I was motivated to write this by looking at an interview of John Loftus by a rather ignorant interviewer on YouTube.
John was discussing his new book, but the interviewer decided to rant on about how atheists dismiss free will and think everyone is just a biological robot. The interviewer sneered and strawmanned a position regardless of anything John would say to clarify, up to the point of actually calling John a liar and a fool (not with those precise words, but intent). What did the interviewer have to back it up? He could decide to lift his arm. That's it. That was the extent of what he thought Free Will meant and what questioning it denied was possible. Absurdly stupid.
He also went on about Near Death Experiences and sneered when John said that it was not his area and he was uncomfortable talking about it as he had not expected to discuss it, but had expected to discuss his new book which addressed flaws in fundamental Christianity.
Anyway as stated this got me thinking about meaning and free will.
So first it is only fair to state what the free will and purpose argument is about.
To theistic Christians, for example, the concept of free will is vital to allow for judgement by a god to be just. If free will does not exist then judgement by a god is unjust as we are 'merely' robots doing what we are programmed to do. Blaming a robot for doing what it is programmed to do is irrational and that would either make the christian god, for example, either insane or cruel (or both).
Obviously this is not acceptable as the god of such religions is supposed to be good, and moral, at least to many Christians. Now of course not all Christians see their god the same way so I am not lumping everyone's view into one when I discuss this, but it would be dishonest of Christians to deny that MOST Christians do see their god as good, sane and moral, in most cases, to a maximal extent. Ultimately it places the blame for all actions on man, not his (or her) creator. This is vital when discussing Hell and Heaven as it must be seen that humans are entirely to blame for their fate or it might tar the god Christians worship and Christians cannot have that happen.
Now objective meaning is also vital to many theists, including christians, but that meaning is often not really discussed or analysed too deeply during such conversations. Let us ponder what that theistic meaning really is. It is a meaning imposed by another being that overrides the rights of the individual it is imposed on utterly, without their consent or even knowledge. The greatest crime, along that line of thinking, is NOT to fulfill this imposed meaning, regardless of circumstances or conditions. This often, with religion, makes it impossible to fulfill this meaning so loopholes are required that just happen to be what the religion is selling to their followers (indulgences, donations, submission, obedience, sacrifices, etc). This can be seen as offering a cure for a disease that was invented in the first place.
For instance original sin is often used to tar everyone right from birth (and before), followed by the idea that all people are sinners and thought crime is equivalent to actions. So thinking of killing someone is the same as actually killing them or lust is seen as adultery or covetousness is the same as theft in the eyes of a christian god. That every impulse or thought is our fault as surely as premeditated murder is a crime.
This 'objective' meaning is a claim that is often assumed as normal and true and when atheists reject such claims, obviously because the type of objective source is a god, which the atheist does not believe in, they are mocked and told their life has no meaning and is worthless.
But what worth is a meaning if it is imposed from an external source, even if it did exist, which of course, there is no evidence for at all. As Hitchens and others have stated, would you consider it desirable if you were told what job you must do all your life (like a type of caste system) or who you can marry (as many religions do attempt to do) or where you can live or what you can wear (beyond normal standards of sanitation and comfort). This so called 'meaning' would be seen as a tyranny, and ultimately unbearable. Imagine if your whole existence, in this life and the alleged hereafter was marked out before you were conceived as having a meaning that you had zero say in. Is this a good thing? I would say no.
Now what is the meaning that most of the Christians (and Muslims) often state we have? To obey a god in this life and the next. To exist solely to please another being. We have no rights, no say and no ability to go our own way, even in supposed disobedience. Many happily consider being slaves as the greatest goal of their lives but even a slave has more liberty than what they propose. A slave has the sanctity of their own minds and has the possibility of escape, of revenge and always the promise of death as the final freedom from such tyranny. A christian 'slave' (or Muslim) has none of that. Their thoughts are an open book, the division between them and their master absolute and eternal and since one is already dead, there is no escape either.
I could not envision a greater evil than what they propose as objective meaning.
Some Christians have different views on Hell, as the concept demands a LOT of rationalizing to live with. Some believe no Hell exists, or it is a temporary thing, or that it is some vague concept of being away from the presence of an omni-present god (yes, that is a contradiction). But they are in the minority. Most Christians and Muslims believe in some form of eternal or extremely long lasting hell that includes torment. Most Christian and Muslim writings on this type of Hell can be classified as torture porn.
But I think we are perhaps drifting off topic a bit.
