Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 4) If your 'truth' is indeed truth, or better, if your searching is in itself truth, what do you do about the millions who can't read or write; who have no access to the 'wealth of knowledge' of the world and are, therefore, relegated to their own uninformed 'box' of ignorance?
Response 4). I'm skeptical by nature and training. "Truth", and those professing to know it, give me a case of nerves with their hubris. I have never claimed to know the "Truth". I'm not even sure what it is I CAN know, let alone make such a bold statement. Searching is neither "Truth" nor "Knowledge" but an activity. Searching requires an open mind, a willingness to consider many different perspectives, but does not require books, or money, or worldliness. Just curiosity and an ever-present tendency to ask "why?, or maybe, "How"?
The deeper thread in your question is your conclusion that in order to reap a "Just Reward" at the end of life, one must know the "Truth". For you, life appears to be a constant competition for "rightness". In your world, the "ignorant" are somehow at risk of some horrible fate (some "Justice" that is). In my world, my atheistic world, we are all equal. Nobody gets a reward for being human, nobody gets a punishment. There is no Universal Arbiter.
"Imagine there's no heaven
it's easy if you try
No hell below us
above us only sky"
(Lennon).
Friday, October 29, 2010
My Atheism: A Breach of Einstein's "Laws"?
Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 3) Doesn't the theory that life 'evolved-from-inanimate-matter' contradict (at least one of) Einstein's laws?
Response 3) OK, give me a hint.... which law(s)? Or are we in the realm of biochemistry maybe?
Question 3) Doesn't the theory that life 'evolved-from-inanimate-matter' contradict (at least one of) Einstein's laws?
Response 3) OK, give me a hint.... which law(s)? Or are we in the realm of biochemistry maybe?
My Atheism: Morality and Justice
Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 2d) If morality is a consensus of opinion, how universally 'just' is that? If it doesn't have to be universally 'just', how is the applicability of the 'moral' determined?
Response 2d: Universal Justice -- Two words which seem so "right" when brought together. But, a human DESIRE for universal fairness does not make it happen or make it even feasible. In order to HAVE universal justice, one MUST require a devine and, presumably, omniscient arbiter and, as the title of my blog implies, I don't believe there is one. I personally consider morality, not so much a consensus, as an innate human sensibility.
According to Wikipedia (see "Justice"), studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need". Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human." indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.
As I have stated in previous posts, I believe humans have evolved as a species with morality developing as an integral part of its reliance on socialization for survival. I stick with that hypothesis here. Because I feel this way, I look to communities to execute their own rules of law. As long as the members of that community recognize and uphold those rules, justice works.
Question 2d) If morality is a consensus of opinion, how universally 'just' is that? If it doesn't have to be universally 'just', how is the applicability of the 'moral' determined?
Response 2d: Universal Justice -- Two words which seem so "right" when brought together. But, a human DESIRE for universal fairness does not make it happen or make it even feasible. In order to HAVE universal justice, one MUST require a devine and, presumably, omniscient arbiter and, as the title of my blog implies, I don't believe there is one. I personally consider morality, not so much a consensus, as an innate human sensibility.
According to Wikipedia (see "Justice"), studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need". Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human." indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.
As I have stated in previous posts, I believe humans have evolved as a species with morality developing as an integral part of its reliance on socialization for survival. I stick with that hypothesis here. Because I feel this way, I look to communities to execute their own rules of law. As long as the members of that community recognize and uphold those rules, justice works.
My Atheism: Me versus Hitler?!
Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
2c) What makes the morality of 'nighthawk' any better than the morality of Hitler?
I'm not sure whether this question deserves an answer, as the implications are repulsive. But, I said I would try to answer to the best of my abilities, so here goes...
I'm pretty sure that murder and torture are morally prohibited in most cultures. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not a murderer or a torturer (the quality of my writing being one possible exception). So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my morality is more socially acceptable than Hitler's was. Thus, it's "better". Saying any more than that is quibbling.
2c) What makes the morality of 'nighthawk' any better than the morality of Hitler?
I'm not sure whether this question deserves an answer, as the implications are repulsive. But, I said I would try to answer to the best of my abilities, so here goes...
I'm pretty sure that murder and torture are morally prohibited in most cultures. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not a murderer or a torturer (the quality of my writing being one possible exception). So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my morality is more socially acceptable than Hitler's was. Thus, it's "better". Saying any more than that is quibbling.
My Atheism: The Origins of Morality.
Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
2b) Where does 'morality' come from?
The striking consistency of human values across cultures supports the conclusion that morality, like language, is an adaptive ability in (at least) humans -- that is, I think that morality evolved with the species. I don't attribute mystical qualities to the ability to learn and abide by societal rules. One could substitute any number of human behaviors in place of morality in the question, such as love, anger, compassion, envy, or language, for that matter. The believer is convinced they are designed. I am not. I think they work, and that is their strength.
2b) Where does 'morality' come from?
The striking consistency of human values across cultures supports the conclusion that morality, like language, is an adaptive ability in (at least) humans -- that is, I think that morality evolved with the species. I don't attribute mystical qualities to the ability to learn and abide by societal rules. One could substitute any number of human behaviors in place of morality in the question, such as love, anger, compassion, envy, or language, for that matter. The believer is convinced they are designed. I am not. I think they work, and that is their strength.
