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

[Meadowchik]

By the way, if you want to study the relationship between atheism, religiosity, and mental health, China might be a good place to study:

Quote

 

In the overall sample, the importance of religious affiliation was positively associated with mental disorders (especially anxiety) (p<0.01). No association was found between any religious characteristic and mood disorders or alcohol use disorders. With regard to analyses within different ethnic groups, religious affiliation was positively associated with mental disorder in Han ethnicity (p<0.01), but not in Hui ethnicity. When stratified by age and ethnic group, religious affiliation was associated positively with mental disorder in younger Han (p<0.01); whereas high religiosity was associated positively with mental disorder in older Hui (p<0.05). Among older Hui, however, religious affiliation was inversely associated with mood disorder (p<0.05).

Conclusions

In contrast to most previous studies in Western populations, religious involvement is less likely to be inversely related to mental disorder in Mainland China, although this association varies by age and ethnic group.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128800

 

So according to the story in the WSJ, people in households that regularly attend religious services score better in mental health. But in the above study in mostly-atheist China, religious people tend to fare worse in measures of mental health. Could it be that, in both cases, the real problem is people who are socially marginalised from the whole, or those who lack community, tend to have more difficulty managing mental health?

Another thing to consider is that there is vast variety among people who do not attend regular religious services. Those people can include those who still believe, who never believed, people who have nontheistic beliefs and communities, etc... Yet they are lumped together. In other words, the WSJ article (atleast the part quoted in the OP, as I cannot access the rest) does not specifically measure atheists. It one compares religious-service-attender's rates to the general population rates.

[MiserereNobis]

I'm surprised no one has brought up existentialism, which is atheistic but not nihilistic. It explicitly rejects the argument that all atheists are nihilists.

Also, for those who are arguing that meaning comes from God(s), what do you do with non-theistic religions like Buddhism? Are Buddhists nihilists because the central tenets have nothing to do with God(s) but with what humans can attain?

Edited February 1, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm surprised no one has brought up existentialism, which is atheistic but not nihilistic. It explicitly rejects the argument that all atheists are nihilists.

Also, for those who are arguing that meaning comes from God(s), what do you do with non-theistic religions like Buddhism? Are Buddhists nihilists because the central tenets have nothing to do with God(s) but with what humans can attain?

Thanks for this. 

Atheism is so broad a term and is so often conflated with nonreligiousness that it is very frequently misunderstood.

[Storm Rider]

39 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm surprised no one has brought up existentialism, which is atheistic but not nihilistic. It explicitly rejects the argument that all atheists are nihilists.

Also, for those who are arguing that meaning comes from God(s), what do you do with non-theistic religions like Buddhism? Are Buddhists nihilists because the central tenets have nothing to do with God(s) but with what humans can attain?

I have never considered Buddhism to be nihilistic in approach or philosophy. Rather, the Buddha taught that nothing is permanent and human desires to hold onto the impermanent; that we should free ourselves from these attachments. His teachings seek to lead others in a path where suffering is minimized. 

As a disciple of Jesus Christ I have found beauty in many religions, but there is a reason that follow Jesus Christ and why I reject these other religions. However, I appreciate and support others that find a spiritual home in other religions and/or churches. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I have never considered Buddhism to be nihilistic in approach or philosophy. Rather, the Buddha taught that nothing is permanent and human desires to hold onto the impermanent; that we should free ourselves from these attachments. His teachings seek to lead others in a path where suffering is minimized. 

I agree, so here is an example of a religion/philosophy that doesn't derive meaning from God and yet isn't nihilistic.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm surprised no one has brought up existentialism, which is atheistic but not nihilistic. It explicitly rejects the argument that all atheists are nihilists.

Also, for those who are arguing that meaning comes from God(s), what do you do with non-theistic religions like Buddhism? Are Buddhists nihilists because the central tenets have nothing to do with God(s) but with what humans can attain?

Absolutely right. I mentioned it a bunch but just not on this thread.

Salvation is often essential to meaning.

Save the world. Save yourself from hell. Save Humanity from global warning, save the whales.

Save people with cancer. Save pets in the pound. Save the children save the old people.

We all fight for salvation in our own way.

When you put that super wide-angle lens  in your mind they all become one big thing, but all the same

And since we want to save Humanity that is one of the reasons I think we LDS are quite close to existentialism in our heart of hearts.

And Buddhism

We desire the the exaltation of humanity. We want all of humanity to become Gods.

We scour genealogies to find them.

We want to raise all from their carnal misery.

Is there any higher salvation than that?

We all have to die sometime.

