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!
This is only the third time I'm trying to 'gel' my response to the above, even after more than a week.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to simplify my contention with your premise, it would be that: people, communities, societies, and nations need absolutes; they need universal absolutes, (morals), that provide a timeless standard of right and wrong, good and bad. Without that standard, and by extension, the rewards and consequences for good or bad behavior, a feeling of hopelessness is unavoidable, if not for everyone, then for the majority. I offer as an example: the sense of hopelessness seen in the slums, the ghettos, the neighborhoods and communities where all manner of behaviors exist, in their most glorious, (rarely), and usually most vile. Our history has numerous examples of those who rose from rags, and attained riches, by some stroke of luck or personal achievement. It also has examples of those who rose to 'fame' by virtue of their crimes. What benefit was the community's morals on the likes of J. Dahmer, or E. Gein, or A. Hitler? It is because the communities they belonged to could not enforce or convince them of the 'right-ness' or 'wrong-ness' of their actions, that the self-imposed, self-governing moral code failed. If there are no absolutes, anything is allowed, at some time or some place. Man, in general, has a need to have moral boundaries. Our government is based on the principle that power be balanced among the 'rulers', lest that power be abused; it has been extolled as being the epitome of human government. Other forms, as well as our current day culture, readily show the shortcomings of non-absolutes. From dictatorships to socialisms to theocracies(Islam?), (and including our current democracy), they prove the point that mankind needs governance, and the 'governors' need governance, by absolute standards. As much as this country has attempted to define what is 'good', 'right', and 'fair' for its citizens, our news media is filled with society's failures, as well as those of our 'governors'. To say that a self- or community-directed code of conduct suffices, ignores history. To say that the code is a 'work in progress' also fails. No civilization, whose morals were based on their own evolved consensus of right and wrong, has survived because of that code. They were either overcome by invading neighboring civilizations, (with a different 'code' that allowed their behavior), or because they became lax in their own code, or they evolved the code out of existence, passing on a devolved code to the next generations. The only exception to this string of failures, is the one nation that acknowledges that 'right' and 'wrong', good and evil, are 'God'-defined, Israel. regarding personal motivations, without a reason to do 'good', a 'carrot or a stick', why not do whatever, and live to the fullest, at whatever cost to those around you? Saying you don't believe in a hereafter, that you have no 'hope' for anything past the end of your life, that you deny the existence of that, is the saddest commentary for atheism or humanism. You say you don't need it; you are blind to your insufficiency, to your incomplete-ness. You have become your own god.
buddy:
ReplyDeleteI don't need an apology! I was under the assumption, since you confessed to others, (via a request for advice in you blog), that the initial outburst you flamed at me was 'over the top, that you'd be moral. (The fact you asked others for advise, "whether you ought to 'apologize' or not", in some form or another, is proof that you knew you were wrong). Your 'flames' did no damage to me. They were only words. However, having done wrong, and having received my explanations that what you perceived as 'insults', were a)not aimed at you, and b) were OPINIONS about the mindset you hold, (along with millions others). I would have expected one so advanced, morally and culturally (as you presume to be), to be able to admit error. But you haven't/don't, so my conclusion stands; your attack was justified because I expressed opinions that don't agree with your humanism. Therefore, I'm arrogant, self-righteous, and the antagonist.
Similarly, if you expect me to apologize for what you perceive as attacks, I am not as unsure about my opinions being 'attacks' or arrows, (as you were about yours). If I regret anything, it is that I 'persevered' to express my beliefs beyond the first or second exchange, for all the impact it had, for as little as you understood my opinion. I understand what you believe. I disagree. I believe it is wrong. But that is my opinion. How does expressing that become an 'insult' to you? Or is humanism the 'state' religion, and dissenters punishable?
You also said:
>>By the way, in what way should I NOT be offended by the line "You have become your own god"? You sling arrows just as liberally as I do, my righteous friend.<<
I could ask, "why is that an arrow?" Why does that inflict 'damage'? If there is no god, then each person becomes their own god by logical extension; what they believe is right/true is right/true; and anything that doesn't agree is wrong. It doesn't matter that you aggregate those who think like you into that definition, of 'god'; since there is no (other superior)deity to judge you(all/each), you take that office, individually or collectively. Thus, you are your own god.
As for continuing this 'repartee', this exchange of opinions, since you believe you are in a 'battle of wits, with an unarmed man' (me), I'll just put my opinions away. That way, you can stop shooting, and you won't feel like I'm throwing rocks. I won't pass this way again.
Why bury this comment so far down the thread? It really pertains elsewhere! Or were you trying to make some point that I missed?
ReplyDeleteSo, why do you think that you understand my position, but I don't understand yours after all of this discussion?