The belief that atheists cannot have a purpose to their lives is widespread. This belief is vague, usually not well thought out, and often unsupported by any reasons. It is also false. I usually try to address this issue with two main points. As was the case regarding ethics, if it can be shown that theism lacks a particular feature, then the theistic charge that atheism does not have this component is less of a problem for the atheist. Atheism cannot be condemned as strongly for the absence of some element if those making the charge do not have it either. Furthermore, if the atheistic view can be shown to possess this desirable feature while theism does not, then atheism would have been shown to have a clear advantage over this rival view. I will address each part of this two-stage approach in a separate section. First, I will show that theism has not been shown to be an adequate basis for providing a "purpose" to life; and, second, there are good reasons to believe that one's life can be filled with purpose without belief in god.

A. It is unlikely that theism can provide life with a purpose.

Although it is not clear what the Christians and other theists mean by "purpose," and different believers probably mean different things by the term, there are good reasons to believe that theism, specifically Christianity, cannot serve as an adequate system for providing life with a purpose.

1. The more morality and the purposeful life are linked, the more Christianity cannot provide life with a purpose.

Many people are inclined to believe that morality is an integral part of the purposeful life. If it is, then it can be said that theism cannot provide a sufficient basis for a "purpose" to life because, as explained [in the previous chapter], theism cannot serve as a basis for morality.

2. Predestination robs life of purpose.

Versions of Christianity which promote predestination, the view that one is condemned to hell or saved even before one is born, are particularly liable to the charge that theism cannot provide life with a purpose. What would be the purpose to life if one's moral status, one's eternal reward or punishment, had already been decided even before one was born?

Predestination implies that there is no free will, that we cannot choose what we will or will not do. If humans cannot make choices or decisions, if we are little more than robots whose moral worth is already decided even before we are born, then it is not clear how the Christian could show that such a life could be filled with purpose. No theologian has ever been able to satisfactorily explain this.

To the extent that free will is a necessary element in a life of purpose, the doctrine of predestination makes a purposeful life impossible.

3. The doctrine of original sin conflicts with the life of purpose.

Versions of Christianity which promote the doctrine of original sin, the view that all people are condemned to eternal torture for the sin of Adam, are susceptible to the charge that they cannot provide a purpose to their life.

Many Christians promote the view that human beings are basically evil. For some Christians, the view that they are morally vile is central to their worldview. On this topic Robert Ingersoll, the nineteenth-century jurist, orator, and freethinker wrote:

"The ministers are in duty bound to denounce all intellectual pride, and show that we are never quite so dear to God as when we admit that we are poor, corrupt and idiotic worms; that we never should have been born; that we ought to be damned without the least delay.... The old creed is still taught. They still insist that God is infinitely wise, powerful and good, and that all men are totally depraved. They insist that the best man god ever made, deserved to be damned the moment he was finished." [Works: Vol. ii. P. 21.]

Should the purpose of one's life be founded on the notion that he or she is vile and despicable? How can one aspire to be noble and great if one's most fundamental belief about humanity is that we can never be anything other than worthless, offensive, and disgusting?

If self-worth is related to a life of purpose, the Christian doctrine of anginal sin undermines the possibility of a life with purpose.

4. The doctrine of salvation by grace conflicts with the life of purpose.

Many Christians who adhere to the doctrine of original sin also believe in salvation by grace. On this view, one is not saved by one's merit, but by god's fiat or arbitrary decision. One can never perform any act or set of acts which would change the fact that one deserved eternal torture. Unfortunately, since this makes everyone equal with regard to merit, god's decision about who gets saved becomes, by definition, arbitrary.

However, if you are saved only by god's arbitrary decision, by "grace," and not by anything you have done to deserve salvation, there is no point in being moral. Others see to it that you are saved or damned, and you have no say in the matter. As far as morals are concerned, what would be the point of any particular action as opposed to any other? If you are condemned to hell because of the sin of someone else, and there is nothing you can ever do to change the fact that you deserve eternal damnation, morality becomes pointless. You could never deserve worse than damnation, and nothing you could do could ever make you deserve any better, so why be moral on this Christian view? Why do anything? What is the purpose here? If human beings cannot become better than they are, it is not clear how life could be anything other than a meaningless farce in which each person is powerless to shape his or her life and moral worth.