But what more noble goal could one live for?

Knowing that an exalted being lives changes everything.

Edited February 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree, so here is an example of a religion/philosophy that doesn't derive meaning from God and yet isn't nihilistic.

MiserereNobis, I have never felt religions led individuals to a path of nihilism. To the contrary, I think religions generally lead individuals away from nihilism.

I think atheism leads individuals to nihilism and ultimately, despair. Without an understanding of God and the purpose of life, why would any atheist think suffering was acceptable? For the atheist, there is not a leap of logic to find that stopping individual suffering by ending life is acceptable, even desired or preferred for those that suffer overly much. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

but the very definition of atheism is that life has no value

CFR

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Just FYI, Terry Pratchett was an atheist. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

44 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 

I think atheism leads individuals to nihilism and ultimately, despair.

How many atheists have you talked to about this subject?

Edited February 2, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 1/31/2020 at 8:23 AM, pogi said:

Forgive me if I can't respond to all the posts directed at my comments (10 and counting!) 

I unwisely opened a can of worms that I don't have the mental capacity or energy today to try and debate.  I have argued this point several times on these boards in the past.  If you are unfamiliar with my position, you can search for my posts on "nihilism" or "the self is an illusion".  These arguments seem to go on for ever, and I just don't have it in me today.  Sorry!

With respect, you say meaning can’t be derived from the universe only from God. You say this is the only rational or logical conclusion, yet you can’t put a coherent argument up to support it. Pretty weak. 
 

Can words have meaning without God? It seems like you would say no?

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It would appear your opinion conflicts with the reality found in this study. 

You posit that life can be valued because it is yours....but the very definition of atheism is that life has no value. We exist and then we die; end of story. The challenge to create a value to life when there is no future appears, based on the study, to be difficult for young people. I don't think it is impossible, but it clearly is far more difficult than for young people raised in a religious tradition. 

I think your comment here is pretty wrong. I think atheists value life more, they aren't thinking they have eternity to get it right, or relationships right. They more than likely think in the here and now, and not think they can worry about it later, or work on it for an eternity. 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Tacenda

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

MiserereNobis, I have never felt religions led individuals to a path of nihilism. To the contrary, I think religions generally lead individuals away from nihilism.

I think atheism leads individuals to nihilism and ultimately, despair. Without an understanding of God and the purpose of life, why would any atheist think suffering was acceptable? For the atheist, there is not a leap of logic to find that stopping individual suffering by ending life is acceptable, even desired or preferred for those that suffer overly much. 

But Buddhism doesn't believe in an absolute God or Gods. The gods are just beings who have, because of karma, attained a rebirth that is almost devoid of suffering. But the gods will reincarnate. The Buddha said that a human birth is most fortunate because animal births are too full of suffering and devoid of opportunities to contemplate, meditate, and achieve nirvana, and birth as a god has basically no suffering so such a being wouldn't even ask the question about how to end suffering.

So Buddhism believes in gods, but they are not absolute and they have nothing to do with the central goal and purpose of Buddhism. It is classified as a non-theistic religion because of this. Sure, it's not atheism, because there are gods, but these gods are nothing like a western God. I'd say from a western point-of-view Buddhism could be considered atheistic. Gods aren't absolute, they will be reborn, and they have nothing to do with achieving the goal of the religion, which is ending suffering (from the Buddhist point-of-view).

So why doesn't Buddhism lead to nihilism and despair? It has nothing to do with god, yet it finds meaning and purpose and a practical method to achieve its goals. This is a good example of how there can be a belief system that posits meaning without appealing to a god. To achieve Buddhism's end, you do absolutely nothing that involves a god.

Edited February 2, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

but the very definition of atheism is that life has no value

No, the definition of atheism is that there is no god.

Your assumption that without a god life has no value is what has led you to the statement above.

Existentialists are atheists that do not come to the conclusion you have.

In philosophy it is called the transient argument:

1) There is no God.

2) Without a God, life has no value/meaning.

3) Therefore, life has no value/meaning.

Most theists reject 1 but accept 2

Existentialists reject 2 but accept 1 (Kierkegaard is an interesting exception)

Nihilists accept 1 and 2 and therefore believe 3.

It's not a given that 2 is true, and I personally dislike arguments in favor of God's existence that rely on premise 2, particularly because existentialists can make some compelling arguments otherwise.

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With respect, you say meaning can’t be derived from the universe only from God. You say this is the only rational or logical conclusion, yet you can’t put a coherent argument up to support it. Pretty weak. 
 

Can words have meaning without God? It seems like you would say no?

