Meaning in a World Without God

in #philosophy2 years ago (edited)

On this Sunday morning, let us ask, “What is the meaning of life in a world without God?” I find it strange that so many people wrestle with this question.

Before you jump on me for making an irresponsible or ignorant assumption - that God is a fiction - I ask that you save it for another time. It’s unlikely that we’re going to solve that particular mystery today on Steemit. The point of my post is not to prove anything about a God or gods. Today I’m interested in “meaning” and what that concept actually refers to.

@gavvet recently made a post about evolution that drummed up a lot of conversation. Within the comments section I struck up a dialog with @arrowj, and it focused on the subjects of meaning, purpose, and values. While the exchange was cordial and sincere on both sides, I was struck by how much we were talking past one another. I think the reason for this pass-by was a disagreement or confusion about some basic concepts - the most important one being meaning.

So with that inspiration, it’s time for another episode of


The first obstacle we run up against in our study is that meaning has several meanings. And if we’re not precise, we’re in danger of mixing them up. provides two definitions:

  1. what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated
  2. the end, purpose, or significance of something

The first meaning of meaning is the most common understanding of the term. It simply means the qualities of, or the definition of, the thing we are talking about. A word’s meaning is the idea or set of ideas that the word refers to.

Now, unless we’re biologists or philologists, when asked about the meaning of life, we are very unlikely to be talking about this first definition. Instead, we are thinking about the second: what is the purpose of life?


Viewed from a perspective that holds Man to be created by a god, this sense of purpose is straightforward. A creator creates things with a purpose in mind. I build a house: my purpose is that it keeps me warm and dry. I build a watch: my purpose is that it tracks the passage of time. I build a rocket ship: my purpose is that it takes me to the moon.

All the purposes above are my intentions. And if my created thing coincides with my intention, then it is serving its purpose. Therefore, if we are created by God, we need only know God’s intention if we are to know our purpose. (Granted, thousands of years suggest this to be a rather difficult and controversial endeavor.)

Creation of Adam, Michelangelo

Here we see that purpose is supplied by the intention of a conscious agent. Either me as I build my house, or God, the ultimate agent of the universe. In other words, meaning that does not and cannot objectively exist as a quality of a thing is generated by the intention of the conscious agent that creates, perceives, or considers that thing.

Meaning is therefore subjective. A subject – a conscious agent – is required for meaning to exist in the world.


Another way to understand this is to replace the word “meaning” with value.

I build a house to stay warm and dry. That is my purpose. That is my intention. But the reason behind my purpose is that I value warmth and dryness. These states give me pleasure,​ or at least they help me avoid suffering. Therefore the house that serves my intention best is the most valuable to me.

Here again, value by its nature is subjective. This does not mean that a house will be any more or less warm depending on the individual (though it may). One million conscious agents can agree that a house is worth some amount – this does not change the fact that value itself is subjective, since only a subject (or subjects) can experience or imbue value.

For those whose perspectives are anchored in the existence of a god, this means that their values are anchored in, or tied to, that god’s values. As God’s creature, your value is determined by how closely you are able to serve that god’s intention. We may ask here which subject or agent is doing the valuing in this case – you or God? But we’ll get to that paradox later.


Individuals whose perspectives do not include a god start out with a seemingly harder task. Non-theists do not have a one-size-fits-all book or authority by which to weigh their actions. They must discover for themselves what behaviors are the most practical and potent in achieving their values. However, the means to achieve value is not the same thing as the value itself.

Many theists assume that a world without God must lead to moral relativism. Without God as the final arbiter of what is right, there is no objective way to define what is right. This fear, you may have guessed, again springs from a confusion resulting from imprecise concepts and definitions.

