R. Bauckham. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
M. Burrows, What Mean These Stones?
N. L. Geisler and R. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask.
N. Queck, Rivers in the Desert.
S. Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists.
C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.
D. Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. C. A. Wilson. Rocks. Relics, and Biblical Reliability.
N.T. Wright, "Jesus's Resurrection and Christian Origins.”
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) was the son of a wealthy Viennese steel magnate. His father was a Jewish Protestant. His mother was Roman Catholic, and Ludwig was baptized a Catholic. He studied engineering in Berlin and Manchester, England. He also studied at Cambridge under Bertrand Russell. Wittgenstein wrote what became an influential work in philosophy, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921, Eng., 1961), while in an internment camp as a captured prisoner of war. Wittgenstein believed he had solved all the problems of philosophy with Tractatus, so he retired from the field to teach school. He also gave away his inherited fortune. In the late 1920s, Wittgenstein met from time to time with the Vienna circle of logical positivists (see Logical Positivism), including A. J. *Ayer. He taught at Cambridge until 1947 and then took a job as a hospital porter. In 1948, he went into seclusion and soon learned he had cancer.
In addition to Tractatus, Wittgenstein’s works included Notebooks: 1914-1916 (1914-16, Eng. 1961); Prototractatus (1914-18, 1971); Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief (1930-38, 1966); The Blue and Brown Books (1933-35, 1958); Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics (1937-44, 1956); Zettel (1945-48, 1966); On Certainty (1949, 1969); and Philosophical Investigations (part 1, 1945; part 2, 1947-49, Eng. 1953).
Wittgenstein also continued to do research as an engineer and patented several inventions, including a jet reaction propeller for aircraft.
Three influences stand out among several on his philosophical thinking: Immanuel *Kant, Arthur *Schoppenauer, and Bertrand *Russell. Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky guided his lifestyle, and *Augustine and Soren *Kierkegaard were his favorite authors in religion.
Philosophical Thought. Wittgenstein knew two great periods of work. The early period was expressed by Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Wittgenstein himself said the point of the book was ethical. In the preface, he explained that he hoped to set limits on the expression of thoughts. There can be no limits on thought, he declared. “We should have to be able to think what cannot be thought.” However, to set limits on language is to differentiate between meaningful ideas and nonsense. “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence,” he said. That reflected his own work on the book. He said, “My work consists of two parts: The one presented here plus all that I have not written and it is precisely this second part that is the important one.”
The project in Tractatus is Kantian. The method is that of logical atomism in that Wittgenstein assumes there is a convergence between language and reality. Language mirrors the world. This convergence has serious implications for ethics and philosophy in his thinking. All that can be expressed in language are propositions of natural science (Tractatus, 6:42). No transcendental propositions about ethics, aesthetics, or God can be expressed.
The second period of Wittgenstein’s work was expressed in Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein presents and then tries to refute statements of Augustine on the “picture theory of meaning” as the essence of human language. He regards as an oversimplification the ideas that the function of language is to state facts and that all words are names, referring to something. He strikes down as mistaken Augustine’s idea that meaning is taught by examples in definition. Example definitions can be variously interpreted (ibid., 1.1:28). The statement of Augustine that the meaning of a name is the object that the name denotes was regarded by Wittgenstein as absurd.
He also rejected the ideas that meaning is a matter of producing mental images, that one clarifies propositions by analyzing them, and that words have a determinate sense. He rejected both univocal and analogical language (see Analogy, Principle of). On the positive side, Wittgenstein was a strong proponent of *conventionalism
The central point is that religious language is meaningless. It belongs to the realm of the inexpressible because there is an unbridgeable gulf between fact and value. As discussed in the article on analogy, this view is that all “God-talk” is nonsense. That does not mean that the person cannot feel or know anything about God. It is clear from Notebooks that there is a feeling of dependence and a belief in God because “the facts of the world are not the end of the matter.” But what Wittgenstein knows he cannot really talk about. Such things are outside the limits of language, and ultimately thought.
Because the higher and transcendent are inexpressible is not to say they are totally incommunicable. They can be shown if not said. An apparent contradiction in Tractatus is that although propositions about language are employed they are not propositions of natural science. By Wittgenstein’s own reasoning, they must be nonsense. He acknowledges this, saying that they can only serve as elucidations—an example of showing and saying (ibid., 6:45).
