Where is the hope in atheism?

[Skreeper]

There is no point in doing any of the things that nobody will have memory of after they cease to exist.

As a wise man once said: "Well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man."

 

[gaara4158]

There is no point in doing any of the things that nobody will have memory of after they cease to exist.

Well, as I say, I’m sorry you feel that way.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Unsurprisingly, I noticed that not one person has yet to seriously answer the OP. Notice that the OP has nothing to do with God at all nor did the question ever require God to be mentioned. It is simply a scenario involving a suicidal atheist who doesnt believe there is an afterlife. What message of hope would you provide this individual to turn him away from his nihilistic conclusion? It is a simple question so why are the atheists so quiet? As an aspiring chaplain, this is a very serious and practical question because I very well may have a suicidal atheist come into my office.

My advice is to help yourself before you try to help others. Your worldview apparently necessitates making egregious category errors, over and over and over again. Abandon it and find a better one.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There is no point in doing any of the things that nobody will have memory of after they cease to exist.

You are welcome to your bizarre brand of theistic quasi-nihilism. Just don't expect other people to meet you there.

 

[Silmarien]

That... sounds like clinical depression, to be honest. There is no transcending subjectivity for the individual. The reward system either does its job or it doesn't. When it doesn't, we tend to get very nihilistic indeed.

I would not be uncomfortable calling it clinical depression, but there are questions out there concerning to what extent depression is a disease of modernity, and if so, why precisely. Naturalism as the underlying academically accepted philosophy is dehumanizing, and I can't help but think that plays a role when it comes to modern psychological problems.

I can say that shifting over to a theistic outlook has made a huge difference for me when it comes to anxiety issues. It's not a magical drug, of course, but it is a worldview change that affects the way you look at everything. Which is why the best thing an atheist can do for someone with nihilistic tendencies is to refrain from bullying them out of taking theism seriously as an alternative. You just want to make sure they're exploring the best that the religious traditions have to offer instead of getting taken advantage of by fundamentalist predators.

I'm not fine with them telling me I need to believe the same lies they tell themselves and I will rip their arguments apart with alacrity every time.

Well, I would not assume that people are telling themselves lies just because they've come to different conclusions than you do. I would love to be able to talk myself into believing that Christianity is true, but I can't. That doesn't mean that someone who does find the evidence conclusive is lying to themselves, though. They just subjectively take more away from it than I do right now. My thoughts on the matter are not objective fact.

I don't have any problem with people being atheists. It's the tendency to insist that they're not making any claims and then turn around and look down on anyone who doesn't accept their non-claims that irritates me. Atheism really is every bit as susceptible to ingroup/outgroup social dynamics as any religion, and this can at times even get dangerous.

 

[klutedavid]

Let's say I was an atheist and for some reason I wanted to kill myself. I told you that I hated my life and wanted to end it. Being an atheist, I know that there is no afterlife and I will simply cease to exist. I also know that the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is dying and when that time happens, all humanity will die too. So because all humanity will one day die and cease to exist, the universe will ultimately be no different than if humanity never existed at all. So who cares if my death hurts other people, they will eventually die and all memory of hurt will cease to exist. So atheist, talk me out of suicide. Why should I not kill myself? Explain why life and existence isn't futile? Good luck.

No one can prove that there is there is a heaven, nor can anyone prove that heaven does not exist. Either way each view is simply a belief in itself, as absolute knowledge is not available to us.

A scientific education will not answer the big questions, such as the existence of God.

Philosophy cannot tell us whether a God exists or not, we are ignorant of the larger picture.

There are two distinct perceptions of God, one is a belief in a God or Gods. The other is a direct revelation of God to someone. You can believe in God or even Gods, you can believe in a philosophy if you wish. Yet an encounter with God is an entirely different matter altogether.

The Bible for example, traces the forced intrusion of God into human history. Ultimately leading to the revelation of the Christ to humanity. People that encountered God in the pages of the Bible, had the experience somewhat forced upon them.

Regardless of what you may think or even believe, I strongly believe that one needs to adequately explain, the very purpose of existence in the first instance. From my viewpoint the Christ explains the reason for my existence.

 

[ananda]

Although I don't think anyone can honestly claim to be a Gnostic atheist, in this scenario it would be Someone who has concluded for himself that God does not exist.