5. Performing god's will is not acceptable as a purpose to life.

Many Christians often claim that serving god is the purpose to life, that doing god's will, at any cost, is the only thing that can make life worth living. There are good reasons to believe that this is false.

a. Slavery is not a sufficient purpose to life.

Can total submission make life worthwhile? Can slavery be ennobling? Mindless obedience is praiseworthy in dogs and horses, but in humans it is repulsive, especially if it is to a being who orders genocide and other horrible acts, as commanded by the god of the bible. Do we admire the unswerving obedience of Hitler's best generals? Should we sing songs about history's most faithful butchers? Obedience in itself is no virtue.

Some theists claim that humans must obey god because god is the creator. This principle seems false. Humans beings are created by their parents, but no one these days thinks that the purpose of children is to be slaves to their parents, although many societies at one time have held such views for young children. Parents who order their children to steal or kill are thought unfit to be parents, so it does not seem to be true that creators have a right to make slaves of their creations. Sometimes Christians will respond that parents are not the ultimate creators of their children, and it is only the creator of everything which has a right to make slaves of everyone it creates. This is an assertion which needs to be supported, but there is no reason to believe that this principle is true. Until there is some reason to believe that the principle is true, it remains a dubious claim at best.

An interesting thought experiment can provide a reason for believing that the principle of obeying the creator is false. Suppose that the Christian god appeared tomorrow and confessed that he is really an evil demon -- but he is still the creator. This being, the creator, proceeds to order Christians to slaughter innocent children, rape young girls, enslave people of certain races, and engage in other such social practices as the god of the Old Testament orders. The creator being states that these actions are intended to cause misery and suffering. No good is supposed to result from them at any time in the future. Would the Christian still feel morally compelled to obey this being simply because he is the creator? A negative answer here shows that the principle that "one must obey the creator because he is the creator" is false. A positive answer -- that the Christian would obey anyone, even an evil demon, simply because he is the creator -- shows a lack of moral values. The latter type of person does not care who the master is as long as he or she can be a slave. Such a view is morally repugnant.

b. God's will cannot be determined.

Of course, even if it were the case that one ought to do what god wills in order to lead a life of purpose, since it cannot be determined what god's will is, the claim that one ought to obey god is worthless. The bible provides vague, inadequate, immoral, and contradictory principles. People as unlike as Hitler, Mother Teresa, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Heinrich Kramer, and James Sprenger have claimed to be fulfilling god's will with their activities. The last two are the authors of the infamous Malleus Maleficarum (Witches' Hammer), the handbook widely used at the end of the fifteenth century both to discover and to punish witches. The book describes methods of torturing and killing suspected witches with red-hot irons, suspending them by their thumbs, burning them at the stake, pouring boiling water on them, and other supposedly divinely ordained methods of justice and investigation. (Is there any atrocity which has not been performed in the name of god?)

As we saw in the case of ethics, if so many different activities and goals can be "justified" as being god's will, and there is no reliable method for distinguishing acting according to god's will and mistakenly thinking that one is acting according to god's will, then the claim to be acting according to god's will becomes meaningless. Anyone from a serial killer to a priest can claim to be fulfilling god's will, and there is no test which the theist can use which would falsify the claim of one and not the other.

Theists wildly disagree about the will of god. Christians disagree about the permissibility of abortion, the morality of euthanasia, the equality of women, the doctrine of predestination, original sin, the inerrancy of the bible, the existence of hell, and other fundamental issues. Christians cannot give a uniform response regarding the will of god on any of these issues, and, of course, they also disagree with other religions who also claim to be acting according to god's will. Since determining the will of god with any degree of certainty is impossible, if fulfilling the will of god were the purpose in life, then leading a life of purpose would be impossible.

c. The theist cannot show that there is a god.

In addition, to the extent that god's existence itself cannot be shown (a matter to be addressed later), the claim that one ought to perform god's will is weakened. If it cannot even be shown that there is a god, claims about god's will ring hollow.

6. The claim that a god, and only a god, could give a purpose to one's life is untenable.

On the theistic view, it is never sufficiently explained how a being such as a god can give meaning and purpose to life. Most theistic writers simply assume that beings such as gods can do this, but the relationship between a god and the purpose to life is usually not addressed.

a. The purpose to life could not be simply that we ought to stay out of hell.

