Pages

Tuesday, January 03, 2017

Light through the keyhole

At its best, atheist experience is like a man locked away in a pitch black room, daydreaming of summer. Subjective hope.

At its worst, Christian experience is like a man locked away in a windowless, unlit room with a sliver of light shining through the keyhole from the summery world beyond. Objective hope. 

10 comments:

  1. Why is it that theists usually try to have both sides of the conversation? From an obviously profound misunderstanding of what it means to lack belief, Mr. Hays, and I’ve found theists in general, project a fanciful and self serving strawman of what atheism “must mean….” to atheists, to contrast the “joys” of belief against.

    If Mr Hay’s analysis is to be accepted, those things I look forward to each morning must have no value. Things like the love of family, the community of old friends, the joy of meeting new friends, the wonder of nature, the smile of strangers helped, the comfort of helpful strangers. Need I go on? Yes, I know my future ends in oblivion, but I’m not there yet, and I’m too busy enjoying life to live in dread of it. How much more “objective” can something get than every day experience?

    Let’s look too at the “objective hope” that is claimed for believers. A heaven/hell reward/punishment scheme based on moldy books and reinforced with herd mentality. Objective hope for what? Eternal life? I’m waiting for a shred of evidence that anyone has received it. Sounds kind of subjective to me, hope for an idea that has no backing of substance.

    Of course, I have some truly objective fears too, mostly of being messed with by those who take license from their truly subjective hopes and fears to treat others as they would not like to be treated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnUnrepentantThinker

      "Why is it that theists usually try to have both sides of the conversation?...Mr. Hays, and I’ve found theists in general, project a fanciful and self serving strawman of what atheism “must mean….” to atheists, to contrast the “joys” of belief against."

      Many atheists do the same to theists and the religious (e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens).

      "From an obviously profound misunderstanding of what it means to lack belief"

      Are you suggesting atheism is merely a "lack of belief" in God's existence? Nothing more? Like if I'm an a-Londoner? I merely "lack belief" that London exists?

      "If Mr Hay’s analysis is to be accepted, those things I look forward to each morning must have no value. Things like the love of family, the community of old friends, the joy of meeting new friends, the wonder of nature, the smile of strangers helped, the comfort of helpful strangers. Need I go on?"

      Given atheism and evolution, say the mainstream atheism and evolution of someone like Richard Dawkins, what you feel is what you were programmed to feel. Your love of family, friends, strangers, wonderment of nature, etc. is simply what millions of years of evolution has programmed in you to feel in order for the human species to survive. You're just the receptacle, the survival machine, for your genes to be passed on from one generation to another. As such, all your lovely feelings are tantamount to an illusion.

      Reality, however, is red in tooth and claw. Dawkins explains:

      "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

      Delete
    2. "Yes, I know my future ends in oblivion, but I’m not there yet, and I’m too busy enjoying life to live in dread of it."

      That attitude is the equivalent of a bunch of teenagers hooting and hollering and otherwise having a great time while sticking their fingers in their ears as their convertible careens toward a brick wall at full speed. A key difference is these teenagers might be oblivious to the brick wall, whereas you're well aware of "oblivion".

      "How much more “objective” can something get than every day experience?"

      What you've described as your own "every day experience" is the epitome of "subjective".

      "Let’s look too at the “objective hope” that is claimed for believers. A heaven/hell reward/punishment scheme based on moldy books and reinforced with herd mentality."

      So you start by criticizing theists for trying to have "both sides of the conversation," for "project[ing] a fancial [sic] and self serving strawman of what atheism 'must mean," etc., yet here you are, trying to have both sides of the conversation and project[ing] a fanciful and self serving strawman of what theism 'must mean'"!

      "Objective hope for what? Eternal life? I’m waiting for a shred of evidence that anyone has received it. Sounds kind of subjective to me, hope for an idea that has no backing of substance."

      That's likely because you have a dismissive attitude toward biblical scholarship, NDEs, etc.

      "Of course, I have some truly objective fears too, mostly of being messed with by those who take license from their truly subjective hopes and fears to treat others as they would not like to be treated."

      If no God exists, then why shouldn't people be self-centered if they can get away with it?

      Delete
    3. I’ll not bother to paste in lengthy quotes, what I’m responding too should be obvious.

