Purpose and Meaning in Life
Darrell Cole writes in the Spring, 1999 issue of the Journal of Religious Ethics:
For Aquinas, the ultimate end of human life is otherworldly. Nothing can be the final end for human beings except that perfect state of happiness found in the beatific vision of God, which can take place only in the afterlife.
So, if the only “end” or “purpose” of human beings lies in an afterlife ruled by God, then it follows that nothing in this life can provide any real meaning or purpose. Ergo, irreligious atheists who dismiss gods can’t have any real meaning or purpose. Some religious theists might imagine that this says something profound and important about human existence; in reality, is says something about the ethical and intellectual poverty of religious theism.
If a person cannot find meaning and purpose in their lives without imaging the existence of a state of being after they are death, they fundamentally devalue and denigrate life itself. Such devaluation, in the long run, only serves to further the cause of violence — especially religious violence — because it encourages people not to value life, whether it is their own life or the lives of other human beings. When life has no value except when it is over, then in the end life simply has no value period.
Properly formed habits allow the person to act well consistently. Acquiring such habits depends upon properly governed passions—passions that operate in accordance with reason. When Aquinas talks about having passions in the right way, he means our passions need to be ordered not only by reason but also by our passion for God, since supreme happiness (union with God) is the final goal which all rational appetite apprehends and by which it is drawn.
In this way, religious theists can claim that their beliefs and their religious ideology are “reasonable” without having to do the hard work of using “reason” in the first place. Rather than orienting one’s passions against logic, reason, and facts about reality, they are expected to orient their passions against a goal of attaining something after they are dead — thus, one’s beliefs and behavior don’t have to be measured against facts in the world around them.
Instead, beliefs and actions are merely measured against one’s desired goal of attaining union with God. That’s the only meaning or purpose for life and it’s the only yardstick — ethical or otherwise — for evaluating what we do. It doesn’t matter whom we hurt or what sorts of harm we cause along the way; all that matters is that we do what we think God wants in our quest to be united with God.
Read More:
Comments
Greetings Friend,
Firstly, I consider myself an agnostic currently just so you know where by biases lie.
Secondly, as someone who grew up in the christian faith and actually took a moment to consider the inner workings of it, I must say you missed the point.
You have misunderstood Aquinas and you have misunderstood the religion as a whole.
And the reason for your misunderstanding is your bias, unfortunately. Truly, the only group that rivals Christian fundamentalists (in terms of level of bias) is atheists. How ironic.
But this is all fine and well; since, we now know the cause of the problem we can now remedy it.
It is largely agreed upon that Aquinas adhered to Virtue Ethics (pioneered by Aristotle [but I'm sure you already knew that]). Virtue Ethics is more “being based” then “action based.” What this essentially means is that the motivation or the being itself is what matters most, not the action itself. Now, sounds like a lot of fuss and fluff; however, this highly useless statement can be made useful quite easily.
Sadly, the best way to envision the Christian Virtue Ethics protocol is through a disgustingly cheesy (and highly overused phrase): WWJD
What Would Jesus Do
But, I am adding to it:
How Would Jesus Do It
(If this image is troubling to you try replacing Jesus with a Buddhaish sort of guy since their characters are similar)
Also, this phrase is deeper then it sounds. Its a call the embody more then just the acts of Jesus but also the mindset and intent.
Now, I hope you actually examine what you said above with this in mind. Unfortunately, I’d be surprised if this happened.
Please don’t reply with “WWJD = It doesn’t matter whom we hurt or what sorts of harm we cause along the way; all that matters is that we do what we think God wants in our quest to be united with God”
Cause that would mean you missed the point …..agian.
Your Comrade,
Spud.Sickboy
P.S.
I argued from the side of a Christian since you conjured up the name of Aquinas (a Christian) instead of a member of a different faith. So even though you didn’t say the word “Christian” it was clear who you were going for.
P.P.S.
Funny how at the end of the blog…. you still haven’t mentioned the purpose and meaning of life for an atheist….. I thought that that was the point.
