Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Zilch: The Final Score In Atheism

Sometimes a series of comments on a blog post diverts far from the original point of the post. I confess that I sometimes (often?) help this because I enjoy philosophical discussions that are usually tangential to the point of a post. One such instance occurred between Zilch and me on this post which was originally about Steve’s response to Avalos on the Legend of Sargon.

I had written a response this weekend to Zilch’s last comment, but decided not to post it since the original post has dropped off into blog purgatory (i.e. no longer on the main page) and because we had moved on to other topics, but because Zilch has been one of the few atheists who doesn’t resort to only bombastic drivel and because he asked me to respond to his last post I will post my response here. I encourage readers who are interested to click the above referenced link and read through our discussion up to this point before responding.

Zilch wrote:
What you seem to be saying- and this seems to be a common position among Christians- is that my life as an atheist is meaningless because it only lasts a certain amount of time, and then I die. Is this a fair appraisal?
That’s incomplete. Instead, more accurately, what I am saying is: Within atheism, life is meaningless because the only thing that can give it meaning is the individuals who live their lives, and when they die all their meaning vanishes with them.

This differs from Christianity because for the Christian meaning in life does not come from our subjective assignment of meaning to it, but from God’s assigning meaning to it. While our lives are short and temporal, God is eternal. As such, our lives (even atheists’ lives) have meaning in God’s plan, and this meaning transcends the lives of human beings. And this is the key difference that I was seeking to make. Under Christianity, meaning in life is objective (for us); under atheism, it is subjective (for us). Under either position, once the subject passes away, there is no longer any meaning left. The difference is that for the Christian God (the subject) will never pass away, and His immutability guarantees He will never change His mind on the value of our lives either.

As a result, holding to meaning and value in our lives is a consistent factor for Christians. It is not so for atheists, however. In other words, saying that our lives are meaningful requires one to adapt a view like the Christian’s view; it is not possible to state this under atheism.

Zilch wrote:
One, you are assuming the truth of your position in positing how my position must be for me. An atheist who somehow believed that an afterlife existed, but that he was missing out because of his atheism, might feel this way; but since most atheists don't believe in an afterlife, this is not how we look at it. This time on Earth is the time we have, for better or for worse: the fact that believers are looking forward to more doesn't make us feel that what we have is meaningless in comparison, because we don't believe there is anything more.
Hopefully you can see that I was not assuming the truth of Christianity and positing from it how atheism must be with my above clarification of the point I was making. Indeed, whether there is an afterlife or not is ultimately irrelevant to my position that Christianity gives life meaning while atheism cannot do so. In Christianity, meaning is based on God, not on our lives or our afterlives.

Furthermore, Zilch phrased his argument in relative terms. That is: “the fact that believers are looking forward to more doesn’t make us feel that what we have is meaningless in comparison” (italics mine). But what is at issue is not the comparison between atheism and Christianity here, but whether atheism can—of itself—hold the grounds to meaning in life. And here we see that Zilch acknowledges: “This time on Earth is the time we have, for better or worse." More importantly than that, all the meaning that we can possibly have in our lives (as atheists) is just for “the time we have.” That meaning cannot extend beyond our subjective will, our desire to create meaning. When we die, that desire is gone. Our meaning is gone. There is no purpose for our life beyond the purpose we say is there.

To put it another way, the universe has no meaning, no purpose, no value in and of itself. It is therefore left for us to arbitrarily decree that it is really there (but if we are decreeing something there that really isn’t there, then we are deluded). Our decree is only as good as we are. We come from nothing and we will pass into nothing. Our decrees do not last beyond our own scope. Therefore, our decrees are dust in the wind. No matter how much we wish that the universe was meaningful, it will never conform to our wishes. It will remain as it is. Our job (as proper atheists, mind you) ought to be to embrace reality and avoid superstition. And that requires us to reject meaning as a psychological prop.

Zilch said:
Two: while it's true that some atheists find the shortness of our lives grounds for declaring that everything is meaningless (J.P. Sartre comes to mind), most of us don't.
Actually, it is not the shortness of our lives that creates the meaninglessness (per se), but rather it is the fact that that which gives our lives meaning (our subjective will) is not eternal. The shortness of life is only relevant because when we die, so too dies what gives our life meaning. Our lives could be increased tenfold, or a hundredfold, or any finite number and you will not escape the meaninglessness of it all. When you die, there is nothing left to make your life meaningful. Nor is there anything left to have made your past life meaningful either (example: is Caesar’s life meaningful today? How much less so the life of a commoner in the slums of Rome!)

Zilch said:
In fact, for me and many others, it is the awareness that we are only here briefly that makes every day precious and full of meaning.
Except that, once again, it is only precious and meaningful in a subjective sense; and once you die, it is no longer precious or meaningful. Furthermore, since you no longer exist, it never was meaningful or precious. Indeed, from the cosmic time scale, you’re just a blip on the screen. You came from nothing and you’ll continue into nothing. In the meantime, what you accomplish boils down to nothing.

Zilch said:
Since we don't believe in a God who is the absolute source of meaning, we must find our own meanings.
The problem is not that you must “find” your own meaning, but rather that the atheist must manufacture meaning out of meaninglessness. He must manufacture purpose out of that which has no purpose. He must manufacture value out of that which has no value. It is not like these things exist in the universe waiting to be discovered. Not at all. In atheism, they do not exist at all. Not until someone wills them into existence. And even then, they can only be subjectively held.

And it is at this point that the atheist, under the presuppositions of atheism, is no longer viewing the universe objectively at all. He has subjectively decided to infuse into the universe that which is not there. He has deluded himself. And at this point, his contention with theists becomes bitterly ironic. “Theists are deluded into thinking God exists so they can have some meaning in their life” the atheist will claim, all the while ignoring the fact that he has deluded himself into thinking his life has meaning based on his sheer will alone. At best, the atheist can be on no better rational ground than the theist when it comes to delusional behavior regarding meaning!

Zilch said:
In fact, the idea held by many fundamentalists of several religions, that our earthly sojourn is meaningless in comparison to the afterlife, or only meaningful insofar as it is a test that must be passed, is a great source of danger to the planet.
Unfortunately, atheism does not allow an atheist to make this claim. There is no “danger” to the planet because the only way for there to be danger would be if there was something of value to be lost. But the universe came from nothing and will return to nothing--no matter what you do. There is no value in the universe except that which we pretend is there. So the danger is not to the planet, but rather to what Zilch wishes the planet to be like. And it is all good and well for Zilch to have desires about what the planet should be like, but his atheism gives him no grounds for stating that his views are better or worse than those of the fundamentalist; and indeed, if the fundamentalist views atheism as a danger to the planet, then whose word do we take? We’ve already seen that under atheism, both religious meaning and non-religious meaning are devoid of objective correlation to the universe. This extends to values as well. There is no inherent value in anything in the universe. What do we have left?

This brings me back to something Zilch said at the beginning of his response:
I am interested in peaceful coexistence on our planet; and since it looks like neither religion nor atheism is going away any time in the near future, I do what I can to find common ground. This includes bringing my satanic, er, I mean secular humanistic viewpoint to the table, as a small contribution towards making the world a better place for my children. After all, people of all beliefs are capable of doing great good or great evil.
Unfortunately, there is no way that Zilch can make “the world a better place” for his, or anyone else’s, children. In order to use the term “better” he would have to be able to substantiate how the universe ought to be, which he cannot do (there is no “oughtness” apart from purpose). Likewise, he cannot label any actions of people as “good” or “evil” either. Not unless all these terms are simply subjective declarations. And if that’s all they are, they lose any bit of force they had, for why should Zilch’s subjective whims be the rule we go by? But more importantly, the demise of the Earth is inevitable; how we get there is ultimately unimportant. After all, the final score is the same regardless of how the game is played. There is no point in keeping track of it.

29 comments:

  1. First of all, Peter (or Calvin?)- thanks for the polite and clear reply. I'm flattered that you regard me as "the final score in atheism", whatever that's supposed to mean. I actually agree with much of what you have said here about atheism- but not all of it; and I certainly don't feel constrained to come to your conclusions about the logical necessity of its nihilism. I don't have enough time to respond to all of the points here as thoroughly as they deserve (the beginning of the school year is a busy time for me), but I'll see what I can do.

