The Meaningful Life of the Atheist

A recent post (which you can find here) from NPR was written by an anthropology professor (Dr. Barbara King) who identifies herself as an atheist. Dr. King is writing in response to a book by Dr. Alister McGrath, who by the way has some of the most impressive academic credentials I've ever seen, where Dr. McGrath is describing the inescapable need for meaning that all humans have, and the apparent inability of science alone to account for the totality of human experience. I'm not going to try to defend McGrath, as he doesn't need a hack like me defending his positions, but I would like to point out what I see as the flaws in Dr. King's response.

Dr. King cites the fact that although she is an atheist, she has found a life that is full of meaning and purpose, and this fact alone disproves the belief that meaning can only be found in theism. She is offended, perhaps rightly so, by the accusation from many that only theists can claim to live a life that is full of purpose and higher callings. However, Dr. King misses the true point of Dr. McGrath's argument, which is not that atheists do not have meaning in their lives, but that atheists cannot rationally account for that meaning.

Atheists may be perfectly capable of seeing great meaning and higher purpose in the world and the circumstances around them, but it is not their atheism that provides this meaning, it is rather a belief in an objective design and creative force outside of themselves that must provide it. There is no tenant of atheism that allows the logical foundation necessary for meaning and purpose for the individual. If an atheist finds themselves believing in meaning, purpose, and a sense of morality, it is natural to ask, where did that come from? Impersonal forces acting completely randomly do not logically produce meaning or objective purpose, much less a sense of morality and a higher end to human existence.

So it would seem, that an atheist that sees their lives as having purpose and meaning may be, in fact, not a very good atheist.

God's Prospectus

My news feed has seen an uptick in the number of articles, mentions, and comments of some popular televangelists. A few weeks ago I watched as John Oliver, on his show Last Week Tonight, skewered some of these preachers for the use of private jets. Oliver was mocking the justification that these preachers used to validate their use of private jets as “preaching machines” and questioning the tax-exempt status that these ministries enjoy, as the jets were purchased with money that came in from donations to the ministry. The evangelists that were profiled would typically be identified as “prosperity gospel” adherents, which is a term used to describe preachers who spend the majority of their instruction on convincing the listener that God wants them to be financially blessed and prosperous, and that God is willing to provide these blessings to those individuals who “sow” into the Lord's work a certain dollar amount.

It is not my intention, at least not right now, to go point by point through the theological and biblical issues of this particular brand of preaching. So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the theology is sound, and that individuals can receive God’s financial blessings through a faith-empowered giving of money to a ministry. Let’s assume that there is a direct financial benefit to those individuals who decide to give their money, in faith of course, to the ministry that these men lead. So if it is true that God is ready and willing to return a financial benefit to those individuals that give, in faith, to the work of God, then it follows that this benefit would come regardless of which God-honoring ministry receives the donation. Now, while I am sure that these pastors have a healthy self image, I doubt that they would be willing to go as far as to say that theirs is the only ministry that God has established as valid and worthy of financial support. The work of God is not bound by the size or location of the ministry, but you would be excused for thinking otherwise by the rhetoric of the some of the televangelists.

When we look in the context of the giving of financial resources in the early church we see that it always took place in the local community of believers. There does not appear to be a significant amount of financial resources being sent by individuals who were members of the church in Ephesus to the church leaders in Philippi. Paul’s instruction to the early church regarding offerings and giving was always in the context of local ministry and local needs. This doesn’t mean that we should only give to our local church, but it does imply the prioritization of local ministries

Therefore I would like to challenge the televangelists to begin to encourage those who listen to their teachings to “sow” into their local church or a ministry that directly impacts the neighborhood in which the giver lives. This course of instruction would serve to not only show that the teachers do not think themselves more special or deserving of financial support than other God-ordained ministries, but to also allow the sowing and reaping of financial resources to impact those with whom the giver is more likely to have personal influence. I would also encourage those that follow the teachings of these preachers to ask themselves, “Does this teacher ever encourage me to give to my local church or ministry?, and if they do not, is it possible, that the preacher is more interested in your money than in your blessing?