I think JV is on to something, but I would make an edit to his comment that changes the direction by 180 degrees. I would say that it is "safe to assume that the choices people make tend to reveal underlying belief or beliefs". This still fits with JV's examples, such as the first example of the scholar: The scholar believes in the importance of improving themselves intellectually or in contributing to a body of knowledge, and their consistent actions reveal that belief.
Dave made a point that hits on what I think is one of the most honest parts of the Atheist position. He said that, "...one of the big reasons to have a religion (read: God) is to have the value set of the religion, and the comfort of the belief that someone or something is out there guiding us," And I think that most Atheists truly believe that is why most people "have a religion". Atheists, as Christopher Hitchens said in the debate JV introduced us to, as well as in an essay conversation with Wilson on Christianity Today in 2007, choose not to believe in God because it would be "too easy and too comfortable", but it would not be intellectually honest. To tie this in to the comments above, their actions reveal their belief that sound reasoning and intellectual honesty is something that can be attained and something to strive for, which I also believe. But what about those many many people, me included, that believe in God because they believe it is the most intellectually honest position?
Atheists and Christians, Buddists and Muslims, Democrats and Republicans (just to provide a non-religion example) all have their value sets. These value sets often, if not always, direct their actions. Obviously, value sets (read: beliefs) are not a simple thing. They are often convoluted and obscured and complex which makes it difficult to articulate what we believe and what we think other people believe. I think this is a good place to re-quote Sister Carlotta:
You are so convinced that you believe only what you believe that you believe, that you remain utterly blind to what you really believe without believing you believe it.'"
--Shadow of the Hegemon, pg 80-81
Dave made the excellent point that (difficulty aside) we should be able to articulate the positions of our counterparts [people who believe differently than we do]. And that's what I was trying to do with Atheism in my last post. So maybe using "god" was a little goading on my part, but I don't think that it was confusing the dialog. Because what I'm trying to get at is: what do you trust? Christians believe that there is a Truth out there and that it can be articulated and understood as God. Atheists believe that there is a Truth out there, but that God doesn't fit anywhere in the picture. The truth, as they see it, is that Nature explains everything.
To put it another way: Christians believe that God created the world. That at some point in time nothing existed but God and then He created the Universe. Atheists believe that Nature created the world. That at some point in time nothing existed and then the Universe came into being of its own accord. Does one of those things really require more belief than the other? And you can't get out of this question by saying that science proves one or the other. Christian sceintists believe that science provides evidence of a Creator's design. Atheist scientists believe that science provides evidence of Nature's development from nothing to the current state. Their assumptions and value sets affect how they interpret the scientific data.
The reason I keep pushing on this whole assumptions / value set thing is that I think it is crucial to being able to get anywhere with the next two questions. I don't think that we have to agree with each others' value sets in order to dialog, but I do think that we need to be able to try to understand (at the very least) our own value sets in order to have an honest dialog.
As JV mentioned and Dave alluded to, evaluating the "rightness" and "wrongness" of a person's value set is a lot harder than defining it or understaning it. But I think trying to evaluate the "rightness" or "wrongness" points to something that people don't always want to say directly, and that is that each person believes that her or his value set more correctly describes the world.
So what are your values? What are the rules that can't be broken? What can you trust and fall back on with any certainty?
Okay, I'll give it some time to get feedback from you on this latest one, and then in the next post we'll move on to the next question that I wanted to address: Is there a God?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
You want me to summarize my Theory of Everything? That's a tall order, but I'll try.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say "everything," I will write in such a way that the term "humanity" or "the human person" can be interchanged with it, although these statements are meant to apply to "everything."
-Everything matters. There is intrinsic importance underlying everything and its experience. This lays the foundation for morality or "rightness" and "wrongness" (or whatever terms you wish, such as "humanizing" and "dehumanizing") and also the concept of underlying beauty and purpose.
-Everything is broken. Everything doesn't meet its potential. History and the state of the natural world attest to this. This statement relates to underlying importance and how everything doesn't "live up to" its important place.
-Everything is always changing. There are specifiable constants and tendencies, but this statement applies to growth, development, and the abruptness of death and destruction (the tragedy of transience). This statement also applies to the ability of outside influence to change imminent trajectories.