Then, to answer the OP: I would suggest that he practice the Buddhist Path in order to gain relief from his suffering, and to personally gain the three knowledges of rebirth, kamma, and the Four Noble Truths.

Why should I not kill myself? Explain why life and existence isn't futile?

I would explain the preciousness of human birth, and advise him to test out the theory by practicing the Buddhist Path.

 

[Silmarien]

Or it's just a brute fact of nature, and we don't need to ascribe bizarre, clandestine motives to people, a propos of nothing.

You do realize that if your worldview is full of brute facts, that's a bad thing, right? Why do rainbows appear after storms? Because they just do. Brute fact.

Anyway, emergent properties as a concept is millennia older than emergentism. There is a very clear bias in academia against ancient and medieval thought, though, so yeah, plenty of people these days are not going to be too quick to admit that they're taking their cues from Aristotle. There's nothing bizarre about that.

You seem somewhat hostile to conversation in general, but given that you brought up emergence in the first place, on the off chance that you're interested in naturalistic Neo-Aristotelianism, here's a taste of it: Hylomorphism and Emergence

 

[keith99]

If a tree falls in the forest and there is only an atheist to hear it does it then cease to have made a sound when the atheist dies?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Unsurprisingly, I noticed that not one person has yet to seriously answer the OP

That's because your OP isn't serious.
What people have been explaining to you in response to your OP, is that your OP is invalid as it makes false assumptions and tries to put extra baggage on atheism that doesn't belong there.

It's like complaining that one doesn't answer the question "why do you hit your wife?", while it has yet to be established that a wife is being hit in the first place.

You demand an actual reason for wife beating as a response.
But the response really is "I don't beat my wife".

See?

When you ask loaded questions, you're not going to get the responses you want.

Notice that the OP has nothing to do with God at all nor did the question ever require God to be mentioned. It is simply a scenario involving a suicidal atheist who doesnt believe there is an afterlife.

It involved a suicidal nihilist. Who happens to also be an atheist.
It's not the "there's no afterlife" that makes that person suicidal. It is the nihilism and the way that person approaches that nihilism psychologically.

What message of hope would you provide this individual to turn him away from his nihilistic conclusion?

I could talk to him, acknowledge his problems and try to show him how life is worth living. But if the person has made up his mind, there isn't much anyone can tell that person.

It is a simple question so why are the atheists so quiet?

Again: because of the way you set this thread up. Because of the baggage you try to attach to atheism. Because of the loaded nature of your question.

As an aspiring chaplain, this is a very serious and practical question because I very well may have a suicidal atheist come into my office.

Or a suicidal theist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Except that is not the scenario that we are talking about. If all memory of said movie experience all of a sudden ceased to exist after you got home, what is left from the experience to enjoy other that $30 less in your bank account?

I can't even count the amount of movies I have seen in my life, of which I don't remember the first thing.

That is the point I am making. In this scenario, it would be better to never have gone to the theater at all and saved yourself the $30 bucks.

Disagree.

 

[gaara4158]

I would not be uncomfortable calling it clinical depression, but there are questions out there concerning to what extent depression is a disease of modernity, and if so, why precisely. Naturalism as the underlying academically accepted philosophy is dehumanizing, and I can't help but think that plays a role when it comes to modern psychological problems.

If naturalism is true, it’s a great cosmic tragedy that we’re intellectually equipped to uncover more than we’re emotionally equipped to handle, but it’s not surprising. We’ve evolved to get things done, not necessarily to feel good about our place in the cosmos. In the past, our ignorance in many aspects of cosmology, psychology, and biology left enough room for us to fit all kinds of reasonable, comforting answers to the Big Questions (what are we, what is the meaning of life, etc), but now is a different story. It’s harder to sneak anything too grandiose past scrutiny because we have access to more information than ever before. Pair that with modern social stigmas against help-seeking behaviors and prohibition of certain psychedelics demonstrated to help cure depression, and it’s no wonder we see it so much these days. We’re left without anything to save us from or cope with existential horror.

This is all just a big “if,” and although it makes perfect sense to me, I don’t know that it could ever be confirmed definitively. I’ve read that there is an inverse relationship between IQ and general happiness. It would be interesting to see if that’s increased over time or been stable since the beginning.