You haven’t even heard my argument.  It’s clear you don’t understand it based on the many questions you have asked.  As I said, I was wrong to jump into this and don’t intend to continue it.  I have found that it always leads to a mass drowning in semantics and effective communication seems futile.  It’s not how I want to spend the next few weeks, because that is how long it usually takes before I give up in frustration, cursing language and my inability to effectively convey what is inside.  It’s as if I say “pink elephant” and others hear “brown dog”.  I sometimes wonder if words have meaning with or without God.

Edited February 2, 2020 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I sometimes wonder if words have meaning with or without God.

😆 This seems to be how all philosophical threads end ... Peace. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

You haven’t even heard my argument.  It’s clear you don’t understand it based on the many questions you have asked.  As I said, I was wrong to jump into this and don’t intend to continue it.  I have found that it always leads to a mass drowning in semantics and effective communication seems futile.  It’s not how I want to spend the next few weeks, because that is how long it usually takes before I give up in frustration, cursing language and my inability to effectively convey what is inside.  It’s as if I say “pink elephant” and others hear “brown dog”.  I sometimes wonder if words have meaning with or without God.

Also with respect I think I grasp your argument. There is no God. Therefore the universe is a bunch of particles following the laws of nature. Particles don’t have meaning. They don’t have purpose. They flow from one moment to the next on a deterministic path. Through some fluke of nature, life came into existence. Life begat life at some point consciousness came into being. Then humans. Humans live a predetermined life as set in motion nearly 14 billion years ago by the uncaring unknowing universe. Free will is an illusion. Choice is an illusion. Therefore life has no meaning. 
 

Close enough?

 

ETA: not trying to draw you in, but I do feel like I understand what you attempting to say. 

Edited February 2, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just FYI, Terry Pratchett was an atheist. 

Yep. I have read all but the last three books of the Discworld series, a 2020 Discworld calendar and large map of Ankh-Morpork hang on my office wall, and two Death action figures (one with Binky) are on my desk. He is one of my favorite writers. Are you a fan?

[Bernard Gui]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

You haven’t even heard my argument.  It’s clear you don’t understand it based on the many questions you have asked.  As I said, I was wrong to jump into this and don’t intend to continue it.  I have found that it always leads to a mass drowning in semantics and effective communication seems futile.  It’s not how I want to spend the next few weeks, because that is how long it usually takes before I give up in frustration, cursing language and my inability to effectively convey what is inside.  It’s as if I say “pink elephant” and others hear “brown dog”.  I sometimes wonder if words have meaning with or without God.

 

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

😆 This seems to be how all philosophical threads end ... Peace. 

Terry Pratchett, Small Gods:

”… he was talking in philosophy, but they were listening in gibberish.”

[pogi]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Also with respect I think I grasp your argument. There is no God. Therefore the universe is a bunch of particles following the laws of nature. Particles don’t have meaning. They don’t have purpose. They flow from one moment to the next on a deterministic path. Through some fluke of nature, life came into existence. Life begat life at some point consciousness came into being. Then humans. Humans live a predetermined life as set in motion nearly 14 billion years ago by the uncaring unknowing universe. Free will is an illusion. Choice is an illusion. Therefore life has no meaning. 
 

Close enough?

 

ETA: not trying to draw you in, but I do feel like I understand what you attempting to say. 

There are lots of atheists who hold the position you described who are not nihilists (thank goodness!). You are barely describing the top of the iceberg and are not addressing the bulk of what lies beneath - and that only describes my position and doesn’t begin to address the arguments and counter arguments that support my position and make  it all float.  You also have failed to describe what is above the iceberg in the heavens which give it all gravity.  You don’t understand my position on God and why His grand purpose/meaning for the universe (and how it is possible for him to create with purpose/meaning) makes it possible for us to create and derive meaning for ourselves.

Again you have asked many questions making it obvious that you are not understanding my position.  Both you and Calm are tossing the ball out in left field with your questions, expecting me to be there, while I am standing over in right field scratching my head.  I don’t blame you for not knowing where I stand though.  These forums are simply a terrible medium for this kind of discussion.  Which is why I am bowing out.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

No, the definition of atheism is that there is no god.

Your assumption that without a god life has no value is what has led you to the statement above.

Existentialists are atheists that do not come to the conclusion you have.

In philosophy it is called the transient argument:

1) There is no God.

2) Without a God, life has no value/meaning.

3) Therefore, life has no value/meaning.

Most theists reject 1 but accept 2

Existentialists reject 2 but accept 1 (Kierkegaard is an interesting exception)

Nihilists accept 1 and 2 and therefore believe 3.

