have to give a crap that God doesn’t love you because he doesn’t exist. You tell me how that works.

    I don’t think there even is any such thing as an “Atheist Worldview”. Notice that, when theists talk about an “Atheists Worldview” (for one thing, THAT’S a clue right there, it’s always Theists saying that there is an “atheist worldview”, never us) they invariably complain that we are “inconsistent in their worldview”.

    That is, not a single Atheist on the planet actually believes this thing that supposedly is universal to all Atheists and covers every single thing we believe. But if NONE of us actually believe the thing that supposedly covers everything we believe, how exactly does the “Atheist Worldview” exist?

    The truth is: Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. We vary on everything else.

    And here’s one question for you to ponder:

    If William Lang Craig knows how Atheists think, why do we disagree with him? For him to be right would require us to not be able to read our own minds.

    Thoran · Nov 15, 03:02 pm · #

Comments are turned off for this article