Some theistic writers hold that god gives a purpose to life because if we do not perform god's will, then we will be damned to hell. That is hardly a purpose, and perhaps it is worse than not having one. Imagine a sadist who enjoys putting young children in irons, who visits them every day in the dungeon, and who feeds them and keeps them off the rack in exchange for praise. It would be accurate to state both that the incarcerator is not worthy of praise and that the prisoners could not be said to be leading meaningful lives, if that were all there was to their lives. The same observations would be appropriate to the situation if it were the case (as it is not, fortunately) that there is a god who threatens to torture those who do not worship him. Bullying and torture may be effective means of coercion, but being on the receiving end of such abuse is not having a purpose to life, and the sadistic person dispensing the punishment deserves to be denounced, not praised.

In any case, history has clear cases of those who have led a life filled with purpose but who met a gruesome end in the fight for their cause, which shows that avoiding pain or punishment for oneself is not always what makes life worthwhile. Imagine the case of a fellow who would be willing to go to hell forever if it meant that a friend would be spared the agony of the damned. Such self-sacrifice and love for another are exactly the sorts of qualities which would be said to give noble purpose to life. Someone who would be willing to do that for a friend would be considered a good, admirable person. Thus, if going to hell is compatible with having a life of purpose, and with being a good person, then staying out of hell cannot be the purpose to life.

b. It false that only a being as wise as god could give purpose to life.

Sometimes theists assert that only god could imbue life with purpose because only god is wise enough to do so. It is not clear what this is supposed to mean, but on any reasonable interpretation this view is easily shown to be either false or nonsensical, so it may be rejected.

(i) All the conflicting varieties of Christianity, as well as other religions, boast that their views can provide a purpose in life. However, their claims regarding god are contradictory. Some religions hold that there is one god, some say that there are more than one, and so on. It is not possible for all of these claims to be true, so it is known that at least some, if not all, of them are false. Thus, even if it were the case that we could not determine which of the world's religions are false, it can be determined that in many cases people can seemingly live a life of purpose even when their god does not exist. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that believers of religions whose god or gods do not exist do not appear to lead lives any less meaningful than those of Christians, whose god has yet to be shown to exist. Christians would say that the ancient Greek gods did not exist, yet many pious Greeks led lives indistinguishable in purpose from those of modem Christians. Thus, since, as the Christians would say, those gods never existed, it is clearly false that gods are required to lead a life at least as purposeful as that of a Christian.

(ii) On the other hand, if the claim is that only god knows the secret purpose to life, then the claim is nonsense. It reduces to a claim indistinguishable from simply asserting that life has no purpose at all. What sense does it make to state that there is a purpose which no one knows? Whether there is a secret purpose or no purpose, in each case the effect for human life is the same -- no known purpose. Theists who assert that god is required for life to have meaning and then deny that the meaning is known render pointless whatever supposed meaning life may have, since, in such a case, human beings must give their lives meaning whether god exists or not, since the meaning to life is unknown. So why bother to insist that god must exist in order for life to have a purpose?

(iii) In some cases theists claim that only god, in his omniscience, knows what is best for each person, so only god knows what you should do, what your particular purpose should be. However, because god's will cannot be determined, this claim, too, is indistinguishable from that of having a secret purpose or no purpose at all, so the claim is both unsupported and pointless.

B. There are good reasons to believe that life can have a purpose without belief in gods.

There are many ways in which one can have a purpose in life without requiring belief in deities. In addition, the lives of many atheists certainly give every indication that they are filled with purpose.

1. Atheists can explain how one's life can have purpose without belief in gods.

What does it mean to have a purpose in life? Is a purpose essential for happiness, or is it required only to make one's life significant instead of meaningless, with no guarantee that happiness may result? Detailed answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this work, since, even if it were the case (which it is not) that life could have no meaning without gods, the fact that life would be unfulfilling would not be sufficient reason to believe that gods exist. Whether or not there are gods is an issue that should be decided on the basis of its truth, not on the basis of whether it is pleasant or useful to believe in gods. However, a basic outline of how one may answer these questions may not be out of place here. In addition, the reader must be reminded here that, as noted earlier, it is not the case that all atheists agree to a certain set of core beliefs. Thus, it must be understood that the following remarks are not representative of the beliefs of all atheists.

a. The question "What is the meaning of life?" is often misleading.

