I do think we can have purpose without knowing for sure if God exists. But when we really know – it makes all the difference.

1. The commenters’ civility. I don’t know if this is a function of Eric’s enlightened readership or enthusiastic editing, but remarkable nonetheless.

2. The discussion seemed to miss the mark: most commenters spoke about their own beliefs, tolerance of others’ beliefs, the meaning of “purpose”, etc.

As for #2, that didn’t strike me as the issue at all. The issue, to me, is what Lea brought up: that here you have an admittedly skilled designer engaging in distasteful hypocrisy. On his own site, he decries DesignObserver for “drinking the kool-aid” of introducing unrelated, inappropriate topics to discussions of design and goes on to insult people foolish enough to be convinced of the overwhelming evidence of human-influenced climate change.

To go on to do the same thing by means of a design podcast is what sticks in my craw.

…..one makes an unverified claim to be a universal truth and disparages those who would disagree, while the other refutes the original statement on empirical evidence without personally disparaging the author. I know which is the most palatable to me.
Chris Cox

Succinctly put and my thoughts exactly. Well done Eric for raising this and for keeping control of it so admirably.

Thanks again for allowing others to share their views on purpose and God on your blog. I think this post and the comments was a great exercise in open, friendly discussion among professionals. Have a great holiday season!

Brian

Quoting points of dogma and passages of scripture cannot have any bearing on this, as it’s down to the individual to subscribe to these and/or interpret them as required. There’s the oft-quoted example of the unholiness of shellfish, for example. Or the fact that religion is an integral part of government in nearly every Christian country, despite the passage about rendering unto Caesar and rendering unto God.

Taking the two comments (Rutledge’s and Meyer’s) out of the context of preconceived notions of agnosticism, atheism and theism; one makes an unverified claim to be a universal truth and disparages those who would disagree, while the other refutes the original statement on empirical evidence without personally disparaging the author. I know which is the most palatable to me.

While I may be wrong, I think that what he is saying is very deep. In Christian theology at least there is the concept that every person is created in God’s image (from Genesis 1-2). Pascal said that everyone has a God-shaped void inside them. We try to fill it with all kinds of other things to give us meaning but God is what fits best. From this Christian theology has derived the thought that the purpose of man is to glorify God in whatever he does (work, play, etc). In fact the Westminster Catechism says that the “chief end of man is to glorify God” (ie. read “man’s purpose” or why God has created us). If you understand Andy’s comment in light of this information it makes more sense because those who don’t acknowledge that there is a God have missed out on their chief purpose in life – ie. to glorify God and be satisfied in Him.

Anyway, I think I’ve said enough but maybe that’ll be helpful to someone.

Saying “I find purpose in my religion” is something I’ll respect in anyone with any religion. Saying that anyone who does’t is pitiful is flat out offensive in my book. I’d defend anyone’s right to believe in whatever they want… until they state that those who don’t believe are wrong / evil / purposeless / whatever other negative term. Islamic extremists are great at this and so are a lot of dogmatic Christians. It’s very intolerant if you think of it.

Whoever states that everything revolves around God has just as much proof for that statement as those who are atheist or agnostic: absolutely none. So I’d suggest it’s a lot better to refrain from such ‘absolute statements’ and simply respect eachother, believers and non-believers alike.

Just a really quick observation: As I’m reading through this post and the following comments I recognize that a point where there may be misunderstanding is in the meaning of “purpose”.

As I understand Andy’s original comments, I think what he was implying is that one couldn’t have a good/right/true/etc. purpose without the inclusion of deity. (And that would be an opinion or personal conviction that would, obviously, be up for debate.)

That being said, it would by all means—and I think this is abundantly obvious—be possible to have a purpose without the inclusion of deity. Eric, what you and a lot of what people are saying in this discussion proves it.

It may be true according to Andy’s beliefs that one couldn’t have a legitimate purpose without an awareness of deity, but that is not to say one couldn’t have a purpose at all.

Consider this as an example for the word ‘purpose’. A watchmaker crafts his timepiece to display the correct time, this is the given purpose of the watch. Where does this watch derive its purpose?

Though I didn’t hear this particular podcast yet, to me, I think design and purpose go hand in hand, I love the idea. Most designs are initiated with an intended purpose. Websites are a great example of this… you wouldn’t think of building a website without a specific purpose in mind. Now, could life be the grand example of ‘design and purpose’? Giving an emphatic ‘plain wrong’ is a little strong for an opinionated topic. After all if God did create and purpose our lives, then our purpose is found only in God, it’s as simple as that. If not, then we have no purpose ‘given’ to us, but we attempt to create ‘goals’ for ourselves… in essence, we would be cosmic accidents, in a free-for-all to do what we please, with no ‘given’ purpose. I’m not sure how one can be offended of another’s opinion, since each of us do have opinions, but I am a little disappointed in Eric’s comment of ‘plain wrong’.

Not all Christians believe that. I am one (by first given name and chosen religion) who does not believe it.

3 things:
1. ‘then I”m afraid you do not grasp what “purpose” is’ – obviously, he is working from a definition of purpose that includes belief in a deity. He has the right to his definition, just like everyone else. It’s OK to disagree.

2. We all hold beliefs that we think are right. When other people have beliefs that differ from ours, by definition we think they are wrong. That doesn’t mean that one or the other of us is stupid. Misguided? Ignorant (using Eric’s definition)? Maybe. Which one is ignorant? Which one is misguided? I’d say you are. You’d say I am. We probably aren’t going to agree. Can we agree to disagree and still be friends?

Example: I’m a Christian. In fact, I’m an ordained Southern Baptist minister. By definition, I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I believe that the only way to have a relationship with God is through Jesus. I believe that if your purpose in life does not come from Jesus then you are missing out on all that God has for you. (Note – I’m not saying you don’t have purpose!)

A lot of you would disagree with me on these things, and you know what? That’s OK. I believe I’m right. You believe you’re right. It’s OK to disagree. I know a lot of people that I believe are just plain wrong. They aren’t bad people, they’re just wrong (based on my stated beliefs above). They think I’m wrong. We’re still friends. Go figure . . .

3. I’m a public school teacher and a youth minister. I speak in front of people a lot. Some of you do, too. Have you ever said something and either had it come out differently than you meant it, or maybe had it taken differently than you meant it? While I think the discussion on this topic has been great, I think this thing has been blown way out of proportion. And for the record, that’s not because I agree with Andy. I personally take issue with the whole ‘God, by whatever name you call him’ comment, because I think it’s only through faith in Jesus. But then, you probably knew that from my statement of beliefs above :-)

I’ll cut my ramblings short now. Great discussion, very well handled. Let’s all try to get along even when we don’t agree.

Wow, I think (I hope) I made it through all of that without calling names or

It could very well be the way I’m reading into what you wrote, but you seemed somewhat defensive and determined to clarify your stance as not being atheist. I’m not claiming you were doing so, but it’s hard to constantly be treated as if your belief system is irrational, dogmatic, and close-minded, the way that atheists are regularly treated by the “mainstream” theist society. Pushing for or defining agnosticism as a “third way” only helps to worsen this mentality, by providing a “more rational” choice.

Essays such as the one I linked to are what made me realize that I am an agnostic atheist, and helped me to understand that agnosticism is not a “theological placement” as it has nothing to do with belief. Rather agnosticism is an epistemological placement, referring to knowledge, and is therefore equally applicable to both theists and atheists alike.