Atheism And "Lack Of Hope"

[Calm]

Yeah, I'm sure most don't. They think life still is more positive than it is negative... that's where I disagree with them. 'Pointless' isn't something that's objective, and all =p.

Oh btw, chatroom's open, wanna stop by?

sorry, going off to "knit up the ravelled sleave of care" (my daughter's taking up knitting and the quote occurred to me as I was talking to her so now I have to post it here....

[TAO]

sorry, going off to "knit up the ravelled sleave of care" (my daughter's taking up knitting and the quote occurred to me as I was talking to her so now I have to post it here....

Cool, no prob =).

[mfbukowski]

I haven't read the thread yet, but when I was an atheist I was a good humanist and wanted to make this world a paradise. Of course that was through communism but to say your life cannot have meaning as an atheist is wrong.

What one strives to do is create meaning. In fact that is the basis for much contemporary philosophy especially of the left-wing persuasion.

I got better.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&p=she+turned+me+into+a+newt+i+got+better

Edited January 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Buzzard]

From my understanding, the reward of leading a religious life is the quality it adds to that life in the here and now.

Some people never even think about spiritual/religious matters. They go throughout their lives and may only have that experience at the end -- or perhaps never. I suppose I don't believe that following religion at an early age gets one extra benefits like storing good deeds in a savings account.

Fair or not, the supposition of a lot of believers-and there is at least some empirical evidence to back it up-if that most non religious people are not thoughtful atheists reflecting on the value of their life, but hedonists just having a good time passing through. THAT would seem to be an existence without hope.

[yootaw]

Or because a loving God tells us what is best.

This is still essentially obedience. Why be obedient if not a hope for salvation, or a fear of eternal life? For me, I try to do good because it feels like the right thing to do.

[Tacenda]

This is still essentially obedience. Why be obedient if not a hope for salvation, or a fear of eternal life? For me, I try to do good because it feels like the right thing to do.

Moral Compass all the way! If people are doing good only for obedience sake they need to change their thinking! Edited January 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[Hamilton Porter]

On these boards, I occasionally see the sentiment expressed that atheists are without hope, and that theism is the best vehicle in providing "hope."

This idea, apparently held by a large number of theists, is best expressed by William Craig (philosophy professor at Talbot School of Theology), who states that "If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. If there is no God, then there is ultimately no hope for deliverance from the shortcomings of our finite existence.”

Since embracing atheism, I have always been puzzled by this sentiment, since I consider to myself to have just as much hope as the next person. As a humanist, I have many hopes, though none in relation to any supernatural being or eternal life.

So maybe I don't have hope in the idea of eternal life, but should this hope that theists speak of, and accuse atheists of being without, only apply to eternal life? Is life so sad and depressing that theists have no hope for anything but heaven? Does a theist's life (the physical life that we are currently living) have so little meaning or joy that one cannot imagine hope without the promise of a better or more permanent life to follow?

For those who hold the belief that hope cannot exist within the realm of atheism, what is this mystical "hope" that you speak of? Is it only in relation to eternal life and heaven? Without the hope of eternal life, do you consider this physical life meaningless? How does the idea of eternal life make this physical life more meaningful for you?

It's not just William Craig who believes that atheism is nihilistic. Plenty of atheist thinkers believe this, including Dawkins, Darwin, Ramachandran, Nietzche, Rosenberg, etc., etc.

[canard78]

Its pointless either way. I can be Gandhi or I can be Hitler, without an afterlife it makes no difference. I'll bet hitler lived much more comfortably than Gandhi.

Ouch. Do you really feel that being an Atheist gives them the liberty to be either a monster or a "saint" with no personal implication?

It bothers me when I hear people in meetings saying things like "I shudder to think what I would behave like if I were an atheist." I sometimes observe that it's sad that they really believe that they would go the way of degenerative behavior if they didn't have God looking over their shoulder. I think it says more about their personal, individual desires and characters that they say that than it does about Atheists.

[Hamilton Porter]

Ouch. Do you really feel that being an Atheist gives them the liberty to be either a monster or a "saint" with no personal implication?