My Atheism: The benefits of morality...
Preface: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 2a) If you don't believe you have an 'existence' beyond this life, what is the benefit of ANY morality?
Response 2a) I like the definition of morality used by Stan Slap in his business book "Bury My Heart at Conference Room B" wherein he proposes that "Morals" or "how a person ought to act in the opinion of authority, consensus or the popularly interpreted rules of society" are " the right thing to do". This definition is similar to that posed in the Oxford New American Dictionary that morality is a set of "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". It seems to me that any community that hopes to survive will require rules to maintain and sustain itself and its members. I see morality as a social imperative. So, I guess the short answer to Question 2a is that I don't believe in an afterlife, and morality keeps us alive and ensures the perpetuation of the species. That seems like a benefit to me.
Question 2a) If you don't believe you have an 'existence' beyond this life, what is the benefit of ANY morality?
Response 2a) I like the definition of morality used by Stan Slap in his business book "Bury My Heart at Conference Room B" wherein he proposes that "Morals" or "how a person ought to act in the opinion of authority, consensus or the popularly interpreted rules of society" are " the right thing to do". This definition is similar to that posed in the Oxford New American Dictionary that morality is a set of "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". It seems to me that any community that hopes to survive will require rules to maintain and sustain itself and its members. I see morality as a social imperative. So, I guess the short answer to Question 2a is that I don't believe in an afterlife, and morality keeps us alive and ensures the perpetuation of the species. That seems like a benefit to me.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
My Atheism: Rewards and the afterlife?
I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These questions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any miss-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 1) What is your reward for the life you lead, if you deny the existence of an afterlife?
Response 1: Ok, so I've written two previous versions of this response and both were rejected by my stalwart editors; the short one for being curt, and the long one for being "P-P" ( pretentious and pedantic). So maybe the third time's the charm, eh?
So, here we go again.
I do not believe in an afterlife and I do not believe in rewards for living. As my mother used to say, "You don't get money for getting good grades, you get an education". (Well, maybe she didn't say it quite that way, but that was the gist of it). I believe we are born, we live, we die. Done. I don't believe that people need "carrots" or "sticks" from outside of ourselves or our communities to be good. I suspect that humans (and perhaps animals) have innate capacities for "rules" much as we humans have for developing languages (see "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong" by Marc D. Hauser, or any number of other recent books on the subject of the development of human moral systems). If one absolutely cannot fathom my lack of a need for a reward, perhaps I can offer that I love feeling the sun on my skin, the taste and sensations of fresh berries, the smell of fresh brewed coffee, the company of friends and family, and warm memories. I mostly live in the "now" timeframe and have learned that I am most peaceful when I am neither fretting about past mistakes or worrying about future calamities. And I try very hard to be "good".... right now. But that is another subject and it comes up in the next Question! Stay tuned!
Question 1) What is your reward for the life you lead, if you deny the existence of an afterlife?
Response 1: Ok, so I've written two previous versions of this response and both were rejected by my stalwart editors; the short one for being curt, and the long one for being "P-P" ( pretentious and pedantic). So maybe the third time's the charm, eh?
So, here we go again.
I do not believe in an afterlife and I do not believe in rewards for living. As my mother used to say, "You don't get money for getting good grades, you get an education". (Well, maybe she didn't say it quite that way, but that was the gist of it). I believe we are born, we live, we die. Done. I don't believe that people need "carrots" or "sticks" from outside of ourselves or our communities to be good. I suspect that humans (and perhaps animals) have innate capacities for "rules" much as we humans have for developing languages (see "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong" by Marc D. Hauser, or any number of other recent books on the subject of the development of human moral systems). If one absolutely cannot fathom my lack of a need for a reward, perhaps I can offer that I love feeling the sun on my skin, the taste and sensations of fresh berries, the smell of fresh brewed coffee, the company of friends and family, and warm memories. I mostly live in the "now" timeframe and have learned that I am most peaceful when I am neither fretting about past mistakes or worrying about future calamities. And I try very hard to be "good".... right now. But that is another subject and it comes up in the next Question! Stay tuned!
Sunday, October 24, 2010
In Search of "My Holiday Season"
October, November and December... Ah, the atheist season of challenge! Lets see; Halloween, Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Islamic Ahura, Kwanzaa, Christmas... How does an atheist honor friend's and family traditions without compromising our own values? I struggle with this one every year. I can't count the number of times that I, as a closeted atheist, was asked to say Grace at the official Thanksgiving day meal. Eeeehk! I always dreaded being "selected" and that horrible moment when all those faithful, grateful eyes turned to me expecting a soliloquey starting with something like "Lord, we humbly ask you to bless...", well you get the point. I can't remember a single time when I had the guts to decline on the grounds of being a conscientious objector. And, if it weren't bad enough that by saying Grace I had somehow failed my sensibilities, I wondered (rather hypocritically) whether I had somehow sullied my friend's piousness by saying a less than pious grace. Oh Dear!
