Atheism as a Faith: The (Hopefully) Final Debate

[Dragons87]

No, there's quite a bit of meaning to all this nature stuff. There's a reason that cats can see in the dark, why dogs howl, why an elephant flaps it's ears, and why a zebra has stripes. I think you're stuck in philosophy mode. Engineers look at it all and say "hey, that works, we should make stuff like that (but better)"

But don't you agree that any meaning an atheist injects into nature is artificial? Yes, engineers can look at nature and say "hey that works. Let's make stuff", but ultimately nature doesn't exist for engineers to study it. So outside of people giving it meaning, what is nature ultimately for?

Are you unsure that humans are social creatures, or that individuals benefit from good things happening to their neighbor?

If it's the first, uh, just look around you. We form societies. Some people are jerks and try to break it down, but people living out in the woods by themselves is a rarity.

It it's the latter, life isn't a zero-sum game. If your neighbor wins the lotto, maybe he'll buy you a round. Or he'll waste it all on hookers an blow, but at least then the hookers might buy you a round.

I meant the latter. Sorry.

But when you say life isn't a zero-sum game, do you really mean life doesn't have to be a zero-sum game? Do you read the news? Life can be a pretty unbalanced game.

Well, ultimately, maybe. But it's the journey that counts, not the destination.

Well, saying that "it's the journey that counts, not the destination" is a perspective. I could equally say "both the journey and destination count" (which is my belief). Your statement is moot unless you explain it further.

Speaking of which, so you die, you get judged, and then you go to heaven and be happy forever...

Then what?

What's the purpose of heaven? Ultimately, what's there to do? Eternal euphoria probably gets old after a while.

It's hard to say for sure what eternity in heaven actually consists of, so I present my beliefs.

Eternity is not so much "endless time", in which we stay in heaven for 100 years, and then 100 more years, and then another 100 years and on and on...No. Eternity is "timelessness". There will be no days, no months, no years. There will be no past, no future, only the present. There isn't even "ultimate".

Thinking about it, God has given us so much to do and so much to enjoy even in a world limited by time. I don't think spending "time" with him in eternity can be any worse.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The suggestion that we don't matter because the universe is so big (a view even Richard Dawkins subscribes to) is, I find, ridiculous.

Incidentally, I agree with you on this. We don't need to matter to the universe. Neither does he universe need to matter to itself.

We matter to ourselves. The universe matters to ourselves. This is why the universe can be awesome -- to us! Not necessarily to itself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Funnily enough, I share your observation of the world, though starting exactly where you haven't started from.

To me, atheistic nature is ultimately meaningless. Yes, each twinkling dot is a massive collection gases, fusing, burning and doing whatever they do - but so what? So...nothing. Any kind of awesomeness you project on to it is ultimately meaningless, because objectively speaking there is nothing to be awesome about. It would be helpful if you could clarify just what it is about gases burning far, far away that you think is awesome. Just how is it different from having gases burning in your back garden for your BBQ (which I don't think you think is as awesome, right?)?

On the other hand, when God spoke things into being, it expresses the beauty of a design plus the immense awesomeness of his power. The design is objectively beautiful. The objects created are objectively awesome. It means that when I look into the skies, I can exclaim, "that's beautiful", and it would mean something.

Sorry, to interrupt a little but what would it mean?

(And what do phrases such as "God spoke things into being" or "objectively beautiful" mean? I seem to always problems of conceiving of such.)


ETA: And have you ever thought about that the second and the third paragraphof the post I quoted, are actually just descriptions of the same thing, just with different words? Different words that stirr up different emotions?

 

[Dragons87]

The difference, then, is that some people have a profound emotional reaction to the ever-unquenchable thirst for knowledge. Others are satisfied with "God did it".

While you point out that creation doesn't stop at Genesis, it's still in a book that's been around for a few thousand years, with (allegedly) the same descriptions of the nature of our universe. Compare that to the ever-growing collection of knowledge mankind has been able to achieve. It was long ago that we discovered the earth was round, bat aren't birds, and the heliocentricity of our solar system (and yes, that stars don't just "pop" into existence). We've since moved on to the earliest moments of the universe (which our observations predate the biblical estimate by some 13.7 billion years), and are still reaching beyond this with quantum and M-theory.

Those who find beauty and meaning in the universe as I do are most likely the ones that aren't satisfied with a couple-thousand-year-old "answer".

I don't understand. Are you saying that religious people, somehow, because of their religion, can't find the universe exciting?