It bothers me when I hear people in meetings saying things like "I shudder to think what I would behave like if I were an atheist." I sometimes observe that it's sad that they really believe that they would go the way of degenerative behavior if they didn't have God looking over their shoulder. I think it says more about their personal, individual desires and characters that they say that than it does about Atheists.

I don't like this false dichotomy atheists often set up. "Can you still be moral without believing in God?" That's like asking, "If you decrease the temperature of the pond water, are fish still going to breathe fast?" Yes, but not as fast.

[canard78]

I don't like this false dichotomy atheists often set up. "Can you still be moral without believing in God?" That's like asking, "If you decrease the temperature of the pond water, are fish still going to breathe fast?" Yes, but not as fast.

So you feel that Atheists are like fish in the warmer pond? You feel they can be moral... but not as moral as Theists? Why not? I know atheists who are more morally driven than I am. Why should a religious belief make you more morally driven than one without a belief?

[pogi]

I agree with canard. Atheists swim in the same water that we do, they just don't call it the same thing.

This is still essentially obedience. Why be obedient if not a hope for salvation, or a fear of eternal life? For me, I try to do good because it feels like the right thing to do.

Believe it or not, you are being obedient too. You are listening to and obeying the light of Christ and subsequently feeling a confirmation from Him that you have done good. Ultimately, I believe that most theists obey for the same reason as you. Sometimes, obedience does require hope and faith that God knows what he is talking about, like when what He asks us to obey is contrary to what we sometimes want (like paying tithing). When we offer sacrifice in the right spirit, our eyes are opened to a whole new window that we never noticed before, and our perception is illuminated.

Edited January 10, 2013 by pogi

[Hamilton Porter]

So you feel that Atheists are like fish in the warmer pond? You feel they can be moral... but not as moral as Theists? Why not? I know atheists who are more morally driven than I am. Why should a religious belief make you more morally driven than one without a belief?

Because consequently human morality is part of a transcendent order, not merely some arbitrary mechanism that helped our ancestors survive. Like Darwin said, if humans lived under the same conditions as bees, it would be OK for women to murder their brothers-in-law and no one would care. If history were only a bit different, we'd have another morality. The arbitrariness of morality is a necessary consequence of atheism. As Michael Ruse said, human morality is as arbitrary as having five fingers.

Furthermore, as Ramachandran stated, we're nothing but a pack of neurons. That means we aren't responsible for what we do. Combine an arbitrary view of morality with a lack of responsibility, and you have a powerful impetus for immorality.

Like you said, lots of atheists are moral, some more so than we. But as George Washington noted, an entire atheistic society cannot be moral.

[Walden]

Serious question, not a challenge: What comfort would you offer a parent who had just lost their child in a needless accident or even intended killing (such as the school massacre awhile back)?

Honestly, I'm not sure what type of comfort I would be able to give. Outside of being a good listener, a good neighbor and a good friend, I don't know that I would have the ability to offer anything more.

But creating a god and an eternal life scenario in order to deal with human suffering seems to me much more a sign of human fear and frailty than anything else.

[pogi]

Because consequently human morality is part of a transcendent order, not merely some arbitrary mechanism that helped our ancestors survive. Like Darwin said, if humans lived under the same conditions as bees, it would be OK for women to murder their brothers-in-law and no one would care. If history were only a bit different, we'd have another morality. The arbitrariness of morality is a necessary consequence of atheism. As Michael Ruse said, human morality is as arbitrary as having five fingers.

Furthermore, as Ramachandran stated, we're nothing but a pack of neurons. That means we aren't responsible for what we do. Combine an arbitrary view of morality with a lack of responsibility, and you have a powerful impetus for immorality.

Like you said, lots of atheists are moral, some more so than we. But as George Washington noted, an entire atheistic society cannot be moral.

George washington may be right, but I can say the same thing for almost every theistic society that ever existed. Theism doesn't make us moral, obedience to the light of Christ and Holy Spirit does. We don't need to believe in God to do this. There is probably an equal lack of obedience in both kinds of societies. The only difference is that theists justify their immorality in the word of God and commit immoral acts in his name.