      Atheism as “not believe” vs “ believe not”. Oxford tends toward the former while Webster includes both. In any case, mere titles where the concepts are what matters. To me atheism is the minimalist, “not believe”, but atheists can also “believe not”. I am a “not believe” in a deist sense, the evidence simply does not support the notion of a creator agent as the reason how/what/why that which we call the universe exists. As for the Yahweh, the Abrahamic god, I “believe not”. The evidence for the Abrahamic religious narratives as purely human inventions is considerable, and that which supports supernatural origin non-existent.

      It doesn’t really matter. Beliefs only matter when they motivate actions, and I can’t see where “not believe” vs “believe not” produces meaningful differences.

      “Tooth and claw”. So what? Anything you build on your Dawkins’ quote is argument from consequence. From whence my consciousness arises is an important question, but of limited value in deciding my future actions. I have to exercise free will, I don’t have any other choice. (LOL). We have ample empirical evidence that nature, nurture, and the circumstances of the moment all influence our choices. Again, so what?

      If you can’t do better than the teenagers analogy, please try to avoid them altogether. My pending oblivion is a matter of fact. People die. I can no more avoid it than I can fly by flapping my arms. Stuck with the consequences of getting older too. There is no moral element to these inevitabilities. The “fingers in ears” part seems to imply that I’m oblivious and/or willfully blind to something worse than mere oblivion. What part of “not believe” don’t you understand? “Not believe” means there is nothing to close my ears against. The atheist teenagers are the ones who will avoid the drunken joy ride, it increases the chance of ending the fun prematurely. No, this life is all I get, and I’m going to spend my time taking care of it rather than looking forward to something that comes after. In contrast, how many millions of Christians look forward to the rapture?

      “Objective hope” The term is literally an oxymoron, ALL hopes are subjective, held only in the mind. But I read between the lines and interpreted it as hope for something objectively real, and responded on that basis. Pardon me if I project into theist motivations some importance to the central tenants of their dogma; heaven as reward, hell as punishment. How less objectively real can you get than the than those things hoped for that are uniquely theistic? Atheists and theists can hope for things like “Peace on earth”, an end to suffering and other (quasi)tangibles. What hoped for things are uniquely theistic? I submit that they are things that exist only in imagination, the very opposite of objective. Whereas my “atheist” hopes are tied to tangible reality, family, friends, neighbors, other living creatures, etc. Those things seem kind of “objective” to me.

      I consider your closing statement a confession of the basic amorality of Christian dogma. Is that all you think drives people, fear of punishment and/or desire for reward? Where does empathy fit in? Highest praise for “good” done without promise of reward or in spite of feared consequence is found in most cultures. And yet, you ask that question. Are you blind to alternative motivations?

      Delete
    4. AnUnrepentantThinker

      "Atheism as “not believe” vs “believe not”. Oxford tends toward the former while Webster includes both."

      That's hilarious. You're using Oxford and Webster dictionaries to define atheism? :-)

      At best, these are crude definitions. They're hardly authoritative.

      Far better to use a definition provided by a world class atheist philosopher like Graham Oppy: "Atheism is the rejection of theism: a-theism. Atheists maintain some or all of the following claims: that theism is false; that theism is unbelievable; that theism is rationally unacceptable; that theism is morally unacceptable."

      "the evidence simply does not support the notion of a creator agent as the reason how/what/why that which we call the universe exists."

      Saying so doesn't make it so. You're making an assertion without an argument. I could just as well assert without argument "the evidence simply does support the notion of a creator agent as the reason...the universe exists". So what? That'd prove nothing.

      "As for the Yahweh, the Abrahamic god, I “believe not”. The evidence for the Abrahamic religious narratives as purely human inventions is considerable, and that which supports supernatural origin non-existent."

      Yawn. Once again, you just assert without argument. Again, I could just as well assert the opposite without argument. So what? That'd prove nothing.

      "It doesn’t really matter. Beliefs only matter when they motivate actions, and I can’t see where “not believe” vs “believe not” produces meaningful differences."

      Why should the atheist be "motivated" to do what's good and right unless it's in their self-interest to do so?

      "Tooth and claw”. So what?"

      If Dawkins is correct in his atheism and evolutionary science, then what he says is quite reasonable: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

      "Anything you build on your Dawkins’ quote is argument from consequence."

      I didn't "build" anything on Dawkins' quote. I just let Dawkins speak for himself.

