Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece: If You're an Atheist, Lie to Your Kids

[CA Steve]

I wonder if atheist forums have discussions on what God actually means to Mormons?

[Teancum]

On 1/30/2020 at 1:05 PM, smac97 said:

From the article:

Seems like an exercise in having your cake and eating it, too.  "Yes, I want to avoid the nihilism inherent in atheism by hoping that, somehowe, life continues on after we die.  That we have souls.  But I don't want to be bothered with the idea that God exists, that He has a relationship with us, that He is involved in our lives, that He has given us instructions to follow, etc.  Faith in the perpetuation of life after death is fine, but faith in God is not."

Some mightly convenient hair-splitting going on.  How can a genuine atheist posit that God does not exist, but souls do?

The article continues:

Hmm.  This, to me, sounds like a manifestation of the Light of Christ, an innate recognition - albeit perhaps not a perfect or complete one - of an eternal truth.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So you would bristle if a non LDS defined your belief but you are quite fine with defining what an atheist believes?  

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

I wonder if atheist forums have discussions on what God actually means to Mormons?

I hope so.  It would be good for them to discuss our teachings with each other.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

So you would bristle if a non LDS defined your belief but you are quite fine with defining what an atheist believes?  

First, I am defining atheism, not individualized takes on it.

Second, I am open to refining and improving my understanding of atheistic worldviews.

Third, asking a question ("How can a genuine atheist posit that God does not exist, but souls do?") is fair.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 i think you and I and smac and other theists agree with each other about this. I just don't think Meadowchik and other so-called atheists agree with us theists.

I'm not so sure about seekingunderstanding, and maybe Calm, but I'm not certain.  I may have just explained my position poorly. 

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nihilism: "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless."

I think an atheist can develop "moral principles."  But I think those principles are weak, ersatz, and derivative.  And these principles are no better than those espoused by religionists (and are often considerably worse).

I also think an atheist can find "meaning" in life.  But again, that meaning is weak, ersatz, and derivative.  

I don't begrudge atheists in developing these principles, or in seeking out "meaning."  I just find it ironic that in doing so they end up looking an awful lot like the religionists from whom they are distancing themselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

You think the meaning is weak, ersatz and derivative. But that is simply you speaking from a strong religious bias.  Some atheists may find life more meaningful and live it more fully and better because they think it the only one they have. Dogmatic relgious people on the other hand my live a life that is subject to artificial constraints and lies in the hope of some better future existence that in reality may not exist at all. 

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You think the meaning is weak, ersatz and derivative. But that is simply you speaking from a strong religious bias. 

It should be noted however that there are atheists and scientists who agree.

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but from my perspective, I agree with you.  Atheism is not "inherently" nihilistic.  It is my position (and I don't understand how any believing Latter-day Saint could disagree with this as a mater of faith), that atheists are able to create meaning, only because there really is a God.  We have faith that God created individual "selves" with purpose and gave the self agency, which allows us to create meaning for ourselves.  Therefore, as a mater of faith, we must conclude that if meaning is a product of agency and of the self, and if God is the source of agency and creation of the self as we know it, then without God there is no agency, self, and meaning - and this is all an illusion (interesting that many atheists have come to that same conclusion, and many scientists are beginning to come to that same conclusion as well).  Atheism only necessarily leads to nihilism if there really is no God.  That is what our faith suggests anyway, and I don't understand how any member could disagree with that without suspending their faith.  Existence as we know it is because of God, without God, this is an illusion.

I followed up until your last line that existence is an illusion without God.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I wonder if atheist forums have discussions on what God actually means to Mormons?

Of course they do. 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I followed up until your last line that existence is an illusion without God.

That sentence should be read as a continuation of the sentence before it "this is what our faith suggests..."  I didn't make that very clear. 

But again, there are scientists and atheists who agree with that point and make a very compelling argument for it.  They have me convinced anyway, that I am right   

Edited February 4, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Nihilism: "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless."

I think an atheist can develop "moral principles."  But I think those principles are weak, ersatz, and derivative.  And these principles are no better than those espoused by religionists (and are often considerably worse).

I also think an atheist can find "meaning" in life.  But again, that meaning is weak, ersatz, and derivative.  

I don't begrudge atheists in developing these principles, or in seeking out "meaning."  I just find it ironic that in doing so they end up looking an awful lot like the religionists from whom they are distancing themselves.

You think the meaning is weak, ersatz and derivative.

Comparatively and qualitatively speaking, yes.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

But that is simply you speaking from a strong religious bias. 

Well, not just that.  

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Some atheists may find life more meaningful and live it more fully and better because they think it the only one they have.

That's theoretically possible, I suppose.

But on balance, I think not.  Again:

Option A: "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."  (Psalm 82:6)  We are the children of God.  We lived with Him before we came to earth, and we have the opportunity to return to Him after we die.  Virtually all of God's children will receive a kingdom of glory, the least of which exceeds our present ability to comprehend.  "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  (1 Cor. 2:9)

Option B: "We’re, essentially, temporary cell colonies, doomed to annihilation."  (DCP)  We blinked into existence at birth, will blink out of existence when we die.  "Morality" is whatever you want it to be.

