Arguing the Affirmative: RANDAL THE CHRISTIAN
Arguing the Negative: JOHN THE ATHEIST
Randal’s Opening Statement
Nancy Sinatra topped the pop music charts in 1966 with her immortal, quasi-feminist hit, “These Boots Are Made for Walking.” With those memorable lyrics, Sinatra educated an entire generation in the perambulatory purpose of go-go boots. If go-go boots were designed for a purpose, then it stands to reason that you can fail to use them for their intended purpose. For instance, the person who uses them as a utensil to spread Cheez Whiz on toast or as a drinking vessel for a pint of ale thereby misuses them. Though a person can sometimes effectively use an object intended for one purpose for a different purpose—for instance, a hammer can double as a handy paperweight—it should come as no surprise that generally speaking the best uses for objects are those for which they were originally designed. Typically it is not wise to flout the intended purposes of the original designer.
Now let’s shift our gaze from our sparkling pair of go-go boots to a plain rock—perhaps a misshapen piece of shale lying in a valley bottom. Unlike the boot, the rock wasn’t created for any purpose. It was just churned out through the deaf, dumb, and blind geologic processes that formed the earth. Consequently it is not for anything. It just is. Since it was not created for any specific purpose, then I can’t misuse it. On the contrary, I simply decide to what use I may put it (if any), and I proceed accordingly. Maybe I decide to use the rock to cut a piece of rope while my companion opts to use it as a hammer to drive his tent peg into the ground. (More soberly, perhaps he uses it as a hammer to drive me into the ground.) I can hardly protest that my companion is misusing the rock since it wasn’t created for any purpose to begin with. We’re both free to use it however we choose. So a rock is very different from a boot. A go-go boot that is only used to spread Cheez Whiz (or still worse, that lies unused, forgotten, and molding in a dingy basement) is not a go-go boot that has fulfilled the perambulatory ends for which it was created. But a rock can neither achieve nor fail to achieve its purpose since the rock never had a created purpose to begin with.
As you probably have guessed, this talk of boots and rocks is merely prefatory to the talk of something else: persons. Sinatra’s boots clearly have a purpose, but does she? Do any of us? Do human beings have objective purposes written into us by a designer or not? In other words, are we more like go-go boots—objects created by a mind for a particular purpose or end? Or are we more like rocks—objects randomly created with no objective purpose at all? This is a hugely important question to answer, for if we are like the boots, then we too can fail to achieve the purpose(s) for which we were created. But if we are like the rock, then we have no purpose apart from whatever we may choose to do or be, just like a rock has no purpose except for the arbitrary uses to which people put it.
I think a little reflection strongly disposes us against a lowly rock view of human beings. Surely we are not merely like rocks—objects that can be arbitrarily appropriated to any purposes we (or anyone else) may happen to desire. My evidence for this claim? We recognize that of all the various life goals people can set for themselves, some of those goals are inherently preferable to others. So, for instance, a person can set as his or her life goal to become a prolific prostitute serial killer like the mythical Molly Hatchet, or one can aim to help the poor like the blessedly not-mythical Mother Teresa. Surely the latter option is objectively preferable to the former; it is a better use of the life given.
The life lived by Mother Teresa is objectively preferable to that of Molly Hatchet because she more closely approximates the intended created end of a human being. And that means there are objective facts that guide the proper living of a human life as surely as there are facts that guide the proper wearing of go-go boots. Our lives can be lived well and they can be lived terribly. We all intuitively recognize that there are right ends and wrong ends to which we can put our life just as there are right ends and wrong ends to which we can put our go-go boots. And the further away we are from the intended purpose, the worse off we will be. Thus our lives are more like go-go boots than rocks; we too were designed for a particular end. But for what were we created? The answer to that question depends on how we answer another: By whom were we created?
John’s Opening Statement
Let’s say someone locked up ten of us in a house with fully paid utilities and the necessities of life. There is no way for us to escape. We don’t know who did this or why we were locked up together. We aren’t told what to do while here. We don’t even know if or when we’ll be set free. As far as we can tell, we were chosen at random to be here together for no reason at all. Now what?
I’ll tell you what I would do. I would find things to occupy my time for starters. And the more productive these activities are, the better. I would get to know the others by engaging in meaningful conversation, because people are interesting to me. I would do things with the others too. I would find activities we could do together, like playing lots of games, or working to keep the house clean, or seeing how many different kinds of meals we could make from the ingredients given us. If I were single, I might try to see if I could hook up with an interesting and attractive girl for sex and close companionship. If there was someone depressed or hurting in some way, I would try to help him or her. I would try to find as much meaning for my existence in that situation as I could, for it would give me pleasure—holistic pleasure. I would be my own meaning maker. Having purpose and meaning makes human existence worth living, so that’s what I would do. I can’t do otherwise.