So, I enter the holiday season with the warm memories of holidays past, but slowly weary of it when I consider that the secularization of these special occasions is, at least in part, enhanced by a desire (on many levels) to include secularists like me. For how else can believers include their non-believer friends in their celebrations? Its a quandry that leaves me pale. I hold dear in my heart the sights and sounds of my believer friends enjoying their celebrations which of course have special meaning to them. To me, their joy is THE JOY of the season. I'd hate to remove myself from the mix, but I wonder... do the believers ever wonder what its like for people like me? I somehow doubt it much crosses their minds. I mostly hear utterances about how terrible it is that religious holidays are secularized and that this is most commonly attributed to commercialism. Perhaps true, but I secretly feel somewhat relieved. Now don't get me wrong, I despise the commercialization of religious holidays, but I am not down on the idea of Kris Kringle. He (that would be Kris) gives me a place to stand when the world around me is awash in swirling showers of giant, fluffy snow and swaying to the strains of "Oh Little Town of Bethlehem", bright copper kettles, and warm woolen mittens... Uhm... Sorry... different Blog....
I'd look to Thanksgiving for a smidgen of secularism, but all those hats remind me of the puritan ideals that permeate the celebrations, so no-can-do. Halloween? Who would we be kidding if we thought that was a secular holiday? Ahura? Nope. Hanukkah? Unh-uh. But.... there is Kwanzaa. Now there is definately more hope for that one... Although Kwanzaa, as originally envisioned was offerred up as an alternative holiday for African-Americans to celebrate their cultural uniqueness, I strongly appreciate the principles upon which it is based. According to Wikipedia:
"Kwanzaa celebrates what its founder called the seven principles of Kwanzaa, or Nguzo Saba (originally Nguzu Saba—the seven principles of blackness), which Karenga said "is a communitarian African philosophy," consisting of what Karenga called "the best of African thought and practice in constant exchange with the world."
These seven principles comprise Kawaida, a Swahili term for tradition and reason. Each of the seven days of Kwanzaa is dedicated to one of the following principles:
Umoja (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.
Kujichagulia (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems, and to solve them together.
Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.
Nia (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
Kuumba (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
Imani (Faith): To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle."
Now, I don't happen to be African-American, but who would decline from getting behind those values? So this year, perhaps as I participate in faith-based celebrations, I can recite to myself these seven wise principles and revel in the joy I feel in being with loved ones, old and new.
So, I enter the holiday season with the warm memories of holidays past, but slowly weary of it when I consider that the secularization of these special occasions is, at least in part, enhanced by a desire (on many levels) to include secularists like me. For how else can believers include their non-believer friends in their celebrations? Its a quandry that leaves me pale. I hold dear in my heart the sights and sounds of my believer friends enjoying their celebrations which of course have special meaning to them. To me, their joy is THE JOY of the season. I'd hate to remove myself from the mix, but I wonder... do the believers ever wonder what its like for people like me? I somehow doubt it much crosses their minds. I mostly hear utterances about how terrible it is that religious holidays are secularized and that this is most commonly attributed to commercialism. Perhaps true, but I secretly feel somewhat relieved. Now don't get me wrong, I despise the commercialization of religious holidays, but I am not down on the idea of Kris Kringle. He (that would be Kris) gives me a place to stand when the world around me is awash in swirling showers of giant, fluffy snow and swaying to the strains of "Oh Little Town of Bethlehem", bright copper kettles, and warm woolen mittens... Uhm... Sorry... different Blog....
I'd look to Thanksgiving for a smidgen of secularism, but all those hats remind me of the puritan ideals that permeate the celebrations, so no-can-do. Halloween? Who would we be kidding if we thought that was a secular holiday? Ahura? Nope. Hanukkah? Unh-uh. But.... there is Kwanzaa. Now there is definately more hope for that one... Although Kwanzaa, as originally envisioned was offerred up as an alternative holiday for African-Americans to celebrate their cultural uniqueness, I strongly appreciate the principles upon which it is based. According to Wikipedia:
"Kwanzaa celebrates what its founder called the seven principles of Kwanzaa, or Nguzo Saba (originally Nguzu Saba—the seven principles of blackness), which Karenga said "is a communitarian African philosophy," consisting of what Karenga called "the best of African thought and practice in constant exchange with the world."
These seven principles comprise Kawaida, a Swahili term for tradition and reason. Each of the seven days of Kwanzaa is dedicated to one of the following principles:
Umoja (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.
Kujichagulia (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems, and to solve them together.
Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.
Nia (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
Kuumba (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
Imani (Faith): To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle."
Now, I don't happen to be African-American, but who would decline from getting behind those values? So this year, perhaps as I participate in faith-based celebrations, I can recite to myself these seven wise principles and revel in the joy I feel in being with loved ones, old and new.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
An Explanation....
To those of you, good readers, who have been following my posts here at "Reflections of An Atheist" you will be aware that I was involved in a rather heated feud with a believer friend of mine. Well, through the courage of that friend, and through some little contribution of my own, we have come to an accord. I thank him for his care and generosity and look forward to a future of gentile reflection and thoughtful exchange. Thanks for sticking with me during this difficult time.....
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Oops...
