"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Not a fan of Pascal's wager on this.  It assumes that if there is a God he is more willing to bless those who disingenuously believe over those who genuinely disbelieve.  But if God, then he knows our heart.  It may be that he/she who doesn't believe will have a more full heart than he/she who does.  It's a wager that assumes that an individual is going to be better if that individual believes or pretends to believe. but fails to acknowledge that it is quite possible a person could be better off being genuine in their unbelief than trying to life as if he/she believes.  

It's a whole lot of assumption.  

But that is not a fully pragmatic position. The fully pragmatic position would be that the belief itself is efficacious.

It is not really about God at all. It is about what it is beneficial to believe, so there's nothing disingenuous about it.

For it to be efficacious the belief must be real. What must really believe in God.

Obviously you can't fool God. So for the belief itself to be efficacious you must actually believe it. You could liken it to the placebo effect. If one truly believes that when will be cured it might happen.

That of course is a totally secular comment. I personally have experienced God directly so I don't have to do that. But that is just an example of what is being said about the belief itself being efficacious.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I think it depends on how much you need meaning.

 

Nihilism can be incredibly freeing.

That attitude seems completely naive and not intellectually honest.  Anyone who can feel well-being at the thought of meaninglessness is not being honest or is ignorant of it's conclusions.  Nobody could honestly smile and feel a sense of healthy well-being when one truly contemplates a life void of meaning. 

Quote

 

In his study of meaninglessness, Donald Crosby writes that the source of modern nihilism paradoxically stems from a commitment to honest intellectual openness. "Once set in motion, the process of questioning could come to but one end, the erosion of conviction and certitude and collapse into despair" (The Specter of the Absurd, 1988). When sincere inquiry is extended to moral convictions and social consensus, it can prove deadly, Crosby continues, promoting forces that ultimately destroy civilizations.

Nietzshe - For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).

The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny "the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and 'Why' finds no answer" (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity:

Gloomy predictions of nihilism's impact are also charted in Eugene Rose's Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious--and it's well on its way, he argues--our world will become "a cold, inhuman world" where "nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity" will triumph.

Camus, like the other existentialists, was convinced that nihilism was the most vexing problem of the twentieth century. Although he argues passionately that individuals could endure its corrosive effects, his most famous works betray the extraordinary difficulty he faced building a convincing case. In The Stranger (1942), for example, Meursault has rejected the existential suppositions on which the uninitiated and weak rely. Just moments before his execution for a gratuitous murder, he discovers that life alone is reason enough for living, a raison d'être, however, that in context seems scarcely convincing. In Caligula (1944), the mad emperor tries to escape the human predicament by dehumanizing himself with acts of senseless violence, fails, and surreptitiously arranges his own assassination. The Plague (1947) shows the futility of doing one's best in an absurd world. And in his last novel, the short and sardonic, The Fall (1956), Camus posits that everyone has bloody hands because we are all responsible for making a sorry state worse by our inane action and inaction alike. In these works and other works by the existentialists, one is often left with the impression that living authentically with the meaninglessness of life is impossible.

Camus was fully aware of the pitfalls of defining existence without meaning, and in his philosophical essay The Rebel (1951) he faces the problem of nihilism head-on. In it, he describes at length how metaphysical collapse often ends in total negation and the victory of nihilism, characterized by profound hatred, pathological destruction, and incalculable violence and death.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/

 

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by pogi

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But that is not a fully pragmatic position. The fully pragmatic position would be that the belief itself is efficacious.

It is not really about God at all. It is about what it is beneficial to believe, so there's nothing disingenuous about it.

I'm only suggesting that while belief itself maybe efficacious for some it may not be for others.  And just because it is for some doesn't mean it is for others. 

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For it to be efficacious the belief must be real. What must really believe in God.

Obviously you can't fool God. So for the belief itself to be efficacious you must actually believe it. You could liken it to the placebo effect. If one truly believes that when will be cured it might happen.

That of course is a totally secular comment. I personally have experienced God directly so I don't have to do that. But that is just an example of what is being said about the belief itself being efficacious.