    I said:

    What you seem to be saying- and this seems to be a common position among Christians- is that my life as an atheist is meaningless because it only lasts a certain amount of time, and then I die. Is this a fair appraisal?

    You replied:

    That’s incomplete. Instead, more accurately, what I am saying is: Within atheism, life is meaningless because the only thing that can give it meaning is the individuals who live their lives, and when they die all their meaning vanishes with them.

    This differs from Christianity because for the Christian meaning in life does not come from our subjective assignment of meaning to it, but from God’s assigning meaning to it. While our lives are short and temporal, God is eternal.


    I see two differences here in how we regard meaning: one, which we agree upon, is that meaning is not eternal for atheists. The other you claim is that meaning is subjective for atheists, and objective (you don't say "objective" in this quote, but later on) for Christians, because it is supplied by God. Fair enough so far?

    For you, just the fact that meaning is not eternal for atheists means that it is not real:

    ... it [life for atheists] is only precious and meaningful in a subjective sense; and once you die, it is no longer precious or meaningful. Furthermore, since you no longer exist, it never was meaningful or precious.

    But how does the fact that I no longer exist after my death mean that my life never was meaningful or precious? If I consider my life to be meaningful and precious now, while I live, who can say that it is not? Once again, you are assuming the truth of your position in analyzing how mine must be for me. You are in no position, however, to say that my life is not meaningful or precious to me while I live. Or do you have some inside knowledge of my heart?

    Your last couple of sentences say the same thing:

    But more importantly, the demise of the Earth is inevitable; how we get there is ultimately unimportant. After all, the final score is the same regardless of how the game is played. There is no point in keeping track of it.

    Again, you are assuming that the evanescence of our lives here renders them meaningless. As I said, you might imagine that to be the case for us atheists, but it's not, at least for me; and what we are talking about here is how it must be for me.

    But this is just a side issue. The main difference in our viewpoints is expressed by you here:

    The problem is not that you must “find” your own meaning, but rather that the atheist must manufacture meaning out of meaninglessness. He must manufacture purpose out of that which has no purpose. He must manufacture value out of that which has no value. It is not like these things exist in the universe waiting to be discovered. Not at all. In atheism, they do not exist at all. Not until someone wills them into existence. And even then, they can only be subjectively held.

    This sounds a little like the typical creationist appeal to incredulity about evolution, and it is actually closely related. Just as the creationist starts from the standpoint that life has some sort of élan vital that requires a Creator, you assume that meaning, and value, and purpose, are all kinds of elemental qualities that can only be willed into existence by an intelligence. And I differ with you, for the same reason: yes, the Universe as a whole has no meaning, just as the Universe as a whole is not alive. But there are parts of the Universe that are alive, and have meaning, because they have evolved. You may disagree here, but again, this current discussion is about what atheism must logically entail for atheists, not about what you believe to be true.

    Here we come to the core problem- you conclude:

    Unfortunately, there is no way that Zilch can make “the world a better place” for his, or anyone else’s, children. In order to use the term “better” he would have to be able to substantiate how the universe ought to be, which he cannot do (there is no “oughtness” apart from purpose). Likewise, he cannot label any actions of people as “good” or “evil” either. Not unless all these terms are simply subjective declarations. And if that’s all they are, they lose any bit of force they had, for why should Zilch’s subjective whims be the rule we go by?

    Here again, you are taking for granted a viewpoint I do not share: that there exist such things as absolute "subjectivity" and "objectivity", and that "subjectivity" is powerless to say anything about purpose, or good and evil, that is not just a "whim" with "no force". In my worldview, "objectivity" and "subjectivity" are also evolved entities (they only exist where life exists, and thus have evolved with life). They are not separate opposites, but directions along a continuum. For instance, the laws of physics are pretty "objective", my taste in music is pretty "subjective".

    Morals are somewhere in between: since they are also evolved entities, and have played a role in our differential reproductive success (they have increased our evolutionary fitness), they are not arbitrary, any more than our ability to, say, spit out bitter foods is arbitrary: good and evil are partially our genetic heritage, which evolved in the biosphere, of being social animals; and partly our cultural heritage, which evolved in the ideosphere, of patterns that work, more or less well, to build societies. As such, they show a fair amount of variability across cultures (for instance, in what clothing is deemed appropriate), but also a fair amount of similarity (most cultures deem murder within the tribe to be bad). Religion is an evolved entity too (you are probably getting tired of all these "evolved entities", but that's the way I see it), which is a combination of hard-won wisdom in the form of rules that work (more or less well) to build societies, stories to make the rules easier to learn and understand, and a carrot-and-stick wielding God to cajole and threaten compliance with the rules.

    I'm sure that you and I have many areas of broad agreement about what is right and wrong, and while you might attribute that to a God who works in both of us, my explanation is an evolutionary one. While this may be hard for you to believe, I feel no reason to despair at having a limited time here, or at not having an absolute objective source for my morality. I can well appreciate the attractiveness of a worldview that includes eternal life and a guidebook to behavior, but since I don't believe in either one, I don't feel I'm missing out on anything.

    cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

    p.s. I can't get the blockquote to work here- I get the message that my html cannot be accepted. Any suggestions?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I use italics for the other guy's quote to which I'm responding.
    Boldface is fine too - I can understand the back and forth just fine, zilch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, rhology. I usually do use italics. I'm just nonplussed that Blogger didn't accept my blockquote html, and I'm curious how to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zilch,

    First: yes, it's Peter. If you're refering to my "CalvinDude" site in the "(or Calvin?)" that's because that was my internet chat handle, since I'm a Calvinist. :-)

    Second: nope, blockquotes don't work in the comments section. That's why I use the label technique that I do below. Italics and bold work fine too.

    Anyway, you said:
    ---
    I don't have enough time to respond to all of the points here as thoroughly as they deserve (the beginning of the school year is a busy time for me), but I'll see what I can do.
    ---

    Don't worry about it. Entire books can be written on this subject. We're just doing an overview anyway.

    You said:
    ---
    I see two differences here in how we regard meaning: one, which we agree upon, is that meaning is not eternal for atheists. The other you claim is that meaning is subjective for atheists, and objective (you don't say "objective" in this quote, but later on) for Christians, because it is supplied by God. Fair enough so far?
    ---

    As long as you keep in mind the qualification I made that for the Christian is objective for us. For God it would still be subjective, since He's a subject (as well as an object).

    BTW, I'm going to skip a bit for a moment because the subjective/objective difference appears to be something we need to clarify as we continue.

    You said on subjectivity/objectivity:
    ---
    Here again, you are taking for granted a viewpoint I do not share: that there exist such things as absolute "subjectivity" and "objectivity", and that "subjectivity" is powerless to say anything about purpose, or good and evil, that is not just a "whim" with "no force". In my worldview, "objectivity" and "subjectivity" are also evolved entities (they only exist where life exists, and thus have evolved with life). They are not separate opposites, but directions along a continuum. For instance, the laws of physics are pretty "objective", my taste in music is pretty "subjective".
    ---

    The problem with this is that by definition objective truths do not depend on the subject. If something is subjectively true, it depends on the subject for its truth value; if something is objectively true, it is true regardless of what any subject thinks, feels, or imagines.

    Given that neither one of us believes in a brain-in-the-vat scenario, the following example might be better: The existence of the moon is objective because it really exists even if someone never sees it or chooses to disbelieve in its existence; "I don't like spinach" is a subjective truth because it's not true for all subjects.

    And finally, one other thing I did was to point out that something that is subjective for God is still objective for us. That is, because God created the world, even if we say that His views are subjective because He has the force of law on His side and we cannot go beyond the bounds He has set, a subjective truth for God will function as an objective truth for us. That is, if God decrees that murder is wrong, it is wrong for everyone God created regardless of whether we subjectively choose to ignore this, and regardless of whether or not God's decree is His own subjective desire.

    Anyway, back to the order you originally wrote in. You said:
    ---
    But how does the fact that I no longer exist after my death mean that my life never was meaningful or precious?
    ---

    Because your meaning is illusory. It's a pipe dream. It's fictional.