Quite the contrary. Isn't it atheists who believe that there isn't any overarching meaning in all of this? Let's say we travel back in time, to a time before modern humans existed. We stand there, looking at the dinosaurs and whatever, and I ask you: what kind of meaning does the universe have now, in the absence of humans? What are you going to say?

Do you really "find" meaning in the universe? If you say you "find" it, it implies that you believe there was meaning there to be found. Don't you mean that you "inject" meaning?

edit: and it's not that the scientific understanding of mankind isn't that we "don't matte" it's that we have little to no effect on the universe as a whole -- hence the 'awesomeness' of the universe. There's a difference.

We may have a very limited physical effect on the rest of the universe, but the Bible says that we have the greatest spiritual effect on it. Sometimes it's almost as if the entire cosmos hinges on the reaction of one person. If interested you may consider Job and some of the Prophets (e.g. Daniel).

 

[Dragons87]

Incidentally, I agree with you on this. We don't need to matter to the universe. Neither does he universe need to matter to itself.

We matter to ourselves. The universe matters to ourselves. This is why the universe can be awesome -- to us! Not necessarily to itself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yay! That was the point I was trying to get to! Let's see if you agree:

Atheists find meaning only when they refer to themselves, whereas at least Jews, Christians and Muslims find meaning when they look beyond themselves, that meaning has its own meaning without reference to humans.

That was all I was trying to get to.

 

[Dragons87]

Sorry, to interrupt a little but what would it mean?

(And what do phrases such as "God spoke things into being" or "objectively beautiful" mean? I seem to always problems of conceiving of such.)

Ah. This speaks to the mighty power of God, and how he can do things just by speaking it, e.g. creating the world.

In fact, the New Testament gives us a little bit more insight about what it is about doing by speaking that is so powerful:

"When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."

Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith."

Jesus says that because the centurion understood how powerful God's command can be. If humans can make others do things just by their words, how infinitely more can God do by his words?

"Objectively beautiful", in this instance, means that things can be beautiful without human beings saying it's beautiful.

You need not believe any of this, of course. Just sharing what may be thought of it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheists find meaning only when they refer to themselves, whereas at least Jews, Christians and Muslims find meaning when they look beyond themselves, that meaning has its own meaning without reference to humans.

I think it is dangerous to speak for all atheists on this matter. For example, the Raelians, an odd outerspace alien cult that is technically atheist, probably believe in meaning beyond themselves as created by the "Elohim" space aliens.

I'll just say that your statement above is applicable to me. Meaning for me is relational, and so for something to be meaningful for me, it has to be meaningful in relation to me.

But I think this hinges on exactly what you mean by "looking beyond oneself". When I look to the cosmos as a whole, and find meaning there, I am not looking beyond myself, I'm extending myself. I am extending my interests to the cosmos. I am interested in the cosmos. I find meaning in the cosmos because I find the workings of the cosmos fascinating.

For this reason, I honestly wonder if you are right that Jews, Christians, and Muslims actually do what you suggest, and find meaning that has no relation to humans. I tend to doubt this. I think they find God fascinating in a not so dissimilar way as how I find the cosmos fascinating. They too are extending themselves and their interests.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dragons87]

I think it is dangerous to speak for all atheists on this matter. For example, the Raelians, an odd outerspace alien cult that is technically atheist, probably believe in meaning beyond themselves as created by the "Elohim" space aliens.

I don't think any of the atheists in this conversation so far is the type of say...but I wouldn't know.

I'll just say that your statement above is applicable to me. Meaning for me is relational, and so for something to be meaningful for me, it has to be meaningful in relation to me.

Cool.

But I think this hinges on exactly what you mean by "looking beyond oneself". When I look to the cosmos as a whole, and find meaning there, I am extending myself. I am extending my interests to the cosmos. I am interested in the cosmos. I find meaning in the cosmos because I find the workings of the cosmos fascinating.

Notice the number of "I"s. What I mean is that without "I", the universe can still be meaningful.

Of course this is a completely hypothetical point, not to be proven. How would "I" ever know for sure? It's just what I believe.

For this reason, I honestly wonder if you are right that Jews, Christians, and Muslims actually do what you suggest, and find meaning that has no relation to humans. I tend to doubt this. I think they find God fascinating in a not so dissimilar way as how I find the cosmos fascinating. They too are extending themselves and their interests.