I can say that shifting over to a theistic outlook has made a huge difference for me when it comes to anxiety issues. It's not a magical drug, of course, but it is a worldview change that affects the way you look at everything. Which is why the best thing an atheist can do for someone with nihilistic tendencies is to refrain from bullying them out of taking theism seriously as an alternative. You just want to make sure they're exploring the best that the religious traditions have to offer instead of getting taken advantage of by fundamentalist predators.

I can agree with this, and I think I’ve probably been guilty of overlooking it more than once, perhaps even with you, so I feel I should apologize. There’s no good reason to resist “whatever floats your boat” as long as it doesn’t harm you or others. That said, if one is submitting an argument in an apologetics forum that’s not explicitly for believers only, they’re fair game to be desconstructed in terms of soundness and accuracy. That’s what an open apologetics forum is for.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can agree with this, and I think I’ve probably been guilty of overlooking it more than once, perhaps even with you, so I feel I should apologize. There’s no good reason to resist “whatever floats your boat” as long as it doesn’t harm you or others. That said, if one is submitting an argument in an apologetics forum that’s not explicitly for believers only, they’re fair game to be desconstructed in terms of soundness and accuracy. That’s what an open apologetics forum is for.

Yep. That's what it's for ... but by that same token of thought, I've always held the old proverb, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" to be highly applicable in these cases. I'm an equal opportunity deconstructor, and I can challenge and deconstruct my own faith, and my own beliefs, as well as those of others who don't share my beliefs.

However, I will add that being that biblical epistemology is what it is, then there really is a limit to the extent to which Christians should "bother" with defending their own beliefs through various acts of apologias.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You do realize that if your worldview is full of brute facts, that's a bad thing, right?

You're thinking of naked assertions. Worldviews that are full of naked assertions are bad.

Why do rainbows appear after storms? Because they just do. Brute fact.

That would be a naked assertion. The factual answer is, because of light refraction.

Anyway, emergent properties as a concept is millennia older than emergentism.

Sure is. It's interesting to study from a historical perspective, but it doesn't mean we look at the ancient progenitors of particle physics, chemistry, neuroscience and other fields pertinent to emergence for advice on the subject. No one reads Hippocrates to learn how to do brain surgery.

 

[Silmarien]

You're thinking of naked assertions. Worldviews that are full of naked assertions are bad.

No, I'm thinking of brute facts. Perhaps you do not know what "brute fact" means? It refers to an aspect of reality that is inexplicable. And seriously, if you think you've hit a whole bunch of dead ends in your understanding of the world, maybe you should consider rethinking how you look at it to see if more possibilities for how to proceed next don't appear.

That would be a naked assertion. The factual answer is, because of light refraction.

Yes, which is why accepting it as a brute fact would have been bad. There is an explanation for why rainbows appear, so we don't have just accept it as an inexplicable fact about reality. If people had decided it was inexplicable, we would not know about light refraction.

Sure is. It's interesting to study from a historical perspective, but it doesn't mean we look at the ancient progenitors of particle physics, chemistry, neuroscience and other fields pertinent to emergence for advice on the subject. No one reads Hippocrates to learn how to do brain surgery.

This is extremely prejudiced and shortsighted. We're often trapped in our own very modern way of viewing reality, and the only way we escape from that is by trying to look at what we see from a different historical perspective to see how much it works. Neuroscience in specific actually would benefit from some exposure to Buddhist and Hindu ways of conceptualizing reality to break it out of the post-Cartesian dualism vs. materialism paradigm it's stuck in.

 

[Willis Gravning]

Addressing the OP, the truth is no one, including your atheist friend, knows whether death is the absolute end of us. We can think or hope one way or the other but in the end it is all speculation.

I read about A.J. Ayer who was a pre-eminent Wykeham Professor of Logic and an atheist. He had a vivid near death experience after which he wrote the following.

'My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no god.'

It is perhaps possible, though I make no claim, that birth and death are two sides of the same door.

 

[keith99]

Unsurprisingly, I noticed that not one person has yet to seriously answer the OP. Notice that the OP has nothing to do with God at all nor did the question ever require God to be mentioned. It is simply a scenario involving a suicidal atheist who doesnt believe there is an afterlife. What message of hope would you provide this individual to turn him away from his nihilistic conclusion? It is a simple question so why are the atheists so quiet? As an aspiring chaplain, this is a very serious and practical question because I very well may have a suicidal atheist come into my office.