Which of these has more "meaning"?  

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Dogmatic relgious people on the other hand may live a life that is subject to artificial constraints and lies in the hope of some better future existence that in reality may not exist at all. 

Well, I'll grant you that possibility.  The religionist worldview, like the atheistic one, is not monolithic.

And I'll also concede that my perspective is fairly nuanced, informed as it is by Latter-day Saint cosmology/soteriology, which I find to be extraordinarily uplifting and hopeful.  Meanwhile, the generalized worldview of atheism comes across as overwhelmingly bleak and nihilistic.  And "meaning" and "morality" derived from this worldview come across as weak, ersatz and derivative.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If God were to cease being a God if he broke the laws of justice and/or mercy , .... then the laws of morality are greater than God and separate from him. This seems to be connected to Buddhism: the laws of morality are not derived from God, but from the laws of the universe itself. Therefore, meaning doesn't come from God but from the universe. Perhaps God is simply the best moral advisor, like the Buddha?

I think if in that last sentence you substitute the word "Christ" for "God" that is probably closer to what we actually believe.

Christ is the ultimate moral advisor.

In fact if one thinks of God as being a Being more like Christ then I think all of this gets a little bit more clear for non LDS Christians.  They seem to have no problem with the idea that Christ was at least an immanent being here on Earth subject to the laws of the universe voluntarily, yet able to command the universe as needed, turning water into wine, healing people Etc.

So with that in mind we see the father as identical with the son in terms of his powers and abilities.

In humility he has taken upon himself immanence, to be a true Father to his children.

He organized the laws of the universe, and at least here in this universe has restricted himself voluntarily to follow those laws, as did Christ and subjecting himself to death at cetera.

Perhaps a common analogy at this time of year would be going on a weight loss diet. We voluntarily restrict our food intake according to the diet however occasionally if necessary we will vary from it.

Are the laws of the diet greater than the individual who took them upon himself? It seems to become an odd way to think about it.

I think this notion about Christ /God voluntarily taking upon themselves immanence goes far to explain a lot of these issues, that sectarian Christianity cannot admit.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

You think the meaning is weak, ersatz and derivative. But that is simply you speaking from a strong religious bias.  Some atheists may find life more meaningful and live it more fully and better because they think it the only one they have. Dogmatic relgious people on the other hand my live a life that is subject to artificial constraints and lies in the hope of some better future existence that in reality may not exist at all. 

I will say this:  if atheists will live their lives as well as theists who do what God wants them to do while believing what God wants them to believe, even if those atheists don't give God the credit as the source for that way of life, then I believe those atheists will be as well off as those theists when it comes time for God to judge them because they will have done the same things as those theists while believing it wasn't necessary or that there was no other point than to live that way.

For a good theist, like myself, getting to heaven is not the reason I try to live a good life.  that is not what gives my life meaning.  I just want to live my life in the best way I can possibly live it, come what may, and whoever can show me that way is someone I am willing to follow.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I am defining atheism, not individualized takes on it.

And the difference between that and a nonLDS defining the Restored Gospel?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This brings up an interesting question related to LDS cosmology, at least in my limited understanding: where does meaning and morality come from for the LDS? It can't be from God, can it, since God was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, who also was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, all the way back eternally?

Correct.

 As an evolutionist my worm brain can postulate that these principles have been repeatedly used for eons and simply make up the rules necessary for a peaceful life.

 They almost become tautologies. 

Wearing my philosophy hat, what we mean by a "peaceful life" is the same as a "moral life".  With our large-brained babies humans need a peaceful environment in order to raise them.

 They are just plain not very good at fighting for survival for quite a period of years.

 Living a peaceful / moral life is good evolutionarily. 

Kant of course spent a lot of time trying to work this out logically. What he came up with at the end point was something that looked very much like the Golden Rule in his "Categorical Imperative."

 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I'll also concede that my perspective is fairly nuanced, informed as it is by Latter-day Saint cosmology/soteriology, which I find to be extraordinarily uplifting and hopeful.  Meanwhile, the generalized worldview of atheism comes across

Comparing a generalized, simplified view to a nuanced one rarely leaves the generalized one looking as good as the nuanced one. 

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

And the difference between that and a nonLDS defining the Restored Gospel?

There is an authoritative source that we can look to for the doctrines of the Church: The Church.  

There is no comparable authoritative source for defining atheistic worldviews.  To the extent there is such a source, it's generalized and broad, like dictionary definitions.  I'm looking at atheism at that level (rather than individualized perspectives).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

And I'll also concede that my perspective is fairly nuanced, informed as it is by Latter-day Saint cosmology/soteriology, which I find to be extraordinarily uplifting and hopeful.  Meanwhile, the generalized worldview of atheism comes across

Comparing a generalized, simplified view to a nuanced one rarely leaves the generalized one looking as good as the nuanced one. 