These are the first statements that come to mind. They are broad and, by their encompassing nature, applicable. It's easy to be at least somewhat certain with generalities. Increasing specificity requires a corresponding amount of deliberation and debate.
I hate to harp on my definition of atheism, but I'd contest the claim that atheists have a value set. With no god-figure giving rules to humanity, we have to make our own. And with no intrinsic reason for any given thing, we have to make up our own reasons as we go. Which makes it difficult to have an "atheist value set." It can run from nihilist to absolutist. And I've heard compelling arguments for both ends of the spectrum and everything in between.
ReplyDeleteWhich is, I think, one of the big reasons that we have to divide atheism from religion. Religion carries with it a philosophical viewpoint. There can be many types of Christians, but there are certain points on which they all agree. But with atheism, there's no guiding moral philosophy. It's all just practical application.
That said, what would I (personally, as an atheist, but not as a representative of atheism) say regarding morality? Since we're all in the boat together, we'd better look out for one another. Otherwise, the boat gets a little capsized.
Also, JV, with all due respect, of your three statements, I only agree with the third. Everything matters only if there's a purpose, and I don't see a purpose. So without a purpose (statement II, since potential suggests purpose), nothing inherently matters (statement I) But I agree with the third statement, at least insofar as everything appears to be changing all the time. Not so sure about the constants, though.
And regarding the nature of origins, it's a bit glib to say that 1. atheists think that everything came of nothing of its own accord, and 2. that that's as logical as god doing it. Regarding the former, there's no reason to think that anything came of nothing. Just that it goes back farther than we can see. It starts with a small, infinitely dense particle. That didn't just pop into existence, I just don't have to tools to discover where it came from. It may have been there forever, going through infinite cycles. And for the latter, it will always take extra layers of discussion to include god in the nature of things, if only because we'll have to ask where s/he came from. And if s/he was always there, why can't the building blocks of matter have always been there? Isn't it much simpler to have quarks and gluons always have been there than to have an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent consciousness always have been there? I think so.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad we can address each other like civil anonymous internet beings as opposed to talking past one another. =)
In the past I've tried reconciling morality and a purposeless universe. I'm not sure how. Perhaps I preclude insignificance because I "believe" morality requires purpose.
I also find it hard to be a humanist sans purpose. If the human experience doesn't matter, then why should I care if I rock the boat? Besides, even my best attempts at capsizing it will most likely fail. Here, my definition of humanist presumes a vested interest in human dignity, which I believe any essential morality must contain. (Perhaps the term 'human experience' or 'significant human experience' works better, but I will stick with 'human dignity' for now.)
I suppose morality can be based on self-preservation, but without the concept of human dignity, even that value is tenuous. Just why should I go on living? Because I find it interesting?
My main inquiry is this: Can morality exist without the concept of human dignity? Can human dignity exist in a purposeless universe? Are these questions even fair for me to ask?
Perhaps you can let me know other viewpoints concerning morality. I've lived in a "purposeful" universe so long that I struggle to think on different terms.
Oh, and thanks Joel, for the opportunity to ponder our current position.
Oh come on Dave...you're really gonna say that Atheists have no value set?
ReplyDeleteEvery Atheist will state with conviction (if not with certainty) that there is no God. I'm pretty sure that you have to have at least have that value in common to be an Atheist.
And maybe we can talk about the infinitely dense particle that "may have been there forever, going through infinite cycles". You don't have the tools to discover it's starting point, I don't have the tools to discover God's starting point, and we both use the word "infinite" to describe them... are you seeing what I'm seeing in this comparison?
I hold as true that God existed first. You would rather maintain that a dense particle existed first?
JV, sorry about taking so long to put your comment up here, I forgot to check the blog for a few days. And your comments are getting into the next question I hope to address: is there a God? To honestly address that question we have to deal with our understanding of morality and purpose because it's going to affect what we accept as true...
Interesting dialog. Not sure where I can jump in, so I'll just keep listening for now.
ReplyDeleteJV, I enjoy the civility of the conversation, too. Glad that we can manage that!