It’s true that I may like vanilla, and you may despise it. In that case, I will likely value vanilla-flavored ice cream more than you. Luckily even theists do not consider discrepancies like this to be an abrogation of their God’s law. (Though some gods still apparently have an aversion to pork…)

Another value I hold is my health. I wish to remain healthy. Now, there are many rules I might follow to achieve that value (avoiding ice cream might be one of them). Maybe I should eat spinach, or exercise, or avoid sugar. While we may not have absolute knowledge about the effectiveness of all these rules yet (incredibly), I think it is uncontroversial to say that the truth in these instances is objective. My feelings on the matter won’t change the nutritive value of spinach. Neither does a book that says the creator of the universe considers spinach to be unclean change its nutritive value. Spinach has objective qualities, and how it interacts with my digestive system is mutually exclusive with any feelings or beliefs I might have on the matter.


Is it moral to eat spinach? If you value health, and if eating spinach is good for your health, I would say that it is moral to eat spinach. However, most of us do not think of morality in this way. Most of us, raised in the cradle of some religion, think of morality as only applying to actions with social relevance. Any choice you make on a deserted island is amoral; only actions that affect other conscious beings are considered moral or immoral. For the sake of this discussion, I’m willing to stick with that.

Let’s take a classic example: I value money. A bank has money. If there’s no God, why shouldn’t I rob a bank? I think even most non-theists would agree that robbery of any kind is immoral. But why?

The answer is that we know there are more valuable things in the world than money. And while every person may have a different hierarchy of lower-end values, all such values point toward a single value: a happy life. Now, the definition of happiness is its own essay and debate. But for the sake of this post, I simply mean that we all want to live in as pleasant and fulfilling a way as we can, while also avoiding pain and suffering. We may have different beliefs on HOW to achieve this value; and we may have contradictory beliefs and behaviors that OBSTRUCT our reaching that value; but this is the thing we all strive for.


Therefore, if one thinks about the idea rationally, robbing a bank is not a good way to achieve his ultimate end. You risk death, violence, and prison. And even if you don’t get caught, you’ve got fear and guilt hanging over your head for the rest of your days. Bank robbery is not moral ​because bank robbery doesn’t serve your values.

The difference between the theistic and the non-theistic perspective is that religion comes with a ready-made rulebook. With non-theism, you’re responsible for discovering the rules – whether that be individually, or through society. But the rules – or morals – are always OBJECTIVE. Things either work or they don’t. Spinach is healthy or it’s not, despite your beliefs or wishes. Robbing people is healthy or it’s not, despite your beliefs or wishes. Mutilating a young girl's clitoris is healthy or it's not, despite your beliefs or wishes. As Ayn Rand said, reality is the final arbiter.

Still, I claimed above that I don't intend to make any claim here that relies on an absence of gods. When I say that we all have a hierarchy of values, and we all - theists and non-theists - hold our happy lives as our fountainhead value, I mean it.

A religious rulebook that categorizes good and evil serves the same purpose as a warning label on a bottle of drugs: you read it to protect yourself from harm. Where a drug at​ the wrong dose can end your life, failing to avoid the behaviors proscribed by God can send you to eternal damnation. In religion, you choose the good to achieve your heaven, and you refuse the evil to avoid your hell. Immaterial, immortal existence is nothing more than extended life.


We can point to the most celebrated saints in history, and they have often been rejecters of all earthly pleasure and value. And why not? What’s the suffering of a mere fifty years next to fifty trillion years of paradise? While I think they are delusional in their beliefs, they are certainly acting rationally according to their fallacious premises. (The greater wonder is why so many who claim to hold those fallacious premises so dismally fail to live up to them...)

What is the meaning of life? I find it strange that so many people wrestle with this question. The struggle, I think, comes from an assumption that purpose must come from outside yourself. If that were so, it would indeed be a difficult question to answer. Deciphering what an imaginary creator of the universe intends for you to do could easily drive one mad. Even with the rulebooks.

But once you get beyond a theistic perspective, things get both more simple and more complicated. Things get simpler because you no longer have to guess at meaning or purpose. You are the meaning of your life. You and your values are its purpose, because you are the agent whose subjective experience defines that purpose. A life of joy that entails as little suffering as possible is the simplest goal in the world.