Well, that nasty exchange I had with my email buddy seems to have taken an even more unfortunate turn. My friend took down his blog and I am afraid I may have precipitated that sad decision. I don't know how I expected him to act after my vitreolic email response to his blog but taking it down wasn't what I was trying to get him to do. I wanted him to know that his philosophy regarding other people's faith being "trivial information" is not something I can reconcile my feelings to. I didn't intend to drive him underground! Now, I am afraid that he will be even more inaccessible than he was before! Oh dear! I've let my temper make a mess of things.
So, what should I do dear readers? How do I fix this without compromising my principles?
On the one hand, I did get ridiculously angry and flamed him something fierce, so I guess there is a question of whether that was called for or not. On the other hand, there is the question of when should someone take a stand? I'm stuck....
So, what should I do dear readers? How do I fix this without compromising my principles?
On the one hand, I did get ridiculously angry and flamed him something fierce, so I guess there is a question of whether that was called for or not. On the other hand, there is the question of when should someone take a stand? I'm stuck....
Need Your Advice...
Need your Advice...
So here's an update on my very first post ("Existential Aloneness").
Yup, everybody wants to be "connected", not the least of which is me. In my first post, I referred to an email exchange with a friend about religion during which I became offended and lost my temper. No, I mean REALLY, REALLY lost my temper. In an uncharacteristic fit of rage, I sent a vile and vitreolic retort and vowed to end my friendship with him. I even went so far as to include his generally innocent, bystander- wife in the ostracizing (guilty by association you know). I was so mad that I had no problem hurling personal insults and ill wishes! So here I am, touting my belief in respect and tolerance, and I go off like a roman candle when MY VALUES are not supported by somebody else! I should practice what I preach, don't you think?
Clearly, my values of respect and tolerance have limits, I just didn't know that before. I generally don't care for militancy, but I fear I may be becoming a militant something. I was about to write "militant atheist" but then I recalled that the values that got tripped weren't god-based, they were.... well.... respect... and humility based. I guess what I am learning is that I feel that in order to respect others, you must be curious about them and have enough humility to allow yourself to listen to them and really hear them. To "get to know them" on a very deep level. Is it possible to respect someone (or someones) and NOT be curious about them? I can't see how. And reversing the question is just as difficult; does not being curious about someone mean you don't respect them? I'm reminded of the tenets of "active listening". According to Wikipedia:
"Active listening requires the listener to understand, interpret, and evaluate what they hear. The ability to listen actively can improve personal relationships through reducing conflicts, strengthening cooperation, and fostering understanding."
So I wonder; was I angry about his blatant disdain for other people's wisdom traditions because I saw this as a disrespectful thing to do backed up by a lack of humility, OR, was I plainly being disrespectful of HIS belief system? Geesh! This is tricky to pare apart! This must be what parents feel when thier kids make "bad decisions". So, do parents have the "right" to yell at their kids about bad values? Do I have the "right" to yell at somebody else? Maybe parents think it is their responsibility to take a stand? Maybe I do too. So how do parents live with kicking a kid out of the house when it gets too much? How do people NOT go back and "give in", in order not to lose a connection to someone? Why do I feel badly about losing a friendship if that person holds values that are repugnant to me?
Why? Because people crave connection! Thats why! Ok readers, so what do I do now? Stick to my guns or cave? Or is there something in between... Need your advice. What sayeth you?
So here's an update on my very first post ("Existential Aloneness").
Yup, everybody wants to be "connected", not the least of which is me. In my first post, I referred to an email exchange with a friend about religion during which I became offended and lost my temper. No, I mean REALLY, REALLY lost my temper. In an uncharacteristic fit of rage, I sent a vile and vitreolic retort and vowed to end my friendship with him. I even went so far as to include his generally innocent, bystander- wife in the ostracizing (guilty by association you know). I was so mad that I had no problem hurling personal insults and ill wishes! So here I am, touting my belief in respect and tolerance, and I go off like a roman candle when MY VALUES are not supported by somebody else! I should practice what I preach, don't you think?
Clearly, my values of respect and tolerance have limits, I just didn't know that before. I generally don't care for militancy, but I fear I may be becoming a militant something. I was about to write "militant atheist" but then I recalled that the values that got tripped weren't god-based, they were.... well.... respect... and humility based. I guess what I am learning is that I feel that in order to respect others, you must be curious about them and have enough humility to allow yourself to listen to them and really hear them. To "get to know them" on a very deep level. Is it possible to respect someone (or someones) and NOT be curious about them? I can't see how. And reversing the question is just as difficult; does not being curious about someone mean you don't respect them? I'm reminded of the tenets of "active listening". According to Wikipedia:
"Active listening requires the listener to understand, interpret, and evaluate what they hear. The ability to listen actively can improve personal relationships through reducing conflicts, strengthening cooperation, and fostering understanding."
So I wonder; was I angry about his blatant disdain for other people's wisdom traditions because I saw this as a disrespectful thing to do backed up by a lack of humility, OR, was I plainly being disrespectful of HIS belief system? Geesh! This is tricky to pare apart! This must be what parents feel when thier kids make "bad decisions". So, do parents have the "right" to yell at their kids about bad values? Do I have the "right" to yell at somebody else? Maybe parents think it is their responsibility to take a stand? Maybe I do too. So how do parents live with kicking a kid out of the house when it gets too much? How do people NOT go back and "give in", in order not to lose a connection to someone? Why do I feel badly about losing a friendship if that person holds values that are repugnant to me?
