Where is the hope in atheism?

[Silmarien]

But, some Christians, must think and convince themselves, there could be no meaning in life without their personal faith belief.

Otherwise, what benefit do they get from it? Acknowledging that others can find meaning, while disagreeing with their personal faith belief, is hard for them to swallow.

So... what benefit am I getting from thinking that there's no meaning to life without a personal faith belief that I don't share?

 

[bhsmte]

So... what benefit am I getting from thinking that there's no meaning to life without a personal faith belief that I don't share?

Some folks, derive quite a bit of comfort, from convincing themselves their personal faith beliefs are the only way to find meaning in life and claiming others are missing out who disagree with them. For some, they protect the comfort at all costs.

The sheer fact that people are different and some cant acknowledge others can find meaning, is a dead giveaway.

 

[apogee]

Some folks, derive quite a bit of comfort, from convincing themselves their personal faith beliefs are the only way to find meaning in life and claiming others are missing out who disagree with them. For some, they protect the comfort at all costs.

The sheer fact that people are different and some cant acknowledge others can find meaning, is a dead giveaway.

How many times do I have to tell you? Atheism isn't a belief, it is a magical pony.

 

[Silmarien]

Some folks, derive quite a bit of comfort, from convincing themselves their personal faith beliefs are the only way to find meaning in life and claiming others are missing out who disagree with them. For some, they protect the comfort at all costs.

The sheer fact that people are different and some cant acknowledge others can find meaning, is a dead giveaway.

That's nice, but in this context it is atheists protecting their beliefs against ex-atheists who ultimately did decide that life held no meaning in the absence of religious faith. It would be nice to be able to talk about this without constantly being told that we only feel this way because of indoctrination or being chastised for reading things on the atheistic Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Ultimate meaning cannot exist on an atheistic metaphysics, because "ultimate" implies transcendence, which is denied (or ignored). The atheist can certainly argue that what the theist wants is nothing more than a chimera, an impossible dream, but to pretend that it can be found in atheism is bizarre. A good place to start would be considering the variety of ways in which the word "meaning" is being used in this particular debate, because we're really not talking about the same thing.

Christians actually do believe that people who disagree with them are missing out on something--that is kind of central to what Christianity is, so I'm not sure what comfort has to do with it. If you look at apologetics that take this approach, you'll see that they quote atheistic philosophers like Nietzsche and Sartre a lot, because they actually agree with this assessment. It is not something that they are making up so that they can feel superior in their faith. I do not know why you find it so offensive that people disagree with you on questions like this.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Christians are often nihilists with respect to this-life. They see this-life as meaningless without some sort of afterlife consequences. To me, that is nihilism with respect to this-life because it treats this-life as a mere means, and therefore as worthless in itself.



Precisely!



Yeah, so? Life is an end-in-itself in that approach, and life doesn't lose meaning just because it is finite. It is this-worldly. It is not nihilistic in the sense I describe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Tolstoy addresses all this. The problem is the ultimate meaningless of all actions, as action within the world when tallied, amounts to chasing after nothing. Why develop the self, or accrue virtue or wealth, when inevitably all declines to void? He says there are four type of people: Those too stupid to realise the problem; those who kill themselves; those who want to kill themselves but are too cowardly; and Epicureanism, to enjoy present blessings and value what you currently have, while ignoring its ultimate meaninglessness.

He draws a story of a man who fell down a well and clings to a branch. At the bottom of the well is a dragon ready to devour him. The branch is being gnawed by 2 mice. On its leaves there is some honey-dew that he can lick for sustanance:

"Most people of our class pursue [Epicureanism]. The situation in which they find themselves is such that it affords them more of the good things in life than the bad; their moral stupidity enables them to forget that all the advantages of their position is accidental, that not everyone can have a thousand women and palaces, as Solomon did; they forget that for every man with a thousand wives there are a thousand men without wives, that for every palace there are a thousand men that built it by the sweat of their brows, that the same chance that made them Solomon today, might make them Solomon's slave tomorrow. The dullness of the imagination of these people enables them to forget what left the Buddha no peace: the inevitability of sickness, old age, and death, which if not today then tomorrow will destroy all these pleasures. The fact that some maintain that their dullness of thought and imagination is positive philosophy does not, in my opinion, distinguish them from those who lick the honey without seeing the problem [Tolstoy's first class of the ignorant]. I could not imitate those people, since I did not lack imagination and could not pretend that I did. Like every man who truly lives, I could not turn my eyes away from the mice and the dragon once I had seen them" - Leo Tolstoy in Confession.