    Put it this way. How can you differentiate between what is meaningful and what is not meaningful in an atheist universe? You say: "My life has meaning because I choose for it to have meaning" but what is the meaning of your choice? What impact does it have on the universe? None whatsoever.

    Again, the basic concept we agree on, for you say:
    ---
    ...yes, the Universe as a whole has no meaning, just as the Universe as a whole is not alive.
    ---

    My point is that if the universe as a whole is meaningless, so too is whatever meaning you wish to impose upon your life. You are just as meaningless as the rest of the universe. The only difference is that you don't realize you are.

    And far from arguing from my beliefs, this is 100% from the atheist presuppositions. After all, in my view the universe does have a meaning as a whole as well as its parts.

    You said:
    ---
    This sounds a little like the typical creationist appeal to incredulity about evolution, and it is actually closely related.
    ---

    Actually, it has nothing to do with evolution. Ironically, I almost mentioned something about survival of the fittest in my first response (I'll add it here), but since it was a side issue I didn't. Ultimately, it doesn't matter where you think you got your meaning from (whether it evolved or via any other atheistic method you come up with), that meaning is still meaningless.

    As to what I was going to say on natural selection: Assuming evolution is true, then we all exist now because we have survivability advantages over other organisms that are not here. This would include our beliefs and our psychological concepts of meaning. (This indeed seems to track with what you said too.)

    Given that, the search for meaning must give rational creatures a survivability advantage. Otherwise, why would we have evolved the religious views and psychological crutches that we did?

    So our evolution causes us to long to survive, which requires us to ignore the objective reality of our universe. There is no meaning, but in order for us to survive we have to pretend there is meaning.

    This is compelling reason for me to state that even on pure naturalistic principals, consistent nihilism logically results in the suicide of the individuals who hold to it. To avoid suicide, atheists pretend their lives have meaning (again, they claim the same of the religionist, but under atheism both sides believe a fiction).

    Evolution, in other words, teaches us to lie to ourselves about the nature of the world lest we kill ourselves for seeing how pointless and irrelevant our lives are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, and I guess I should explain since you're in Vienna and might not know this, "Zilch" in English (or at least American English) refers to "zero" or "nothing" as in the statement, "zero, zilch, nada." Thus, the title of my post was a play on words, since your handle is Zilch and the final score in atheism is nothing (and of course, the "zero, zilch, nada" concept refers to nihilism, coming from the Latin nihil meaning "nothing"). That's all I meant by say "Zilch: The Final Score In Atheism" :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Evolution, in other words, teaches us to lie to ourselves about the nature of the world lest we kill ourselves for seeing how pointless and irrelevant our lives are.

    Why would that make you kill yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul C. asked:
    ---
    Why would that make you kill yourself?
    ---

    There are a couple of ways I could answer this. First: have you ever interacted with a nihilist? ....My point exactly.

    More seriously, I addressed this in my previous comments (on the original blog post Steve wrote) with Zilch so you can look there too. However, to add a bit more here (again, from atheistic principals): what is the urge to survive within organisms? It's an accident of evolution, that's all. It might even be the inevitable result of evolution, since those organisms that lack that urge will tend to die out and those with the urge would live on to produce offspring, etc.

    But just because something is doesn't mean something ought to be that way. That is, just because we've come about from creatures with a survivability instinct doesn't mean that's what we ought to have.

    Since we've also evolved intelligence, then we're able to separate the is/ought and look at the world and see there is no reason to live. Anything we claim as a reason is a fiction that evolution has selected for only by accident. The universe itself provides no reason to live.

    So the bias towards life that we have is irrelevant. In fact, it is worse than irrelevant: it is delusion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've read your comments on that other post. They don't provide a particularly compelling case. In general I enjoy my life; if I face the situation where I can no longer enjoy my life, I'll choose to end it. How is that inconsistent?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paul,

    I don't deny that my argument is not compelling for you. After all, I've already stated that atheists are inconsistent, and as such they believe that life is a good thing to maintain even though there is no basis for this within atheism.

    What is interesting is you state:
    ---
    In general I enjoy my life; if I face the situation where I can no longer enjoy my life, I'll choose to end it. How is that inconsistent?
    ---

    THAT concept is not what's inconsistent. What's inconsistent with your atheism is that you find enjoyment in your life in the first place.

    Why do you enjoy your life? You can list the reasons and examine them, and you'll see that (under atheistic principals) they're all based on lies about the nature of the universe. This is the point of inconsistency.

    Whatever you use to gain enjoyment from the universe is nothing more than an opium for you. It's a drug that evolution exploits to make you think life is worth living, when in reality if you got off the drug and viewed it objectively you'd see that none of it matters.

    Now that is all from the atheistic perspective.

    From the Christian perspective, of course, it's not the same thing at all. Life matters because God created us with a purpose, etc. We are supposed to get enjoyment from the universe; that's why it's there. But in atheism, there is no reason for the universe to be the way it is, and your enjoyment of any aspect of it is pure accident that happens to be selected for by natural selection, and nothing more. Your enjoyment is a delusion; it is not objectively viewing the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's a drug that evolution exploits to make you think life is worth living, when in reality if you got off the drug and viewed it objectively you'd see that none of it matters.

    I don't think that any of it matters, but I enjoy it nonetheless. I still fail to see why you think this would make somebody commit suicide.

    Your enjoyment is a delusion; it is not objectively viewing the universe.

    It's certainly not objective, because the word is meaningless in this context. But why do you use the word delusion? I realise that my enjoyment of - for example - music is solely based on the fact that my brain is built from it, but that doesn't take away my enjoyment of it in the least.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peter- first off, I was just joshing you about your pun in the title of this post: I'm well aware of the meaning of "zilch". Being in Vienna doesn't necessarily mean that I don't have a pretty good command of English.

    Second- you say:

    The problem with this is that by definition objective truths do not depend on the subject. If something is subjectively true, it depends on the subject for its truth value; if something is objectively true, it is true regardless of what any subject thinks, feels, or imagines.

    The problem with this definition of "objective" and "subjective" truth is that it renders just about everything subjective: only in the realm of systems of formal logic, such as mathematics, could something be said to be objectively true. Anything else: descriptions of the orbit of the Moon, evolutionary theory, my taste in music, is all subjective, because all of these things are dependent upon what someone thinks. If a "truth" is a description or model of some part of the Universe, it is necessarily imperfect, and thus subjective. So this definition isn't really useful.

    If you loosen the definition such that some descriptions of the way things are, for instance "the Moon exists", are accepted as being objective, you still have a continuum between objective and subjective. If I say "there's a big rock in the sky", is that still objectively true? What if I say "the vaults of heaven are glorified by the passage of a silvery orb"? It's easy to forget that "truth" is not "the way things are", but a description or model of the way things are, which is more or less accurate and more or less subjective. The real world is the only instantiation of "the way it is".

    If you still insist upon a clean separation of "objective" and "subjective", consider this: Suppose I drop my ten-kilo sledge hammer on my toe. Hasn't happened yet, but it could. You would consider the fact that I dropped the hammer on my toe to be an "objective" truth, no? But consider what follows: the hammer insults my nerves, which send the bad news to my spinal chord, precipitating a reflex which jerks my foot away, alas, too late. The train of electrochemical impulses continues its way up to my brain, where it causes me to yell and feel pain, still before I'm conscious of what happened. After a long time (about half a second) I become aware of what I did, and grab my toe and hop around the workshop. At some point I reflect that it might have been a good idea to dry my hands after washing them so they wouldn't be so slippery, and feel like a fool for behaving so stupidly.

    I imagine you would say that my feeling like a fool is "subjective". Pray tell, where in this train of events does "objective" become "subjective"? There is no line you can draw that is not arbitrary.

    I realize perfectly that philosophers- and theologians- define "objective" and "subjective" differently, such that they can be cleanly separated. This, and similar definitions made without examining whether or not they can be usefully applied to the real world, is the reason that so much of philosophy ends up just being elegant constructions of words set to chasing their own tails, but not useful tools that can tell us anything.

    I asked:

    But how does the fact that I no longer exist after my death mean that my life never was meaningful or precious?

    You replied:

    Because your meaning is illusory. It's a pipe dream. It's fictional.

    Again, that's your view, not mine, nor that of most atheists.