In Investigations, Wittgenstein does not directly speak about religious discourse, but he seems to assume that prayer and theology are meaningful linguistic activities. Praying in particular is mentioned as a language game. Since stating facts is only one of many linguistic activities, there is no a priori bar against the meaningfulness of religious language. Since language games have intrinsic criteria of meaning, and religious language is a language game, it must be judged by its own standards and not by standards imposed upon it. This is a form of *fideism
In Lectures and Conversations, Wittgenstein portrays religious language as possibly being meaningful (as a language game). But it is clear that he remains an acognostic. That is, he rejects any cognitive knowledge in religious language. For example, it is legitimate to utter a belief in a last judgment. But no one could say whether the belief is possibly true or false. Such beliefs are purely a matter of blind faith (see Fideism). There is no evidence for them He would not, however, ridicule those who claim to base their beliefs on evidence, for example, historical apologetics.
It has been said that Christianity rests on an historical basis. It has been said a thousand times by intelligent people that indubitability is not enough in this case, even if there is as much evidence as for Napoleon [see WHATELY, RICHARD], Because the indubitability wouldn’t be enough to make me change my whole life” (Philosophical Investigations, 57).
Religious beliefs help orient our lives, but they do not inform us about reality. Wittgenstein believes we are locked in a linguistic bubble. Religious language is fine as a language game, but it tells us nothing about God or ultimate reality.
Evaluation. Unlike the logical positivists (see Ayer, A. I), Wittgenstein did not utterly deny the meaningfulness of religious language. It remained a legitimate form of language and was based in a meaningful experience. Also, Wittgenstein did not join the Vienna Circle in affirming empirical verifiability. They insisted that only empty tautologies, which are true by definition, or things known through the senses could be meaningful. Wittgenstein rejected this form of positivism, realizing that meaning should be listened to, not legislated.
He did not embrace atheism He was a fideistic theist. He read both the New Testament and Soren *Kierkegaard. He acknowledged the validity of prayer and belief in last things. He even recognized that religious language has value. Though it was not descriptive to him, it did aid the religious life in a practical way. It was a meaningful expression of religious experience, which helped one live.
Wittgenstein was the archenemy of the Platonic (see Plato) view that there is a one-to-one univocal correspondence between our ideas and those of God. This Augustinian view he rejected outright. There is no correspondence between our thought and God’s (see Truth, Nature of).
However, his view is open to serious criticism All forms of fideism are untenable. If one takes his writings as a rational justification of the nonrational fideistic faith, they are self-defeating. If he offers no rational justification for his beliefs, they are simply unproven propositions that no reasonable person should accept.
He also follows Kant into a false dichotomy between fact and value. They saw the two in totally separate domains. But this is not the case. Human beings combine both. One cannot attack human facticity (the physical presence of the body) without attacking the value of life and personhood. One cannot separate rape or genocide from the value of the object that is at the center of those actions. In theology, the fact of the death of Christ cannot be separated from its redemptive value.
Wittgenstein believed we are locked inside a language that tells us nothing about the realm of value beyond language itself. This is self-defeating. Any attempt to forbid statements about the mystical realm beyond language transgresses that prohibition. Like Kant’s *agnosticism, one cannot know that he cannot know, and he cannot say that he cannot say. In claiming that the mystical cannot be spoken, one speaks about it.
Among Wittgenstein’s legacies, none is more deadly than the conventionalist view of meaning. All meaning cannot be relative. If it were, the statement “All meaning is relative” would be meaningless. Like other attempts to deny objective meaning, Wittgenstein had to assume the objective meaning of his statements in order to deny there was objective meaning to such statements. For this and many other reasons, *conventionalism, which was at the heart of his view, is both untenable and unaffirmable.
Sources
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologicci.
Augustine, Against the Academics.
N. L. GeislerandW. Corduan. Ph ilosophy of Religion .
E. Gilson, Linguistics and Philosophy.
Plato, Cratylus.
L. Wittgenstein, Trcictcitus Logico-Philosophicus.
---, Philosophical Investigations.
Wolfe, Christian. See Cosmological Argument.