First, it should be noted that many nonphilosophers tend to assume that the question at hand should be asked in the form: "What is the purpose to life?" or the age-old "What is the meaning of life? However, these questions are too vague to be of much use. They are loaded with unwarranted assumptions. For example, the question "What is the meaning of life'?" is most often asked in a manner which, unfortunately, assumes all of the following: life can have a meaning, each person's life can have a meaning, each person's life can have only one meaning, all people's lives have the same meaning, each person's life already has a meaning, no one's life can lose its meaning, no one has to do anything to get a meaning to life, and so on. All of these assumptions, because they are assumed and not the product of investigation into the relationship between purpose and life, tend to hinder those who are interested in the real issue, which is exploring the possibility of leading a life that has meaning or purpose, and, if it is possible to lead such a life, how one should go about doing so.

What should be asked first are questions such as the following: What is it to have a purpose to life? Is it possible for someone to have a life filled with purpose? If I don't already have a purpose to my life, can I get one? Philosophers throughout history have answered these basic questions in different ways.

b. Philosophers have explained how one's life can have a purpose without belief in gods.

There is no mystery about the fact that life can have a meaning, a purpose, without gods. For our brief outline, let us define a purpose to life as that part of life which productively shapes the course of one's life and the selection of goals according to certain criteria. The life of purpose is guided by goals which can inspire one to the improvement of both oneself and the world. The life of purpose is also one in which the agent, the one whose life it is, finds fulfilling employment of his or her talents in pursuit of these goals.

(i) The life of purpose includes improvement of both oneself and the world.

Developing one's talents, constantly challenging oneself to become a better person, is considered by many to be an important part of the life of purpose. Developing one's talents can take many forms. Developing the moral virtues, learning more about the nature of the world, working constantly to improve one's relationships with others are all part of what it is to improve oneself. Different people will interpret the notion of self-improvement in different ways, but clearly such a project enables one to deal better with adversity, and it is a rewarding task in itself. When life becomes difficult, when one's goals have been frustrated, it is comforting to be able to look back upon what one has accomplished, or at least tried to accomplish. A pianist who struggles to master a particularly difficult piece may fail but he is still made greater by the attempt.

The use of one's talents to improve the lot of others is also part of the life of purpose. The artist who creates works that deepen our understanding of some aspect of life, the agronomist who makes it a little easier to feed the hungry, the teacher who expands the minds of students -- all use their abilities to make the world better than it would be otherwise. The value of such effort is to be found in the opportunity to use one's talents creatively, in the appreciation from those whose lives have been touched, and in the advantage of living in a world that is constantly being made more agreeable for human life. Although not all occupations have positive results as visible as those of the artist or scientist, the aspect of creative, positive contribution can be found in any activity -- except those of criminals, where the employment usually makes the world a worse, not better, environment.

(ii) The life of purpose includes the utilization of one's talents.

It should be obvious to anyone that an important part of having a life filled with purpose is accomplishing something, preferably many things. The use of one's talents, whatever they may be, in the quest toward improvement of oneself and the world is the best way to lead a satisfying life.

An accomplished logician once told me that the secret to happiness is to find something you liked doing and then find some way to get paid doing it. Obviously, this is something of an exaggeration, but the basic idea is sound. If what one loves doing is part of the project of improving oneself or the quality of human life, then it is the perfect occupation. This fellow loved doing logic. He did it as his profession, and he did it in his spare time. He was engaged in an activity, the study of logic and arguments, which was complex and challenging enough to occupy his talents for the rest of his life. I have never met a happier person.

Having a zeal for a particular activity when that activity fills the need for the project of Improvement makes for a fulfilling life. On this topic Bertrand Russell noted:

"The forms of zest are innumerable. Sherlock Holmes, it may be remembered, picked up a hat which he happened to find lying in the street. After looking at it for a moment he remarked that its owner had come down in the world as the result of drink and that his wife was no longer so fond of him as she used to be. Life could never be boring to a man to whom casual objects offered such a wealth of interest. Think of the different things that may be noticed in the course of a country walk. One man may be interested in the birds, another in the vegetation, another in the geology, another in the agriculture, and so on. Any one of these things is interesting if it interests you, and, other things being equal, the man who is interested in any one of them is better adapted to the world than the man who is not interested." [The Conquest of Happiness: P. 95.]