So atheists who reject such meaning as mere unsupportable assertions, are seen by these types of Christian (and other theists) as having no meaning in their lives. The issue of Free Will also plays a part too here, which is why I combined these topics. The interviewer I mentioned was not a Christian seemingly, and seemingly had no clear label at all to categorize his stance, believed that without free will (never defined by him) then life was meaningless. HE went so far as to state that atheists should commit suicide or they are not being consistent with their 'worldview'. This is parroted by theists, that if we don't care about a god's plan for us, we are better off dead. I have had a Muslim tell me he would be doing me a favour in killing me, as I have no worth.
Yes, dangerous thoughts indeed and they deserve a response, although like most responses to theists its not a simple one. Simple responses are why theists remain theists in my opinion.
Free Will can mean a lot of things, but most people see it as the ability to control your life, to make decisions. Most will acknowledge that free will is not absolute, that we cannot choose to disobey the laws of the universe for example. I may choose to step off a cliff, but I cannot choose not to fall. That is fair enough, but they fail to extent their reasoning to its full extent.
What makes the difference between the cliff example and my deciding what I will wear in the morning. The former is accepted as not an act of free will, the latter is seen as 'obviously' an act of free will. But apart from asserting this to be the case, why do you think you are exhibiting FREE will when you pick out your clothes. Again when you drill down you will find free will adherents begin to admit more limits, more examples of where free will is not really free.
If I am going to work, I cannot choose to wear clothes I do not have, or choose to wear inappropriate clothes or no clothes. These possible actions can be reflected upon but they are not options that we will ever choose (unless making a social statement or protest, which involves other preexisting factors not discussed here in this example). So we are left with appropriate clothes, so we don't really have much free will then, if the choice is not really a choice, but a conclusion.
A lot of people make the mistake of overstating what not having free will is, by using poor analogies. The biological robot, as the interviewer used, and John accepted, is a poor analogy. Robots are programmed by external intelligent forces. Our universe does indeed impose limits to our choices, but the real issue is IF we really decide anything consciously at a higher level of awareness. This is an internal thing, not external. Our brain makes the decisions, but we are not aware of all the factors being processed every nanosecond and thus the final decision we ARE aware of may be just a conclusion relayed to our conscious personality after the brain has completed its calculations.
For sake of argument I will classify the brain as A and the part of our mind that we think our personality is as B. What I mean by personality is what you think of as yourself, your personhood, what you feel and see out of your eyes and think about the universe at any given moment in time. This is not static and constantly changes all the time as new data is collected or old data is lost or amended.
I think it fairly safe to say that B is not aware of everything A is doing, and this does not stop B from existing. I have likened it to a figurehead in a large corporation that is told what will happen after all the decisions have been hammered out and the figurehead gets the credit. This becomes so common that the figurehead thinks he is running the company when he has little actual imput, if any, in the resulting decisions.
If this is the case with B as the figurehead and A as the corporation, then B is not really in control of what is happening, but just becomes aware of it after it has occurred. With the brain this can be in a second, and so can often be mistaken as B MAKING a decision rather than being aware of it.
This does not make us robots, biological or otherwise, it simply means that how we perceive how we make decisions is fuzzy and inaccurate. We (A) are in control (within external limits) but we (B) are also not in control.
Meaning to an atheist can therefore be a self derived one that can center around himself, his community or even the whole world (e.g. Saving up for a holiday, cleaning up the street or working for a global charity). That meaning does come from himself (A) but he may not be fully aware of why he (B) 'chose' it.
The idea that death is the only logical choice for an atheist or they are inconsistent with such views on free will, or god, indicates the flaws in the theist stating it and the poor merits of their so called meaning.
Why is death something that would attract an atheist just because they hold these views? Death offers nothing to an atheist. except perhaps an end to unendurable pain. Life on the other hand offers a multitude of options and joys. An atheist cannot come back from death, so why squander life when it is enjoyable. Death is not going anywhere so why rush to choose it.
Other elements the interviewer threw at John was that Love if its merely a chemical has no value to an atheist. This is another slur and completely unfounded.
Love is a label for a host of different factors, from friendship or sexual relations to parenthood.
All atheists are human, and thus feel love in some or all of these areas during their lives. They do so because they have evolved to have it. Love is MORE than a mere chemical, as we have labels for such chemicals and we don't call them love. There are chemicals that cause euphoria and pain, but those are not love, they are aspects of the experience, not the experience itself.
Social customs, mutual support, friendship, an genetic desire to procreate, loyalty, trust in others, empathy, etc all are present in atheists as much as in theists. These may be understood somewhat differently by atheists (and there are more than one view on these topics) but that comprehension does not negate their presence.
Going back to free will issue, or lack of free will, I can experience love on many levels, while also acknowledging that there is chemicals involved in it and denying magic elements that are often merely subjective poetic descriptions of such experiences, not scientific facts. So claims that love is a gift from God can be dismissed as it is a blind assertion, but love itself still has lots of value, whether I choose to love or not, in an absolute way.