World Religions and Christianity. Orthodox Christianity claims to be the true religion. So do Islam and other religions. Even Hinduism and Buddhism (see Hinduism, Vedanta; Zen Buddhism), in spite of their eclectic veneer, claim to be true. However, since there are mutually exclusive truth claims among these religions, it is obvious that they cannot all be correct. For example, some religions are monotheistic, such as traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Others are pantheistic, such as Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, and Christian Science. Paganism, neopaganism, and Mormonism are polytheistic (see Polytheism). These have incompatible views of God. In the final analysis, only one can be true, and the others must be false.
Uniqueness of Christianity. The uniqueness of Christianity is found in its singular claims about
God, Christ, the Bible, and the way of salvation. While there are other monotheistic religions, Christianity claims to have the true view of God—trinitarianism (see Trinity).
A Unique View of God. No other religion in human history is explicitly trinitarian. *Plato had a triad in ultimate reality of the Good, the Demiurgos, and the World Soul. But the Good was neither personal nor one God in essence. The World Soul was not personal. The three did not share one nature. Neoplatonismhad a One, a Nous, and a World Soul (see Plotinus). But this series of emanations is not three distinct persons in one essence. Neither the One nor the World Soul is personal. The One has no essence or being. Only in the Christian Trinity is there one God in essence who is expressed eternally in three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18).
Christians claim that this view of God is the true view of God and that there is no other God (1 Cor. 8:4, 6). Other views are either false views of the true God (as Judaism) or false gods (as in Hinduism). The Islamic view of God is false because it insists that there is only one person in the Godhead.
The Jewish (i.e., Old Testament) view of God is of the true God, but it is incomplete. It rightly insisted that there is only one God (Exod. 20:2-3; Deut. 6:4). The Old Testament allowed for a plurality within the unity of God (Ps. 110:1) and sometimes spoke of God’s Son (Prov. 30:4). Once all three members of the Trinity are mentioned in one passage (Isa. 63:7-10). But the Old Testament never explicitly delineates the members of the Trinity as three persons in one God, sharing the same essence. The Old Testament Jewish God is the true God revealed explicitly in his unity. It is revelation in progress. The God represented in all other religions is false. These gods are incompatible with the Bible’s view of God. It is the exclusivity of Christianity that this view alone is true.
A Unique View of Christ. No other world religion believes that Christ is the unique Son of God, God himself manifested in human flesh (see Christ, Deity of). Orthodox Christianity alone confesses that Jesus is fully God and fully human, two natures in one person. Other religions pay homage to Christ. But none considers him to be God incarnate. To Buddhism and Hinduism he is a guru showing a path to ultimate reality (Brahman). Islam acknowledges him as one of several prophets (see Muhammad, Alleged Divine Call of). To Hinduism the incarnation is really a *reincarnation of Krishna. But there are significant differences between Krishna and Christ. Krishna is only a temporary incarnation. He is not an incarnation of a monotheistic God but of a pantheistic God. There is no real comparison between the Christian concept of Christ and that of any other religion. Some religious movements and cults have adopted a view of Christ’s deity. But each has added its own unorthodox beliefs to destroy the truth claims made in Scripture. One form of Buddhism even has Buddha dying for our sins. But this is far from Christianity and is foreign even to the nature of indigenous Buddhism (see Christ, Uniqueness of).
Speaking of the mystery religions, British scholar Norman Anderson explains:
The basic difference between Christianity and the mysteries is the historic basis of the one and the mythological character of the others. The deities of the mysteries were no more than “nebulous figures of an imaginary past,” while the Christ whom the apostolic kerygma proclaimed had lived and died only a few years before the first New Testament documents were written. Even when the apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians the majority of some five hundred witnesses to the resurrection were still alive. (Anderson, 52-53)
A Unique View of the Written Word of God. Most religions have holy or wisdom books, including all the major world religions. Judaism has the Torah, *Islam the Qur’an, and Hinduism the Bhagavad-gita. Confucianism has the Analects. In comparison with these and other writings, the Christian Bible is unique. Only the Bible claims to come by the unique process of divine inspiration. The Qur’an claims to have come by verbal dictation from the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Further, only the Bible has supernatural predictive prophecy (see Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible).
Other religions claim predictive prophecy but fail to provide examples of clear predictions hundreds of years in advance that have been literally fulfilled, such as the Bible has. Muslims, for example, claim that Muhammad made predictions in the Qur’an But upon closer examination, they fail to measure up to their billing (see Muhammad, Alleged Miracles of; Qur’an, Alleged Divine Origin of).