Living in that house is like living in this world. Analogies break down somewhere, of course, since there is no deity who placed us in this world. Still, we didn’t ask to exist, nor have we been told why we are here. It’s up to us to occupy our time with meaningful work and meaningful relationships. There is no other alternative. We must create meaning and purpose. No one else will do it. So why not make the best of our situation and live life to the fullest, accomplishing great things by seeing what we can do with our lives for the common good? There is nothing problematic about this at all. Is there something we can accomplish that may initially seem beyond our capabilities? There is purpose in that! Can we do something better than others? Can we accomplish nice things for people? Can we be remembered long after we die by the people with whom we came in contact? We set goals and seek to achieve them in life. There are short-term ones and long-term ones. They alone give us meaning and purpose.
That some people choose abusive, self-destructive purposes for their lives is sad, but that’s exactly what they are doing, and it’s a good reason not to do likewise.
This existence of ours may be pointless from the perspective of a million years. But why should that matter to us at all? Our lives will still matter to our family, friends, and the common good. Does the fact that I care for them mean anything to the ones I love? Does it mean anything to me that they care for me? The answer is obvious. Yes, unequivocally yes. So why should we value the distant future over the present? Our present life is all we have. It just doesn’t matter now that in a million years nothing we do matters.
The delusional belief that what we do matters for all of eternity provides a false hope. Such a false hope falls under the Marxist critique that religion acts like a drug to numb us from the pain of injustice on earth through hope of a heaven in the afterlife. Having eyes on a heaven in the sky causes believers to be no earthly good. In fact, the hope of an afterlife devalues human life. Who really cares if people die when we go to war? The righteous will go to heaven. So let’s go to war. What does it matter if we abuse the environment? This earth is not our eternal home. What does it really matter that a tsunami wiped out a quarter of a million people? God will reward believers with eternal life. “The poor you will always have with you,” Jesus reportedly said (Matt. 26:11). So don’t be too concerned that twenty-three thousand people starve to death every single day.
Only neo-humanistic purposes can help us.
Randal’s Rebuttal
John’s illustration is telling. He says that once we are locked in the house (a metaphor for life) our first task is to find a way to occupy our time. That’s it? Is our overarching goal merely to keep ourselves busy? And how should we do that? John suggests helping others because “it would give me pleasure.” That’s fine if you happen to get your jollies from helping others, but what about those who find pleasure in hurting others? Is that okay too? John’s answer is not reassuring; since our existence is “pointless” anyway, he can only say that “we must create meaning and purpose.” So I guess hurting others is okay then? As his final act, John tries desperately to drag me down with him by claiming that religion offers false hope. This is an ironic objection, for if John is correct that meaning is invented, then a religious construction is no worse than any other. Unfortunately for John, his caricature bears no resemblance to the Christian belief that God is restoring creation (Rom. 8:20–21; Col. 1:20) and has invited us to find our life’s purpose in working for his peaceable kingdom. Far from mere time filling, Christianity offers a real, meaningful life.
John’s Rebuttal
Neither Sinatra’s boots nor rocks nor human beings were created by a deity for any purpose. Unlike boots and rocks though, we have evolved to be our own meaning makers. We were thrust into this world and must now make the best of this life. We cannot do otherwise.
Let’s talk about what we need to have a happy and fulfilling life. We need people. No one is an island. Social ostracism is painful, as is poverty, illness, or a life lived in prison. It’s doubtful any reasonable person prefers these things to having friends, wealth, food, health, and freedom. So in order to gain these benefits a person must have a kind and trustworthy character, earn his or her keep, stay healthy and fit, and obey the law. People who pursue risky behaviors or sick fantasies will eventually lose their freedom; so reasonable people don’t chase after those things.
Since we cannot turn on and off what we value like a faucet, we must sometimes act contrary to our immediate self-interests for an overall life plan that includes friendship, love, and worth. Holistic happiness is its own reward. That is all the meaning we need in life.
Randal’s Closing Statement
John believes that we are “our own meaning makers.” So what about Molly Hatchet? I assume John considers the life of a prostitute serial killer sick, but why isn’t that just his subjective opinion? If human lives are objectively purposeless, then there isn’t an objectively wrong way to live a life.
John’s Closing Statement
Once locked inside the house of life we must get along if we want the benefits of a life worthy to be lived, and that means mutual cooperation. Those who refuse we ostracize. Those who choose to hurt others will eventually be caught and banished from society in jail.