If belief in God for each and every person in each and every given situation is best for that person, then there'd be a good conclusion here.  the problem is we don't know that that's true.  I mean by all means use the pragmatic position and decide to believe, but realize others aren't you.  They too could be pragmatic and choose non belief in order to really benefit in life.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not really.

But it's related to the video's point.  Generally speaking, people with religious faith in their lives are better off than those without.

Except that it is.  Planning for "the future" necessarily affects day-to-day decisions.  For example, a person who plans for his retirement 40 years from now will likely make different decisions during those intervening 40 years than a person who has no plan for his retirement.

The wager posits that we should plan for life after death.  This will have a pronounced, and generally positive, benefit on the individual and those around him.

I don't understand your point here.

Yes.

Again, I encourage you to look at the data.  Sociologically speaking, people with religious faith in their lives are better off than those who lack religious faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you want me to look at data, by all means, lead me to it, provide a link or some stats.  But that really doesn't seem to be addressing my point anyway.  I've not addressed any study at all about whether religious belief is beneficial or not.  my points have little, if anything, to do with that.  All it takes for my point to remain is the possibility of one person being better off not believing than believing.  And I maintain that that is quite possible.  

Edited September 6, 2018 by stemelbow

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Wow:

This fits pretty much perfectly into my worldview.

Yet another reason to admire those wonderful Catholics.  Any faith that produces people like Peter Kreeft is worthy of respect.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Quote

If God exists, then the world didn't just evolve by chance, but by deliberate design.

I'm not sure how one follows the other. Why does one mean the other? The whole video is like this. If God exists, then x. Stated as fact with nothing to back it up. Why are you picking your God and not a Hindu God?

The whole argument seems to be that believing in God makes me feel good, so therefore he exists.

Quote

If there is no God, life is pointless. Everything we've done and lived for will ultimately be in vain.

Says who? In vain to who? I don't believe in God. How does that make my life pointless? Do I enjoy my children less? Do I enjoy the stars less? I could say that my agnostism makes me care more about the here and now. While those that believe in God believe justice will be served in the eternities, I want justice to be served now. I want the earth to be protected and preserved. I want to enjoy every precious moment that I have now, because this life is all there is.  

Pascal's wager seems to me to be utter futility. Which God do we believe in? The Muslim God, Catholic God, Zeus, Thor, Mars? Should we live as Buddists? 

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That seems pretty close to what Prof. Kreeft is saying (he's saying that belief triggers both personal and sociological benefits).

It is a good book and I recommend it as safe for believers.  I doesn't preference any particular religious group at all.  It also has some good suggestions for atheists to get similar benefits through meditation and other things like even yawning, that can provide physical and psychological benefits.  Its an interesting read and well sourced with relevant scientific studies.  

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

That attitude seems completely naive and not intellectually honest.  Anyone who can feel well-being at the thought of meaninglessness is not being honest or is ignorant of it's conclusions.  Nobody could honestly smile and feel a sense of healthy well-being when one truly contemplates a life void of meaning.
 

Atheism doesn't imply that life has no meaning. It might be reasonable to suggest however that it does imply that meaning is subjective. Since Mormons believe in a personal, human-like God, divinely revealed meaning would be subjective too. (It should be obvious that meaning is subjective anyway, just based on what the word itself means.)

One of the biggest blessings I think that religion provides is probably hope for an afterlife. However, not all religions teach that there is an afterlife, and not all atheists reject the notion of an afterlife. So it's hard to generalize too much about what simply believing in God gets you.

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Give me an example of an inaccurate strawman argument he makes.  

The book you recommend does not study ALL possible ways a person may be benefited from a belief in God.  If the book you link to does not address what is meantioned in this video, it does not mean that this video is wrong, it simply means that those aspects were not studied or addressed in this book.  To say that faith has been demonstrated to benefit us in some ways, is not to say that it doesn't or can't benefit us in other ways too. 

Either way, the approach he is taking to belief is a pragmatic one.  Belief has been demonstrated to be beneficial to the well-being of man. Even your book agrees.  From the description:

Now, what are the inevitable results of atheism on well-being when taken to their logical ends? 

I think it is fairly easy to argue that belief in God is pragmatically the better for our overall well-being.  

