Atheism, Theism, And Coping Mechanisms

[Damien the Leper]

I love what Rob Bell has to say in his video on the Resurrection:

Jesus is standing in front of the temple in Jerusalem

the massive gleaming brick and stone and gold house of God

and he says destroy this temple

and I’ll rebuild it in three days

the people listening to him said how are you going to do that?

it took 46 years to build this temple!

but he wasn’t talking about that temple

he’s talking about himself

he essentially says, listen

I’m going to be killed

that’s where this is headed

because you don’t confront corrupt systems of power

without paying for it

sometimes with your own blood

and so he’s headed to his execution

if you had witnessed this divine life extinguished on a cross

how would you not be overwhelmed with despair?

is the world ultimately a cold, hard, dead place?

does death have the last word?

is it truly, honestly, actually dark

and so whatever light we do see

whatever good we do stumble upon

are those just blips on the radar?

momentary interruptions in an otherwise meaningless existence?

because if that’s the case then despair is the

only reasonable response

That damn empty tomb...it gets me every time.

[Questing Beast]

I have now heard this argument/thought several times - that believers use God as a crutch to help deal with death/injustice/life in general... but does it take more guts to look into an abyss of nothingness, or to look into the vast expanse of eternal existence? I personally think the idea of blipping into nothingness can be used as a coping mechanism - that nothingness is the ultimate escape, the ultimate in getting away and hiding from it all. If you want to find a place where all your cares and worries are erased - atheism can provide that place. In the Bible there is a scripture about all tears being wiped away, but I'm not so sure about that - there is also a scripture about God weeping (2 Kings 8:11) - so I'm not so sure that eternal existence is all bliss and perfection.

What say ye?

Do you think it is scarier to face eternal existence? or to face nothingness?

I think you are right, that a wave of the hand and voila! you're gone, is a very big relief to look forward to, especially when life gets too hard. When you are going great guns and everything is as good as it gets, then death becomes a scary proposition, even for the atheist who asserts to believe in annihilation....

[bcuzbcuz]

I agree.

Here is an interesting study by the American Journal of Pscychiatry that supports it: Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt

"Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior"

The fact that atheists are more suicidal than theists (given equally depressed populations) suggests that atheists see death as an escape route, while theists do not.

Although, when you lose a loved one, theists are supposed to be comforted by the fact that "they are not really gone", if you stop and think about death not really being an end, there are aspects of death that can be much harder for theists to face than atheists.

I don't know how the statistics break down by religion, or lack of same, but Utah has one of the highest suicide rates in the US. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-11-28-depression-suicide-numbers_N.htm

Note that the numbers are ranked in reverse order. Being at the bottom of the list is bad. Utah ranks worst in depression and 7th from worst in suicides.

A recent CDC study found that Utah had the highest prevalance of suicidal thoughts among adults in the U.S. http://www.health.utah.gov/vipp/suicide/

Men ages 25-64 account for more than half (53.2%) of all suicide deaths in Utah.

I don't see that as verifying what you're stating.

[bcuzbcuz]

I love what Rob Bell has to say in his video on the Resurrection:

That damn empty tomb...it gets me every time.

Bob Bell makes a rather common error in judgement with his statement, "Whatever good we do stumble upon" (those who are atheist don't do good out of willful action but merely trip over it?)

"just momentary interruptions in an otherwise meaningless existence" Atheism does not portray a meaningless existence, it just doesn't attribute the same meaning as a God based religion to the meaning of existence. Some atheists, not accepting the concept of God or heaven, do however see life as the 'one kick at the can', so make the best of it. I don't see that as "meaningless".

Bob Bell continues saying, "despair is the only reasonable response". Just because he is colour blind doesn't mean every one else needs to see existence in shades of gray.

[bcuzbcuz]

This works for me. I use my religion to help me to try to become a better person. Not out of a fear of punishments from God or as a desire for rewards from God. But because being better satisfies that need in me to make a difference in this world. Anyway; if the Atheists are correct none of us will know the difference anyway.

I agree completely. If a person only does good out of fear of punishment for not doing these deeds or does good from a desire to be rewarded, I think they will be sadly disappointed. They're not going to get any reward and the bad people are not going to be endlessly tortured. Besides, no one likes anyone who fawns obedience, licking the hand for a favour and biting it when they turn their back. In Swedish they are called "ögon tjänare" (eye servants). Someone who behaves well as long as they think they are observed, and misbehaves when they think the opportunity presents itself.

Making the world a better place must be its own reward.

