Second Debate

Abstract

Abstract This debate—set in an ending world where humanity faces unavoidable extinction in two hundred years—asks how imminent extinction would impact familiar debates between theism and atheism. The debate pits the Theist who believes in the God of traditional Western monotheism against two atheist opponents who reject all gods, supernatural beings, and supernatural explanations: the Post-Cataclysm Pessimist insists that imminent extinction strengthens the case for atheism; while the Presentist argues that we have never needed God to make our lives meaningful. The Theist argues that imminent human extinction breathes new life into Kantian, moral, pragmatic, or practical arguments for belief in God and personal immortality. Without an indefinite human future, we can only live meaningful lives by positing God, objective value, and personal immortality. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe in God, objective value, and immortality. By contrast, the Post-Cataclysm Pessimist argues that the Cataclysm supports atheist arguments from evil and scale and weakens theist cosmological and teleological arguments. Unavoidable extinction is simply not the kind of thing that an omnipotent benevolent God would permit. The debate also explores connections between cosmic purpose and objective value, and the significance of extra-terrestrial life. The final section explores alternatives to atheism and theism, including ananthropocentric purposivism (where the universe has a purpose, but human beings are irrelevant or incidental to that purpose).