Only the Bible has been supernaturally confirmed (see Bible, Evidence for; Christ, Deity of). For only the Bible was written by men of God who were confirmed by special acts of God (cf. Exod. 4: Iff.; Heb. 2:3-4) to be telling the truth about God (see Miracles, Apologetic Value of; Miracles in the Bible).
Uniqueness of the Way of Salvation. While some other religions employ grace, for example, “Cat” School of Bhakti Hinduism (see Otto), Christianity is unique in its plan of salvation. It declares humankind sinful and alienated from a holy God (Gen. 6:5; Ps. 14; Eccles. 7:28; Luke 13:3; Rom. 3:23). It insists that no amount of good works can get a human being into heaven (Isa. 64:6; Rom 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7). It declares that there is only one way to God—through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins (John 10:1, 9; 14:6; 1 Cor. 15:1-6). One must believe from his heart and confess with his mouth to be saved (Rom. 10:9). There is no other way. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6; cf. John 10:1; Acts 4:12).
Salvation and Other Religions. Christianity, therefore, admits salvation through no other way than Christ. Christ is not considered to be the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again in any non-Christian religion (see Resurrection, Evidence for).
It is important not to draw false implications from this exclusivity.
It does not follow that God does not love the unbelievers in the world. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Paul said that God wants all to know the truth (1 Tim 2:4).
It does not follow that God did not provide salvation for all. John informs us that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for both our sins and “the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Christ died not only for the elect but also for all the “ungodly” (Rom 5:6). He even died for those who “deny” him (2 Peter 2:1).
It does not follow that only a few select nations will be evangelized. John declared, “After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands” (Rev. 7:9).
It does not follow that no salvation is available to those who have never heard of Christ (Acts 10:35; Heb. 11:6; see “Heathen,” Salvation of). Anyone anywhere who seeks God will find him. Peter insisted that God “accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right” (Acts 10:35). The writer of Hebrews says, “He rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Heb. 11:6).
All have the light of creation (Rom 1:19) and conscience (Rom 2:12-15), which is sufficient for condemnation but not salvation. There are many ways by which God could get the gospel to those who will to be saved. The normal way is through a missionary (Rom. 10:14-15). But God can save through his Word (Heb. 4:12), which he can convey through a vision, a dream, a voice from heaven, or an angel (Rev. 14:6). God is not limited in the ways in which he can get the saving message to those who seek him (cf. Heb. 1:1). But if men turn from the light they have, God is not responsible to give more light (John 3:19).
Truth and Other Religions. Many Christians are willing to accept that there is truth or value in other religions (see Truth, Nature of). All humanity receives general revelation (Ps. 19; Acts 17; Rom 1:19-29; 2:12-15). God has revealed truth to them, so it is no surprise that their beliefs express both good and truth.
There is, however, an important difference between truth as Christians hold it and truth as embraced by non-Christians. The Christian system is a system of truth with some error in it as we understrand it. All non-Christian religions are systems of error with some truths in them (see Pluralism, Religious). The only system of truth is the Christian system Since Christians are finite, our understanding of this system of truth will have some error in it. This is why we must continue to grow in the truth (2 Peter 3:18), knowing that now we understand imperfectly (1 Cor. 13:9, 12). By contrast, no non-Christian system is true as a system, although there are truths within the system However, the system itself obscures and taints these truths so that even they are distorted. And no non-Christian system provides the light of salvation.
Some Objections Answered. The unique claims of Christianity are offensive to the unbelieving mind. “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). Nonetheless, the offended critic deserves an answer (Col. 4:5-6; 1 Peter 3:15).
The Charge of Narrowness and Exclusivity. It is objected that Christianity is narrow and exclusivistic. Nothing sounds worse to the contemporary mind than narrow-mindedness. But this argument is more emotional than rational.
Only one worldview can be true. If the various worldviews have mutually exclusive truth claims, only one can be true (see Pluralism, Religious). A true system of thought must be comprehensive of thought and life. It must possess consistency and coherence in its overall claims. But most important, the system must correspond to reality, past, present, and future, natural and supernatural. And all major systems of thought contain key truth claims that are contrary to those of all other systems. Either Christianity teaches true precepts about the *Trinity, the deity of Christ (see Christ, Deity of), and the one way of salvation, or else another system is true, and Christianity is false.