[Damien the Leper]

Bob Bell makes a rather common error in judgement with his statement, "Whatever good we do stumble upon" (those who are atheist don't do good out of willful action but merely trip over it?)

"just momentary interruptions in an otherwise meaningless existence" Atheism does not portray a meaningless existence, it just doesn't attribute the same meaning as a God based religion to the meaning of existence. Some atheists, not accepting the concept of God or heaven, do however see life as the 'one kick at the can', so make the best of it. I don't see that as "meaningless".

Bob Bell continues saying, "despair is the only reasonable response". Just because he is colour blind doesn't mean every one else needs to see existence in shades of gray.

First, his name is Rob and he doesn't go by Bob. Second, I think you're missing the point of the video. It's about Resurrection and is meant for a Christian audience. An audience I consider myself to be a part of. The monologue had nothing to do with atheism. BTW, black and white without shades of gray is so drab and useless.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Valentinus

[mfbukowski]

Do you think it is scarier to face eternal existence? or to face nothingness?

I have lived with both ideas, and eternity is definitely scarier for me. And it changes everything when you allow yourself to admit that possibility.

[bcuzbcuz]

I have lived with both ideas, and eternity is definitely scarier for me. And it changes everything when you allow yourself to admit that possibility.

Which eternity do you mean? It's eternity either way you look at it. Either it's eternal silence or eternally trying to improve. Which is scarier for you?

[bcuzbcuz]

First, his name is Rob and he doesn't go by Bob. Second, I think you're missing the point of the video. It's about Resurrection and is meant for a Christian audience. An audience I consider myself to be a part of. The monologue had nothing to do with atheism. BTW, black and white without shades of gray is so drab and useless.

Nothing to do with atheism? OK, I'll buy that if you mean everything he referenced was talking about religion. "Whatever good we stumble upon is just momentary interruptions in an otherwise meaningless existence"? I didn't know religious people viewed themselves so glumly.

[mfbukowski]

I think that is the important statement. Religion can be a tool, whether for coping with life, self-improvement, or fulfilling any other needs that people feel are served by it.

yep. That is why it has nothing to do with science.

Is a screwdriver more true than a wrench? Each has it's own purpose.

[mfbukowski]

The only real objection is that belief in God is incorrect (I'm an atheist).

That's the problem.

You believe in "one true tool"

[mfbukowski]

It is the self that experiences. Without self, there is no experience.

Well said.

We all live in our subjective awareness.

[mfbukowski]

Which eternity do you mean? It's eternity either way you look at it. Either it's eternal silence or eternally trying to improve. Which is scarier for you?

Once you don't exist- who cares about eternity for others?

You don't know anything anyway. For me, nothingness is more comforting than the fear of ending up on the wrong side of eternity. If there IS a wrong side- but not knowing an STILL making a choice is scarier than oblivion for me.

I mean what if the Catholics/Hindus/Buddhists/Zoroastrians et al are right?

Edited May 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Maybe I didn't answer.

An eternity of trying to become better is definitely scarier than nothingness- what if you can't get better or get tired of it?

But that's what I want. I don't want to float around on a cloud, and nothingness is just a cop-out.

And lest anyone doubt- trust me- I have faced both. I am on borrowed time and just waiting to see if I am right. The only thing scary about nothingness is never knowing I was wrong.

[pmccombs1]

Which eternity do you mean? It's eternity either way you look at it. Either it's eternal silence or eternally trying to improve. Which is scarier for you?

If it's nothing, it's not eternal. Not practically, anyway. It's no time at all. There is no such thing as eternal silence. That would have to be experienced, and would therefore not be nothing.

... nothingness is just a cop-out.

Some have suggested that non-existence is a cop-out, except that in opposition to a once and future nothing, we have the present something. And that is the only thing that is experienced: the now. So if there is a future time that can't be experienced, and there was a past time that wasn't experienced, but the now is experienced, how can the fact of non-experience be a cop-out? The now is sure. It is a fact of the universe. It is the eternal now.

Actually, it's difficult to talk about it. Our language wants us to think that "nothing" is actually a thing, and that it makes other things not matter. There is nothingness. There is non-experience. No, there isn't. Those are illogical statements, so my above paragraph sounds contradictory because I have attempted to make a claim in practical, understandable language that doesn't actually convey the right meaning, which we lack language for. I must make an attempt at apophasis:

There is no passing into nothing, there is only experiencing. One does not cease to experience; that implies that one continues and the experience ceases. One simply ceases, and this is not experienced. Ceasing cannot be experienced. It's subtle, as the Buddha once pointed out. There is no concept of "not being," only of being. When the cycle stops, one does not begin to "not be." One ceases, yet the word "ceases" is still insufficient.