Thing is, we sit atop a pyramid of suffering. There are wage slaves and the detritus of society, sweat shops and the like, at the bottom. The middle and upper classes can only 'value' their own material possessions or virtues or aims by largely ignoring this mass of suffering humanity, or justify their own value by the suffering that ultimately brought it about. This renders it all immoral. For why do we have more right than they?
Even if you ask each to create their own value in their station, or that they inherently have some innate value (the Stoic position) regardless, those with more are justifying the suffering of others. This is the classic problem that creates the Champagne Socialist, or otherwise is essentially selfish, uncaring, or ignorant of the great suffering he is benefitting from. As I said, I don't consider it a coherent position, without either denying morality in entirety or justifying the suffering of each in and of itself (both positions not feasible in my opinion), and even then, it is a temporary solution until you fall into the maw of the dragon - this is why Stoics and Epicureans were such fans of Euthanasia. Even Stoic forebearance at some point dissipates, when you can do no more, and meaning falls with it. When cut to the quick, the philosophy fails.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think this is fair. A Christian who thinks that the search for meaning is a transcendental endeavor is no more being nihilistic towards this life than a virtue ethicist would be by claiming that hedonism is ultimately an empty end goal.

To be completely clear, I'm not accusing all Christians of nihilism, and I'm not certain how the percentages play out. I'm just saying that if a Christian insists that "the universe is meaningless" and sees this-life as having no meaning without an appeal to heaven or God, then there is your Christian nihilist. I think that I'm being perfectly fair here.

If you want anti-life, I actually share the ancient Greek revulsion towards physical embodiment. The idea of an individuated afterlife makes me deeply uncomfortable because I would prefer the pseudo-oblivion of a world-soul: not precisely annihilation, but certainly not continuity either. I will be the first to admit that this makes life look completely pointless, but as far as I can tell, the only worldview that genuinely seems to escape this is Christianity. And aside from my anti-naturalism, I am pretty agnostic.

I see. Yes, there were certainly people in the classical world who weren't comfortable with "physical embodiment". I don't share that, personally.

I would like to know how life can be an end in itself, though. Either that is subjectivism and therefore useless to anyone who feels differently, or teleological, in which case we have to worry if Aquinas's analysis of final causes is valid.

What I'm talking about is not subjectivism, and while certainly Aquinas's views should be carefully weighed, genius that he was, I don't see Aquinas as the final authority here.

Aristotle seems to locate eudaimonia within life, that is, as something one says about someone's life, a description of a life that has been successful (or happy, or flourishing), and eudaimonia is the final end (or collection of finals ends, or the fulfillment) of someone's life. That makes life an end-in-itself in that view.

I'm not suggesting that Aristotle is the final authority on these matters, and he does have some odd views on some issues, but if we are going to "worry" about Aquinas, we might as well "worry" (or be encouraged) by Aristotle.

My view is that life has its own sort of natural teleology -- that is, potentials to be actualized and for which we have the natural biological powers and function to achieve. It is difficult to even understand just what a human being is without understanding how various natural capacities contribute to the maturation of the individual. We find our good in this process of self-actualization, which is basically the successful use of our natural function. It all aims our ourselves, at living successfully as a human individual, with no "higher" or "broader" aim.

It is entirely possible to see life as meaningful without making appeals to God, or even "the Universe", using this perspective, because there is no need to go outside of ourselves to find meaning. It is in being human and having human needs that require our chosen actions to fulfill that we can identify values that are good for us and that matter to our existence, making those values choice-worthy in the context of this-life.