Edited January 10, 2013 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Is the motivation to help such people greater for those who believe in an afterlife or greater for those that do not. If we have to choose between offering spiritual relief or physical, which is more important?

Do both.

"If, of thy mortal goods, thou art bereft,

And from thy slender store two loaves

alone to thee are left,

Sell one & from the dole,

Buy Hyacinths to feed the soul"

- Muslihuddin Sadi,

13th Century Persian Poet

[Walden]

Because consequently human morality is part of a transcendent order, not merely some arbitrary mechanism that helped our ancestors survive. Like Darwin said, if humans lived under the same conditions as bees, it would be OK for women to murder their brothers-in-law and no one would care. If history were only a bit different, we'd have another morality. The arbitrariness of morality is a necessary consequence of atheism. As Michael Ruse said, human morality is as arbitrary as having five fingers.

Furthermore, as Ramachandran stated, we're nothing but a pack of neurons. That means we aren't responsible for what we do. Combine an arbitrary view of morality with a lack of responsibility, and you have a powerful impetus for immorality.

Like you said, lots of atheists are moral, some more so than we. But as George Washington noted, an entire atheistic society cannot be moral.

I would expect a theist to argue that morality is part of some "transcendent order", even despite the evidence. I tend to side with the ideas proposed by evolutionary biologists who theorize that the sets of behaviors that we claim as "morals" evolved over time because they provided reproductive and/or survival benefits. Thus, infanticide is morally reprehensible to both theists and atheists, not because it goes against gods laws or will, but rather, because it goes against our most basic biological instincts and nature, honed over hundreds of thousands of years, to pass along our genetic code.

And with regard to morality and atheism, I am of the opinion that the world might be a better place if we embraced atheism as much as we now embrace religion.

If you were fully invested in the fact that this life, even this moment, is all that we have, wouldn't life, and each moment, hold more meaning to you?

With regard to justice, would not a true atheist be more fearful of life imprisonment than someone who believes that this life is only a small flicker in the eternal perspective of things?

Without the ability to seek forgiveness from some higher power, and thus absolve ourselves of the guilt that results from our misdeeds (that guilt being rooted in evolutionary biology, not god), would we not be more mindful of our actions and their repercussions?

[thesometimesaint]

I would expect a theist to argue that morality is part of some "transcendent order", even despite the evidence. I tend to side with the ideas proposed by evolutionary biologists who theorize that the sets of behaviors that we claim as "morals" evolved over time because they provided reproductive and/or survival benefits. Thus, infanticide is morally reprehensible to both theists and atheists, not because it goes against gods laws or will, but rather, because it goes against our most basic biological instincts and nature, honed over hundreds of thousands of years, to pass along our genetic code.

And with regard to morality and atheism, I am of the opinion that the world might be a better place if we embraced atheism as much as we now embrace religion.

If you were fully invested in the fact that this life, even this moment, is all that we have, wouldn't life, and each moment, hold more meaning to you?

With regard to justice, would not a true atheist be more fearful of life imprisonment than someone who believes that this life is only a small flicker in the eternal perspective of things?

Without the ability to seek forgiveness from some higher power, and thus absolve ourselves of the guilt that results from our misdeeds (that guilt being rooted in evolutionary biology, not god), would we not be more mindful of our actions and their repercussions?

The mid 20th century disputes that idea.

[Walden]

The mid 20th century disputes that idea.

The only way that the mid 20th century disputes that idea is if you falsely equate high death tolls in 20th century warfare to increasing evil or decreasing morality.

The high death tolls attributed to war in the mid-20th century can just as easily be attributed to more advanced and destructive weaponry that it can to some increase in an atheistic attitude that life is meaningless. Imagine the death tolls if tanks, automatic weapons, guided missiles and nuclear arms were available to either Protestants or Catholics during the Thirty Years' War in the 17th century?