    Put it this way. How can you differentiate between what is meaningful and what is not meaningful in an atheist universe? You say: "My life has meaning because I choose for it to have meaning" but what is the meaning of your choice? What impact does it have on the universe? None whatsoever.

    Again, this is what you believe, not what I believe. I'm not sure what you mean with "the meaning of your choice", but what I decide has meaning, and my choices based on that meaning, most certainly do have an impact on the universe- a very small one, to be sure.

    I said:

    ...yes, the Universe as a whole has no meaning, just as the Universe as a whole is not alive.

    You replied:

    My point is that if the universe as a whole is meaningless, so too is whatever meaning you wish to impose upon your life. You are just as meaningless as the rest of the universe. The only difference is that you don't realize you are.

    So you are saying that if the universe as a whole has no meaning, then no part of the universe can have meaning? That doesn't make sense- the universe as a whole is not iron or green or alive, but parts of it are iron or green or alive, no? Again, you are assuming that "meaning" is some sort of primal quality, like the laws of physics, and if the universe as a whole cannot be described as being "meaningful", then no part of it can be "meaningful" either.

    And far from arguing from my beliefs, this is 100% from the atheist presuppositions. After all, in my view the universe does have a meaning as a whole as well as its parts.

    That's fine, if you believe that the universe as a whole does have a meaning, but that says nothing about my atheistic beliefs. You continue to presuppose that atheists must believe as you do, but that is not the case.

    You go on, about my stand on evolution:

    Ultimately, it doesn't matter where you think you got your meaning from (whether it evolved or via any other atheistic method you come up with), that meaning is still meaningless.

    Again, to you it's meaningless: not to me, as I've explained. And we are still talking about the "atheist viewpoint", aren't we?

    As to what I was going to say on natural selection: Assuming evolution is true, then we all exist now because we have survivability advantages over other organisms that are not here. This would include our beliefs and our psychological concepts of meaning. (This indeed seems to track with what you said too.)

    With reservations, yes. Now that we have achieved a degree of freedom from want, we are less constrained to have only beliefs that are accurate or even fitness enhancing, and we can still thrive: if you are rich enough, you can believe just about anything.

    Given that, the search for meaning must give rational creatures a survivability advantage. Otherwise, why would we have evolved the religious views and psychological crutches that we did?

    Yep, that seems pretty obvious.

    So our evolution causes us to long to survive, which requires us to ignore the objective reality of our universe. There is no meaning, but in order for us to survive we have to pretend there is meaning.

    Nope. What "objective reality" must we ignore? As I said, there is meaning in the universe, or rather many meanings. Once more, you are assuming your position to be true- I don't have to pretend. If you can prove to me that there is a God, that would be a different story.

    This is compelling reason for me to state that even on pure naturalistic principals, consistent nihilism logically results in the suicide of the individuals who hold to it. To avoid suicide, atheists pretend their lives have meaning (again, they claim the same of the religionist, but under atheism both sides believe a fiction).

    With all due respect, what atheists have you been talking to? I don't know anyone myself who believes that there is no meaning in their lives. And there is nothing "logical" about being compelled to commit suicide, because one believes life has no meaning: one could easily believe that life has no meaning, but decide to live a life of meaningless fun and games- no pretense necessary.

    Evolution, in other words, teaches us to lie to ourselves about the nature of the world lest we kill ourselves for seeing how pointless and irrelevant our lives are.

    Say what? Sorry, that's just bizarre. Why would evolution teach us that? Perhaps that's the message you get, but that's not what I see and hear and feel.

    cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul c- what you say. Peter assumes the truth of his standpoint in assessing how life must be for atheists. This is particularly clear in this statement:

    But just because something is doesn't mean something ought to be that way. That is, just because we've come about from creatures with a survivability instinct doesn't mean that's what we ought to have.

    Since we've also evolved intelligence, then we're able to separate the is/ought and look at the world and see there is no reason to live.


    That might be true if one presupposes an eternal Ought. But since, in the atheist view, such a thing does not exist, but rather all "oughts" are evolved entities, then this cannot be the position of the naturalist, but only the imagination of someone who already believes. Of course there are reasons to live: they are evolved, not eternal, and peculiar to us humans, but they are the only kinds of reasons we have. From the point of view of an atheist, naturally.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I hate to be an asshole, but you do realize that this has NOTHING to do with God's existance?

    More to the point, critiquing the "atheistic" position is pointless if it is the correct one! Than you are simply complaing that reality doesn't conform to your desires- suck it up!

    ReplyDelete
  14. But there's no reason to "suck it up" even if the atheists are right, unlikely as that is. Why should we? Because it's somehow 'better' by your meaningless subjective viewpoint?

    Pike is right. Atheists are hardly ever consistent in their worldview - you really don't get what you're advocating. You're too busy being anti-theistic to notice what being an atheist intellectually entails.

    So... suck it up. See, it makes sense if a theist says it. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Samuel- you are right; this discussion has nothing to do with God's existence. But what's wrong with that? Peter made a claim about what atheism must logically entail, and I disagree with him. This is a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion, even if we don't consider the existence of God. In fact, the problem I see with Peter's argument is that he smuggles God into the atheist position in various ways, probably unconsciously, in the guise of "objective truth", and eternal "ought" and "meaning", which he assumes without proof to exist. Again, that's fine if he believes these things; but they are not part of the atheistic worldview, at least not of mine, so they don't belong in a discussion of what things are like for us.

    Roger- I'm not anti-theistic, any more than I'm anti-elfistic. I have lots of friends who believe in God, and even a few who believe in elves. I simply don't see any evidence for their existence.

    Peter- I apologize for posting again before you've had a chance to reply, but this struck me as another good point to dissect- you said to Paul:

    Whatever you use to gain enjoyment from the universe is nothing more than an opium for you. It's a drug that evolution exploits to make you think life is worth living, when in reality if you got off the drug and viewed it objectively you'd see that none of it matters.

    Paul already answered one aspect of this. I'd just like to add that from the atheist perspective, what you call "opium" is what we call "reality", and what you call "getting off the drug and viewing life objectively" is what what we would call "getting into an existential funk" or maybe "doing a Sartre", and as Paul said, why should we do that?

    Again, you are smuggling God into the atheist worldview by assuming that there exists some "eternal truth" outside of our lives that we can dimly perceive, and realize that we don't have. Either that, or you are assuming that our belief that there is no eternal truth or life will strike despair into our hearts. Both these assumptions are unwarranted; and merely framing your argument in the derogatory terms of addiction does not a case make.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Zilch,

    First, my comment was directed at Skinner. Though talking about how you're not anti-theistic, then in the same statement equating belief in God with belief in elves, implies you're not as "not anti-theistic" as you say. That's like my saying, "I have no problem with atheists. Why, I have some friends who are cokeheads too." If that sounds like I'm accepting of atheists, you're missing what's implied.

    Still, you say..

    "Either that, or you are assuming that our belief that there is no eternal truth or life will strike despair into our hearts."

    But you just said..

    "I'd just like to add that from the atheist perspective, what you call "opium" is what we call "reality", and what you call "getting off the drug and viewing life objectively" is what what we would call "getting into an existential funk" or maybe "doing a Sartre", and as Paul said, why should we do that?"

    That's contradictory. You say facing reality means getting into an existential funk and becoming like Sartre. Then you say that Peter's making an unwarranted assumption that facing reality is a despairing prospect for an atheist.

    You're only backing up Peter's point. He seems to be arguing that, for the atheist, there's no actual purpose or truth - and therefore the only response is an inconsistent worldview punctuated with pleasures that help distract you. Your reply isn't to deny this - it's to say, "Well, sure, but to us that's all reality has to offer us anyway."

    So, his charge of inconsistency and opiate-seeking holds. It doesn't go away just because you plead that, hey, that's all atheists can be expected to do under their worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Roger - you are still throwing around accusations of "inconsistency" despite the fact that both Zilch and myself have pointed out that there doesn't appear to be an inconsistency. Please can you expand on what inconsistency you see in our positions, because frankly I just don't see it, and as Zilch has pointed out, Peter's explanations of that inconsistency seems to rely on the assumption that we share the same assumptions he does about the world.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Roger- you're right, I did jump on a comment addressed to someone else. My bad.

