I'm back! Got a new laptop (love it! Buy a refurbished Macbook Air. You'll be glad you did). I saw the following descending/ascending 'poem' floating around online. I wrote a few comments on what I think atheists would disagree with and was wondering if any of you had something to add.
I had claimed that in speaking with the atheists I knew, they would find disagreement with some items in this. I spouted off three at a glance:
1. That it is just foolish to think there is a God with a cosmic plan. Denying God's existence does not assert or require that you think another's belief is 'just foolish.'
2. That being deserving of hell "is a lie meant to enslave me to those in power." It is not a point that gives power to 'religious authorities' but to God. I'd say it is a popular belief, but anyone who I've challenged on it has never given me any actual reason to believe it. The early church? No. They were martyrs and far from having any power or influence. The crusades? They used religion to control people by lying, but this is an abuse. Present day? Maybe in cults and fringe groups there is more abuse and many Christian (embarrassingly) us it as a fear tactic to 'convert' people when they 'evangelize'. However, any time I've explained it they have been silent with no logical connection to draw.
3. And the biggest one: "Our existence has no grand meaning or purpose." They hate. hate. hate this one. I think it is very difficult because they believe in meaning and purpose, but have no good reason to assert it aside from a radical faith statement hanging in mid air in a random universe of chance.
What do you think? Anything to add? Is there truth to the opposite reading about Christians? Are there also false statements in there? Leave a comment.
Some thoughts on #3: I think religious people often naively think that just because they believe in god and have a somewhat more "systematic worldview" (which describes a problem and prescribes a solution), that the purpose and meaning they have in life are based on something more tangible (e.g. God). But in reality this worldview is equally positioned mid air in a random universe of chance. Someone may believe that god gives purpose and meaning to their lives, but ultimately it is their faith and belief in god that gives them purpose and meaning --> purpose and meaning in this sense are constructed by what one believes not by any tangible, concrete realities. I do concede that some religious beliefs can be maintained by tangible reality, but not the beliefs that make them essentially religious (e.g. belief in god itself; an afterlife, etc.).
ReplyDeleteBoth parties hold radical faith statements mid air. The difference I suppose is that one party assumes they themselves are holding up and creating their own meaning and purposes for living, while the other party assumes god reaches down from above to give meaning and purpose to life.
Also, an atheist does not necessarily believe in a "random universe of chance". In fact, an atheist is probably more likely to disbelieve in most forms of random chance. The universe was made for good reason!!! Because whatever (insert science here) processes occurred for the universe to get to the state it is in now, most likely occurred due to explainable processes (admitting we can explain little of it...as of now). Just because an atheist can not entirely explain how the universe was made does not mean that their method of acquiring meaning and purpose is necessarily any different than someone who thinks within a religious framework/worldview.
I can't believe I only saw this comment now! My alerts obviously weren't working then, but I think I fixed them since.
DeleteI see what you mean and think you're right in some areas of belief for both Christians and Atheists. However, in regards to 'meaning' I think that if what you are saying is true then the Christian also has no 'meaning' if it is merely rooted in their own system of belief or 'faith' or whatever. If this is the case then any 'meaning' the Christian has is precisely the same as the 'meaning' an atheist has whether they are both speaking of temporal or long-ranging 'meaning'. For both sides it is merely experiential in the short term and illusory in the long. It would actually be in their heads and nothing more.
I don't see how Christians can claim any meaning in the normal sense of the word unless their faith claims are true and God actually does exist and we will in fact live forever. Of course this is not something can be proven presently and if false would negate any actual meaning and revert them back to the same temporal and empty illusory meaning from above.
Perhaps this is what you are getting at? I think that both sides could say that experientially we sense that there is meaning and purpose, which is a radical faith statement in mid air. So atheists say it is man-made and nothing more, but Christians say it is a truth that points to but does not prove God? Maybe we don't say that and we should? Meaning and Purpose point to a higher power and/or afterlife? Would that be a variation on the teleological argument I suppose?
As for atheists not believing in a 'random universe of chance', I totally agree they would deny it. The point is that the argument, like the Christian's, not only hangs in mid air, but is drastically different in that they have nothing initiating or completing the 'process' and there is not perceivable point or outcome that is anything other than the unfolding of natural processes. I agree they both hang, but I have yet to hear any atheist say what the meaning and point of life is beyond the synapses firing in their skull and the collapse of all things over time.