Well, all the assumptions are a mishmash of conservative western JudeoChristian assumptions.  If God exists - then XXXXX.  The world wasn't formed by chance, we're part of an epic journey, everything will make sense, there are heroes and villains, life will have a happy ending, there is an afterlife etc...  None of that is necessarily connected to the existence of a God at all. 

What he really should say is if his unique beliefs about God are accurate then - XXXXX.  

Next the strawman parade starts: If there is a God then we will have justice for all the bad things.  If no God, then life is a crap shoot.  If God exists morality is real, if not its just a board game.  If God exists Love is a real eternal thing, if not love is just a feeling from chemicals in our brain.  If God exists, you have infinite value and a personal relationship with God, if no God you are just like a rock on an unknown planet.  

Its just one after another, belief in God is wonderful and amazing and logical.  No belief in God is stupid and meaningless.  Good and Bad, candy and roses or lumps of coal and stinky feet.  This is childish pablum, not intellectually interesting.  

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Another reminder of how far I've changed in the past few years.  I used to resonate with these kinds of people.  This video is one inaccurate strawman argument after another, an incredibly simplified waste of time.  

If someone wants to know more about the effects of belief in God on a person's brain, I highly recommend this book, it is not antagonistic towards faith.  Its all about the science around belief in God and its benefits from a scientific perspective.  There are real benefits, but its not at all the way this video explains.   

https://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503422/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536258678&sr=8-1&keywords=how+god+changes+your+brain+by+andrew+newberg+and+mark+waldman

it's okay to disagree with something, but it would be helpful if you would actualyy articulate your disagreements rather than depend on empty assertions. A link to a book does not cover that territory.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

it's okay to disagree with something, but it would be helpful if you would actualyy articulate your disagreements rather than depend on empty assertions. A link to a book does not cover that territory.

Glenn

The video was so bad it’s hard not to see the problems from my perspective.  That said Pogi also asked me to point out some specifics and I did just that two posts above this one.  

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The video was so bad it’s hard not to see the problems from my perspective.  That said Pogi also asked me to point out some specifics and I did just that two posts above this one.  

Okay, so I read your reply to pogi, which I will quote below.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, all the assumptions are a mishmash of conservative western JudeoChristian assumptions.  If God exists - then XXXXX.  The world wasn't formed by chance, we're part of an epic journey, everything will make sense, there are heroes and villains, life will have a happy ending, there is an afterlife etc...  None of that is necessarily connected to the existence of a God at all. 

What he really should say is if his unique beliefs about God are accurate then - XXXXX.  

Next the strawman parade starts: If there is a God then we will have justice for all the bad things.  If no God, then life is a crap shoot.  If God exists morality is real, if not its just a board game.  If God exists Love is a real eternal thing, if not love is just a feeling from chemicals in our brain.  If God exists, you have infinite value and a personal relationship with God, if no God you are just like a rock on an unknown planet.  

Its just one after another, belief in God is wonderful and amazing and logical.  No belief in God is stupid and meaningless.  Good and Bad, candy and roses or lumps of coal and stinky feet.  This is childish pablum, not intellectually interesting.  

I do not believe that Peter Kreft was raising strawman arguments. He was implicitly using western JudeoChristian beliefs to make his points. But which ones are inaccurate?

If the western JudeoChristian God does exist then the world was not formed by chance. If the western JudeoChristian God does exist, then we are all part of an epic journey. If the western JudeoChristian God does exist, then God's love is a real eternal thing. If the western JudeoChristian God does exist, then each of us are of infinite worth. If there is no God, then each of us is just as significant as a rock on an unknown planet. And a rock on an unknown planet is just as significant as we are. Actually more so because it will still exist after we are dust.

If there is no god, then the words of Bertrand Russell are correct.

Quote

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built. (Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship,” )

 

Don't you just love the feeling of "unyielding despair?"

Glenn

Edited September 7, 2018 by Glenn101
added a question

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

One of the biggest blessings I think that religion provides is probably hope for an afterlife. However, not all religions teach that there is an afterlife, and not all atheists reject the notion of an afterlife. So it's hard to generalize too much about what simply believing in God gets you.