It's not a given that 2 is true, and I personally dislike arguments in favor of God's existence that rely on premise 2, particularly because existentialists can make some compelling arguments otherwise.

 

The LDS cosmology of God having once been a man is also more vulnerable to the transient argument. All one must do is the thought experiment with (the first) God the man before being God:

"Is there a God? No. Does my life have meaning?" The transient argument kills that God off pretty darn quick.

I prefer the other LDS cosmology of God and Christ and (now human) intelligences being co-eternal, not because it kills the transient argument, but because God as First Cause (or thereabouts) seems more consistent than nested gods.

Anyway, as an agnostic atheist, I build my meaning given the limited perspective I can confirm to the best of my ability:

First, I am. (If this is all in my head or a simulation, I still am working within that limitation that I am.)

Others are. (As far as I can tell, I am not alone.)

Then the decision about what I value: I want to be happy and I want to have a good life.

Then the results of my values and limited observations: I want to be happy with a good life, and my life is very much entwined with others and their lives, we share the world. Therefore, it makes sense for me totry to contribute to making it a good world. If the world can be a good place for all others, it is more likely to be so for me.

Then another observation: My happiness in very much enhanced when others are happy.

And so I arrive at a guiding principle for happiness: kindness.

It's pretty simple, but I find it to be sturdy and meaningful.

[Storm Rider]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think your comment here is pretty wrong. I think atheists value life more, they aren't thinking they have eternity to get it right, or relationships right. They more than likely think in the here and now, and not think they can worry about it later, or work on it for an eternity. 

And yet, the study cited depicts the exact opposite of your projection of atheism. Atheism leads young people into despair. Should we ignore the study or be open to its findings. 

It is only one study, but I suspect there are others with the same findings. I also think that studies are not conclusive and there are always additional things to discover. However, it should give one pause before concluding that religion is the boogeyman and source of all evil that appears to be the conclusion of many public universities.

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But Buddhism doesn't believe in an absolute God or Gods. The gods are just beings who have, because of karma, attained a rebirth that is almost devoid of suffering. But the gods will reincarnate. The Buddha said that a human birth is most fortunate because animal births are too full of suffering and devoid of opportunities to contemplate, meditate, and achieve nirvana, and birth as a god has basically no suffering so such a being wouldn't even ask the question about how to end suffering.

So Buddhism believes in gods, but they are not absolute and they have nothing to do with the central goal and purpose of Buddhism. It is classified as a non-theistic religion because of this. Sure, it's not atheism, because there are gods, but these gods are nothing like a western God. I'd say from a western point-of-view Buddhism could be considered atheistic. Gods aren't absolute, they will be reborn, and they have nothing to do with achieving the goal of the religion, which is ending suffering (from the Buddhist point-of-view).

So why doesn't Buddhism lead to nihilism and despair? It has nothing to do with god, yet it finds meaning and purpose and a practical method to achieve its goals. This is a good example of how there can be a belief system that posits meaning without appealing to a god. To achieve Buddhism's end, you do absolutely nothing that involves a god.

As a religion, Buddhism has guiding principles to direct one's path. The fact that there is an acknowledgement of gods has value because they evidence a goal, a direction to go. What does an atheist have to guide her? Why should an atheist trust anyone when the self is their ultimate expression of all things. There is not "the" path, but all paths and all are acceptable if the one chooses to follow them. 

Religions, generally, create direction for a higher self. I have talked to a few Russians while living in the UAE that were atheists. I came to learn from them of the utter "aloneness" of atheism from them. They were only a few and may not be representative of atheism as a whole, but their comments made an impact on me. Granted, these were atheists that came to find God.

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How many atheists have you talked to about this subject?

Only a few Russian fellows while I lived in Abu Dhabi. 

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

And yet, the study cited depicts the exact opposite of your projection of atheism. Atheism leads young people into despair. Should we ignore the study or be open to its findings. 

It is only one study, but I suspect there are others with the same findings. I also think that studies are not conclusive and there are always additional things to discover. However, it should give one pause before concluding that religion is the boogeyman and source of all evil that appears to be the conclusion of many public universities.

Actually, no, unless there's something saying so in the parts SMAC did not quote, the study does not single out atheists. It seems to compare those who attend religious services regularly to those who don't. And "those who don't" can be anyone of any state of belief or unbelief. And as I said in an earlier post, studies in China suggest the opposite, where the religious are more prone to anxiety and mental health problems. To me, that suggest that something else is at play, not necessarily religiousity.