The Meaning of Life, Monty Python

Achieving that goal, of course, can be complicated and difficult. By tossing out god, you also toss out a lot of certainty. In doing so, you become responsible for your beliefs and actions, and, since you are indeed finite, you will suffer the consequences of countless mistakes. Existence is vast, and as long as consciousness is present in the universe, there will always be something new to discover and learn. And while it may at times be terrifying to stand at the edge of the abyss of the unknown, it can also be quite thrilling and inspirational.

A world without God is overflowing with meaning.

Thanks for reading! (I know it was a bit long.) Let me know if you've found this to be interesting and/or valuable and whether you’d like to see more. And I’d love to continue the discussion in the comments.

Like what you see? Follow for more rants! @jpgaltmiller


Recent posts:


I think the meaning of life is the same with or without a god. If there were a creator, the purpose of creating humans would be for us to just do whatever humans are capable of doing. The reason you make a wall is so that it does what walls are capable of doing. The reason you make a table is for it to do what tables do. So if there is a god, you should just keep on being a human and that is probably good enough. You're not going to be rewarded for this when you die. You'll be thrown away or if you're lucky, recycled, just like any other creation.

If there is no god, then this is truly a remarkable circumstance that we've all come to find ourselves here. Since we don't know if we'll get the chance to be a human again, we might as well make the best of it.

Well said! (At least, assuming the god in question was both rational and fair. Which could be a ​big ask.)

Why would you need to assume that?

If I create a wall, and I expect it to do what it's capable of, that means I'm being reasonable. If I construct a wall out of wet sand, and I expect it to turn back high tide, the wall won't be capable of that, and I was therefore not very reasonable.

Fairness really can only come into play once consciousness is present. But, still, one can certainly imagine a sadistic, omnipotent narcissist who punishes its creations just to delight in their suffering... Thus, unfair.

So you're suggesting the possibility that God created us for a purpose that we will never live up to? In that case it's irrelevant what our purpose is and we should just define our own existence. Like an adult who wants to be a chef but his father wants him to be a doctor.

If god really is just a sadistic bully. Then the best thing to do would be to show no fear and carry on with they way you want to live your life. Like most bullies, he will hopefully sense your resolve and move on to a weaker target.

In any of these scenarios, making the best of your present situation is the best thing you can do. The purpose doesn't have meaning.

A life of joy that entails as little suffering as possible is the simplest goal in the world.

A life with as little suffering as possible while ignoring any temporal joy would seem to be an even more simple goal.

I end my life early. I miss out on what was going to be the “best” life any human being had ever experienced. I immediately cease to exist, and therefore have no knowledge of this missed opportunity and thus suffer zero loss. My choice to end my life was not immoral.

More realistically, I end my life early. I miss out on at best a 50/50 split of boredom, unconsciousness, sickness, tragedy, and unbidden death vs happiness. This is if I am lucky enough to be born in the right place at the right time. The end result is the same only I did not even have to deal with the “unjoy” parts.

These scenarios could go on for quite some time. The bottom line is that the best logical choice in the face of a predetermined apathetic universe for which you can guarantee no positive outcomes, regardless of your “choice” to eat spinach and exercise, would seem to be to immediately enter non existence at which point all one’s instincts to survive cease along with consciousness and thus nothing is lost. Indeed, if all humanity would simultaneously choose to drink the Kool-Aid conscious suffering would cease to exist which would surely better than for it to continuing to exist?

Perhaps consciousness is simply a character trait that will be selected out sooner rather than later when the apathetic universe “realizes” that conscious beings not only self destruct more productively, but also destroy their environment more productively as well?

You sound like an anti-natalist. :) This was another interesting Sam Harris podcast, where David Benatar made a number of similar arguments:

I think the potential for positive is always more valuable than zero. But for those who don't, I won't blame them for their suicides. I would say that ending one's life early to avoid the suffering of an incurable, painful disease is unquestionably moral.

Still, none of what you said changes anything about the subjectivity of meaning and value. The absence of God is beside the point.

What you are describing is subjective meaning and values which is the same thing as relativism which is the same thing as no objective values which means no right and wrong.