The nuanced one is still pretty generalized, though.  I don't hold tight to many speculative ideas in terms of Latter-day Saint cosmology/soteriology.  So by "nuanced," I meant that that level, not my personalized one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

47 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I wonder if atheist forums have discussions on what God actually means to Mormons?

Back in the day, I went on The Thinking Atheist and tried defending my beliefs, LDS included. People seemed more than willing to hear my reasons for my beliefs. But in my experience, they didn't pull punches.

[Meadowchik]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I am defining atheism, not individualized takes on it.

Second, I am open to refining and improving my understanding of atheistic worldviews.

Third, asking a question ("How can a genuine atheist posit that God does not exist, but souls do?") is fair.

Thanks,

-Smac

How would a general definition of theism compare to your specific take on it?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

How would a general definition of theism compare to your specific take on it?

I don't have much of a "specific take" on theism.  Just a generalized one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Back in the day, I went on The Thinking Atheist and tried defending my beliefs, LDS included. People seemed more than willing to hear my reasons for my beliefs. But in my experience, they didn't pull punches.

You've got to be kidding me.  I spent two seconds on that website and came out with a different experience than you.  Go down to the bottom of the page and just begin scrolling through all the cute little memes.  

https://www.thethinkingatheist.com/

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

My two previous points concerning this claim have yet to be fully addressed

1) Existentialism is 99% atheistic (and the 1% theistic existentialism doesn't really fit into traditional Christianity). Existentialism, however, explicitly rejects the idea that atheism = nihilism, that atheism does not provide meaning or morality. Interestingly enough, some existentialists actually argue that existentialism provides greater morality than theism. The argument is that 100% freedom (no predetermined meaning means that you have the freedom to choose) also entails 100% responsibility, because it is all on you. Theism (and other systems of meaning) actually remove responsibility because you abdicate your personal choice to the choice of the system. Interesting thoughts. In any case, the arguments of the existentialists have to be dealt with before we posit that atheism provides no meaning or morality. It cannot be stated axiomatically in the face of an entire philosophical system/movement that rejects it.

2) Non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism, do not deny the existence of gods but change the definition of a god to something that is neither absolute (they will be reincarnated just like any other life form) nor relevant to the meaning of life. In Buddhism, the central point is to end delusion in order to end the cycle of death and rebirth and suffering. The gods are just as deluded as humans, or even more so because they have less suffering and are thus are more ignorant about their own position. If the gods are irrelevant (and are not immortal and absolute), then meaning and morality are not derived from the gods. Meaning and morality are derived from the natural truths of the universe, which the Buddha discovered and shared. The path to the end of suffering that the Buddha realized was not created by the gods, not revealed by the gods, but is inherent in the mind and universe and is accessible to humans. How is this reconciled with the idea that without a god there is no meaning or morality? Are you prepared to say that Buddhists have no meaning or morality, that they are nihilists?

This brings up an interesting question related to LDS cosmology, at least in my limited understanding: where does meaning and morality come from for the LDS? It can't be from God, can it, since God was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, who also was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, all the way back eternally? If God were to cease being a God if he broke the laws of justice and/or mercy (if that's the correct quote from the Book of Mormon..?), then the laws of morality are greater than God and separate from him. This seems to be connected to Buddhism: the laws of morality are not derived from God, but from the laws of the universe itself. Therefore, meaning doesn't come from God but from the universe. Perhaps God is simply the best moral advisor, like the Buddha?

Yet another comment re Kant, from Wikipedia. Kant believed that morality originated in the very rules of rationality itself. I accept these principles 

 

""Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (German: Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten; 1785; also known as the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals and the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals) is the first of Immanuel Kant's mature works on moral philosophy and remains one of the most influential in the field. Kant conceives his investigation as a work of foundational ethics—one that clears the ground for future research by explaining the core concepts and principles of moral theory and showing that they are normative for rational agents. Kant aspires to nothing less than this: to lay bare the fundamental principle of morality and show that it applies to us. In the text, Kant provides a groundbreaking argument that the rightness of an action is determined by the character of the principle that a person chooses to act upon. Kant thus stands in stark contrast to the moral sense theories and teleological moral theories that dominated moral philosophy at the time he was writing. Central to the work is the role of what Kant refers to as the categorical imperative, the concept that one must act only according to that precept which he or she would will to become a universal law.""

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

You've got to be kidding me.  I spent two seconds on that website and came out with a different experience than you.  Go down to the bottom of the page and just begin scrolling through all the cute little memes.  

https://www.thethinkingatheist.com/

Memes are not a conversation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is an authoritative source that we can look to for the doctrines of the Church: The Church.  

There is no comparable authoritative source for defining atheistic worldviews.  To the extent there is such a source, it's generalized and broad, like dictionary definitions.  I'm looking at atheism at that level (rather than individualized perspectives).

Thanks,

-Smac

My jaw is on the floor, this seems so disrespectful and disingenuous. The comparison to what you are doing in this thread is for me to say there is no authoritative source in the world for theistic world views, so I as an atheist am going to make up my own. Then I’m going to make fun of them. Alternatively, you could, I don’t know, go talk to atheists of various persuasions and maybe ask them?! It’s a very novel concept, I know.