Why? Because people crave connection! Thats why! Ok readers, so what do I do now? Stick to my guns or cave? Or is there something in between... Need your advice. What sayeth you?
Knowlege
How do people know things? Have you ever thought about how we become aware of where a tree's branches become sky? Or where a house abutts a tree? Or where the sidewalk starts? In thinking about these things which we take for granted everyday, it amazes me that we can feel certain of anything! We walk on the ground with confidence that our next step will fall on solid ground because we have felt it before. We know the Earth is below us waiting to catch our fall. But what if we didn't know? What if we did not rely on our past experiences; the wisdom accrued through years of skinned knees and whacked "funny" bones? Wouldn't we be lost in a sea of meaningless sensory input? So why, when it comes to spirituality, do we cast our senses aside and opt to believe in .... what, the "unsensed"? The unseen? Untouched? Unsmelled?
I can hear my believer friends all chiming in at the same time now... "What do you mean, unsensed? I sense the hand of God in all things! Don't YOU sense it in the beauty and order of the cosmos?". Well, truthfully... no, I don't. I don't "sense" anything remotely like that. I do, however, recognize beauty and ugliness. I acknowledge kindness and cruelty. I cherish love and despise hatred. Cherish. Acknowledge. Recognize. All of these words describe human abilities --sensation-like, but not "senses". And as with our senses, we learn to trust these abilities too. But what happens when we consider how these abilities compare with our senses. While I can point to a bird and compare the details of that image with my sighted friends, I find that if I try to do that with beauty, the details we each describe may be very different. Why then do we look to find commonality in the concept of a God? Do we desire to find shared perception in our subjective abilities as well as our physical sensory experiences? I think maybe we do. I think that many of us shutter at the thought of "to different from me" ideas. It exacerbates our sense of isolation - a painful reminder of the human condition.
The Oxford New American Dictionary offers the following definition of "know" -- to "be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.". How do the words "Acknowledge", "Recognize", and "Cherish" compare with "Observation", "Inquiry", and "Information"? My mind seems to think that the first set is more subjective than the second, but my believer friends often speak of knowing the "Truth". How can these two approaches to "Truth" be reconciled? I'm not sure they can be. Some people are more comfortable with relying on the subjective than the objective, and vice-versa. Why, I do not know. I do not know how anything subjective can be universally true, as many would wish. I wish that I had a crystal ball so I could know the "Truth", but I find I can only come back to my objective sensations combined with my subjective perceptions, and those, I'm afraid, I cannot be so bold as to define as "Truth" for all mankind. I only wish my believer friends would (or could) afford the same generosity to me and my other non-believer friends. Were that true, there might be considerably less strife in the world.
I can hear my believer friends all chiming in at the same time now... "What do you mean, unsensed? I sense the hand of God in all things! Don't YOU sense it in the beauty and order of the cosmos?". Well, truthfully... no, I don't. I don't "sense" anything remotely like that. I do, however, recognize beauty and ugliness. I acknowledge kindness and cruelty. I cherish love and despise hatred. Cherish. Acknowledge. Recognize. All of these words describe human abilities --sensation-like, but not "senses". And as with our senses, we learn to trust these abilities too. But what happens when we consider how these abilities compare with our senses. While I can point to a bird and compare the details of that image with my sighted friends, I find that if I try to do that with beauty, the details we each describe may be very different. Why then do we look to find commonality in the concept of a God? Do we desire to find shared perception in our subjective abilities as well as our physical sensory experiences? I think maybe we do. I think that many of us shutter at the thought of "to different from me" ideas. It exacerbates our sense of isolation - a painful reminder of the human condition.
The Oxford New American Dictionary offers the following definition of "know" -- to "be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.". How do the words "Acknowledge", "Recognize", and "Cherish" compare with "Observation", "Inquiry", and "Information"? My mind seems to think that the first set is more subjective than the second, but my believer friends often speak of knowing the "Truth". How can these two approaches to "Truth" be reconciled? I'm not sure they can be. Some people are more comfortable with relying on the subjective than the objective, and vice-versa. Why, I do not know. I do not know how anything subjective can be universally true, as many would wish. I wish that I had a crystal ball so I could know the "Truth", but I find I can only come back to my objective sensations combined with my subjective perceptions, and those, I'm afraid, I cannot be so bold as to define as "Truth" for all mankind. I only wish my believer friends would (or could) afford the same generosity to me and my other non-believer friends. Were that true, there might be considerably less strife in the world.
Delusions of Grandeur
As the title of my Blogspot attests, I profess to being an atheist. Recently, I have had friends suggest that I'm not REALLY an atheist, I just WANT to be an atheist and because I also describe myself as a "seeker" that means I'm REALLY an agnostic (like that somehow makes me more redeemable, I'm guessing). Well, that's an interesting statement. That's like me telling my believer friends that they aren't REALLY believers, they just THINK they are believers. The stumbling block seems to be my interest in theology. Well, I'm here to say that yes, an atheist CAN be interested in theology and be a seeker without secretly longing for a conversion. Like any body, I want to know "THE TRUTH" too. I just don't think I KNOW, in the full sense of the word. I have a strong intuititve sense, but in my philosophy, that counts as a hypothesis, not a truth. I seek knowledge to confirm or contest my hypothesis. So far, I am aware of little/no conclusive evidence of a god. I am an atheist, despite what others would like to believe.
