Why bother?
I’m engaged in a frustrating but rewarding and civil conversation with a Christian, a Mr. Wade Duroe, about the nature of reality. I have his permission to post our discussion so far (which started on The Sunny Skeptic) and to invite my readers to join the conversation. I will thread our posts back and forth in the comments; the first several posts attributed to “wljc” are my posting with quotes of Mr. Duroe’s.
Subscribe by email
May 1st, 2009 at 14h00
I came across your website [The Sunny Skeptic] and noticed you were an atheist from Minnesota. I too am originally from Minnesota, though I am not an atheist.
My father is an atheist and a most unhappy and angry man, for many reasons. But his atheism hasn’t helped him at all.
The writings of Neitzsche, Sartre and Camus reveal a dark and cruel side to atheism.
Human beings may be the most highly organized systems of protoplasm, but they ultimately are no different than trees, dogs or monkeys.
The universe is the product of matter, energy, time and chance and therefore it is ultimately without meaning or purpose.
Morality can be chosen according to individual conscience and is ultimately relative.
Free will is an illusion as human behavior is ultimately genetically determined.
Death is the end of human existence and it throws into doubt the value of our acheivements and our very lives.
For those who follow the logical implications of atheism to their ends, it is truly a bleak and cruel outlook.
Of course, atheists can choose to be optimistic and sunny in spite of it all.
May 1st, 2009 at 14h01
Even if this were true, why would it matter, or influence what we should believe or how we should behave? If atheism is true but uncomfortable, why should we choose comfort and ignore truth? Getting AIDS is terrible, but ignoring it and having unprotected sex would be an unreasonable response.
May 1st, 2009 at 14h02
[Addressed to Crystal, the Sunny Skeptic]
Thank you for agreeing almost point-by-point that atheism sees human beings as highly evolved systems of protoplasm, who live out their relatively short lives in a chance universe that has no meaning, where morality is relative and death is the end.
Neitzsche, Camus and Sartre all understood that this had serious ramifications.
But not so the optimistic, sunny atheists.
For them it is enough “to get to make their own decisions.”
Here is where you may have to do a little more reading and study of those atheists who would argue that human beings are genetically determined.
Does it bother you that some atheists think this way about human existence?
In an accidental, chance universe, what is the value of your moral choices and the purpose and meaning you choose?
In the end, all die and meet the same end: the good and the bad, the happy and the sad, the bigots and the tolerant, the lovers and the haters, the greedy and the generous.
In an accidental, absurd universe where morality is relative, life has no meaning and purpose, there is no free will and death is the end, I can live as I please.
That can be a good thing or a bad thing, but either way, it doesn’t make a difference.
May 1st, 2009 at 14h03
Will you allow me, wljc? I know I am not the one addressed, so please excuse my rudeness in interrupting.
You mentioned Camus. His characters’ arcs, in his fiction, end up (or pass through) a conclusion that what we can do is “fight against nature as we find it”. Generalizing: it is up to us to make meaning out of the void.
Your jump from “accidental universe” to “genetically determined” and “no free will” is a non sequitur — literally, it does not follow. Free will is undeniably a very hard problem, and there have been plenty of religionists and atheists alike who have believed or rejected the existence of free will. It is thorny: I fight with this every day. If we do not have free will, then we have a very compelling illusion of free will, do we not? Tracts that seek to explore this more often than not merely frustrate; (atheist) Daniel Dennett spins his wheels for several hundred pages in “Consciousness Explained” and, in my opinion, gets no closer to the truth.
So, while the nature of free will (”agency”) is fraught with difficulties, I have a powerful intuition that I do in fact have it, that I am actually an agent.
How does this differ from you? Really not at all. You (seem to) believe in God/meaning/whatever because (to a greater or lesser degree) you find it comforting. So do I; so, indeed, does Crystal — clearly — although she may jump in and deny it.
Dawkins writes (roughly) “The world is divided into two groups of people: those who recognize that the ability to comfort has no relevance to an existential claim, and those who do not.” This is all well and good and, strictly, meaningful in a deterministic sense, but I expect that Dawkins still believes he is making choices (his response to Blackmore suggests this, if nothing else.)