You cannot have it both ways. Either there is an outside Value Giver, which means objective values, which leads to objectively right and wrong actions, or you make up a game with whatever rules you personally think are best and pretend it is important for you to follow them (value and meaning with neither value nor meaning). Everyone else is free to do the same, and they need not agree with you.

According to you, “you are the meaning and purpose”, according to you, “you and your values are its purpose”. There is nothing objective to base that on EXCEPT that you chose to make living for joy your meaning. Your argument appears to be circular.

"no objective values which means no right and wrong"

This is where we disagree, and I spent the majority of the post explaining why and how. The main thing is that you are confusing the concept of "right/wrong" with "value". (And it's totally understandable that you do, since the majority of people do likewise.)

Right/wrong is an answer to a question: does X achieve my intention? If yes, then it's right; if no, then it's wrong. The answer is objective. Value - the thing that the right/wrong question is asking about - is subjective, in that value requires a subject, or conscious agent, to exist.

I think the main reason for this substitution between "moral" and "value" is the god concept. Those who believe in a god take it as a given that god's commands are right. Therefore there's no need to consider them or test them. The command becomes a value. But that substitution is only an accident, a misunderstanding. The command is not the value. The command is how you achieve the value.

Another value I hold is my health.


The answer is that we know there are more valuable things in the world than money.


And while every person may have a different hierarchy of lower-end values, all such values point toward a single value: a happy life.

According to who?

You answer these question in your circling back and starting your argument again.

You have simply replaced “God” with yourself. Everyone else is free to do the same. If they are not free to do the same, why?

I will say, though, that from my perspective, God is a non-concept. I'm not replacing God with myself; it's just that the majority of folks replace themselves with God. :) However, for the sake of the debate, I'm granting that God would count as a conscious agent or subject.

"Everyone else is free to do the same. If they are not free to do the same, why?"

Not only is everyone free to do the same - they have no choice about it. Just as value is dependent on a subject - a conscious agent doing the valuing - so conscious agents are forced to value. There's no way around it.

I'm not really sure how or why, but you still seem to be missing my argument. We've done this dance before. :) The only way to move forward with a fruitful discussion is to first recognize one thing:

Means and ends are different. (Though I grant you that some things can be both means AND ends.)

If you agree with that, then we can move forward.

Thanks for a great post! A lot of what you said was really insightful and you have a great writing style. I agree with you that a refusal to accept responsibility is because so many crave certainty. Without responsibility, you also maintain the delusion you have because you end up defending the thing that oppresses you. The pressures on you in some cases to intentionally be cognitively dissonant can be humongous; you can't leave the religion or you'll be killed for instance.

I could go on...

Looking forward to chatting more, upvoted, resteemed and followed! :)


Thanks for the read! Yes, though to be fair to theists, I don't think the ​choice between responsibility and certainty is rarely a conscious one. As you say, it has a lot to do with cognitive dissonance, and a lot of it is subconscious and instantaneous: Travel down that path, and I lose certainty and possibly gain fear; therefore I'll stick with the path of certainty, even though that means I have to accept a lot of weird shit.

That being said - it will be interesting to note my highlight of responsibility here, and then compare that to a likely post in the future where I get into free will. :)

One of the premises you mention is that the creator (if there was one) had some specific purpose for its creations, just as a builder has a purpose for the house he builds. But, what if the creation was just a way for the creator to express himself? An artist might produce art without purpose, right?

As for the meaning of life, I think the Monty Pythons' version has it all covered! :)

We are in total agreement about Monty Python. :) As for artists without purpose, I'm not sold. Their want/need to express is their purpose (as is, I think, their want to connect with others). Just because their purpose does not necessarily have a practical value, doesn't mean the purpose is absent. God as artist could just be some dude creating his own captive audience, and worship or "love" may be his/her/its only purpose.

I guess my point here is that God's purpose doesn't matter at a basic level. It doesn't change that an individual's fundamental purpose and value is him- or herself.


good up vote me

This post has received a 3.76 % upvote from @aksdwi thanks to: @jpgaltmiller.

what is the meaning of meaning? and do the definitions lead to other words with definitions eventually leading back to the word meaning? does anything mean anything? maybe phrases have meanings?