Some theists believe that if there’s no god, then human life has no meaning.

It’s not altogether clear what one means by the phrase “the meaning of life” because the things that have meaning primarily are sentences or propositions, and therefore life may have meaning only in a derivative sense. Supposedly, in wondering what the meaning of one’s life is, one is thinking about some positive quality of life that is connected to one’s life having a point: one is thinking about what one’s life is for, in other words one is trying to evaluate one’s life. So, one’s life has meaning or not in the light of certain values. Presumably, such values should aim at objectivity, thus precluding merely subjective positions like “my life has meaning because I like it”, although such subjective liking is enough to show that my life does matter, at least to me.

Here are three views based on Aristotelian, utilitarian, and Kantian perspectives

1. My life has meaning because it contains some activities that are intrinsically valuable.

2. My life has meaning because it’s directed at bringing about good in the world.

3. My life has meaning because it’s directed by the respect for persons.

Note that in actual practice these views need not mutually exclusive.

Some theists, by contrast, adopt

4. Life has meaning because it’s part of some divine plan.

Note: on the basis of (4), (1)-(3) are not misguided as long as one understands that they are parasitic on god’s existence.

Atheistic problems with (4):

· Appealing to god is delusional or wishful thinking

· What’s the point of god’s plan? What’s the point of god? If my life has no point in spite of my plans and values, how are god’s plans and values suppose to help?

Some theistic arguments against a godless (1)-(3):

a. Without god, life is meaningless because without god "Nothing matters."
Problem: Saying that "X matters" or "X is important" expresses concern about X ("mattering" is not an activity things perform: "my child matters to me" and "my child chatters to me" have same grammatical form but different logical form). But concern has to be somebody's concern. But nobody but a psychopath can have no concern about anything. (Hare)

b. Life is absurd because without god’s plan what we do won't matter 1,000,000 years from now.
Problem: If what we do now won't matter in 1,000,000 years, then it doesn't matter now what matters or doesn't matter in 1,000,000 years.

c. Without god, life absurd because we're tiny specks in an immense universe.
Problem: No reason why size per se should be relevant to life's absurdity. We could be as big as the universe and yet our lives still be absurd; similarly, if our lives are not absurd, it's hard to see why becoming smaller per se would render our lives absurd.

d. Since without god there are no values, without God life is meaningless.

Problems:

· The antecedent must be argued for.

· If there are no values, our lives cannot be evaluated, and the whole question about life’s meaning becomes as meaningless as that of whether SIUE is a brunette: without values, a meaningless life, if there could be such a thing, cannot be bad or good.

e. In the (distant?) future humans will vanish, the Earth will disappear, the Sun will become a red giant, and eventually the universe itself will become cold and lifeless. Hence, human life is meaningless because it takes place in a meaningless environment, an insignificant part in a play with no point.

Problems:

· Why should temporal finiteness matter more than spatial finiteness?

· Unless I’m waiting for Godot, engaged in stupid, meaningless activities, why should the meaning of my life depend on that of the universe?

· Thinking that one’s life should have ultimate cosmic significance is delusional, similar to thinking that the Earth is at the center of the universe or that nature is made for us. Still, something may lack ultimate significance and still be meaningful or significant. For example, since pain is bad, if I try to make the universe better by reducing pain my life has (objective) meaning. My adopting a stray cat has some significance (other things being equal, it does make a difference, it makes the universe better) although hardly an ultimate cosmic one. Perhaps, like most value-based features, life’s meaning comes in degrees. A man has got to know his limitations.

Perhaps, however, Nagel has argued that our lives may be absurd because there is a conspicuous disparity between pretension/aspiration and reality, like one unknowingly making a marriage proposal to a machine. Here is why. We take our lives seriously, and yet they may be farcical

1. We take our lives seriously. We pursue our lives.
2. Doubt, without god, is inescapable: our lives, viewed sub specie aeternitatis look comical because we act on the basis of values and principles which we cannot ultimately justify.
   Objections:
• an appeal to passion eliminates (2). We cannot listen to a great piece of music that moves you and at the same time doubt its value. Same for other things which interest us and about which we are passionate.
  Reply: But why should an appeal to passion answer a question about justification? At times we feel passionately about something which later we discover to be of little or no intrinsic value.
• Is Nagel looking for something which cannot be had in principle, i.e., the ultimate justification of all values? If so, why should my inability to do what cannot in principle be done produce anomie in me?
3. Hence, there's a mismatch between our seriousness and our inability to explain why our lives are that important. This is the absurdity of it.
   NOTES:
• Why appeal to humanity (e.g., my goal is to serve humanity and improve its lot) doesn't work, for what's the point of humanity?
• Why appeal to God doesn't work, for what's the point of God?
• Ignoring the issue, e.g. by not reflecting on ourselves, won't eliminate the absurdity because the unexamined life is of little value and not meaningful either.

So, for Nagel, absurdity is an unavoidable feature of human life. The psychological "remedy" he proposes is to look at our lives with irony. Since an awareness of the absurdity of life can generate irony, the absurdity of life can produce the beginning of its own palliative. Perhaps Jons, the knight’s squire, follows Nagel’s precept.