Ultimate Concern

[ananda]

Do atheists have issues of ultimate concern? If so, what are they?

For Buddhists like myself, our ultimate concern is the cessation of suffering/discontentment & to establish the unending contentment/bliss. We see how literally all other purposeful action in life is geared toward this concern.

 

[Resha Caner]

I gave you some examples and offered a suggestion or two. I was looking for some guidance from you as to which, if any, came close to beginning to address your quest. Am I wrong in thinking, from your response, that none of them did?

I could tell you a story, but I don't think it will help. You choose. What sounds like a good discussion to you?
A) little old ladies
B) junior employees
C) climate change
D) What you do when A, B, and/or C conflict

 

[Resha Caner]

For Buddhists like myself, our ultimate concern is the cessation of suffering/discontentment & to establish the unending contentment/bliss. We see how literally all other purposeful action in life is geared toward this concern.

How do you know when suffering has ceased?

 

[Ophiolite]

I could tell you a story, but I don't think it will help. You choose. What sounds like a good discussion to you?
A) little old ladies
B) junior employees
C) climate change
D) What you do when A, B, and/or C conflict

Support for the disadvantaged, infirm, sick and old is an expression of an instinctive drive that has contributed to the growth of civilisation (some of which has been a good thing.)

Cooperation, another instinctive and potentially positive human trait, coupled with an instinctive and culturally strengthened drive to educate encourage personal development of employee attitudes and aptitudes that can reach beyond their work role.

The denial of climate change strikes me as a bizarre example of self delusion. The steps taken to avoid the severity of potential consequences would have little significant effect upon the world economy, but many positive effects upon the quality of human life. Thus, even if the experts were completely wrong about climate change the world would be a better place. Yet the deniers go on denying.

Conflict between A, B and C? Well, they are different scales and timing and character, so there the room for conflict is small. Example, while I am walking to work (not driving a gas guzzler), I can be contemplating how to best develop an employee and still have time to help the little old lady across the road.

 

[Resha Caner]

Support for the disadvantaged, infirm, sick and old is an expression of an instinctive drive that has contributed to the growth of civilisation (some of which has been a good thing.)

Cooperation, another instinctive and potentially positive human trait, coupled with an instinctive and culturally strengthened drive to educate encourage personal development of employee attitudes and aptitudes that can reach beyond their work role.

The denial of climate change strikes me as a bizarre example of self delusion. The steps taken to avoid the severity of potential consequences would have little significant effect upon the world economy, but many positive effects upon the quality of human life. Thus, even if the experts were completely wrong about climate change the world would be a better place. Yet the deniers go on denying.

Will you allow me to note what I think is a common thread in these? They all mention a benefit you will not personally experience - a person who can't help you in return, a future you will never see, etc. It may be an expression of an instinctive drive that has benefited civilization, but that drive could be trained to only operate on direct benefits - not benefits you will never see. So why do it?

 

[Ophiolite]

Will you allow me to note what I think is a common thread in these? They all mention a benefit you will not personally experience - a person who can't help you in return, a future you will never see, etc. It may be an expression of an instinctive drive that has benefited civilization, but that drive could be trained to only operate on direct benefits - not benefits you will never see. So why do it?

For one, or all of these reasons, in no particular order:

1. Instinctive drives are instinctive drives. Very difficult to fight.
2. The actions I mentioned are the "right thing" to do.
3. The person I help across the road may simply smile and say "thank you". That seems a big pay back for a tiny investment of my time.
4. An employee I help to work more efficiently makes my work life easier, helps me achieve my goals within the company and contributes to the increase of the company share price (and I own a small number). I would have to be an idiot not to see the benefit in that.
5. There is satisfaction in watching someone grow from an ineffectual, even bumbling novice to a consummate professional.
6. I may not live to see some of the benefits, but that is vastly preferable to contributing to a future that I would be appalled to see.
7. I may not live to see some of the benefits, but I am helping construct a better future for my grandchildren.

So, what you have misidentified as possibly selfless behaviour is redolent with self-interest.

I almost forgot. Some of the actions give me a feeling of unbearably, delightful smugness.

 

[ananda]

How do you know when suffering has ceased?

When I personally experience it?

 

[Resha Caner]

So, what you have misidentified as possibly selfless behaviour is redolent with self-interest.

I didn't mean to imply you're being selfless. I don't recall using that word. I was pointing out that you would not reap the direct benefits of your actions. "It makes me feel good," is an understandable justification.