Regarding violence in general, our increasingly secular society is less prone to violence than at any other time in human history. Of course, the fear-mongering media would have you believe otherwise, but the facts are that there is much less war violence now than there has ever been (as a percentage of world population). Despite the "sky is falling" call of the theists, we are actually enjoying one of the most peaceful eras of human existence, and interestingly, during a time of markedly increased secularism.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The mid 20th century disputes the idea that atheists are much better than theists at being "good". The history of world religions (including the Old Testament) before then disputes the idea that atheists have a monopoly on genocidal insanity. What we should really get out of this is that humans use whatever stories (theistic or non) are accepted in their culture to justify whatever they were going to do anyway by providing a thin rhetorical cover. "God commands it!" "Do it for the children!" Etcetera.

Note, however, that there is a false dichotomy here: in LDS thought, we have no need to appropriate the traditional arguments used to defend a post-apostasy understanding of a "transcendent" God (the term "transcendent" is never used the Bible as a description of deity in the first place). If God is fully human (uh, with a brain, hopefully? Containing neurons? The body is the Tabernacle of God, even Temples?), then why shouldn't we accept the findings of evolutionary biologists? We believe God found Himself in the midst of other Intelligences, and did not have the power to create Himself. Where did God's body come from if He didn't have the power to create Himself? Why couldn't it have evolved? And if Gods evolved, then what's the problem here? We all have to find some way to get along without killing each other.

The key point here is that we are atheists -- when it comes to the traditional understanding of God. Some people see the transcendent Uncaused Cause as the only thing worth worshipping as a "God". We see humans -- biological entities -- as the only Gods that have ever lived, which is perfectly consistent with the "atheist" or "secular humanist" worldview in which "God" is a title. The point is that even the traditional Christian's apologetic for God being the source of morality fails to address the point that God standing on a mountain and calling out orders is just as arbitrary as any other Intelligence who chooses to do so.

But if God is a human who we trust, and who we elected by common consent because we have judged Him to be wiser than we are, then that's perfectly consistent with the biological basis for morality. Humans -- Gods -- create their own morality; the important point to keep in mind is that regimes based on fear and violence and totalitarianism eventually annihilate themselves, because they're not sustainable. But systems based on symbiosis -- on meekness and persuasion and love -- are far more stable.

[Saints Alive]

Ouch. Do you really feel that being an Atheist gives them the liberty to be either a monster or a "saint" with no personal implication?

It bothers me when I hear people in meetings saying things like "I shudder to think what I would behave like if I were an atheist." I sometimes observe that it's sad that they really believe that they would go the way of degenerative behavior if they didn't have God looking over their shoulder. I think it says more about their personal, individual desires and characters that they say that than it does about Atheists.

Its not that people would behave bad because there was no god, it's that it wouldn't matter if you we're good or bad. Good and bad would be a false dichotomy.

[thesometimesaint]

The only way that the mid 20th century disputes that idea is if you falsely equate high death tolls in 20th century warfare to increasing evil or decreasing morality.

The high death tolls attributed to war in the mid-20th century can just as easily be attributed to more advanced and destructive weaponry that it can to some increase in an atheistic attitude that life is meaningless. Imagine the death tolls if tanks, automatic weapons, guided missiles and nuclear arms were available to either Protestants or Catholics during the Thirty Years' War in the 17th century?

Regarding violence in general, our increasingly secular society is less prone to violence than at any other time in human history. Of course, the fear-mongering media would have you believe otherwise, but the facts are that there is much less war violence now than there has ever been (as a percentage of world population). Despite the "sky is falling" call of the theists, we are actually enjoying one of the most peaceful eras of human existence, and interestingly, during a time of markedly increased secularism.

You don't get to claim a special exemption for Atheism for the actions of its adherents, any more than I get to claim a special exemption for the Theists. It makes little difference whether a Protestant of the Protestant Reformation kills a Catholic, or a Catholic of the Counter Reformation kills a Protestant, or an Atheist kills both. I'm not of the ethic that to kill a family is a tragedy while killing millions of families is just a statistic.

I have no love for the fear mongering media. However a better case can be made for when we started to get the Lead out of our environment, and an aging population.

While I want my government to be secular, I want my religion to be sectarian.