I didn't say that the meaning has no relation to humans. I said we can find meaning without referring to humans. In other words, somebody else created this meaning, which relates to humans, which we find. Yet if humans didn't find it, the meaning would still exist. This is opposed to, "if humans didn't exist, there would be no meaning at all".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Notice the number of "I"s. What I mean is that without "I", the universe can still be meaningful.

To whom? What is meaning without an "I"?

Yet if humans didn't find it, the meaning would still exist. This is opposed to, "if humans didn't exist, there would be no meaning at all".

Yes, but meaning isn't an entity that you can stuff in a bag. Sure, meaning could exist without any human beings, but it would be meaning to and for someone else.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Ah. This speaks to the mighty power of God, and how he can do things just by speaking it, e.g. creating the world.

In fact, the New Testament gives us a little bit more insight about what it is about doing by speaking that is so powerful:

You see, one of the problems that I have with this, is that I would not even attribute speech in the literal sense to God ever, and I would be hesitant to do so in a metaphorical sense either. For almost, at least to me, obvious reasons. Speech involves, in the literal sense the creation of speech sounds, by well speech organs. And then there is something about a signal, a sender, and a receiver; this is present in both literal and metaphorical senses of speech.

And as I indicated, I do find it fairly tricky to understand "God speaks ... into existence" in such any such a sense.

"Objectively beautiful", in this instance, means that things can be beautiful without human beings saying it's beautiful.

Things are what they are, I think. (You are explicitly allowed to call out "Do tell!" now.) Moreover, they are what they are, regardless of description.

Means, describing x as ugly, will not change anything about x - it remains the same. Describing x as beautiful, will not change anything about x - it remains the same. Not describing at all, will not change anything about x - it remains the same. Describe x as ugly, then reconsider, and describe x as beautiful instead ... x remains the same.

Now describe x as beautiful, then remove that description and ... x is the same as ever.

I don't quite get where you would see any kind of advantage within theism.

You need not believe any of this, of course. Just sharing what may be thought of it.

Thanks. Likewise, of course.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Beauty is not a property intrinsic to someone or something. I would imagine that a female gorilla might be beautiful to a male gorilla, but I doubt that she would be beautiful in the same way to male human beings.

Beauty is a relationship. While it is not completely unrelated to, say, objectively existing youth or bodily proportions, it is the relationship that such qualities have for the observer that makes for beauty.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dragons87]

To whom? What is meaning without an "I"?



Yes, but meaning isn't an entity that you can stuff in a bag. Sure, meaning could exist without any human beings, but it would be meaning to and for someone else.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, good points.

 

[Dragons87]

You see, one of the problems that I have with this, is that I would not even attribute speech in the literal sense to God ever, and I would be hesitant to do so in a metaphorical sense either. For almost, at least to me, obvious reasons. Speech involves, in the literal sense the creation of speech sounds, by well speech organs. And then there is something about a signal, a sender, and a receiver; this is present in both literal and metaphorical senses of speech.

And as I indicated, I do find it fairly tricky to understand "God speaks ... into existence" in such any such a sense.

Yes, I see your point.

Things are what they are, I think. (You are explicitly allowed to call out "Do tell!" now.) Moreover, they are what they are, regardless of description.

Means, describing x as ugly, will not change anything about x - it remains the same. Describing x as beautiful, will not change anything about x - it remains the same. Not describing at all, will not change anything about x - it remains the same. Describe x as ugly, then reconsider, and describe x as beautiful instead ... x remains the same.

Now describe x as beautiful, then remove that description and ... x is the same as ever.

I don't quite get where you would see any kind of advantage within theism.

To be honest, it's a hypothetical discussion. Not really that important any more. Haha.

 

[dewaddict84]

But don't you agree that any meaning an atheist injects into nature is artificial?

The line between "natural" and "artificial" is pretty hazy and rather arbitrary. I don't think that humanity has somehow stepped outside of nature. But this gets into a deeper issue of defining what "meaning" is. (yeah, that sounds pretty silly, but bear with me a second.)

An object/action/whatnot's meaning is what caused it. I just got a boot to the head! What does it mean? Well it means that Chuck Norris was unhappy with you. Because you're doing dastardly deeds a ranger wouldn't like. Because, because, because... ad infinium, but mostly due to Chuck.

The purpose of said object/action/whatnot is what happens afterwards. Why did Chuck give you a boot to the head? To send you flying over the balcony. To incompatible you. So he could save the day. And so on and so on.