The person who is constantly striving to become more than what he or she is at present will have a broad range of interests and, consequently, will be presented with more opportunities in which to employ his or her talents. This utilization of one's talents, this use of one's abilities in a productive and satisfying way, is an important part of the life of meaning. One does not get a purposeful life, one creates it. To the extent that one is willing to put forth the effort to make positive changes in oneself and the world, one is rewarded with a life filled with purpose.

In Exuberance: A Philosophy of Happiness, Paul Kurtz emphasizes the creative aspect of human activity in his prescription for happiness:

"As I see it, creative achievement is the very heart of the human enterprise.... The destiny of man, of all men and of each man, is that he is condemned to invent what he will be -- condemned if he is fearful but blessed if he welcomes the great adventure. We are responsible in the last analysis, not simply for what we are, but for what we will become; and that is a source of either high excitement or distress." [P. 172.]

The creation of meaning for one's existence is a positive and empowering aspect of life. Why might someone feel distress at the thought of having to do something to make one's life have meaning? Many theists prefer to think that one can lead an important, purposeful life without doing much in the way of self-improvement, and this belief, perhaps, is part of the explanation of why theism is so popular. One can, on most versions of theism, expend no effort to develop oneself and yet supposedly feel that one is of tremendous cosmic importance because, apparently, one merits the attention of an omnipotent being, even if the attention is for the purpose of damnation. The theist's do-nothing approach to the life of purpose is just a gimmick. It is the easy approach to life, but one gets out of life what one puts into it. One who does nothing becomes nothing. The easy road through life is not the best road, but the easy road sells bibles and gets donations. It promises something for nothing. All you need to do to have a purposeful life is to hold certain beliefs -- that there is a god, that Jesus died for your sins, and so on. How much effort does that take? The only effort needed is the mental energy to suppress one's critical thinking skills so that belief in the absurd ideas of theism may be maintained. But caveat emptor -- let the buyer beware. If someone promises something for nothing, it is usually too good to be true. In the case of theism, it is neither good nor true.

It is true that some theists do not believe that one must simply hold certain beliefs in order for life to have a purpose. Some Christians feel that activities such as feeding the hungry, providing disaster relief, guiding delinquent teenagers, and similar endeavors are what provide meaning to life. However, any other beliefs or activities which the theist may add to the requirements for a life of purpose can be believed or pursued by the atheist, so the theist has no advantage with regard to purpose in life when mere belief in gods is not at issue. In other words, atheists and agnostics can and do perform those same activities, so the theist who states that it is those altruistic actions which provide life with purpose must concede that the atheist can have a purpose to life also. Further, since nontheists perform acts of kindness and charity, it is false that only belief in god could inspire a person to perform such acts, which is another claim popular among theists.

The atheist does not promise something for nothing. It takes effort, determination, serf-confidence, and sometimes a little ingenuity to constantly strive to improve oneself and the world. Not everyone is willing to try to create a meaningful life, especially since there are no guarantees. What can be promised is that the beliefs that give one's life purpose and meaning will not be unintelligible. There will be no evasive language, no appeals to mysterious forces, no squelching of native curiosity, no insistence that you are not supposed to know. Every principle, every explanation, will be open to view, and examination, even attack, is invited. That's how it should be, after all. Life is too important to waste; it is a precious commodity that should be used carefully, not profligately. It should not be dedicated to ideals without regard to their nature and their truth. The purpose of life, the value of human existence, should not be a secret. It is easily located in the realm of human action and interaction. Kurtz writes:

"Human life has no meaning independent of itself. There is no cosmic force or deity to give it meaning or significance. There is no ultimate destiny for man. Such a belief is an illusion of humankind's infancy. The meaning of life is what we choose to give it. Meaning grows out of human purposes alone. Nature provides us with an infinite range of opportunities, but it is only our vision and our action that select and realize those that we desire.... Thus the good life is achieved, invented, fashioned in an active life of enterprise and endeavor. But whether or not an individual chooses to enter into the arena depends upon him alone. Those who do can find it energizing, exhilarating, full of triumph and satisfaction. In spite of failures, setbacks, suffering, and pain, life can be fun." [Ibid. P. 174.]