I answered the OP in detail. Just because I came to the conversation lacking your conclusion that I should try to talk him out of suicide does not mean I did not answer the post. Similarly when dealing with a suicidal person my goal would be to deal with the immediate issues, not to try to change their worldview.

What you are wanting is for an atheist to give a Christian answer. Hmm.

 

[Silmarien]

If naturalism is true, it’s a great cosmic tragedy that we’re intellectually equipped to uncover more than we’re emotionally equipped to handle, but it’s not surprising. We’ve evolved to get things done, not necessarily to feel good about our place in the cosmos.

Yep, this is what I've been saying all along. Humanity would be the great tragedy of naturalism, not necessarily something positive to be celebrated. Life itself takes on an uglier tone if there's nothing to it besides chemical reactions gone wild. And I do agree with your assessment of modern society and psychological issues.

On the other hand, I don't think knowledge of cosmology, psychology, and biology really eat up much room at all. It's difficult to see how life could have ever evolved at all if our universe weren't in some sense seeded for it, if different chemicals didn't have it in their nature to give rise to life under certain circumstances. Science explains how physical reality interacts to produce the effects we see; it doesn't explain why it was the case that it would act this way to begin with. I don't see how it even could. It doesn't say too much about ontology in and of itself--it was a specific Enlightenment era mechanistic materialism that ruled out other options, and that was blown to smithereens with quantum physics. Reductionism is a bit out of style now, so things are opening up again. Or they would be if naturalists didn't have kneejerk negative reactions to the alternatives.

The only genuine problem I see is that the modern understanding of the mind rightly rules out claims of certainty. Can strong arguments for theism be made from logical principles? Yes, but reality ultimately need not conform to human notions of logic. This is a problem for everyone, not just theists, but we've become so obsessed as a culture with certainty, verifiability, and so forth that it looks more damning than it really is. And this is not helped by a certain type of apologist.

I can agree with this, and I think I’ve probably been guilty of overlooking it more than once, perhaps even with you, so I feel I should apologize.

No worries.

That said, if one is submitting an argument in an apologetics forum that’s not explicitly for believers only, they’re fair game to be desconstructed in terms of soundness and accuracy. That’s what an open apologetics forum is for.

Hmm. I both agree and disagree here, depending on the type of argument in question. There are certain arguments that really are aimed at a modern audience: Fine Tuning, certain design arguments from ID, Craig's Kalam, and probably a handful of others I'm not familiar with. Knock yourself out deconstructing those.

On the other hand, there are other arguments out there that are much older and meant for very different audiences. Any of the Greek or Scholastic arguments would fall into this category, and the problem with immediately jumping to deconstruction is that you don't necessarily know what they're saying and why they're saying it. We interpret the arguments in a completely different light than what their original proponents intended, so something like Aquinas's teleological argument gets addressed as if it were a modern design argument, and it isn't. At all. The first step here has to be to try to properly conceptualize the argument and figure out what's going on rather than rushing straight to critiquing it, and that almost always gets skipped. And not just by atheists.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

No, I'm thinking of brute facts. Perhaps you do not know what "brute fact" means? It refers to an aspect of reality that is inexplicable. And seriously, if you think you've hit a whole bunch of dead ends in your understanding of the world, maybe you should consider rethinking how you look at it to see if more possibilities for how to proceed next don't appear.

Yes, which is why accepting it as a brute fact would have been bad. There is an explanation for why rainbows appear, so we don't have just accept it as an inexplicable fact about reality. If people had decided it was inexplicable, we would not know about light refraction.

That was not my understanding of the term. I just meant fact of nature. Thanks for the correction.

This is extremely prejudiced and shortsighted. We're often trapped in our own very modern way of viewing reality, and the only way we escape from that is by trying to look at what we see from a different historical perspective to see how much it works.

That might be true, in some very rare, very particular cases.

Generally though, you have it backwards. Staying stuck in ancient modes of thinking is the trap. Thankfully, science doesn't work that way.

Neuroscience in specific actually would benefit from some exposure to Buddhist and Hindu ways of conceptualizing reality to break it out of the post-Cartesian dualism vs. materialism paradigm it's stuck in.

Maybe.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It is perhaps possible, though I make no claim, that birth and death are two sides of the same door.

I think they are, in some sense. Non-existence is all the same to you, whether you're dead or haven't been born yet.