So, when you say I'm "injecting meaning", I just don't quite get what you're saying.

what is nature ultimately for?

Nature? Shrug, I dunno. The purpose of life is to perpetuate life though.

But when you say life isn't a zero-sum game, do you really mean life doesn't have to be a zero-sum game? Do you read the news? Life can be a pretty unbalanced game.

A zero-sum game is one where every gain you make is someone else's loss. If you sum out everyone's gain and everyone's losses, it equals zero. But life isn't like that. You can work hard and make a net positive influence on the world, or you can quite easily have a net negative. So yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not zero-sum.

I think you're asking am I sure it's a net positive?
Answer: Not sure, no. But pretty confidant. Look at how much worse life was pre-industrial revolution. Illiterate, short, brutish lives. And now we have much more comfortable lives. Come on, we're chatting over the Internet! Think about how awesome that is. Woo progress! In general though, the overall good nature of humanity is one of those things I don't examine too closely. It is one of those things I take on faith. Because otherwise, humanity would be "bad" thing, and I'd go all mad scientist with killbots and all that schtick.

Your statement is moot unless you explain it further.

There's no super-deep message here. You live, you die, the stuff in between is what counts.

Or did you mean, like, the meaning/purpose of the universe in general rather then just me?
Shrug. Yeah, I don't think it really matters what Andromeda does. Not to me at least. It'd be interesting and maybe pretty if it exploded in time for me to see, but short of that, I don't think it's doing much. There IS no ultimate purpose. Eventually this place will hit the heat death of the universe and that'll be it.
Things end. That's only depressing if you make it so.

Eternity is "timelessness". There will be no days, no months, no years. There will be no past, no future, only the present. There isn't even "ultimate".

So time essentially stops, for you, the moment you die? Except there's some sort of generic goodness or badness depending how you did. huh.

I'm not sure how that's different then simply stopping.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Quite the contrary. Isn't it atheists who believe that there isn't any overarching meaning in all of this? Let's say we travel back in time, to a time before modern humans existed. We stand there, looking at the dinosaurs and whatever, and I ask you: what kind of meaning does the universe have now, in the absence of humans? What are you going to say?

Do you really "find" meaning in the universe? If you say you "find" it, it implies that you believe there was meaning there to be found. Don't you mean that you "inject" meaning?

I hope you don't mind if I address your post.

Meaning exists, not in the nature of things, but entirely in a sentient being's response to them. We don't actually "find" meaning, although that is a common figure of speech. We invest it. The dinosaurs did not require meaning in order to exist, but we, in noticing that they existed, may assign them some meaning or another.

For instance, to ask why the universe began is to beg the question. One might ask how it came about or what it means to you or me that it began, but as to its beginning, there is no requirement as to a why.

By the way, I think you are articulating in your recent posts why atheism is not a Faith (with a capital "F"). You are also touching on why it takes a certain amount of courage and (yes) faith, of the little "f" in-for-a-dime-in-for-a-dollar sort, to let go of Faith.

I was just pondering this afternoon that fear is the realization that the Beast is heading in our direction and may or may not pass us by, whereas angst is the realization that the Beast is heading in our direction and will by no means pass us by. The really Big Beast is, of course, death. One of the smaller beasts that harbingers it is the realization that there is no meaning innate to the universe, that every iota of meaning we invest in the universe is trapped in the bubble of our own existence. It can be quite angst-producing, but that angst changes nothing as to the state of things.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Eternity is "timelessness". There will be no days, no months, no years. There will be no past, no future, only the present.

How can one think or do anything if there is no time? This would be a mindless condition. It would be like being a frozen statue.

Even if one felt some sort of timeless "bliss", I can't see how this would be desirable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Why is it that people fear death? I can understand that people do not particularly enjoy the notion of dying, seeing how the suffering involved in many lethal conditions is not exactly something you look forward to. But death itself?
What is there to fear, apart perhaps that loved ones might suffer loss and grief in *their* respective frames of meaning.

 

[Dragons87]

The line between "natural" and "artificial" is pretty hazy and rather arbitrary. I don't think that humanity has somehow stepped outside of nature. But this gets into a deeper issue of defining what "meaning" is. (yeah, that sounds pretty silly, but bear with me a second.)

An object/action/whatnot's meaning is what caused it. I just got a boot to the head! What does it mean? Well it means that Chuck Norris was unhappy with you. Because you're doing dastardly deeds a ranger wouldn't like. Because, because, because... ad infinium, but mostly due to Chuck.

