What you are saying sounds nice and dreamy but do you really allow others the freedom you maintain they possess by default?
I'm not really sure what you're asking. People are naturally free to murder, but the law should still stop that.
For example. You state that meaning and purpose are personally created and not imposed from outside of ourselves. You also say life has no value in itself.
But you say humans should be respected.
But why? Why should humans be respected? And if living this way is meaningful for you, what about the people that find meaning in life by disrespecting and taking advantage of others?
That is the objective and truthful way to treat people, because it means treating people equally. People generally care about that because people have empathy, and because they want to care about values being than themselves.
If they similar don't care, I'm not sure what you can say, except appeal to their self-interest. But this is a problem with all ethics, theist or not.
Paradoxum,
Your conception of God seems to be a caricature constructed through too much exposure to televangelism and religious fundamentalism. You're right: the as-depicted-in-an-inerrant-book tribal God is a not a conception of God that can survive in our modern world, given the new knowledge that we possess. That is not to say that all concepts of God are irreconcilable with our modern world. Some concepts hold up quite well and are, I would argue, actually planted within most humans, whether they claim atheism or not.
I'm not sure where you get that from, since I can't see what I said had to do with fundamentalism. I was talking about God being hidden, and that he doesn't seem to do anything obvious.
I agree that more liberal religion makes more sense... I was a more moderate-liberal Christian for a while before I lost my faith.
If your God is compatible with atheism, then you aren't talking about God any more. You might as well stop using the word 'God'.
Perhaps it didn't follow, but what I meant by that is that insofar as we are not all Nietzschean nihilists -
Well being Nietzschean and a nihilist are somewhat different. Nietzsche was against nihilism, and instead said we should create our own values. Just a side point.
we do not stare any abyss in the face - we have internalized a sense of meaning and have established intuitive ideas about the value of life and life-related things. These intuitive internalized ideas, I would argue, were some of the first collective human ideas to develop, and they probably developed in relation to some sort of conception of 'God.' Primitive conceptions of morality revolved around doing what was 'good' to please the sun god so that he may rise again tomorrow; primitive conceptions of beauty revolved around what was revealing of some sort of god. God is in the mystery; God is in the wonder. Anyway, throughout our history, qualitative aspects of human experience that we cannot explain through science and empiricism have been attributed to God. Now, after our collective human consciousness has swallowed all of these God-based concepts - the value of life, morality, beauty, etc - atheists claim it is easy to remove God and retain the essence of these concepts which were essentially built on top of God. I don't believe that's true. The only reason that we all agree, atheist or otherwise, that it is wrong to kill is because we, as a collective consciousness, have constructed this concept of 'wrong' through our concept of 'God' and attached it to the action of 'killing.' When we remove God, we are actually left without a foundation, and a space between our concept of 'wrong' and our concept of 'killing.' We have removed the universal mediator between our solipsistic bubbles.
You say the values are built on God, but I'm not sure that is true. I think the values came first, and God became a projection of our values on to something outside us.
I don't believe it is magically wrong to murder. I think it is wrong (put very basically), because the person doesn't want to die. From an objective point of view we should treat harm to others the same as harm to ourselves.
I believe that God should be understood differently than He is generally understood - not as a father figure in the sky, but as something that suspends us in being (as Tillich says, a ground of being), a process of becoming, a connective force. If you're interested at all in reading about that sort of God, I'd suggest looking into a little Hegel or Whitehead, or perhaps John Shelby Spong who I can never recommend highly enough.
I've heard of Spong before, and I think I've seen a video or two of him on youtube.
I don't know what you mean by 'suspending us in being' or a 'process of becoming'. Why do you call it God? Why not call it 'The Force'? It sounds more like a vague force than God. Do you believe there is such a force that is real, or it's just something in your head, used to understand the world?
I do like your sort of faith more, but I just do see much of a reason to think such a force exists.
Thanks Paradoxum.
Dave Tomlinson's work is always worth a read, his
How to be a Bad Christian...And a Better Human Being is a corker. Oh, and you're not offending my beliefs!
It sounds interesting, and it is probably something I would agree with if I became Christian again. I just don't think there is a God though, and I can't help that.
This is why I asked; I agree that the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for the existence of God fall somewhat flat, though do check out Macquarrie's assessment in his
Principles.
I don't doubt that you can have a faith that makes sense in the modern world, but my problem is foundational. I see little reason to believe in God in the first place.
You're of course correct also that arguments for the resurrection, Biblical prophecies, religious experiences, miracles prove not much at all. But this does not, IMO, refute the existence of God and of Jesus. What it does do is cause us to pause and reflect about our claims. What do we mean when we talk of 'God', I would say, following Tillich, that even atheists worship God, they just call God something else.
If even atheists worship God, then are you talking about God any more? Why not just be a humanist?
What do you mean by that? If I value love, then are you just saying love is God?
I enjoy the work of Hans Kung, but what I really do commend is
How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins who unites Christian mysticism with postmodern philosophy (he's heavily influenced by Caputo).
Thank you for the book suggestions, but I'm not sure I'm looking for more Christian books to read at the moment.