I believe you've implied you think it stems from a survival benefit: helping people aids survival - feeling good about helping people drives that beneficial behavior. Do you think you're tricking yourself then? i.e. you get the good feeling by fooling yourself that you're helping people when it's not really producing a tangible benefit?

 

[Resha Caner]

When I personally experience it?

So there's no objective way to know if suffering actually decreases. It's just more of a "If it feels good, do it."

 

[Silmarien]

Do atheists have issues of ultimate concern? If so, what are they?

When I was an atheist, I was totally into Sartre and Nietzsche and probably viewed authenticity as an issue of ultimate concern. I can't say I was very good at it, but I think that's an example of an atheistic ultimate concern that comes pretty close to what Tillich was talking about.

 

[ananda]

So there's no objective way to know if suffering actually decreases. It's just more of a "If it feels good, do it."

Nothing can really be "objective", since things that are objective must still be received & understood subjectively.

 

[public hermit]

From Tillich's Dynamics of Faith:

"Man, like every living being, is concerned about many things, above all about those which condition his very existence ... If [a situation or concern] claims ultimacy it demands the total surrender of him who accepts this claim ... it demands that all other concerns ... be sacrificed."

Paul Tillich - Wikipedia

I don't think one could be blamed if, going by what one reads on CF, it was assumed that for some atheists the object of ultimate concern is certainty, or "that which is supported by evidence," or something along those lines. In other words, something along those lines "claims ultimacy it demands the total surrender of him who accepts this claim...it demands that all other concerns...be sacrificed."

To be fair, I think all people deal (existentially speaking) with multiple candidates for "ultimate concern" And, I believe this is just as true for Christians as it is for anyone else. Maybe the circumstances dictate which one takes precedence, at a given time. Nonetheless, if someone said to me, "All atheists care about is proof" I certainly understand why they would say that. Do I believe that atheists care only about proof? No, of course not. But would one be wrong is assuming it is a possible candidate for "ultimate concern" for some atheists? I don't see why.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that "proof" (or something along those lines) is a matter of ultimate concern for some given atheist, then along Tillichian lines, proof is a matter of faith.

 

[Resha Caner]

Nothing can really be "objective", since things that are objective must still be received & understood subjectively.

Sure, but making no attempt to communicate your experience to others is rather solipsistic. Are you OK with that, or do you try? If you try, how hard is it?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

(FYI, I'm male. And if you're going to shorten it, refer to me as "Caner", not "Resha". But I understand my name doesn't fit the normal conventions, so I've gotten used to all the different ways people utilize my name. It's no big deal.)

I see. Apologies, Caner.

If you want my simplistic version of the idea, it's that for which you are willing to make sacrifices. For example, if your career is your ultimate concern, then you're willing to give up friends, family, hobbies, etc. to pursue your career. You might be willing to back stab - be OK with people hating you.

Hmmm. Not sure what to make of this. I'd be willing to make a sacrifice to help another person in danger. I'd be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of my health. As far as daily life goes, I think it's best to have a balance of things - career, family and personal development being my three. Does that help?

 

[Resha Caner]

I see. Apologies, Caner.

I made too much of it. I just thought it might be helpful to point out I'm male.

As far as daily life goes, I think it's best to have a balance of things - career, family and personal development being my three. Does that help?

Again, it depends on your ultimate concern. Finding the right balance could be an ultimate concern, and it's probably the healthiest approach.

However, there is a fascinating book by Ronald Rolheiser called The Holy Longing, where he notes that many of the "great" people we admire were people who sacrificed everything to perfect one specific thing - to become a great musician, mathematician, etc. They often struggled with great pain in their lives - loneliness, addiction, etc. Yet something pushed them on - they just couldn't seem to give up that drive for perfection.

We love those stories about the misunderstood genius because we, of course, acknowledge their genius - appreciate them for what they did. Or do we?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I made too much of it. I just thought it might be helpful to point out I'm male.

Not at all! Your response was just right.

However, there is a fascinating book by Ronald Rolheiser called The Holy Longing, where he notes that many of the "great" people we admire were people who sacrificed everything to perfect one specific thing - to become a great musician, mathematician, etc.