    About my being anti-theistic: if you find my comparison of belief in God to belief in elves offensive, what do you suggest as an alternative? I guess I could say "œther" instead of "elves", if that sounds less silly as an example of something I don't believe in. But we're all adults here, are we not? And while I think that believers in God are mistaken, that doesn't mean that I think them less intelligent, or less worthwhile people, than me- my best friend here in Vienna is a pious Catholic, and he's at least as smart as I am, and that's saying something :lol:

    You say, about my "translation" of Peter's opium riff:

    That's contradictory. You say facing reality means getting into an existential funk and becoming like Sartre. Then you say that Peter's making an unwarranted assumption that facing reality is a despairing prospect for an atheist.

    I probably didn't express myself clearly. It is confusing to represent another's viewpoint of one's own viewpoint. What I said here is not what I believe, or what I imagine most atheists believe, but what seems to me to be Peter's view of what atheists must believe. For the record, I do not believe that facing reality as an atheist means getting into an existential funk- at least it doesn't mean that for me.

    You go on:

    You're only backing up Peter's point. He seems to be arguing that, for the atheist, there's no actual purpose or truth - and therefore the only response is an inconsistent worldview punctuated with pleasures that help distract you. Your reply isn't to deny this - it's to say, "Well, sure, but to us that's all reality has to offer us anyway."

    Not quite. That is indeed Peter's argument, but what I take issue with is his unexamined and unproven (here at least) assumption that there exists an "actual" (meaning Godgiven, or eternal) truth or purpose, and that the ephemeral, evolved, truths and purposes that I argue for as being the only ones that exist, are therefore meaningless for atheists.

    And you are putting words in my mouth: where did I say that the "only response is an inconsistent worldview punctuated with pleasures that help distract you"? Like Peter, you are trying to ridicule my argument by putting it in derogatory terms. Please point out to me where I have been "inconsistent", and then we can move on.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Minor correction to the last comment: when I said "œther" I meant, of course, "æther". I guess I need either glasses, or a bigger monitor.

    Æther- you know, the theory that some stuff must permeate space, so light would have a medium in which to propagate itself, like water for waves, which was defenestrated by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1881.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Zilch,

    "But we're all adults here, are we not? And while I think that believers in God are mistaken, that doesn't mean that I think them less intelligent, or less worthwhile people, than me- my best friend here in Vienna is a pious Catholic, and he's at least as smart as I am, and that's saying something"

    It was a minor point, not one I wish to dwell on. And frankly, as someone who says they are an atheist who believes those who believe in God are mistaken, yet doesn't believe them to be 'less intelligent, or less worthwhile people' - you are in, at least vocally, what comes across as an atheist minority. Especially nowadays.

    If you want to, take it as friendly advice. Saying that belief in God is equivalent to belief in elves is as polite as my saying belief in (a position you hold that I disagree with) is equivalent to belief in elves. From my perspective it could be true - 'they're both equally false' - but it trivializes, unfairly, the position.

    "Like Peter, you are trying to ridicule my argument by putting it in derogatory terms. Please point out to me where I have been "inconsistent", and then we can move on."

    How can this be the case? What I said was based on an interpretation of your words, which you just said you should have expressed more clearly. I'm only going on Peter's claim and your responses here so far - it's all I can really do at this point.

    Nevertheless...

    "and that the ephemeral, evolved, truths and purposes that I argue for as being the only ones that exist, are therefore meaningless for atheists."

    This goes to the heart of the matter. I'll try to put the view in my own terms.

    You're an atheist. I'm going to take this to mean that the existence of God/gods - any God/gods - is not a live option for you. So you can't take the position of doubting but hoping, or agnosticism. And I haven't really seen you object to Peter's depiction of the universe from the perspective of the atheist - everything we see is the result of meaningless, unintended chance, everything will die and be forever gone, there exists no objective (as in, overseeing and eternal) standards and therefore values, etc.

    Your response seems to be, sure, but atheists can still find subjective meaning - and in fact subjective meaning becomes really important, because to an atheist that's all there is. And at least subjective meaning is meaningful to the subject.

    One problem is that you know how pointless your 'meaning' is by virtue of your position. Remember, you're not taking an agnostic stance, or a stance amenable to ultimate hope. The universe really IS the product of blind, purposeless force for you. The universe really DOES offer you no ultimate hope. Nothing you create will last. Nothing you are will last. Nothing you strive for will last. You know the future with certainty - oblivion across the board, in every way that could ever matter.

    Once you accept this much, it brackets what kind of 'meaning' you can have and still be considered reasonable and consistent. Strive to build a better future? Better by whose standards? Yours, the guy who will be dead when it's playing out? For who? All the people who will soon and inevitably die and fade into eternal oblivion? You already know what the future holds across the board, and your position rules out any real hope as a rule. Any 'better future' you can hope for is the equivalent of building a sand castle within reach of the tide, knowingly.

    So what sort of meaning are you really left with? At best, I think it's as Peter said:

    "Whatever you use to gain enjoyment from the universe is nothing more than an opium for you. It's a drug that evolution exploits to make you think life is worth living, when in reality if you got off the drug and viewed it objectively you'd see that none of it matters."

    The best response to this so far has been, 'Okay, it all doesn't matter. But I can still enjoy myself. And I'll just kill myself if I stop enjoying myself.' Put aside any questions of the sense and desire of life with such a view. The fact is, this is pretty much subjective value at its maximum for an atheist - 'I'll do what I want when I want if I can, just because.' And a whole lot of the inconsistency shows up for atheists who believe, or act as if they believe, there's more to life than what's been stated. When you talk about building a better society knowing there is no real 'better' and such a society is not just possibly but certainly doomed besides, you're inconsistent. When you talk about morality or right and wrong as true or objective measures while knowing they ultimately mean nothing, you're inconsistent. When you talk about how other people are deluded as if the truth or falsity of their delusion is objectively desirable or undesirable, you're being inconsistent. Your only real consistent grounding is 'Nothing matters, but this is what I personally like at this moment'.

    Now, maybe you'll plead that you're personally consistent. I part ways with Peter Pike in that I don't expect that every single atheist is certainly inconsistent - but I think that the vast majority simply haven't thought their positions to the inevitable conclusion. And it's hard to deny that atheism is absolutely rife with people who talk about good and evil, progress and regress, purpose and other things in language and with premises that imply or require a theistic viewpoint - as in, objective standards, ultimate hope, etc. But in the end, it all comes down to 'what makes me feel good right now'. It really is an opiate, whether you're agitating for laws or a future you personally prefer, or actually taking an opiate - the only purpose in play, that can possibly be in play, is 'that's what I want'. And you don't even have the option of conditioning your wants to a better, objective standard, because that can't exist in your worldview. The only option available is 'get more satisfaction somehow'. Oddly enough, if an atheist isn't inconsistent by accident (not thinking through their positions), they can still be purposefully inconsistent, because 'being consistent' is not itself an objectively desirable goal for an atheist besides. If consistency gets in the way of satisfaction, they can chuck it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. BTW, today I am pressed for time so I will respond in greater detail later. A couple of quick things though.

    First, I'm glad to see that Roger has understood my points :-)

    Secondly, if the charge is that I continue to smuggle "God concepts" into the debate, and yet I argue (as Zilch states) like Sarte, then is that not a tacit admission that Sarte smuggled "God concepts" into his philosophy? Something for ye atheists to ponder there...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'd like to thank Peter, Roger and Zilch for a debate that hasn't descended into name-calling. This comment may change that, of course ;) since I must pull Roger up on a couple of things. Firstly, when you say

    The best response to this so far has been, 'Okay, it all doesn't matter. But I can still enjoy myself. And I'll just kill myself if I stop enjoying myself.'

    it's worth remembering that a) that's not actually what I said, b) it's only the "best" response that has been posted here, and c) it was a specific response to a specific point, which was Peter's essential claim that the logical outcome of lack of belief in God is to kill oneself on the basis that life is a vale of sorrows without any hope. The problem with that argument is that the idea that life is a vale of sorrows without any hope simply doesn't bother me even if it's true. One major problem you face is that if it is true, then you're the one using an opiate (of the masses, but an opiate nonetheless), since whether or not it's a comfortable thought is irrelevant to whether it's true. Luckily my personal experience is that this isn't the whole truth - and trust me, I've seen the worst that the world can do to people at first hand - but I would understand if that's not enough for you to find meaning in your own life.