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that I haven't been clear, though. I don't mean to speak for atheism, I'm speaking for myself as an atheist. Solitary. Since atheism doesn't carry with it a value set, individual atheists and groups of atheists find their own paths. That can mean nihilism, or humanism, or anything else. I never meant to suggest that atheists as a group lack values. After all, you know what a moralizing ass I am.
So how do I manage it without some native purpose to the universe? Humans are by nature empathetic creatures. We care about those around us. It's interesting to see the work being done in psychology to show how much we care about one another. So I don't need a purpose. Though for me, the purpose is to leave the world in better shape for my niece (cutest baby ever, fyi), and to alleviate the suffering of the people all over the world.
I think it's also worth noting the disparity between atheists and the religious regarding observed morality. You could say that secular morality is reflected in law (communal safety), which shares its roots with religious law (scriptures). But there are proportionally less atheists in jail than religious people than are in society. And atheists tend to be better with things like recycling and waste (not to say that many religious people don't do their part, it's just a question of "per capita"). My guess is that atheists obey the rules of the road because they don't expect this world to go anywhere, so we need to protect it. Christians and Muslims, on the other hand, are expecting the apocalypse, so the world comes with a limited time offer. So atheists have more of a vested interest in doing long-term good things.
And Joel, I'm sorry, but I think you're over-simplifying the origin debate. It's not "either God or matter, both are infinite.) Yours needs God to create matter; mine doesn't, and so has less layers. Also, consciousness and intention add a much more complex layer to the question. Yours needs that complex layer; mine does not. So I'm sorry, but the two models are not equally logical or simple.
For the bulk of our discussion I thought that the question, "Does God exist?" was one that was premature. As these ideas have tumbled around inside of my head I have come to acknowledge that it is a question that is headed in the right direction. This is because we have reached an impasse in our current topic.
ReplyDeleteWe can talk about entire groups of atheists or theists, but because of the great variation in these groups, comparison is futile.
A particular atheist or theist can respectively work toward societal good or eternal good. Upon examination, each can lead pragmatically identical lives. So, why does it matter that one professes a belief in God and the other doesn't?
By discussing individual morality, we are fruitlessly trying to get the big picture by using a microscope. The question of "Does God exist?" is headed in the right direction because it uses a sense of scale that our discussion requires.
The heart of the labels "atheist" and "theist" is ultimately a question of perspective. If God does not exist, none of this matters in the grand scheme of things. (I'm talking on the scale of eons, or even a few generations, since I don't know my great-great-grandparents' names.) If God does exist, everything matters on an eternal scale: before, during and beyond time.
Is this just a question of "Which kind of world would you rather live in?" Is it more than a matter of preference?
I've found that my preferences have very little to do with reality. I'd like my bank account to be flush all the time, but it tends to be closer to empty than full. I'd like beautiful women to give me their numbers, but I keep getting maced (no I don't). So I don't see why my preference would have anything to do with whether God exists.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't see why the non-existence of God would mean that nothing matters. In fact, it kind of makes me glad that you're faithful, JV. Nihilists make me sad. Even without a God in my life, I think that things matter. I like that I exist, which means that everything before mattered, since any change could have resulted in my non-existence. I'd prefer that the world continue to function in a way that causes no unnecessary pain to the species around the world (and, presumably, on other worlds), so what I do in my life matters, at least to me and to those others. And isn't that a practical case for things mattering without a god?
I don't actually think it matters, though. Whether or not there's a god, you believe in one, and I don't, and Osama bin Laden believes in one that's kinda like yours but apparently not as nice. And Mahatma Ghandi believed in a bunch of them. Whether any of these gods exist, people will continue to act on the assumption that they do.
And as for the eternal side of things, hey, there's not a lot I can do about that, either. If I need to believe to be saved, I'm screwed. I just don't have belief in me. If one needs to believe in the right direction, you have a pretty good shot of being screwed, too, since your belief direction runs counter to the beliefs of the majority of the world. If there is a divine power, and it's friendly and forgiving, then I imagine I'm fine. But there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. So I'll just keep trying to do what I think is right.
In any event, I would like to note that I don't really consider myself an atheist. While my beliefs would lean in that direction, I recognize that science can't prove non-existence, so if I put my faith in science, I can't reasonably go farther than agnosticism. Which I don't care for, so I just don't do labels. This just seems tangentially related to the discussion.