That does sound interesting. Of course, it could be that I'm not a genius!
There's a book I like, by Oliver Burkeman. Pop psychology, but fun and interesting. "The Antidote: Happiness for those who can't stand positive thinking." In the chapter "Goal Crazy: When Trying To Control The Future Doesn't Work" he says:

I met Steve Shapiro in a poorly lit bar in New York’s West Village, where he was drinking a pint of Samuel Adams lager, working his way through a cheeseburger, and keeping half an eye on the baseball game on the corner television. There was nothing about his appearance, in other words, to suggest that he was anything but a quintessentially all-American forty-five-year-old. His job description might have given the same impression: he was a consultant who travelled the country running workshops with businesspeople. His life unfolded in conference suites, airport lounges, and hotel bars; PowerPoint was sometimes involved. Yet behind his quick smile and open features, the real Shapiro was a kind of enemy agent, because the message he delivered ran counter to some of the most deeply cherished ideologies of American corporate life. He argued in favour of giving up goals, and embracing uncertainty instead.
Shapiro did, in fact, start out as an all-American achiever, committed to his goal of becoming a highly paid management consultant. His punishing hours destroyed his marriage. ‘I’m not sure if my goals drove me to work the crazy hours I did,’ he later wondered, ‘or if I used my goals as an excuse to avoid issues in my personal life.’ He tried to dig himself out of such crises by means of even more goals (at one point, he recalled, he had a five-year plan to become ‘a leader in the innovation space’). But none of these plans changed his life. What made the difference, in the end, was a conversation with a friend who told him he spent too much energy thinking about his future. He should think of himself more ‘like a frog’, she said. Shapiro was wondering whether to feel insulted when she explained: ‘You should sun yourself on a lily-pad until you get bored, then, when the time is right, you should jump to a new lily-pad and hang out there for a while. Continue this over and over, moving in whatever direction feels right.’ The imagery of sunbathing on lily-pads should not be taken to imply laziness. Shapiro’s friend’s point was entirely compatible with his hard-charging, achievement-hungry personality; it simply promised to channel it more healthily. In fact, it promised to help him achieve more, by permitting him to enjoy his work in the present, rather than postponing his happiness to a point five years in the future – whereupon, in any case, he would surely just replace his current five-year plan with another. The idea triggered a shift of perspective for Shapiro that would eventually lead to his reinvention as an advocate for abolishing goals.

 

[Resha Caner]

That does sound interesting. Of course, it could be that I'm not a genius!
There's a book I like, by Oliver Burkeman. Pop psychology, but fun and interesting. "The Antidote: Happiness for those who can't stand positive thinking."

I could say a lot about the story, but to keep the discussion focused, I'll mention just one thing. I'm of an age such that when I was young I encountered hippies - real Free Love, Age of Aquarius, Flower-wearing, acid-tripping hippies. Even at the age of five I thought they were clueless. I've been goal-driven all my life. It's one of those deeply ingrained traits everyone's been talking about. I am well aware of the downside of being this way, and I try to moderate myself, but goal-driven I remain.

The result is that I see the consequences of the flower children in our society - even today, and it's not something I warm up to. Again, what I've noticed in this thread is that despite the notation of @public hermit in post #32 that unbelievers at CF give the impression they are all about evidence-based justifications, all of the responses in this thread eventually land here:

Continue this over and over, moving in whatever direction feels right.

What evidence is there that what feels right is right?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What evidence is there that what feels right is right?

There's no contradiction. When atheists such as myself and others correctly tell you that they are all about evidence-based justifications they are usually talking about belief in God and the use of logical arguments. Finding your own meaning in life is a completely different matter.

 

[Resha Caner]

There's no contradiction. When atheists such as myself and others correctly tell you that they are all about evidence-based justifications they are usually talking about belief in God and the use of logical arguments. Finding your own meaning in life is a completely different matter.

Evidence only applies to God? I'm not going to buy that. Nor am I going to buy that you think something like evidence only applies when trying to communicate ultimate concerns to others because you were trying to communicate your view via a story that ended with justification by feeling.

But suppose I concede your point. Your personal search for meaning isn't evidence-based. Bummer. That means you're unable to show me that it actually works. Right? That puts us in a very similar boat.

Last thing, though. I'm not completely opposed to what you've said. All along I've been arguing that understanding God comes from an experience-based approach, not an evidence-based approach. Not quite a feelings-based approach - maybe somewhere between evidence and feelings, but still ...

What do you make of world views when all they have is feeling?

 

[ananda]

Sure, but making no attempt to communicate your experience to others is rather solipsistic. Are you OK with that, or do you try? If you try, how hard is it?

I do try, but everyone must understand it from their own life experience.

I can suggest to someone "try X - this is a better way than Y, because X is grounded in wisdom & knowledge, then observe the results for yourself"

It isn't a "if it feels good, do it", but rather a message that says "do things with wisdom which decreases suffering & increases contentment and bliss"