      "From whence my consciousness arises is an important question, but of limited value in deciding my future actions."

      On the contrary, "from whence [your] consciousness arises" is crucial "in deciding [your] future actions". If the mind and all mental states (conscious or unconscious) are ultimately reducible to the material brain, if mental activity is identical to brain activity, or if materialism is true, then why hasn't all your brain activity and your resultant behavior been predetermined by the laws of science or nature?

      "I have to exercise free will, I don’t have any other choice. (LOL)."

      Sure, you laugh, but given your worldview, your "exercise" of "free will" is quite arguably illusory. You're what Dawkins calls a "survival machine" and a "purpose machine": "One of the most striking properties of the survival machine behavior is its apparent purposiveness...The 'purpose machine', the machine or thing that behaves as if it had a conscious purpose, is equipped with some kind of measuring device which measures the discrepancy between the current state of things and the 'desired state'...The genes too control the behavior of their survival machines, not directly with their fingers on puppet strings, but indirectly like the computer programmer."

      Delete
    5. "We have ample empirical evidence that nature, nurture, and the circumstances of the moment all influence our choices. Again, so what?"

      So what is you apparently don't grasp what you're reading, because I never claimed otherwise.

      "If you can’t do better than the teenagers analogy, please try to avoid them altogether."

      Fortunately you're not my father, and I don't live for your approval or disapproval.

      "My pending oblivion is a matter of fact. People die. I can no more avoid it than I can fly by flapping my arms. Stuck with the consequences of getting older too. There is no moral element to these inevitabilities."

      If the God of the Bible exists, then there is "a moral element to these inevitabilities" inasmuch as you'll be judged for what you've done and not done with your life.

      If atheism is true, then there is no fundamentally objective basis for morality. Hence why shouldn't the atheist just live as he or she wants? Why shouldn't the atheist live a self-centered and self-serving life if they can get away with it in the end? For the person who does what's good and right ends up buried six feet under just like the person who does what's evil and wrong. Their fates are no different. A serial killer's end is no different than your end or mine.

      "The “fingers in ears” part seems to imply that I’m oblivious and/or willfully blind to something worse than mere oblivion. What part of “not believe” don’t you understand? “Not believe” means there is nothing to close my ears against. The atheist teenagers are the ones who will avoid the drunken joy ride, it increases the chance of ending the fun prematurely."

      Just because you don't believe God exists doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

      After all, it's not as if you've given any reasons let alone good reasons for why you think God doesn't exist. Thus far, all you've done is make assertions without arguments and whine and complain about this and that. It's like you're some cranky old dude who is just yelling at people to get off of his lawn.

      "No, this life is all I get, and I’m going to spend my time taking care of it rather than looking forward to something that comes after. In contrast, how many millions of Christians look forward to the rapture?

      That's a false dichotomy. It's not as if a Christian can't live a happy and good life here and now as well as look forward to the life to come.

      However, here's just one difference (among many). If both the Christian and the atheist live miserable lives, because they were born into and raised in miserable conditions, and they never could get out of their miserable conditions no matter how hard they tried, and both end up dying in misery, at least the Christian has the hope of the life to come, whereas the atheist has nothing but misery.

      "“Objective hope” The term is literally an oxymoron, ALL hopes are subjective, held only in the mind."

      If Christianity is true, then there is objective hope. If Christianity is true, then the Bible's promises will come to pass.

      "But I read between the lines and interpreted it...Pardon me if I project into theist motivations some importance to the central tenants of their dogma..."

      That's one of your many problems. You want to hear what you want to hear, not what's explicitly stated. You put words into people's mouths. You even admit you "project," etc.

      Delete
    6. "heaven as reward, hell as punishment. How less objectively real can you get than the than those things hoped for that are uniquely theistic?"

      You keep looking at things from your atheistic perspective. You should try looking at things from another person's perspective once in a while. After all, what part of "this is a Christian weblog" don't you understand? It's not exactly a closely guarded state secret that the people blogging on this weblog happen to be Christian. The operating assumption of this post is Christianity is true.

      "Atheists and theists can hope for things like “Peace on earth”, an end to suffering and other (quasi)tangibles."

      Why should the atheist care about peace on earth or an end to suffering - unless he thinks it'll benefit him somehow?

      "What hoped for things are uniquely theistic? I submit that they are things that exist only in imagination, the very opposite of objective."

