Why does Robert Nozick think the key to theistic religion’s ability to provide meaning in life is the unlimitedness of God? And why does he think that, nonetheless, there can be meaningful lives outside of theistic religion? What account of the meaningful life outside of theistic religion does he give? Suppose somebody says the following: “Outside of a theistic framework lives cannot be meaningful because each of the finite lives would be able to obtain its own meaning only by reference to other finite lives. But since finite lives thereby would get their meaning from each other, this manner of thinking about meaning in life would fail.” How could Nozick respond? Suggestion for how to proceed: In a first step, reconstruct Nozick’s view; then quickly present the objection provided in quotes; in a third step give Nozick’s best response; and then, finally, argue either that the response is persuasive or that it is not.
(Source is the Nozick attached material)