The meaning of life is to be found in accomplishment, and this is cause for celebration.

Theists tend to mistakenly believe that the lives of atheists are depressing or emotionally barren. While this may be true of some atheists, it is not true of any I have met. It is true, however, of many Christians I know. Life without belief in god can be productive and emotionally satisfying. Bertrand Russell's three-volume autobiography begins with a prologue entitled "What I Have Lived For." In it, he explains:

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.... This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me." [Vol. I. P. 4.]

The theist has nothing to fear regarding the purposeful quality of life when belief in gods is gone. On the contrary, as Sigmund Freud said, "When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life."

2. The lives of many atheists have been filled with purpose.

Many atheists have led lives which give every indication that they are filled with purpose.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Nobel prize-winning philosopher, who was tremendously influential in the field of analytic philosophy, was jailed for his pacifist beliefs during World War I. He was also active in the nuclear disarmament movement during the sixties, and he championed many social causes. A social critic, he wrote hundreds of articles and dozens of books. Russell, who died at the age of ninety-seven, lived a full, rewarding life. Any theist who would deny that a life such as that of Bertrand Russell was one of purpose must support this claim, and no theist has ever been able to do this.

Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) was not a theist. James Boswell, a devout Christian, visited Hume on his deathbed. Although Boswell thought Hume was a good and decent man, he was still disturbed that Hume could feel so much satisfaction about his own life, even in the face of death. Hume is considered one of the most influential philosophers of all time. His Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is still influential today. In many ways, Hume's work changed the way in which philosophers interpreted important philosophical issues.

Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) was a tireless, dedicated crusader for women's right to birth-control information. Though she began her fight in 1914, it was not until 1936 that birth-control information became legally available. Often in trouble with the law and narrow-minded public officials, Sanger struggled against tremendous legal, religious, and public opposition to her work. The masthead of her newsletter on birth control read: "No gods, no masters." Surely Sanger led a life of purpose.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the founder of psychoanalysis, led a life of purpose and dedication to his work. Freud's work was revolutionary in shaping the way in which we now understand human motives and the human condition.

Influential horticulturist Luther Burbank (1849-1928) bred a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, and flowers. He called himself an infidel -- an unbeliever yet his life was filled with creative and influential works.

Other atheists whose names are often recognized include: science-fiction writers like Ursula K. LeGuin, Isaac Asimov, Harlan Ellison, Piers Anthony, and Arthur C. Clarke; actors Marion Brando, Sir John Gielgud, John Larroquette, and Peter Ustinov; comedians George Carlin and Paula Poundstone; linguist and social commentator Noam Chomsky; magicians Penn Jillette and Teller; composer and musician Randy Newman; science-fiction author and screenwriter Michael J. Straczynski; novelists Gore Vidal and Kurt Vonnegut Jr.; and the philosophers A.J. Ayer, Paul Churchland, Patricia Churchland, Daniel Dennett, Theodore M. Drange, Paul Edwards, Anthony Flew, Sidney Hook, J. L. Mackie, Michael Martin, Kai Nielsen, Sir Karl Popper, and W. V. O. Quine. And many more.

The list of atheists on the broad definition, the definition which includes agnostics, would include thousands of other famous people throughout the history of human civilization. Theravada Buddhism practitioners, found mainly in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, are, if not atheists, at most indifferent to the existence of gods. They believe that salvation is achieved by the individual; gods are of no help in this process. Some practitioners of Hinduism, such as those who follow the Sankhya or the Nyaya system, are atheists. Jainism, which developed from Hinduism in the sixth century B.C.E., is also considered atheistic and currently numbers its followers at about four million. If such people, and many others, could lead full, influential, satisfying, and creative lives in the absence of belief in god, then the Christian must either admit that life can have a purpose without belief in god or explain how it may be that lives which certainly seem to be filled with purpose are, in fact, not so. Atheists have yet to encounter a good argument for the latter.

A comprehensive philosophy of life which includes atheism as one of its features is often called humanism. Humanism is founded on the use of reason and science; in its contemporary version it promotes both individual and social responsibility. There are a number of different kinds of humanism which explain how life can have a purpose without gods.

Most atheists become humanists as they create meaning for their lives and expand their horizons. Because this book is concerned with atheism, not humanism, the reader is referred to the list of suggested readings for further details about humanism.