The following considers the worth of human life according to naturalistic atheism.
Main Topic
An argument for the absolute worthlessness of life as a whole is based on the transitory nature of human achievements. The attitude that motivates this argument was well-stated by Bertrand Russel when he expressed profound regret that all the greatest achievements of humankind in art, literature, technology, and science will someday vanish from the universe.
An argument against the possibility of the value of life and meaning in an atheistic worldview is based on the assumption that unless the fruits of human civilization last forever (at least in cultural memory) they are worthless.
Argument
Consider the Argument from the Transitory Nature of Things:
1. If naturalistic atheism is true, then the…show more content… Naturalistic atheism is true.
4. Therefore, the cultural and intellectual accomplishments of humankind in literature, art, technology, and science are worthless.
5. If the cultural and intellectual accomplishments of humankind in literature, art, technology, and science are worthless, then human life itself is not good as a whole.
6. Therefore, human life itself is worthless as a whole.
Question(s):
1) Is human life and achievement worth anything if naturalistic atheism is true?
2) If naturalistic atheism is true, then what is the purpose of human advances in art, literature, technology, and science?
References
Habermas, J. (2008). Between naturalism and religion: Philosophical essays. Polity.
Griffin, D. R. (2000). Religion and scientific naturalism: Overcoming the conflicts. SUNY Press.
Hunter, M. (1985). The Problem of ‘Atheism’in Early Modern England. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 35, 135-157.
Vartanian, A. (1949). From deist to atheist: Diderot's philosophical orientation 1746-1749. Diderot studies, 46-63.
Bhaskar, R. (2014). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences.