I can agree with the existentialists to the extent that we choose our values, however, the key is to choose those values that are worthy of being chosen. IOWs, not merely to follow one's desires, but to follow right desire. I'm not certain, but I suspect that the existentialist view of existence preceding essence may possibly trip the existentialist up, because it may seem that the only way in which any particular desire would matter is if it were preprogrammed into oneself like an instinct, which I hardly think is a requirement. Sure, we can choose our goals in life, but we can't choose how choiceworthy they are given what we are and how we function.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Tolstoy addresses all this. The problem is the ultimate meaningless of all actions, as action within the world when tallied, amounts to chasing after nothing. Why develop the self, or accrue virtue or wealth, when inevitably all declines to void?

There is your Christian nihilist extraordinaire!

It is in viewing this life as merely a means and not as an end that one gets to the view that that one is chasing after the nothingness of death instead of the presence of life while it is around. If life is an end, then developing the self, etc, is worthwhile in itself, and no void changes that. The accomplishment has still taken place, and fully mattered during one's life. There is no need to take the perspective of the void, as that is irrelevant.

He says there are four type of people: Those too stupid to realise the problem; those who kill themselves; those who want to kill themselves but are too cowardly; and Epicureanism, to enjoy present blessings and value what you currently have, while ignoring its ultimate meaninglessness.

False alternative. This only makes sense if one accepts Tolstoy's conclusions, but that is begging the question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

But, some Christians, must think and convince themselves, there could be no meaning in life without their personal faith belief.

I hate to play armchair psychologist, but it certainly seems that way at times.

Otherwise, what benefit do they get from it? Acknowledging that others can find meaning, while disagreeing with their personal faith belief, is hard for them to swallow.

It would be refreshing to run across a Christian who recognizes that an atheist's life can be fully meaningful, even if they might think that the atheist is making some sort of mistake regarding God and any afterlife existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It would be refreshing to run across a Christian who recognizes that an atheist's life can be fully meaningful, even if they might think that the atheist is making some sort of mistake regarding God and any afterlife existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't think an afterlife is required for meaning, but I fail to see much meaning in a materialist existence. I've seen meaning described as the manifestation of the individual adaptive process, that which directs from the current actual position, to the potential desired one. Psychologically it can be seen as the means of facing the unknown and determining what action or paradigm needs to be embodied, to render it known and thus stable. It is thus an ongoing process of determining meaning when doing so.
A materialist position descends into a totalitarian stance of rigid nihilism if coherent, where no true meaning exists of necessity - for nothing is really 'better' than something else, merely expedient for the individual perhaps. The process thus declares everything to be known - there are no gods, no altruism, only the material, etc. While new information may come to light, no purpose can be discovered.
Alternately, it sinks into vacuous hedonism or mere fulfillment of desires, or belief that nothing truly can be known. That actions are merely messes of subconscious desires, or brute physiology.

These are the swamps of the South and the icy plains of the North of Lewis' Pilgrim's Regress. Only on the narrow road between these extremes, lies purposeful action, true meaning.
If you play a game, it might be great fun while playing - but its rules are arbitrary. You embody the game, give it relevance, but ultimately you 'see through it', and the barebones of it just being Distraction are thus laid bare. Perhaps a way to see the difference is a man throwing a ball around, and a man playing his hardest to try and impress a scout to cement his future. The rules and goals might appear similar superficially, but they are very different. My ascribing meaning to the innately meaningless; and something actually having real meaning, being purposeful action; are really not equivalent. The latter needs a thorough metaphysical reading to exist.

 

[Silmarien]

To be completely clear, I'm not accusing all Christians of nihilism, and I'm not certain how the percentages play out. I'm just saying that if a Christian insists that "the universe is meaningless" and sees this-life as having no meaning without an appeal to heaven or God, then there is your Christian nihilist. I think that I'm being perfectly fair here.