      You can "submit" whatever you want. You've been doing that throughout this thread. Just one assertion after another. No supporting arguments for your barenaked assertions. All it amounts to is that you don't think theism is true and you think atheism is true. Nice to have your opinion, but so what? Who cares? It's not like you're giving anyone any reasons for why you believe what you do. Again, all this is just your opinion so far. Nothing else.

      "Whereas my “atheist” hopes are tied to tangible reality, family, friends, neighbors, other living creatures, etc. Those things seem kind of “objective” to me."

      They're also "objective" for the Christian. A Christian isn't a Gnostic. It's not as if we don't love our families, friends, neighbors, other living creatures, etc.

      If you think otherwise, you should spend some time with bona fide Christians. Check out a church for a few Sundays. Talk to some people. Get to know them. And so on.

      Right now you just come off as if you're utterly ignorant about Christians. You're talking about Christians as if we're Martians or Plutonians or whatever. That's pretty pathetic. It illustrates how little you know about Christianity, yet here you are criticizing theism and religion and Yahweh, etc.

      "I consider your closing statement a confession of the basic amorality of Christian dogma."

      What's your basis for atheistic morality?

      Delete
    7. "Is that all you think drives people, fear of punishment and/or desire for reward?"

      Are you trying to "read between the lines" again? Are you "projecting" again?

      Besides, I'm not the only one who notices atheists denying moral realism. Many atheist scholars themselves deny moral realism. See Alex Rosenberg for instance:

      Is there a God? No.
      What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
      What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
      What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
      Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
      Does prayer work? Of course not.
      Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?
      Is there free will? Not a chance!
      What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
      What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
      Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
      Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.
      What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it.
      Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
      Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it had any to begin with.

      "Where does empathy fit in? Highest praise for “good” done without promise of reward or in spite of feared consequence is found in most cultures. And yet, you ask that question. Are you blind to alternative motivations?

      I never denied atheists can't have empathy or be empathetic. Your lack of basic reading comprehension astounds me.

      I'm not talking about moral behavior. Rather, I'm talking about moral ontology: what's the fundamental basis for moral behavior.

      Given atheism, why should people be empathetic toward others? Why should people be good toward others?

      Delete
    8. AnUnrepentantThinker

      "Why is it that theists usually try to have both sides of the conversation?"

      As if atheists never do the reverse. 


      
"If Mr Hay’s analysis is to be accepted, those things I look forward to each morning must have no value."

      You're making progress.

      "Things like the love of family, the community of old friends, the joy of meeting new friends, the wonder of nature, the smile of strangers helped, the comfort of helpful strangers. Need I go on?"

      Because you've been conditioned by a mindless, amoral process to impute value to such things. That's just your brain, doing what brainless physical determinism causes it to do. Such is life in a godless universe.

      So the value is arbitrary. You could just as easily be programmed to be a serial killer. What they look forward to each morning (let's torture people to death) has "value" for them.

      "Yes, I know my future ends in oblivion, but I’m not there yet, and I’m too busy enjoying life to live in dread of it. No, this life is all I get, and I’m going to spend my time taking care of it rather than looking forward to something that comes after."

      That may work when you're young and healthy and revel in the benefits of affluence. But that doesn't work so well if you're old, if you have a degenerative illness, &c. That doesn't work so well for people in North Korea (to take one example). Yeah, this life is all they get. No second chances.

      "How much more 'objective' can something get than everyday experience?"

      A category mistake. The question at issue is not the objectivity of everyday experience, but the objectivity of value. If naturalism is true, you've been brainwashed by a mindless, amoral process to impute value to things that have no intrinsic value. You could just as well be brainwashed to value compulsive behavior, like dermatophagia. That's what their brain tells them to do.

      "I’m waiting for a shred of evidence that anyone has received."

      I doubt you're waiting for evidence. What have you studied on the subject?

      "Where does empathy fit in?"

      Empathy as in you've been conditioned by natural selection to have illusory moral instincts about kin altruism.

      Delete
    9. "Yes, I know my future ends in oblivion, but I’m not there yet, and I’m too busy enjoying life to live in dread of it."

      Very self-absorbed. But beyond your own impending oblivion is the past or future oblivion of parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, spouse, children, &c. You're indifferent to their fate, as if what you personally get out of life is all that matters. Suppose you were immortal while they were mortal.

      Delete