Truth by nature is narrow. It is narrow to claim that 3 + 3 = 6 is the only answer, but every other answer is wrong. The unbeliever’s viewpoint is just as narrow. The claim “Christianity is true and all non-Christian systems are false” is no more narrow than the claim “Hinduism is true and all non-Hindu systems are false.” No truth claim is all-inclusive.
This does not mean that minor truths within opposing systems of thought cannot both be true. Non-Christians hold that murder is wrong and that the earth is spherical. But only Christians (and Judaism, from which it emerged) believe that the world was created ex nihilo by a Triune God. Christians and non-Christians can believe that Jesus was a good man. But only Christians believe that he was the God-man. So while there can be agreement between truths, there is no agreement on the major truths unique to the Christian system
All religions claim to have the truth. As noted, the claim to unique truth is shared by every religious system that makes truth claims. This is true even of “broad,” “eclectic” religions. Hindus claim “there are many ways to God.” This appears open-minded, but it is just as narrow as the Christian claim It excludes all opposing views. For if pluralism is true, then all forms of non-pluralism are false. Thus, the claim to pluralism is an exclusivistic claim
The Charge of Injustice. Is it unfair and unjust to claim that there is salvation in no other religion? This objection is without merit for reasons detailed in the article “Heathen,” Salvation of. It suffices to mention that God has provided salvation for everyone (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2). Everyone who really wants it will get it (Acts 10:35; Heb. 11:6).
Conclusion. Any truth claim is exclusive. A system that is all-inclusive makes no truth claim And every proposition that affirms something denies something else by logical implication. Statements such as “God is all” are opposed by statements such as “God is not all.” They cannot both be true. All truth claims exclude those that contradictory. Indeed, all religions claim to have the truth—even if that truth is that they believe other noncontradictory religious systems are true also. But if two or more religions embrace the same truths, then they are really one. And that one basic religious system behind them claims to be the true religion to the exclusion of all opposed religious systems. So Christianity’s claim to be the true religion is no more narrow than the claim of any other religion (see Pluralism, Religious).
Sources
Adler, Truth in Religion
N. Anderson, Christianity and World Religions.
E. C. Beisner, God in Three Persons.
F. F. Bruce, Paul and Jesus.
Y. S. Chishti, What Is Christianity?
W. Corduan. Neighboring Ectiths.
G. Habermas, The Verdict of History.
J. N. D. Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines.
J. G. Machen, The Origin of Paid's Religion.
R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World.
R. Otto, India's Religion of Grace and Christianity Compared and Contrasted.
Plato, The Republic of Plato.
Plotinus, The Six Enneads.
G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought.
Η. N. Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus.
H. Smith, The Religions of Man.
Worldview. A worldview is how one views or interprets reality. The German word is Weltanschauung, meaning a “world and life view,” or “a paradigm” It is the framework through which or by which one makes sense of the data of life. A worldview makes a world of difference in one’s view of God, origins, evil, human nature, values, and destiny.
There are seven major worldviews. Each is unique. With one exception, *pantheism/*polytheism, no one can consistently believe in more than one worldview, because the central premises are mutually exclusive (see Pluralism, Religious; Truth, Nature of; World Religions and Christianity). Logically, only one worldview can be true. The seven major worldviews are *theism, *deism, *atheism, *pantheism, *panentheism, *finite godism, and *polytheism
Looking through the Views. Theism. An infinite, personal God exists beyond and in the universe. Theism says that the physical universe is not all there is. There is an infinite, personal God beyond the universe who created it, sustains it, and acts within it in a supernatural way. He is transcendently “out there” and immanently “in here.” This is the view represented by traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
Deism. God is beyond the universe but not in it. Deism is theism minus miracles. It says God is transcendent over the universe but not immanent in it, certainly not supernaturally. It holds a naturalistic view of the operation of the world. In common with theism, it believes the originator of the world is a Creator. God made the world but does not work with it. He wound up creation and lets it run on its own. In contrast to pantheism, which negates God’s transcendence in favor of his immanence, deism negates God’s immanence in favor of his transcendence. Deists have included Francois-Marie *Voltaire, Thomas *Jefferson, and Thomas *Paine.
Atheism. No God exists beyond or in the universe. Atheism claims that the physical universe is all there is. No God exists anywhere, either in the universe or beyond it. The universe or cosmos is all there is and all there will be. All is matter. It is self-sustaining. A few of the more famous atheists were Karl *Marx, Friedrich *Nietzsche, and Jean-Paul *Sartre.