I don't think you are. What if the Christian says instead that this universe is utterly unintelligible in every possible way without an appeal to the transcendent? That causality makes no sense, that conscious existence makes no sense, that meaning is a completely incoherent concept, and so forth and so on? We can get stuck on meaning because its obviously teleological nature makes it an easier target, but it's really just one aspect of a much bigger issue.

The type of Christian who's waiting around for the end of the world, smugly self-assured of their own salvation and eager to leave this life behind I would certainly consider nihilistic, but that's very different than someone who instead simply says, "This life does not make sense and cannot in the absense of extra-rational faith."

What I'm talking about is not subjectivism, and while certainly Aquinas's views should be carefully weighed, genius that he was, I don't see Aquinas as the final authority here.

Aristotle seems to locate eudaimonia within life, that is, as something one says about someone's life, a description of a life that has been successful (or happy, or flourishing), and eudaimonia is the final end (or collection of finals ends, or the fulfillment) of someone's life. That makes life an end-in-itself in that view.

I'm not suggesting that Aristotle is the final authority on these matters, and he does have some odd views on some issues, but if we are going to "worry" about Aquinas, we might as well "worry" (or be encouraged) by Aristotle.

This is what I was getting at, actually, since I'm a bit of an Aristotelian too. If we are to accept immanent teleology, then we have to worry about (or be encouraged by) the possibility that Aquinas's analysis of final causality actually holds. Aquinas's Five Ways are not relevant to anyone who does not accept Aristotle to one degree or another, but for those of us who do, then they are worth taking seriously. This isn't a matter of whether Aquinas is an authority, but whether he was right.

I've abandoned Nietzsche for Plato (and Aristotle), so I'm very comfortable with the way you're framing this question. My question is the coherency of natural teleology if we reject the notion of the transcendent. How does teleology develop in a void, and if it's simply an arbitrary fact that potentialities exist to be actualized, why do we care? What's the point of even living successfully as human beings if that success amounts to nothing more than playing whatever role that nature has mindlessly provided for us? Unless you're going to be a Platonist and say that we're teleologically directed towards the Good, and that living correctly allows us to more fully partake in this transcendental aspect of existence, I am not sure just how far an Aristotelian account can really get us. I see something very fatalistic about it: we are what we are, so we might as well declare it good in biblical fashion, since we cannot be anything else.

I can agree with the existentialists to the extent that we choose our values, however, the key is to choose those values that are worthy of being chosen. IOWs, not merely to follow one's desires, but to follow right desire. I'm not certain, but I suspect that the existentialist view of existence preceding essence may possibly trip the existentialist up, because it may seem that the only way in which any particular desire would matter is if it were preprogrammed into oneself like an instinct, which I hardly think is a requirement. Sure, we can choose our goals in life, but we can't choose how choiceworthy they are given what we are and how we function.

Well, existentialism is a very broad school. Sartre in particular (and de Beauvoir) held to existence preceeding essence, but Camus rejected this, as did all of the religious existentialists, for the obvious reasons. I do agree that Sartre very much did trip himself up with this, though it's not very clear to me that Camus had a fully coherent justification for accepting human dignity as axiomatic. That's what happens when you reject systematic philosophy.

 

[Silmarien]

It would be refreshing to run across a Christian who recognizes that an atheist's life can be fully meaningful, even if they might think that the atheist is making some sort of mistake regarding God and any afterlife existence.

I am not sure how a Christian could ever recognize this and remain a Christian, since God is the teleological end goal towards which all human existence is driven. To deny this is to be wrong about what meaning really is, so I think from a theistic perspective, the only real question is whether an atheist can be in full communion with God without ever realizing it. You certainly seem to be closer than I am with my prideful nihilistic streak, but "fully meaningful" is a difficult concept to pin down. It would depend upon the true nature of reality.

If Christianity really is what it claims to be, then no non-Christian is really seeing things clearly enough to be in full communion (and the same would hold true for any other religion, though it's trickier with the more pluralistic ones). I do not expect Christians to say that non-Christians are in the same exact spot existentially, and get kind of annoyed when they do.