What I DO have is a deep respect for the comfort many people derive from their respective spiritual practices. Even atheists have been known to express a deep sense of "rightness" in their take on the way of things. So, despite our differences, we still have commonalities -- we're all the same species with a great number of cross-cultural "human" values. Recently, my commitment to my values has been tested in a variety of ways, and because I am a seeker, I went seeking whether I was a "GOOD" person or whether I should rethink my values. Much of my interest in this grew out of discussions I had with my believer friends. In many circles, the prime question is: "Can one be 'good without god' ?". My first response to my inquiry was "Yes, of course I'm a good person! I stick to the rules! I'm a "responsible child", how could I NOT be a good person!?". Well, I think that answering that question may be alot harder for atheists than it is for believers. In the world of believers, morality is prescribed by god. For atheists, it is not, although it is bounded by societal norms. So, when I went to describe my values I also found myself inquiring of the societal norms that applied to me, as a citizen of the U.S. and as a citizen of the world ( to quote Socrates).
What I think I have come to better appreciate after all of this is that at their core, many belief systems share similar values (makes one wonder if all deities are from the same family, ey?). Be that as it may, where differences arise, they seem to focus our tendency to factionalize people as either "us" or "them". The distinction can become ever more refined as one drills deeper and deeper into a particular group, until you ultimately arive at "the individual". This, of course, is not a new idea with me. I'm just trying to fathom the question why believers may feel sorry for non-believers, or why I may feel the need to reassure myself that I do, indeed, have a valid moral code, despite being a non-believer. As an atheist, I am acutely aware of being an "other". You know, "not saved", or perhaps, an "infidel". When I travel abroad, I kind-of expect to feel my otherness, but strangely, I often feel it most acutely within my own peer group. Its as if social structures are inherently unstable, always trying to divide themselves. Make more little factions which, in time, may grow into bigger factions that must again divide or collapse. One might think of this as a deist-based limitation on empire building. What a strange thought?!
But, I digress! Back to the question of 'goodness without god'... I personally feel that there is sufficient evidence from the World's divine texts to suggest that there is at LEAST a double standard between the moral codes that dieties hold themselves to (assuming, if you will, that they exist at all) and those codes they hold their followers to. This would suggest that there is no true "universal" moral code that covers both man and god. But what about cross-cultural consistencies in moral codes? Can't we, as a world community, recognize those commonalities and use them as a basis for moral judgements? I think we can and we must if we are to avoid religiously based factionalism and its apparently inevitable consequence of violent intolerance. Perhaps I suffer from delusions of grandeur when I think that mankind can establish an internally consistent moral code for itself, without the imposition of an "all-powerful being's" concepts of morality. But if not, I fear that we may be destined to revisit the atrocities of our forefathers.
What I DO have is a deep respect for the comfort many people derive from their respective spiritual practices. Even atheists have been known to express a deep sense of "rightness" in their take on the way of things. So, despite our differences, we still have commonalities -- we're all the same species with a great number of cross-cultural "human" values. Recently, my commitment to my values has been tested in a variety of ways, and because I am a seeker, I went seeking whether I was a "GOOD" person or whether I should rethink my values. Much of my interest in this grew out of discussions I had with my believer friends. In many circles, the prime question is: "Can one be 'good without god' ?". My first response to my inquiry was "Yes, of course I'm a good person! I stick to the rules! I'm a "responsible child", how could I NOT be a good person!?". Well, I think that answering that question may be alot harder for atheists than it is for believers. In the world of believers, morality is prescribed by god. For atheists, it is not, although it is bounded by societal norms. So, when I went to describe my values I also found myself inquiring of the societal norms that applied to me, as a citizen of the U.S. and as a citizen of the world ( to quote Socrates).
What I think I have come to better appreciate after all of this is that at their core, many belief systems share similar values (makes one wonder if all deities are from the same family, ey?). Be that as it may, where differences arise, they seem to focus our tendency to factionalize people as either "us" or "them". The distinction can become ever more refined as one drills deeper and deeper into a particular group, until you ultimately arive at "the individual". This, of course, is not a new idea with me. I'm just trying to fathom the question why believers may feel sorry for non-believers, or why I may feel the need to reassure myself that I do, indeed, have a valid moral code, despite being a non-believer. As an atheist, I am acutely aware of being an "other". You know, "not saved", or perhaps, an "infidel". When I travel abroad, I kind-of expect to feel my otherness, but strangely, I often feel it most acutely within my own peer group. Its as if social structures are inherently unstable, always trying to divide themselves. Make more little factions which, in time, may grow into bigger factions that must again divide or collapse. One might think of this as a deist-based limitation on empire building. What a strange thought?!