In Buddhism, this is Nirvana, not the mistaken idea that "someday 'I will not be.'" When there is no self, there is no experience. Not bliss, not awareness, not not-being, just having lived the life of the Buddha and then ceased.

From a more nihilistic perspective: If one could step outside of time, one might be surprised to find Shakespeare still alive and performing plays in sixteenth century England. Still. But that is because he is always alive in sixteenth-century England, you know. Eternally (except that, "eternally" isn't quite the right word, either). That guy always experiences the English Renaissance. You and I occupy a different part of time, and we always will. Because we can't comprehend it, we say that others have "passed on" (either into otherness, or into nothingness). No, they still are, only not now. Hence the importance of doing something with now, because whatever we do with it is eternal. That is indeed a daunting prospect.

Edited May 24, 2013 by pmccombs1

[mfbukowski]

So if there is a future time that can't be experienced, and there was a past time that wasn't experienced, but the now is experienced, how can the fact of non-experience be a cop-out?

It was suggested that theists fear non-existence and use God as a crutch.

I was disagreeing and saying that non-existence was a cop-out as opposed to the responsibility to personally improve for all of eternity.

Non-existence is easy compared to working to be a better being for eternity- so the whole notion that Mormons use the after-life as a crutch is ridiculous.

The work never ends- but work brings joy.

Edited May 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[changed]

.... Hence the importance of doing something with now, because whatever we do with it is eternal. That is indeed a daunting prospect.

all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men...Alma 40:8

God changes not, and yet He progresses? there is something fishy going on with this thing called time.

I have lived with both ideas, and eternity is definitely scarier for me. And it changes everything when you allow yourself to admit that possibility.

It was suggested that theists fear non-existence and use God as a crutch.

or perhaps, that atheists fear eternity, and use non-existence as a crutch - as an escape.

I VT an elderly sister for awhile, the mother of our patriarch, and she was a very unhappy person. She said she didn't want to go to the celestial kingdom. I agree, progression is hard. I mean it feels good to accomplish something, but it is hard to get there.... and to be forever climbing a ladder? life's a journey, not a destination... at some point there does need to be a true appreciation of the journey, because, apparently, there is no ultimate destination.

[Alvino]

It was suggested that theists fear non-existence and use God as a crutch.

I was disagreeing and saying that non-existence was a cop-out as opposed to the responsibility to personally improve for all of eternity.

Non-existence is easy compared to working to be a better being for eternity- so the whole notion that Mormons use the after-life as a crutch is ridiculous.

The work never ends- but work brings joy.

I would have thought that if you are a god after a while work wouldn't be 'hard'.

About lasting forever, it seems to me that is really a horrible thing as far as we can see. There is no activity that I can conceive of (or combination of activities) being entertaining or stimulating for billions upon billions upon trillions upon quadrillions of years. You can say that some kind of eternal existence will be stimulating or fulfilling but it is clear to me we can't conceive of such a life now. Which is to say that, as far as reflection and intellect goes, we would believe eternal life would be a curse.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

It was suggested that theists fear non-existence and use God as a crutch.

I was disagreeing and saying that non-existence was a cop-out as opposed to the responsibility to personally improve for all of eternity.

(I forgot to address this more directly)

Well, you would agree most disbelievers don't accept disbelief because they rather cease to exist than improve for all eternity. Mormonism isn't a prominent view if we go by numbers. "Eternal progression" isn't what a disbeliever is likely coping out of nor is a believer likely to use "Eternal progression" as a crutch.

Now, having in mind we are talking about a minority view, I think we can agree one of the biggest appeals the Church has over people is that you will be with your family forever dwelling with God. They like the idea of working towards that and, because of this, it seems like such an afterlife is easier to bear than just non-existence after death. You would have a hard time getting from LDS believers that they would prefer to not exist rather than exist in what God has prepared for them. If such is the case, then I don't see what reason we have to believe that they would consider not existence as somehow 'easier' to cope with.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Alvino

[changed]

... the biggest appeals the Church has over people is that you will be with your family forever dwelling with God. ...

That is what it all comes down to, isn't it?

and I do think that "time" as we know it will cease to exist beyond the veil, so that eternity will come to take on an entirely new meaning.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited May 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Alvino]

That is what it all comes down to, isn't it?

and I do think that "time" as we know it will cease to exist beyond the veil, so that eternity will come to take on an entirely new meaning.

A meaning which it doesn't have now which means we can't imagine anything so good it will make us want to have it forever.