 

[bhsmte]

I hate to play armchair psychologist, but it certainly seems that way at times.



It would be refreshing to run across a Christian who recognizes that an atheist's life can be fully meaningful, even if they might think that the atheist is making some sort of mistake regarding God and any afterlife existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

IMO, the people with faith beliefs that can acknowledge the bold above with non-believers, likely are more secure in their own faith belief, than those who struggle with it.

 

[apogee]

IMO, the people with faith beliefs that can acknowledge the bold above with non-believers, likely are more secure in their own faith belief, than those who struggle with it.

OK, let's just clear something up here. Call me a Nihilist...but seriously.....no-one that ever posts on this site... could possibly be leading a 'fully meaningful' existence.

 

[bhsmte]

OK, let's just clear something up here. Call me a Nihilist...but seriously.....no-one that ever posts on this site... could possibly be leading a 'fully meaningful' existence.

Could be, maybe and why not?

Do you think, each individual defines meaning in their life, or is it someone else, that defines it for them?

 

[Chriliman]

IMO, the people with faith beliefs that can acknowledge the bold above with non-believers, likely are more secure in their own faith belief, than those who struggle with it.

Indeed, that view should fit within a Christian worldview. One can be fully a branch, but still get cut off because they bear no fruit. It’s finite meaning vs everlasting meaning, the later only possible if we’re one with the vine of Christ.

 

[bhsmte]

Indeed, that view should fit within a Christian worldview. One can be fully a branch, but still get cut off because they bear no fruit. It’s finite meaning vs everlasting meaning, the later only possible if we’re one with the vine of Christ.

Bear fruit? How do you tell who does and who doesnt? How is that opinion related to whether any individual has true meaning in their life?

 

[Chriliman]

Bear fruit? How do you tell who does and who doesnt?

You can tell someone's bearing good fruit if they promote love, truthfulness and forgiveness. They will always be a stumbling block to those who don't walk in that way.

How is that opinion related to whether any individual has true meaning in their life?

You and I define true meaning differently. I define it as something that we can have now and it will last forever, beyond death, you define it as only something we can now for a finite period of time before death.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's nice, but in this context it is atheists protecting their beliefs against ex-atheists who ultimately did decide that life held no meaning in the absence of religious faith.

Their lives had no meaning -- and certainly they were free to make that decision for themselves... why should anyone else feel compelled to think that other people's personal decisions are applicable for their own lives?

If I may quote the classic wisdom from the TV show "Diff'rent Strokes":

"The world don't move to the beat of just one drum / What might be right for you may not be right for some..."

It would be nice to be able to talk about this without constantly being told that we only feel this way because of indoctrination or being chastised for reading things on the atheistic Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

And it is unfortunate that that does happen...

Christians actually do believe that people who disagree with them are missing out on something--that is kind of central to what Christianity is, so I'm not sure what comfort has to do with it. If you look at apologetics that take this approach, you'll see that they quote atheistic philosophers like Nietzsche and Sartre a lot, because they actually agree with this assessment. It is not something that they are making up so that they can feel superior in their faith. I do not know why you find it so offensive that people disagree with you on questions like this.

And what Christians believe may not necessarily be what others believe -- that is kind of central to what "non-Christians" are. Too many people (on both sides, to be sure) are trying a hard sell on folks who have already said "no thanks."

 

[bhsmte]

You can tell someone's bearing good fruit if they promote love, truthfulness and forgiveness. They will always be a stumbling block to those who don't walk in that way.



You and I define true meaning differently. I define it as something that we can have now and it will last forever, beyond death, you define it as only something we can now for a finite period of time before death.

You can define hope and meaning however you like. This thread is about whether people can have meaning in their life and be a non believer.

 

[Chriliman]

You can define hope and meaning however you like. This thread is about whether people can have meaning in their life and be a non believer.

I think they can as long as they understand it won't last, but it seems that understanding is what can drive the yearning for something transcendent that does last. I understand not everyone feels that way though.