    When you talk about building a better society knowing there is no real 'better' and such a society is not just possibly but certainly doomed besides, you're inconsistent. When you talk about morality or right and wrong as true or objective measures while knowing they ultimately mean nothing, you're inconsistent. When you talk about how other people are deluded as if the truth or falsity of their delusion is objectively desirable or undesirable, you're being inconsistent.

    None of these are true, unfortunately, and your own language shows it. A "better" society is a relative concept (better rather than best) and so is perfectly consistent - even if we disagree what might constitute a better society (but that's why we have politics). The idea that morality "ultimately" has to mean something is a notion that you adhere to, not one that I adhere to - and talking about objective morality is meaningless to me, not talking about morality in general. Delusion is simply a question of whether people's beliefs match to perceived reality, so is eminently consistent. I still don't see inconsistency, and I wonder whether you see inconsistency simply because you are unable to empathise sufficiently to understand other people's perspectives.

    I part ways with Peter Pike in that I don't expect that every single atheist is certainly inconsistent - but I think that the vast majority simply haven't thought their positions to the inevitable conclusion.

    The problem is that - as Zilch has pointed out - you seem to think that you are in a position to do our thinking for us. You're not; and even if you were, we have no reason to be believe that your thinking is any less consistent than ours might be. Humans are inconsistent, theist and atheist alike - you'll just have to learn to live with that.

    And it's hard to deny that atheism is absolutely rife with people who talk about good and evil, progress and regress, purpose and other things in language and with premises that imply or require a theistic viewpoint - as in, objective standards, ultimate hope, etc.

    Or position is that none of those things necessarily require a theistic viewpoint, no matter how much you might wish it so. I don't share the views of atheists who talk about good and evil, but I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss them out of hand.

    But in the end, it all comes down to 'what makes me feel good right now'. It really is an opiate, whether you're agitating for laws or a future you personally prefer, or actually taking an opiate - the only purpose in play, that can possibly be in play, is 'that's what I want'.

    I can only speak for myself. It's not "what makes me feel good right now", it's "what I feel adds value to my life and the lives of others"; something which doesn't appear to be inconsistent with anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul C,

    "The problem with that argument is that the idea that life is a vale of sorrows without any hope simply doesn't bother me even if it's true."

    Who said vale of sorrows? Sorrow's as meaningless as happiness under the worldview. At most it's the other side of the coin to an opiate - a thing to avoid. By not thinking about, not recognizing, or general... well. Inconsistency.

    "One major problem you face is that if it is true, then you're the one using an opiate (of the masses, but an opiate nonetheless), since whether or not it's a comfortable thought is irrelevant to whether it's true."

    What we're talking about here is worldviews. Not actual truth. Your worldview, regardless of its truth, only allows for the opiates because that's all it can possibly allow for. My worldview allows for much more - again, it may well be wrong. Yes, maybe my worldview is correct, or closer to correct than yours. Yes, maybe the opposite is true. But my worldview allows me not just happiness, but eternal hope, a chance at objective meaningfulness, at objective value, etc. You don't even have the possibility for these things, because your view of the world has utterly ruled them out. Your options are extraordinarily limited.

    You insist you can be happy that way. But I haven't said you can't be. I think Peter said as much as well. The reasons you can be happy in that worldview are the interesting thing.

    "None of these are true, unfortunately, and your own language shows it. A "better" society is a relative concept (better rather than best) and so is perfectly consistent - even if we disagree what might constitute a better society (but that's why we have politics). The idea that morality "ultimately" has to mean something is a notion that you adhere to, not one that I adhere to - and talking about objective morality is meaningless to me, not talking about morality in general. Delusion is simply a question of whether people's beliefs match to perceived reality, so is eminently consistent. I still don't see inconsistency, and I wonder whether you see inconsistency simply because you are unable to empathise sufficiently to understand other people's perspectives."

    Again, I already said that I do not say absolutely every atheist must be inconsistent in their viewpoints. But there's quite a number of them who do use the language I outlined. Who talk about a 'better' society as if there is an objective standard, they're going by, rather than a radically subjective one. "Better because I say so." Who talk about good and evil, and morality as if there is a definite standard in play, when the only one available is "Right because I say so." Even delusion itself is only subjectively bad by an atheist worldview. In an atheist world, the fact that someone, even everyone, thinks 2+2=5 is at most a tragedy and negative thing by subjective individual viewpoint. It's not actually bad. It's merely irksome, because it irks you.

    "The problem is that - as Zilch has pointed out - you seem to think that you are in a position to do our thinking for us. You're not; and even if you were, we have no reason to be believe that your thinking is any less consistent than ours might be. Humans are inconsistent, theist and atheist alike - you'll just have to learn to live with that."

    Yes, I think I'm able to examine the premises many atheists necessarily operate with, watch their language and their beliefs, and find inconsistencies. It's not mind-reading, it's observation. If you disagree, that's fine. Oddly enough, you chide me for having the apparent gall to judge many atheists as inconsistent, then reply 'Well, everyone is inconsistent'. Wonderful, then we're in partial agreement. Why are you arguing with me if you agree that they're inconsistent? Is 'maybe you're inconsistent too!' the best reply here?

    "I can only speak for myself. It's not "what makes me feel good right now", it's "what I feel adds value to my life and the lives of others"; something which doesn't appear to be inconsistent with anything else."

    And advocating what you feel adds admittedly subjective "value" to your life and others doesn't make you feel good? Sorry, it's the same thing, regardless of the value. And once it's realized that "what you feel adds value to your life and others" absolutely cannot be based on an idea of objective value or true right, but "whatever you like", the statement devolves anyway.

    You do what you like because you like it, with no hope of anything more than that (other than a leap off a cliff if this gets too problematic to achieve). Because that's where the worldview leaves you by necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks for the replies, guys. If no one minds, I'd like to respond to them in reverse order, just 'cuz.

    Paul- again, what you said. The one point where we seem to be coming from different places is here, where you say:

    I don't share the views of atheists who talk about good and evil, but I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss them out of hand.

    Talk about good and evil is certainly something that divides atheists and believers in various ways. My view is that while I don't believe in an absolute good and evil, either from God or from Nature, I do believe that the entities "good" and "evil" started off as genetically evolved traits of social animals, most highly developed in humans, and that we have further embroidered upon them in our development of customs, religions, and laws.

    They were and continue to be selected for, in the biosphere and the ideosphere, because they work, more or less well, to build societies, which are a very successful way of life: for instance, the most successful insects, at least in terms of biomass, are the ants, the termites, and the bees. You might justifiably say of them that they have "absolute" concepts of good and evil, written in their DNA. Of course, humans usually hanker for a bit more individual freedom in their societies, so they are not necessarily good role models, unless you like totalitarian states.

    As I've said, that means that while for humans, good and evil are not fixed in stone, they are not arbitrary either, and the same kind of workable ideas come up independently over and over again: the Golden Rule is one example. As you say, Paul, politics is one way that societies try to make rules that keep them running: religion is another. So perhaps it is only a matter of definition in which we differ here.

    Peter: While I don't know why Sartre came to the conclusions he did, I suspect that you might be right: he, too, was either smuggling God into his viewpoint, or was hoping for something more out of life. Of course, the fact that he had a rather strange upbringing, and was sick his whole life, probably had an influence on his character too. In any case, I don't take him as a role model; and while I consider him a great novelist, I don't subscribe to his philosophy. In the same way, I imagine that you might agree with Martin Luther about a lot of things, but not necessarily with his idea that Jews should be banished and witches tortured.

    Roger- first off, thanks for your nicely put reply. As I have said, my main interest in dialog with believers is to promote peaceful coexistence, and while it's occasionally funny to laugh at the foibles of others, it doesn't make the world a better place to live in. And none of us is perfect: didn't someone wise once say something about motes and beams? Good advice, and as George Santayana (also no dummy) once said, all cynicism masks a failure to cope.