Well, if the science is correct, it is healthier.☺️

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Okay, so I read your reply to pogi, which I will quote below.

I do not believe that Peter Kreft was raising strawman arguments. He was implicitly using western JudeoChristian beliefs to make his points. But which ones are inaccurate?

If the western JudeoChristian God does exist then the world was not formed by chance. If the western JudeoChristian God does exist, then we are all part of an epic journey. If the western JudeoChristian God does exist, then God's love is a real eternal thing. If the western JudeoChristian God does exist, then each of us are of infinite worth. If there is no God, then each of us is just as significant as a rock on an unknown planet. And a rock on an unknown planet is just as significant as we are. Actually more so because it will still exist after we are dust.

If there is no god, then the words of Bertrand Russell are correct.

 

Don't you just love the feeling of "unyielding despair?"

Glenn

All of those are strawman arguments.  I don’t believe in the kind of God portrayed and I don’t have unyielding despair.  I know plenty of atheists and I don’t know any that characterize their beliefs in the way this video does. 

Its the same kind of prejudiced approach as some take towards religious people.  I’m sure I could find a YouTube video that inaccurately pokes fun of Christians or Mormons and is conversely just as inaccurate. 

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If you want me to look at data, by all means, lead me to it, provide a link or some stats.  But that really doesn't seem to be addressing my point anyway.  I've not addressed any study at all about whether religious belief is beneficial or not.  my points have little, if anything, to do with that.  All it takes for my point to remain is the possibility of one person being better off not believing than believing.  And I maintain that that is quite possible.  

I guess I am proof of your point.  I was a fully active member for half my life.  Now I'm not.  I am so much more fulfilled and enjoy life more fully now that I did during the first half of my life.

Before people start piling on, I want to say this is what works for me.  I can only speak for myself.  I also think the video is very binary.  I have friends and family who seem very satififed in full membership.  But I do know several active members who seem to be the unhappiest people I know.   

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

All of those are strawman arguments. 

They are not hardly strawmen arguments. A strawman argument is taking an opponent's supposed argument and refuting it, when actually it is not the opponent's argument. Those are accurate statements of Christian beliefs. Kreft is making all of his arguments from those tenets.

.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t believe in the kind of God portrayed and I don’t have unyielding despair.

It would seem then that you are making God in your own image, would it not? The "unyielding despair" perspective is from someone who does not believe in God.

You do seem to have some type of belief in God so you are not totally lost. ☺️

Glenn

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

  All it takes for my point to remain is the possibility of one person being better off not believing than believing.  And I maintain that that is quite possible.  

Only if there is no God.

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

They are not hardly strawmen arguments. A strawman argument is taking an opponent's supposed argument and refuting it, when actually it is not the opponent's argument. Those are accurate statements of Christian beliefs. Kreft is making all of his arguments from those tenets.

A strawman argument is when you portray the position of the other party in an exaggerated or untrue way to make it look silly and easy to defeat.  This is how the video portrays the unbelievers.  And like I said earlier there are many people who view religious believers with the same disrespect and with similar simplistic exaggerations.  Both sides are disrespectful and strawman portrayals.  

31 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

It would seem then that you are making God in your own image, would it not? The "unyielding despair" perspective is from someone who does not believe in God.

You do seem to have some type of belief in God so you are not totally lost. ☺️

My beliefs about God are essentially agnostic non theist, so I imagine you wouldn’t consider that meeting any criteria for redemption.  

I’m not looking for redemption, just a little respect.  

[Glenn101]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

A strawman argument is when you portray the position of the other party in an exaggerated or untrue way to make it look silly and easy to defeat.  This is how the video portrays the unbelievers.  And like I said earlier there are many people who view religious believers with the same disrespect and with similar simplistic exaggerations.  Both sides are disrespectful and strawman portrayals.  

Professor Kreft's stated purpose is to show the benefits of belief. In doing so he states several beliefs and tenets of current Christian theology concerning the existence of God and the implicit conditions that would be if there is no God. He is not bringing up anyone's arguments, exaggerating them, or making up arguments that have not actually been proffered. He precedes each of his remarks with "If."   So what arguments are being portrayed in that video as exaggerated or untrue?