P.P.P.S.
Not that I am questioning that a point in life is impossible without the Judeo-Christian God (or the metaphysical for that matter). I certainly don’t believe that. I just wonder…. what you think it is… since you (specifically) didn’t articulate it here.
Feel free to show how, if you can.
How unsupported, you mean. If you think you can support this assertion, you should try.
Do you comprehend what a “quote” is? I didn’t “conjure up” the name of Aquinas, I quoted someone else talking about Aquinas.
Apparently not to you, because if it were clear to you then you would have realized that I was “going for” a critique of the ideas expressed by Darrell Cole — no more, no less.
Like I said, it obviously wasn’t clear to you what I was writing about.
But your ignorance and lack of comprehension goes far deeper than that because you imagine that there must be some “the purpose” and “the meaning of life” for atheists, as opposed to individual purposes and meanings which individual atheists develop for themselves.
It’s curious that in all the writing you did, you didn’t manage to offer anything remotely like a substantive, direct disagreement with anything I wrote.
It wouldn’t make much sense to repeat the same things every time I write a blog post in which some theist is making such a claim and I point out how absurd it is. That’s why I have written numerous associated articles about the matter, all of which you could have found with a simple search if you really did wonder.
Greetings Friend,
You are right, I did misread this. I didn’t realize it was simply a critique of Cole. The misleading title and practice of stating the guy’s name once threw me off. I apologize. I was simply disgusted with the conclusion since to me it seemed that you thought that all Christians AND Aquinas are aligned with what you stated. Though I be an agnostic, I get chills when one individual’s beliefs are inaccurately represented.
Your conclusion based on what Cole said is most accurate. I should be talking to Cole, not you; for he is the confused one.
“How unsupported, you mean. If you think you can support this assertion, you should try.”
Haha. Really? Its simply an observation, you know that. An observation affected by time and setting and everything else. True, it might be a fallacy (and proving such would be tough [and pointless]), but my observations dictate differently.
“But your ignorance and lack of comprehension goes far deeper than that because you imagine that there must be some “the purpose” and “the meaning of life” for atheists, as opposed to individual purposes and meanings which individual atheists develop for themselves.”
Actually individual purposes is an example of some of the meanings of life I was alluding to in the P.P.P.S section. But, there are many other ideas so I didn’t want to bother naming them all. So, no worries because my ignorance and lack of comprehension goes no deeper than yours. You taught me nothing.
“It wouldn’t make much sense to repeat the same things every time I write a blog post in which some theist is making such a claim and I point out how absurd it is. That’s why I have written numerous associated articles about the matter, all of which you could have found with a simple search if you really did wonder.”
Yeah, I just thought such a belief would be mentioned in the writing titled “Purpose and Meaning in life”.
Your Comrade,
Spud.Sickboy
P.S. I mean this is the best possible way, but it will probably be taken as sarcasm or an insult: You should consider titling this differently…. A title tells the reader what to expect and ,in most cases, how to receive the reading itself.
Then you should be able to point to enough observed cases to justify making such a sweeping generalization. Otherwise, it’s little more than unthinking and unreflective bigotry.
Remember, you chose to use “the” instead of “a,” which communicated a presumption of a singular meaning rather than one of many possible meanings.
Feel free to show how.
You’d have to first be interested in learning something. You came here posting accusations and unsupported claims, not as a person making inquiries and interested in learning something new.
Once again, there is little purpose in repeating all the same things every time the issue comes up — especially when what we’re talking about is a refutation of popular anti-atheist bigotry. In fact, it’s arguably part of that bigotry to expect atheists to refute bigoted assumptions every time this or that issue comes up because it treats atheists as the ones who must justify themselves against the accusations of others.
That the refutations exist is enough; they don’t need to be constantly repeated. No, the burden of proof and support lies foremost with those who make the accusations — like for example that there is some fundamental incompatibility between atheism and meaning or purpose in life.
There is no single purpose or meaning to life.