But, I digress! Back to the question of 'goodness without god'... I personally feel that there is sufficient evidence from the World's divine texts to suggest that there is at LEAST a double standard between the moral codes that dieties hold themselves to (assuming, if you will, that they exist at all) and those codes they hold their followers to. This would suggest that there is no true "universal" moral code that covers both man and god. But what about cross-cultural consistencies in moral codes? Can't we, as a world community, recognize those commonalities and use them as a basis for moral judgements? I think we can and we must if we are to avoid religiously based factionalism and its apparently inevitable consequence of violent intolerance. Perhaps I suffer from delusions of grandeur when I think that mankind can establish an internally consistent moral code for itself, without the imposition of an "all-powerful being's" concepts of morality. But if not, I fear that we may be destined to revisit the atrocities of our forefathers.
Existential Aloneness
To me, thats what the whole believer/non-believer thing comes down to - and today, I think I handed myself a strong lesson in just what that means. You see, I live with a believer, as I suspect most atheists do, and during a casual (non-religious) discussion over lunch, she had a revelation about how god had aligned the events of her life such that she was given an experience in her youth that she greatly enjoyed. The revelation made her cry... hard. And I, the atheist, sat there in silence waiting for her to continue with what she was saying (which, by the way, was a sweet and lovely and engaging story of her time abroad as a youth) and despite her tears, it was clear that she was planning on continuing with her story. When the tears subsided, she expressed her overwhelming gratitude to god for guiding her life and giving her that experience. As an atheist, I had never had such an experience, and I marvelled at the importance her faith had in her life. I didn't feel like I was missing anything by not having a benevolent diety guiding my life, but it made me introspective about how wrenching a conversation with an atheist might be for a believer who feels that they are being second guessed by someone who doesn't "know" the spirit of god. The tearful experience had not been initiated by a discussion of god, but it brought to mind another recent exchange between myself and another believer that I had -- one that had ended very badly indeed.
You see, I am a atheist with a strong interest in theology, so I avail myself of the opportunity to talk to believers regarding their faith, when they are game for it. Some are, some aren't, thats ok and to my knowledge, I do not try to deconvert anybody, I'm usually just trying to gain an understanding. And I don't even mind if somebody wants to try to convert me. I really try to hear them and to feel what they are trying to get me to feel, but I just don't. In the case of the conversation that had gone wrong, I sort of flew in the other direction and by writing about this, I'm trying to work out why. Of course, the first thing that a believer might suggest at this point was that the feelings got "too close to home". Well yes, of course they did, or I wouldn't have flown off the handle. The interesting thing is that my partner in this conversation hadn't been trying to convert me, in fact he wrote (this was an email exchange) that he thought one way and I thought another and neither of us was likely to change. Was I enraged because he failed to play the game right? That I was looking for conversion and he wasn't biting? Fair question, but unfortunately...no. I have had many conversion opportunities and this wasn't going in that direction, and I wasn't expecting it to. What appears to have happened was that my email buddy offended a personal value of mine that was/is so Important to me that I couldn't sit impassionately with it. I pride myself on being able to maintain these types of discussions and getting riled usually is deleterious to the cause, so I really, really try to not lose my cool. And, in fact, my email buddy wasn't trying to get me riled! He was just being honest about his beliefs! So what gives? Why did I write him a vile, vitreolic rant as a response?
Well, in looking at the conversation, it started to go south before it actually even got started! I made the ill-considered decision to forward my friend a link to a recent Pew Research study showing that atheists were well versed in the World's Religions, including Christianity. Better versed, in fact, than most Americans. I didn't think that he would be the least bit surprised and, in fact, he wasn't. He did, however, take very seriously that I was boasting. (Was I? Maybe... maybe I was "poking" at him to get a conversation going.... I don't know). But he didn't react the way I was expecting. What he did say was "As for ‘knowledge’ about world religions: to me, that is a matter of pride in trivial information.". THATS the statement that set me off. I was deeply offended that someone would purposely blind themselves to others experiences (I used the word "wisdom") because it would take up too much time and was "prideful"! Wow! I truly lost it and replied in a very nasty way. In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to a DIFFERENT aspect of a blog he had posted earlier. In it, he implied that he felt comforted by the knowledge that, and I'm paraphrasing here, his focus on the literal word of god (i.e. the Bible alone) would result in him being with Jesus (presumably after death). I think the key phrase here is "comfort".
Taken together, my witnessing of my roomie's tears of gratitude and my belated realization of the comfort factor, brings me to a slightly different understanding of the whole, nasty exchange between me and my email friend. I was (and still am) offended and horrified that someone would trivialize others so cavalierly; however, I now think I see how all-encompassing faith can be. The question I now pose to myself is: "To what extent am I willing to "witness" for my own values in the face of a clear denial (by someone else) of that value's importance?". I sure don't know at this point. My roomie's opinion is that I should at least try to make some sort of amends for my less-than-civil email but, as you might imagine, I'm not sure I am willing to do that. Perhaps I was less than civil. When your ethical foundations are criticized or made light of, it seems that one is ethically bound to defend it. The real question is "how vociferously?". Ask yourself " if I witnessed a crime, would I have the courage to intervene? or, for believers, are you willing to offend in defense of your faith? Same question for me. How far should I go?