The purpose of said object/action/whatnot is what happens afterwards. Why did Chuck give you a boot to the head? To send you flying over the balcony. To incompatible you. So he could save the day. And so on and so on.

So, when you say I'm "injecting meaning", I just don't quite get what you're saying.

What you described, in my vocabulary, is "cause and effect". It's not what I mean by "meaning", but I suppose I take the responsibility for not defining my terms.

Nature? Shrug, I dunno. The purpose of life is to perpetuate life though.

Surely that's something you think nature is doing, rather than what nature thinks it's doing?

A zero-sum game is one where every gain you make is someone else's loss. If you sum out everyone's gain and everyone's losses, it equals zero. But life isn't like that. You can work hard and make a net positive influence on the world, or you can quite easily have a net negative. So yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not zero-sum.

I think you're asking am I sure it's a net positive?
Answer: Not sure, no. But pretty confidant. Look at how much worse life was pre-industrial revolution. Illiterate, short, brutish lives. And now we have much more comfortable lives. Come on, we're chatting over the Internet! Think about how awesome that is. Woo progress! In general though, the overall good nature of humanity is one of those things I don't examine too closely. It is one of those things I take on faith. Because otherwise, humanity would be "bad" thing, and I'd go all mad scientist with killbots and all that schtick.[/quote]

Ahhh...the elusive question of "progress". Does the newly acquired ability of killing millions of people with one single bomb count as what you term "progress"?

There's no super-deep message here. You live, you die, the stuff in between is what counts.

Or did you mean, like, the meaning/purpose of the universe in general rather then just me?
Shrug. Yeah, I don't think it really matters what Andromeda does. Not to me at least. It'd be interesting and maybe pretty if it exploded in time for me to see, but short of that, I don't think it's doing much. There IS no ultimate purpose. Eventually this place will hit the heat death of the universe and that'll be it.
Things end. That's only depressing if you make it so.

I think I understand a little bit more of how you feel. Would I be right in saying you find it depressing when you think about it (the end), yet have only resigned to not feeling depressed because you know you can't do anything to change it?

So time essentially stops, for you, the moment you die? Except there's some sort of generic goodness or badness depending how you did. huh.

I'm not sure how that's different then simply stopping.

Lolz. I don't know either. That's why I said it's a belief.

 

[Dragons87]

I hope you don't mind if I address your post.

Of course not. I have always found your posts to be challenging, and I welcome them.

Meaning exists, not in the nature of things, but entirely in a sentient being's response to them. We don't actually "find" meaning, although that is a common figure of speech. We invest it. The dinosaurs did not require meaning in order to exist, but we, in noticing that they existed, may assign them some meaning or another.

I agree with you saying that it requires a sentient being to understand and "invest" meaning.

For instance, to ask why the universe began is to beg the question. One might ask how it came about or what it means to you or me that it began, but as to its beginning, there is no requirement as to a why.

I just find it slightly odd that people like to ask why to everyday things: "Why are you doing this? Why are my taxes increasing? Why go to war?" and then agree to resign to not ask why when it comes to nature. Humans like seeking deeper meaning, which is why philosophy and religion exist.

So...don't stop asking why, even about the beginning of the universe.

By the way, I think you are articulating in your recent posts why atheism is not a Faith (with a capital "F"). You are also touching on why it takes a certain amount of courage and (yes) faith, of the little "f" in-for-a-dime-in-for-a-dollar sort, to let go of Faith.

Lol, forgive me, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I was just pondering this afternoon that fear is the realization that the Beast is heading in our direction and may or may not pass us by, whereas angst is the realization that the Beast is heading in our direction and will by no means pass us by. The really Big Beast is, of course, death. One of the smaller beasts that harbingers it is the realization that there is no meaning innate to the universe, that every iota of meaning we invest in the universe is trapped in the bubble of our own existence. It can be quite angst-producing, but that angst changes nothing as to the state of things.

That conclusion of "angst changes nothing as to the state of things" is ultimately an atheist point of view, and I respect it as so. That will not be (or should not be) the conclusion by a Christian. I am merely pointing out the difference, not extolling which view is better.

 

[Dragons87]

How can one think or do anything if there is no time? This would be a mindless condition. It would be like being a frozen statue.

Even if one felt some sort of timeless "bliss", I can't see how this would be desirable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't know, Mark, I don't know. But I've been promised a whole load of things in the Bible, and if it doesn't pay out, I would get pretty cross.