Sartre and Camut were not miserable because of their disposition. They brooded because they were intelligent enough to know the difference between subjective and objective value. A man can give a woman a piece of glass and tell her that it is a diamond. For a while, she will place subjective value on the crystal and that will be enough. Sooner or later, though, she will come to realize that is has no objective value and she will resent it.

Can there be any value without a ‘valuer’? Isn’t it more that value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder? We value platinum or diamonds because of their relative scarcity whereas lead or quartz crystal are worth less to us because they are more commonplace. But, if we were not here, could any of it be said to have any value. In a sense, it is all relative. For example, I remember in one of C M Kornbluth’s science-fiction novels rings made of oak were worn as a sign of wealth because, in the future setting of the story, wood had become so scarce it was worth more than gold. Does anyone doubt that is quite possible?

In the case of your little parable the woman might still value the piece of glass if she believed it was give as a token of genuine love for that reason. However, if she discovered that not only was it a relatively worthless piece of glass but it was given in a cynical attempt to buy her favors then she would certainly resent being lied to by the donor on both counts.

Atheists, none of whom believe in objective truth may, nevertheless, place a subjective value on life. So much so, that they are likely to obsess over temporary things like pleasure, power, and fame. Indeed, they will almost always make little gods out of those things. Disbelieving in all objective value, they will focus on the subjective and make the best of the present moment.

Solipsism may be an intriguing philosphical standpoint but I doubt that there are any, on either side, who do not believe that there is an objective reality out there. But you are right in that most atheists believe that, if this life is all there is and all we can expect, then it makes sense to make the best of what we have.

And making the best of what we have does not necessarily mean indulging in a lifelong orgy of sex, drugs and rock’n'roll, although I don’t doubt that there a few who think that’s an attractive prospect. There are also many who would take pleasure in composing, playing or just listening to music or reading and writing poetry or playing sports or travelling the world to experience its diversity or fashioning things with their hands or watching endless re-runs of Star Trek. These are all morally unobjectionable pursuits which, of course, being lucky enough to live in a relatively affluent and free Western society we have the opportunity to indulge in. We do not have to spend every waking minute just struggling to survive or being told what we can think, say, eat or do by political or religious masters.

The truly intelligent atheist, however, is miserable because he refuses to delude himself about the implications of his belief system. He understands that everything he cares about will either die, get lost, or be forgotten. Even if he does somehow leave to his children something that “appears” to be valuable, he realizes that it (and they) will return to dust. It will be as if they had never lived at all. Nothing will have any lasting value including any sense of purpose that he may try to create for himself. If life has no meaning, then there is no way to change that fact by pretending to invent one. To try is to play a fools game.

Agnostics or atheists, of course, would argue that is just what religion tries to do. It emerged, in part, precisely because it offered an comforting alternative to the terrifying prospect of a hopeless and Godless universe. It is plainly much more appealing but that doesn’t necessarily make it true. And, yes, the atheist view is bleak but, if that is really the truth, isn’t it better to face it rather than pretend it doesn’t exist?

Sarte and Camut were intelligent enough to understand that. That is why they were miserable and that is why Camut pointed out that the debate over suicide is the only philosophical question.

If this life is all we have, if something is better than nothing, then to throw it away before we have to makes no sense. Of course, if a life has become intolerable for some reason then ending it may be preferable to that individual. Otherwise, suicide is silly, Camus notwithstanding.

Please accept my apologies for not making my point clear. I was not referring to your vitriol, but that to which I have been subjected over the last several years on the Internet as a result of being an ID apologist and making my name public. I’ve been called every name in the book, the most common being IDiot.

No problem, I guessed that what was what you meant. Both sides are prone to jeering at the opposition. It’s par for the course in a team sport like ID v Darwinism.

Gil, I have come to believe that atheism is not an intellectual position at all. It is more like a cry of wrath.

This is precisely correct. I play keyboards with the worship team at our church. Before each service the worship team congregates and prays. During one such congregation I told a very wise man about my former antipathy to Christianity. He said, “You didn’t just dislike Christianity, you wanted to hunt it down and kill it.” This rang so true, and I must admit that to this day I have guilt feelings about trying to hunt down and kill that to which I ultimately owe everything.

My consolation is Romans 8:28.

For real enjoyment, not momentary and course enjoyment, comes from communion and relationship with God. Like CS Lewis said, “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered to us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

As far as I can tell your position is that there is “probably” no God and methinks that is pretty weasely.

A great post but I want to add something that I find of value from Sartre. One of the things that I found useful was that we are essentially defined but what we choose. We have choices all the time and even the prisoner chained to the wall in a dungeon can make choices (how he reacts to his guards and his situation for example) and those choice will define him. So this philosophy which is not necessarily atheistic is something I found valuable.