So, how does this all tie together? Just like my believer friends, I too am afraid of the idea of being alone in the cosmos... They look to god for peace of mind and security of a bond that will transcend their lifetime(s). I, as an atheist, don't look to a god, but that doesn't mean I don't experience my own existential aloneness. Its hard to be an athiest sometimes. It can be lonely, especially when one's bonds to friends and family members are threatened or even severed by a lack of mutual respect. In my own feeble attempt to find commonalities with others, I have been guilty of defending my own values at the expense of others while those others have been guilty of believing that I have a self-concept of steel. All of us, believers and non-believers alike, seek companionship and understanding: to be well understood and well liked by other beings like ourselves. And we all stumble when we (or our values) are rejected. The principal difference between believers and non-believers is that the believers have a secured bond, a secured connection -we unbelievers don't, we float in the universe, perhaps in wonderment and awe, perhaps not. But, at least for this atheist, I never reduce the value I hold in my relationships with other human beings for the sake of a relationship with a god. Its just a thing I have and can hold onto.....most of the time.
You see, I am a atheist with a strong interest in theology, so I avail myself of the opportunity to talk to believers regarding their faith, when they are game for it. Some are, some aren't, thats ok and to my knowledge, I do not try to deconvert anybody, I'm usually just trying to gain an understanding. And I don't even mind if somebody wants to try to convert me. I really try to hear them and to feel what they are trying to get me to feel, but I just don't. In the case of the conversation that had gone wrong, I sort of flew in the other direction and by writing about this, I'm trying to work out why. Of course, the first thing that a believer might suggest at this point was that the feelings got "too close to home". Well yes, of course they did, or I wouldn't have flown off the handle. The interesting thing is that my partner in this conversation hadn't been trying to convert me, in fact he wrote (this was an email exchange) that he thought one way and I thought another and neither of us was likely to change. Was I enraged because he failed to play the game right? That I was looking for conversion and he wasn't biting? Fair question, but unfortunately...no. I have had many conversion opportunities and this wasn't going in that direction, and I wasn't expecting it to. What appears to have happened was that my email buddy offended a personal value of mine that was/is so Important to me that I couldn't sit impassionately with it. I pride myself on being able to maintain these types of discussions and getting riled usually is deleterious to the cause, so I really, really try to not lose my cool. And, in fact, my email buddy wasn't trying to get me riled! He was just being honest about his beliefs! So what gives? Why did I write him a vile, vitreolic rant as a response?
Well, in looking at the conversation, it started to go south before it actually even got started! I made the ill-considered decision to forward my friend a link to a recent Pew Research study showing that atheists were well versed in the World's Religions, including Christianity. Better versed, in fact, than most Americans. I didn't think that he would be the least bit surprised and, in fact, he wasn't. He did, however, take very seriously that I was boasting. (Was I? Maybe... maybe I was "poking" at him to get a conversation going.... I don't know). But he didn't react the way I was expecting. What he did say was "As for ‘knowledge’ about world religions: to me, that is a matter of pride in trivial information.". THATS the statement that set me off. I was deeply offended that someone would purposely blind themselves to others experiences (I used the word "wisdom") because it would take up too much time and was "prideful"! Wow! I truly lost it and replied in a very nasty way. In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to a DIFFERENT aspect of a blog he had posted earlier. In it, he implied that he felt comforted by the knowledge that, and I'm paraphrasing here, his focus on the literal word of god (i.e. the Bible alone) would result in him being with Jesus (presumably after death). I think the key phrase here is "comfort".
Taken together, my witnessing of my roomie's tears of gratitude and my belated realization of the comfort factor, brings me to a slightly different understanding of the whole, nasty exchange between me and my email friend. I was (and still am) offended and horrified that someone would trivialize others so cavalierly; however, I now think I see how all-encompassing faith can be. The question I now pose to myself is: "To what extent am I willing to "witness" for my own values in the face of a clear denial (by someone else) of that value's importance?". I sure don't know at this point. My roomie's opinion is that I should at least try to make some sort of amends for my less-than-civil email but, as you might imagine, I'm not sure I am willing to do that. Perhaps I was less than civil. When your ethical foundations are criticized or made light of, it seems that one is ethically bound to defend it. The real question is "how vociferously?". Ask yourself " if I witnessed a crime, would I have the courage to intervene? or, for believers, are you willing to offend in defense of your faith? Same question for me. How far should I go?
So, how does this all tie together? Just like my believer friends, I too am afraid of the idea of being alone in the cosmos... They look to god for peace of mind and security of a bond that will transcend their lifetime(s). I, as an atheist, don't look to a god, but that doesn't mean I don't experience my own existential aloneness. Its hard to be an athiest sometimes. It can be lonely, especially when one's bonds to friends and family members are threatened or even severed by a lack of mutual respect. In my own feeble attempt to find commonalities with others, I have been guilty of defending my own values at the expense of others while those others have been guilty of believing that I have a self-concept of steel. All of us, believers and non-believers alike, seek companionship and understanding: to be well understood and well liked by other beings like ourselves. And we all stumble when we (or our values) are rejected. The principal difference between believers and non-believers is that the believers have a secured bond, a secured connection -we unbelievers don't, we float in the universe, perhaps in wonderment and awe, perhaps not. But, at least for this atheist, I never reduce the value I hold in my relationships with other human beings for the sake of a relationship with a god. Its just a thing I have and can hold onto.....most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)