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My beliefs about God are essentially agnostic non theist,

I do not understand a non-theist God. Now, if you are saying that you do not believe there is a God but are not really sure, are open to the possibility, I can understand that. But you keep saying that you don't believe God would do this or that, or in the kind of God portrayed.

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Only if there is no God.

Nope.  Not at all.  

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I guess I am proof of your point.  I was a fully active member for half my life.  Now I'm not.  I am so much more fulfilled and enjoy life more fully now that I did during the first half of my life.

Before people start piling on, I want to say this is what works for me.  I can only speak for myself.  I also think the video is very binary.  I have friends and family who seem very satififed in full membership.  But I do know several active members who seem to be the unhappiest people I know.   

 

Thanks for that.  I appreciate you chiming in.

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Professor Kreft's stated purpose is to show the benefits of belief. In doing so he states several beliefs and tenets of current Christian theology concerning the existence of God and the implicit conditions that would be if there is no God. He is not bringing up anyone's arguments, exaggerating them, or making up arguments that have not actually been proffered. He precedes each of his remarks with "If."   So what arguments are being portrayed in that video as exaggerated or untrue?

You're right that he's essentially not even making arguments, just declarative statements with the implicit assumption that his statements are factual.  He's portraying his position as a believer as superior and the position of unbelievers he's portraying in a simplified way that unbelievers wouldn't even recognize.  I don't know any unbelievers that talk of their unbelief in those terms.  

I keep bringing up that I can find plenty of atheists who make fun of the beliefs of religious people in the same uncharitable terms.  You seem to ignore this point, but its actually really relevant.  I think you're ignoring it because you really do know that this video is also portraying the other side in a very misrepresented way.  However, I think you don't want to concede this point because it essentially makes it clear that the video is shallow and a waste of time. 

If you want to stay in the echo chamber that assumes belief in God is great and lack of belief in God is illogical and infantile, then you can't expect to engage with those of us who don't take such a stridently binary position on things.  If you can't even comprehend how a video like this is insulting and disrespectful towards unbelievers, then I point you to Youtube to find some similarly insulting videos that describe Christian or Mormon beliefs.  I'm sure they are out there, but I'm not going to search for and post them because I'm sure plenty of participants on this message board would be insulted by their content.  Trust me when I say that this video you posted is not only extremely inaccurate and irrelevant, but its also insulting and disrespectful.  

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by hope_for_things

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You're right that he's essentially not even making arguments, just declarative statements with the implicit assumption that his statements are factual.  He's portraying his position as a believer as superior and the position of unbelievers he's portraying in a simplified way that unbelievers wouldn't even recognize.  I don't know any unbelievers that talk of their unbelief in those terms.  

 

If you will note, he precedes each statement with an "If." "If there is a God.........) The only thing implicit in those statements is the assumption that he is talking about the current Christian understanding of God. He is not even talking about unbelievers there. He is talking about what the situation would be without a God. Now, if you disagree with any of those points why don't you actually address them?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I keep bringing up that I can find plenty of atheists who make fun of the beliefs of religious people in the same uncharitable terms.  You seem to ignore this point, but its actually really relevant.  I think you're ignoring it because you really do know that this video is also portraying the other side in a very misrepresented way.  However, I think you don't want to concede this point because it essentially makes it clear that the video is shallow and a waste of time. 

I am ignoring it because Professor Kreft is not ridiculing anyone or making fun of anyone else's beliefs.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If you want to stay in the echo chamber that assumes belief in God is great and lack of belief in God is illogical and infantile, then you can't expect to engage with those of us who don't take such a stridently binary position on things.  If you can't even comprehend how a video like this is insulting and disrespectful towards unbelievers, then I point you to Youtube to find some similarly insulting videos that describe Christian or Mormon beliefs.  I'm sure they are out there, but I'm not going to search for and post them because I'm sure plenty of participants on this message board would be insulted by their content.  