[Walden]

You don't get to claim a special exemption for Atheism for the actions of its adherents, any more than I get to claim a special exemption for the Theists. It makes little difference whether a Protestant of the Protestant Reformation kills a Catholic, or a Catholic of the Counter Reformation kills a Protestant, or an Atheist kills both. I'm not of the ethic that to kill a family is a tragedy while killing millions of families is just a statistic.

I have no love for the fear mongering media. However a better case can be made for when we started to get the Lead out of our environment, and an aging population.

While I want my government to be secular, I want my religion to be sectarian.

I am not claiming any special exemption, just pointing out that you are comparing apples and oranges when comparing the death and despair caused by totalitarian, "atheist" regimes of the 20th century and then concluding that atheism leads to this despair, when in fact, there are any number of other circumstances that led to such widespread despair at the hands of these "atheist" regimes (such as advanced weaponry, isolationist politics of the early to mid-20th century, the effects of globalization, etc). To argue that these regimes were more destructive due to their atheism leaves out a great number of other, more acute and accurate causations.

[Walden]

Its not that people would behave bad because there was no god, it's that it wouldn't matter if you we're good or bad. Good and bad would be a false dichotomy.

This assumes moral absolutism in which there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are either good or evil, regardless of the context of the act.

i.e. - murder is always bad......except in those instances when it is commanded by an angel in order for the murderer to obtain some historical records, as in the case of Nephi and Laban. Even in the LDS faith, morality is not absolute.

[Calm]

For me, I try to do good because it feels like the right thing to do.

How is that much different than doing the right thing out of love and trust that God knows what is best? Disregard that the object of that love is omnipotent and replace him with your wife, parent,child or best friend. If you act out of love for them is that obedience based on fear of eternal consequences? If not, then why must love based acts toward God be any different? Edited January 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Hamilton Porter]

I would expect a theist to argue that morality is part of some "transcendent order", even despite the evidence. I tend to side with the ideas proposed by evolutionary biologists who theorize that the sets of behaviors that we claim as "morals" evolved over time because they provided reproductive and/or survival benefits. Thus, infanticide is morally reprehensible to both theists and atheists, not because it goes against gods laws or will, but rather, because it goes against our most basic biological instincts and nature, honed over hundreds of thousands of years, to pass along our genetic code.

I don't disagree with the biologists's account how morality evolved, but if we were created in the moral image of God, then mechanism by which we arrived here does not matter. On the other hand, if God doesn't exist, then morality could have been evolved in some other way. There are species for which infanticide is OK (unless you are the atheistic philosopher Peter Singer). Due to a few accidents, it may very well now be moral to kill babies.

And with regard to morality and atheism, I am of the opinion that the world might be a better place if we embraced atheism as much as we now embrace religion.

Yeah, the evidence suggests otherwise. Every atheistic regime designed to eradicate religion has been bloody thus far, as the others have noted.

If you were fully invested in the fact that this life, even this moment, is all that we have, wouldn't life, and each moment, hold more meaning to you?

You are not an ex-Mormon, are you? Does it seem like Mormons sit around waiting for their pie-in-the-sky? Have you taken a look at the faculty at Harvard Business School or the makeup of U.S. Senators in the American West?

With regard to justice, would not a true atheist be more fearful of life imprisonment than someone who believes that this life is only a small flicker in the eternal perspective of things?

I'm more fearful of an eternity of punishment than life imprisonment.

Belief in the transcendent calls us to something higher. For example, President Obama (who is obviously not that religious) recognizes that the Civil Rights movement would have been less powerful if MLK had not use "children of God" rhetoric. Same with Lincoln.

Without the ability to seek forgiveness from some higher power, and thus absolve ourselves of the guilt that results from our misdeeds (that guilt being rooted in evolutionary biology, not god), would we not be more mindful of our actions and their repercussions?

Or you can blame biology for your guilt and completely ignore it.

Whether we immoralists do virtue any harm? - As little as anarchists do princes. Only since they have been shot at do they again sit firmly in their thrones. Moral: one must shoot at morals. ~Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Yeah, Nietzsche said there is no morality or purpose to life since god doesn't exist.

You ask good questions though.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Hamilton Porter