    Me, I'm pretty thick-skinned. So if you say that for you, atheism is comparable to believing in elves, that's fine- I'm not insulted. If I were a believer, I would probably say the same thing.

    In any case, you seem to hold basically the same position as Peter: that any meaning or value we atheists find in life is not "real" or "objective" because it is ephemeral, and any concern we have for improving the world is likewise meaningless, because the world will not last forever anyway. You express this very poetically here:

    Any 'better future' you can hope for is the equivalent of building a sand castle within reach of the tide, knowingly.

    I can only say this: yes, all our lives, and the futures of our children and the whole planet, are all sand castles. From my point of view, building sand castles is all we can do: believers as well as atheists. But as I've said, that's no reason to despair: life, and meaning, and the very rocks of our Earth, are all ephemeral, but as Hobbes said to Calvin, "I'll take it anyway".

    Perhaps from the standpoint of believers who think that they are trading in infinite bliss in Heaven granted by an infinite God, this seems like a pittance. All I can say is, the Earth and its life are incomprehensibly old, complex, beautiful, and wonderful. For a believer to dismiss that as being "meaningless" and "hopeless" seems to me to be, well, a bit arrogant. For my part, I will continue to live, love, and learn, and do what I can to make the best sand castles I'm able to, for myself and my children.

    cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  25. Zilch,

    "I do believe that the entities "good" and "evil" started off as genetically evolved traits of social animals, most highly developed in humans, and" ...

    That's nice. But if the atheists who put those words to use stipulated as much, it would lose the meaning for both theists and the atheist himself. It's like the old claim of "Atheists can be just as moral as theists". I've heard it repeated time and again, but once the phrase is examined - and it inevitably devolves into 'Well by moral I mean atheists are entirely capable of constructing a value system, such as what Peter Singer does with utilitarianism' or 'In principle an atheist can agree with every political or social position a theist does that isn't purely God-related' - it turns up empty.

    "In any case, you seem to hold basically the same position as Peter: that any meaning or value we atheists find in life is not "real" or "objective" because it is ephemeral, and any concern we have for improving the world is likewise meaningless, because the world will not last forever anyway."

    As Peter already said, this isn't about the world itself, or even personal immortality. The world can have a variety of purposes for the theist (depending on the faith or particulars), even if it does ultimately go away. There can be objective and true purpose, meaning, etc under the theist viewpoint. Hope is always a live, a very live option. All these things are void for the atheist. The worldview doesn't even allow hope, because it's decisive.

    Even 'improving the world, for a little while' doesn't mean anything, because those words mean something vastly different when spoken by an atheist. For a theist - even a deist - there exists the possibility that you truly have made the world a better place, because there's a true objective measure in play. Actually, or potentially. For the atheist, all this can mean is 'I like the world more now'. That's all you can get. This before the further questions of whether it lasts or not.

    "All I can say is, the Earth and its life are incomprehensibly old, complex, beautiful, and wonderful. For a believer to dismiss that as being "meaningless" and "hopeless" seems to me to be, well, a bit arrogant."

    We don't. But we have every reason not to - because our worldview enables us to find meaning and hope in it, in abundance. The meaning is not merely subjective, and the hope is actual.

    Meanwhile, your position is to say - sure, it's all pointless, all a result of utter unintended chance, and absolutely everyone and everything is not only doomed to oblivion, but the only value in the world is transitory pleasure and personal judgment of good or evil by fiat. Yet saying it's hopeless (despite admitting there's no hope) or meaningless (despite admitting the only meaning is subjective) is arrogant (which, even if it were, doesn't matter within that worldview).

    That's not arrogant. But... it's inconsistent.

    "Perhaps from the standpoint of believers who think that they are trading in infinite bliss in Heaven granted by an infinite God, this seems like a pittance."

    I don't really believe in infinite bliss, personally. An eternity of some kind, but not utter bliss. And I don't even have to believe in it - I just have to recognize the possibility of hope.

    "For my part, I will continue to live, love, and learn, and do what I can to make the best sand castles I'm able to, for myself and my children."

    You'll live as long as you can unless you don't want to, love who and what you choose to love, and do what you want when possible. Because it pleases you. And it's to be expected, because it's all that can be done in your worldview.

    And really, poetry aside - all this doesn't seem to be in dispute. The only response seems to be 'Alright, it's true, but there's nothing I can do anyway.'

    But honestly, you can. And the first step is to realize it's okay to hope for more than you are. Frankly, considering where your worldview places you now, you have nothing to lose by doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Roger- I'm afraid we're at an impasse. I'll do my best to show you why. I said:

    I do believe that the entities "good" and "evil" started off as genetically evolved traits of social animals, most highly developed in humans, and [...]

    You replied:

    That's nice. But if the atheists who put those words to use stipulated as much, it would lose the meaning for both theists and the atheist himself.

    How so? The fact that good and evil are evolved entities doesn't cause them to lose meaning for me: in fact, it is an ineluctable part of their meaning. Again, I'm sure you and most other theists don't share my viewpoint, but you can't speak for me here. You go on:

    It's like the old claim of "Atheists can be just as moral as theists". I've heard it repeated time and again, but once the phrase is examined - and it inevitably devolves into 'Well by moral I mean atheists are entirely capable of constructing a value system, such as what Peter Singer does with utilitarianism' or 'In principle an atheist can agree with every political or social position a theist does that isn't purely God-related' - it turns up empty.

    Two things. One- I'm a practical man, and as a practical man, I'm far more interested in the ways people actually behave than in their theoretical, or theological, grounds for doing so. And while it's a complex issue, I don't see any reason to believe that atheists behave worse than believers, by and large.

    But more to the point: two, what do you mean by "it turns up empty"? If by that you mean "it turns up not to have any eternal, absolute Truth behind it", then I'll agree, because there ain't no such things. Unless you can demonstrate that there exist such things, I must remind you that we are discussing how the world must be for atheists, not how you believe the world to be. And for me, our morals, being the result of almost four billion years of biological evolution, and tens of thousands of years of cultural evolution, are anything but "empty". Contentious and in continual flux, yes: empty, no.

    Later on, you say:

    The [atheist] worldview doesn't even allow hope, because it's decisive.

    While I'm not sure what you mean by "decisive" here, I beg to differ. I am an atheist, and I hope. Among other things, I hope the world will be a better place for my children. Again, from your perspective, my hope is probably meaningless because it does not include God, but my perspective is what we are talking about here, not yours.

    Here's another example of your assuming the truth of your viewpoint in considering mine:

    The meaning [that believers have] is not merely subjective, and the hope is actual.

    As I said a couple of comments ago, the typical philosophical/theological definition of "objective" and "subjective" makes unexamined, and I believe unsubstantiated, assumptions about the nature of the world. But leaving those aside: following Peter's definition of "subjective", I would say as an atheist that no meanings are "objective", so saying something is "merely" subjective has null information content: everything is subjective in my worldview. The same thing goes for "actual": in my worldview, all hopes are "actual" in the sense that they are feelings people have, and that there is nothing beyond those feelings which could be called "hope". So again, the adjective "actual" has null information content- for me.

    I hope this adequately clears up these issues. As with Peter, I think our disagreements about what atheism must logically entail come from your unexamined assumption that even we atheists must believe that something more than what we experience is out there. This is betrayed by your's, and Peter's, continual use of words that have no meaning in this context for us atheists: "actual", "objective", and the various eternal and unchanging varieties of "ought", "meaning", "purpose", and suchlike. While these all have meaning within your theological worldview, they have referents in which atheists don't believe, so they don't apply to our worldview.

    And your use of words to describe how things must seem to us is equally revealing: "transitory", "hopeless", "meaningless", "subjective", "opiate", etc. Again, you are speaking from the standpoint of the believer: but that's not how the world seems to us.

    When it boils down, it seems to me that what you and Peter are saying is basically: "We have God, Absolute Truth, and Eternity. You have meaningless pleasure, subjective feelings, and death. You must feel something awful!" Sorry, but I don't believe in God, I am clearheaded and logical, and I don't feel awful- in fact, I feel pretty good. And until you can show me anything inconsistent about my position, which you have failed to do so far, or prove to me that God exists, then I will continue to be a happy, fulfilled atheist.

    cheers from cloudy Vienna, zilch.