Now that is a strawman. Nowhere in that video did Professor Kreft state or imply that lack of a belief in God is illogical or infantile. Listen again to the purpose of his video. It is merely to show the benefits of a belief in God. As for whether I would be insulted by videos of people making fun of Mormonism, I am secure enough in my beliefs not to react when maybe a comedian publishes photos of himself wearing temple garments. I know that God will deal with any such justly, and maybe Jesus will declare to His Father, "Forgive them for they did not know what they were doing."

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Trust me when I say that this video you posted is not only extremely inaccurate and irrelevant, but its also insulting and disrespectful.   

 

I do not trust you. I have challenged you to show where any of Professor Kreft's statements are inaccurate. Yet all I still hear are inaccurate assessments of the video and empty assertions. That is a logical fallacy, you know. Proof by assertion, i.e. repeating the same assertions over and over without acknowledging that a contradictory point has been made nor even trying to address the contradictory point or points.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Nope.  Not at all.  

Can you explain how a person is better off not believing in God if God indeed does exist?

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not trust you. I have challenged you to show where any of Professor Kreft's statements are inaccurate. Yet all I still hear are inaccurate assessments of the video and empty assertions. That is a logical fallacy, you know. Proof by assertion, i.e. repeating the same assertions over and over without acknowledging that a contradictory point has been made nor even trying to address the contradictory point or points.

Well, I've tried, but it seems like this exchange is going to be fruitless because you're not willing to try and understand what seems obvious to me.  I'm done with trying. 

[pogi]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

Atheism doesn't imply that life has no meaning. It might be reasonable to suggest however that it does imply that meaning is subjective. Since Mormons believe in a personal, human-like God, divinely revealed meaning would be subjective too. (It should be obvious that meaning is subjective anyway, just based on what the word itself means.)

One of the biggest blessings I think that religion provides is probably hope for an afterlife. However, not all religions teach that there is an afterlife, and not all atheists reject the notion of an afterlife. So it's hard to generalize too much about what simply believing in God gets you.

Hans Kung argues that atheism leads to "cosmic nihilism to the reductio ad absurdum of denying all significance to human life and reducing human beings to despair."  

This is from The Specter of the Absurd, by Donald A. Crosby.  I would recommend reading chapter 3.  I have not completed reading it yet myself, but much of what I read aligns with how I perceive atheism and modern science ultimately lead to the inevitable conclusion of cosmic nihilism. 

Quote

 

Russell's, Schopenhauer's, and Camus's visions are similar to Nietzsche's in their portrayal of a Godless cosmos indifferent or inimical to human concerns.

In this kind of universe, the persistent search for coherent understanding and preoccupation with seemingly urgent questions of purpose and value becomes comic and absurd..  For like everything else in a bleak and uncaring world, human life is suspended in a meaningless void.  Humans are born into and must live and die in a world where all that happens occurs capriciously and without reason.

 https://books.google.com/books?id=9VnPgFiW0CIC&pg=PA38&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=true

 

Quote

Nietzsche, for example, contends that "the advent of nihilism" in the West is rooted in the demise of the "Christian-moral" interpretation of reality

Think about it, if science is our new religion and culture, and culture defines morals, values, and meaning, what can science objectively tell us about morals, values, and meaning?

Nothing. 

Morals, values, and meaning, are cosmically absurd to consider. There can be no confidence in the meaning of life. "Human civilizations and all its accomplishments, to say nothing of mere individual attainments, must be seen as peripheral and insignificant, regardless of how important they may appear from purely human perspective.  If nothing else, the incredibly vast spatial and temporal sweep of the universe disclosed to us by science makes the history of the earth and of human beings upon the earth seem trivial and ephemeral by comparison."

The universe is indifferent.  You are a part of that indifference. There is no justifiable reason to be anything but indifferent to the plight of man, as a product of the indifferent universe. There can be no more cosmic meaning or significance to mankind that a pile of dust floating in space. 

"Human beings have no more importance on the cosmic scale than do the lowliest of nature's living creatures or inorganic productions.  Specks of dust, bacteria, the human species-all alike result from a reckless profligacy of indifferent forces and mechanical operations that grind aimlessly on as long as the universe endures."

https://books.google.com/books?id=9VnPgFiW0CIC&pg=PA38&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=true