Pantheism. God is the all/universe. For a pantheist, there is no transcendent Creator beyond the universe. Creator and creation are two ways of denoting one reality. God is the universe or all, and the universe is God. There is ultimately one reality, not many different ones. All is mind. Pantheism is represented by certain forms of Hinduism, *Zen Buddhism, and Christian Science.
Panentheism. God is in the universe, as a mind is in a body. The universe is God’s “body.” It is his actual pole. But there is another “pole” to God other than the physical universe. He has infinite potential to become. This view is represented by Alfred North *Whitehead, Charles *Hartshorne, and Shubert Ogden.
Finite Godism. A finite god exists beyond and in the universe. Finite godism is like theism, only the god beyond the universe and active in it is limited in nature and power. Like deists, finite godists generally accept creation but deny miraculous intervention. Often God’s inability to overcome evil is given as a reason for believing God is limited in power. John Stuart *Mill, William *James, and Peter Bertocci hold this worldview.
Polytheism. Many gods exist beyond the world and in it. Polytheism is the belief in many finite gods, who influence the world. They deny any infinite God stands beyond the world. They hold that the gods are active, often believing that each has its own domain. When one finite god is considered chief over others, the religion is called henotheism Chief representatives of polytheism include the ancient Greeks, Mormons, and neopagans (for example, wiccans).
Importance of a Worldview. Worldviews influence personal meaning and values, the way people act and think. The most important question a worldview answers is “Where did we come from?” The answer to this question is crucial to how other questions are answered. Theism declares that God created us. Creation was from nothing, ex nihilo. Atheism believes we evolved by chance. Atheism holds to creation out of matter, ex materia. Pantheism holds that we emanated from God like rays from the sun or sparks from a fire. Creation is out of God himself, ex Deo (see Creation, Views of). The others play on some form of these understandings, with nuances of difference.
A particular understanding influences a person’s view of death, for example. A theist believes in personal immortality; an atheist generally does not. For the theist, death is a beginning, for the atheist, an ending of existence. For the pantheist, death is the cessation of one life and the beginning of another, leading toward ultimate merging with God.
Theists believe we were created by God with the purpose to eternally fellowship with and worship him. Pantheists believe we will eventually lose all individual identity in God. Atheists generally see *immortality only as the ongoing of the species. We live on in memories (for a while) and in the influence we have on future generations.
Obviously, what one believes about the future will influence how he or she lives now. In classical theism, “We only come this way once” (cf. Heb. 9:27), so life takes on a certain sobriety and urgency it would not have for one who believes in *reincarnation The urgency there is to deal with bad karma so the next life will be a step up. But there are always more chances in future lives to try, try again For the atheist, the old beer commercial said it well: We have to “grab the gusto, because we only go around once.”
A virtuous act is given different meanings by various worldviews. A theist views an act of compassion as an absolute obligation imposed by God (see Morality, Absolute Nature of), which has intrinsic value regardless of the consequences. An atheist views virtue as a self-imposed obligation that the human race has placed upon its members. An act has no intrinsic value apart from that assigned to it by society.
There is also a gulf between worldviews with regard to the nature of values. For a theist, God has endowed certain things, human life for example, with ultimate value. It is sacred because God made it in his image. So there are divine obligations to respect life and absolute prohibitions against murder. For an atheist, life has the value the human race and its various societies have assigned to it. It is relatively valuable, as compared with other things. Usually an atheist believes an act is good if it brings good results and evil if it does not. A Christian believes that certain acts are good, whatever their results.
Summary. Reality is either the universe only, God only, or the universe and God(s). If the universe is all that exists, then atheism is right. If God is all that exists, then pantheism is right. If God and the universe exist, then either there is one God or many gods. If there are many gods, polytheism is right. If there is only one God, then this God is either finite or infinite. If there is one finite god, then finite godism is correct. If this finite god has two poles (one beyond and one in the world), then panentheism is right. If there is one infinite God, then either there is intervention of this God in the universe or there is not. If there is intervention, then theism is true. If there is not, then deism is true.
Sources
N. L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, part 2.
N. L. Geisler and W. D. Watkins, Worlds Apart.
D. A. Noebel, Understanding the Times.
J. W. Sire, The Universe Next Door.