    Btw- if any of you are ever in Vienna, or in the SF Bay Area in the summer, drop me a line, and the drinks are on me.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Zilch,

    "How so? The fact that good and evil are evolved entities doesn't cause them to lose meaning for me: in fact, it is an ineluctable part of their meaning."

    I gave an example. It's not that they're evolved entities that makes them meaningless - theists don't deny one can make progress on the discourse and thought of moral topics. It's that they're reduced to social labels that are the result of pointless interaction, and that this is what must be the case by your worldview.

    "And while it's a complex issue, I don't see any reason to believe that atheists behave worse than believers, by and large."

    You don't? You couldn't. The only thing you recognize as a real standard, and the only thing you can recognize as such a standard, is ultimately subjective. The best you can do is judge whether some groups behave in close or distant accord with a given subjective view.

    So there is no 'behave worse'. There's 'behave differently than subjectively liked'. The problem is this sort of language pops up a lot between atheists and theists, without realizing the problems of the differences those words must take on between the respective worldviews.

    I'll leave practicality aside for now.

    "I am an atheist, and I hope. Among other things, I hope the world will be a better place for my children. Again, from your perspective, my hope is probably meaningless because it does not include God, but my perspective is what we are talking about here, not yours."

    No - your hope is meaningless because it doesn't even include 'better', or even 'hope'. The only better you can hope for is according to a subjective standard that your children have no reason to share, unless it satisfies them. The only hope you can have is that your desires are satisfied, curtailed to fit an atheist worldview where there is absolutely no hope for objective truth, value, purpose, or otherwise.

    "everything is subjective in my worldview."

    Yep. I notice that neither you nor Paul are really disagreeing with Peter or myself on this subject. Pretty much every point has been ceded about the worldview's content and necessary implications - the only real response has been, 'Yes, but, we like it enough not to kill ourselves yet.'

    "And your use of words to describe how things must seem to us is equally revealing: "transitory", "hopeless", "meaningless", "subjective", "opiate", etc. Again, you are speaking from the standpoint of the believer: but that's not how the world seems to us."

    Again, I'm sure it doesn't. Pete was sure it doesn't either. Because of the inconsistency. At the same time, you really haven't objected to any of the necessary facts and implications of the worldview. At most the response has been as I said: "Well, that's all we have, and we like it enough not to end it yet." That and trying to rephrase the facts so they sound a little more poetic.

    I don't think we're going to get much further than this, though there's one more thing for me to address.

    "When it boils down, it seems to me that what you and Peter are saying is basically: "We have God, Absolute Truth, and Eternity. You have meaningless pleasure, subjective feelings, and death. You must feel something awful!" Sorry, but I don't believe in God, I am clearheaded and logical, and I don't feel awful- in fact, I feel pretty good. And until you can show me anything inconsistent about my position, which you have failed to do so far, or prove to me that God exists, then I will continue to be a happy, fulfilled atheist."

    The inconsistencies have been demonstrated, as have the flaws. The response to the inconsistencies' illumination hasn't really helped. And no one said you feel awful - in fact, again, it's explicitly been pointed out that you likely feel pretty good. That's the only real value that can be achieved, and that's the point of every interaction. You either are good at it, or you end up where Paul C admits atheists end up when they don't feel good anymore.

    But, I don't speak for Pete, so I'll say: My attitude has certainly not been 'I have God, absolute truth, and eternity'. I can be undecided about God and the universe, and still have room for hope for all these things - true meaning, true value, eternity, etc. Now, I do have faith in God, even if I also naturally have doubts at times. I didn't suggest you become a Christian at the drop of the hat, or even believe in God. At most, I said you should consider altering your worldview to accept the possibility of something more than atheism can allow it. At least an agnostic is capable of hoping, and - while I believe theism/deism is the most intellectually persuasive option - doesn't necessitate the certainty of belief you find so arrogant.

    ReplyDelete
  28. *sigh* I was afraid this would happen. Roger, you say "I don't think we're going to get much further than this", and I have to agree. You keep on looking at the atheist worldview through your believer-colored glasses, and judge that we must see it the same way as you. I keep reminding you that the discussion is about what atheism logically entails for atheists, but you and Peter don't seem to be able to take your glasses off, or even acknowledge that you are wearing them.

    Here's another example from your latest post. You say, replying to my stand on good and evil:

    It's that they're reduced to social labels that are the result of pointless interaction, and that this is what must be the case by your worldview.

    Again- and I don't know how I can make it clearer, because I have explained this many times already- this is how it looks to you, but not to us. Saying that good and evil are "reduced to social labels" and are the result of "pointless interactions" presupposes the truth of your viewpoint: that good and evil are something other than evolved entities, and that interactions are "pointless" without something behind them- presumably God, or objectivity, or eternal truth. Good and evil are not "reduced" or "pointless" to atheists, and you have not shown why they must be, except from your point of view.

    About objectivity: you haven't said anything about the problems I see with the standard definition, but perhaps that's a discussion for another time. You say:

    The only thing you recognize as a real standard, and the only thing you can recognize as such a standard, is ultimately subjective. The best you can do is judge whether some groups behave in close or distant accord with a given subjective view.

    As I said before, under Peter's definition of "subjective", all standards are subjective, including whatever standards you claim to get from the Bible- in the atheist viewpoint, of course, and that's what we're talking about. Since there is no objective or absolute standard for morals, we are all in the same boat: atheists as well as believers. I would also argue that even believers who claim to have an objective moral standard can't agree on exactly what it is, and thus render any claim of "objectivity" moot; but that's also a discussion for another time.

    You say:

    The inconsistencies have been demonstrated, as have the flaws.

    If that's the impression you want to take from this discussion, more power to you. However, I don't see that you have demonstrated any inconsistencies or flaws. In order to demonstrate inconsistencies, you would have to show how the atheist worldview contains internal contradictions, and you have not done so. In order to demonstrate flaws, you would have to prove that what you claim is true: that there is a God and thus objective morals. All you have done is go on about how things must be subjective, transitory, and hopeless for us: from your point of view. But we don't share your point of view, and I don't see any reason why we should.

    Roger, you close saying:

    At most, I said you should consider altering your worldview to accept the possibility of something more than atheism can allow it. At least an agnostic is capable of hoping, and - while I believe theism/deism is the most intellectually persuasive option - doesn't necessitate the certainty of belief you find so arrogant.

    Although I call myself an "atheist", all that means for me is that I see no evidence for the existence of God, and thus am inclined to believe, (provisionally, of course, as a good scientist should) that there is no God. I am not so arrogant that I believe I can know that for sure: absolute truths only obtain in systems of formal logic. If I find reasons to believe, I won't stick my fingers in my ears and go "nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you". At least, I try to be open: that's all I can do.

    But what I've seen, and heard, and read, and reasoned, so far, leads me to believe that the natural world is what we've got: no Creator, no Lawgiver, no Heaven or Hell. Nevertheless, as I've said, I do have hope: not hope for eternal life, but hope for a good life for myself, my children, for you and yours, and for everyone else, as long as life exists. And while my hope is for things that are not infinite, life is incomprehensibly complex and wonderful, and mere blip in the cosmos that I am, I cannot even begin to compass the fullness of it.

    That's enough for me. If that's not enough for you, that's fine too: but if you imagine that we must fall into existential despair, since we only have the whole Universe to wonder at, you are simply mistaken.

    cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  29. I concur with pretty much everything that Zilch says, which is unusual because usually I find at least one nit to pick. However I would like to follow up one particular point from Roger (Peter appears to have left the building).

    The inconsistencies have been demonstrated, as have the flaws.

    I'm sorry but I still can't see the inconsistencies in my position, and I've really, really tried. I know that you fervently believe that they're there, but please humour me. Perhaps it would help if you laid out very simply:

    a. An aspect of my belief.
    b. How my behaviour is inconsistent with that belief.

    I will note in advance that there is no inconsistency between my belief that life has no "higher meaning" and my continued enjoyment of life; nor any inconsistency between my belief that the things that give me enjoyment in life are simply the product of my social, biological and cultural heritage and my enjoyment of those things; nor any inconsistency between my belief that there is no objective morality and my personal adherence to positions that are labelled as moral in our society.

    ReplyDelete