You seem — honestly, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me — to believe that if you believed (or acknowledged) that there is no inherent “meaning” to life (in the way that there is no “meaning” to the color light blue or the existence of the top quark; they simply are) that you would find yourself paralyzed, or depraved, or morose. I would appreciate your providing adjectives so that I may more appropriately respond. But really, is that relevant? I mean, if there truly is no meaning, is your belief more than a security blanket?
But back to me, and my inconsistency: I choose to believe in free will because I would find myself paralyzed if I failed to believe in it. But note the difficulties of that sentence: “choose to believe” already implies agency, so it’s kinda skewed from the get-go.
“Genetically determined” is a red herring — whether or not the universe is mechanistic and deterministic, it simply would not reduce to genes. Few things do, in fact, being much more complex and involving the complex interaction of stimuli to a living creature. There are also compelling reasons to think that quantum indeterminacy — the only thing we have that experts believe is truly random — may be amplified in such a way (at least in some cases) to render determinism failed from the start; that is, it is not simply difficult to calculate the results of a universe that is strictly deterministic, but actually impossible (for two reasons, actually: theoretic impossibility of measuring the beginning state exactly [Heisenberg] and the aforementioned quantum effects.)
If you have no interest in engaging me on this issue, and only Crystal, I would appreciate a tiny note to that effect so I can not waste further time. But you are rather articulate in support of a position I do not hold, and I hope you will do me the honor of responding.
May 1st, 2009 at 14h04
The problem for me is “if atheism is true,” the logical implications go well beyond what is “uncomfortable.” They become difficult, if not impossible, to live by.
Atheists would argue that the universe is without meaning and purpose. But human beings can’t live without meaning and purpose so atheists choose meaning and purpose for their lives. But why would they do so if the universe is ultimately without meaning?
Atheists would argue that human beings are highly evolved animals. Nevertheless, we treat human beings different from animals. Even a committed vegan like yourself treats humans and animals differently. But if humans are just animals, why not treat them both exactly the same?
Atheists have a hard time living out what they say they believe. If they tried, they would find it nearly impossible.
Why not live without meaning and purpose in an accidental universe? Why invent meaning to live by if the universe is ultimately meaningless? Maybe it’s because it’s so hard to live that way.
Why not live treating animals and human beings exactly the same way? Why not run over a human being with a car, like a squirrel or possum, and feel really bad about it, but in the end, just go on with life? If humans are not really any different than a bug, a bird or a beast, why not treat them equally? Maybe it’s because it’s impossible to live that way.
My argument is that atheists claim to have the truth, but they ignore it and choose to live comfortably instead.
May 1st, 2009 at 14h06
Your points are good, in that I think you are subtly wrong on a number of issues, but here’s an overview — if you would like a more detailed response before your next volley, just ask.
Your point can’t simply be to find atheists on the web and call them hypocrites, right? If that is your intention, then Crystal was right, and you are a troll. So I will ignore the part about atheists claiming truth and not living up to it, unless I am instructed that that is your one and only point. Turn it around: doesn’t your religion give dictates on how to treat others, how to live one’s life, the sacrifices we should make, etc.? If you were to follow Jesus completely at his word, wouldn’t the only thing you could authentically do in the name of your religion be to sell everything you own and spend your life spreading the word? Of course it would. The fact that you are not living perfectly according to what your religion says you “should” is only relevant if I think that even by living thusly you are mistaken. But in specific cases, such as you or me? Let’s keep the ad hominem stuff out of it. Both of us have worldviews. Both of us fail to achieve those perfectly. Such is life.
See above. Christainity ain’t easy either, is it? If you cannot live a perfect Christian life, does that mean you shouldn’t try to treat your neighbor well? Is it really all or nothing?
If humans and plants are both living things, why not treat them the same and eat nothing? If bacteria is also a living thing, why not avoid antibiotics? I think it’s a weak argument, not the least because of your insertion of the word “just” into the argument, which is a common error (or tactic) of religionists. It is possible for something to ‘be’ something and not to “be only” that thing. Try this one: if rape victims and rapists are both humans, then why treat them differently? Ball’s in your court.
I can’t parse this. Are you saying that we actually don’t create meaning, and deep down inside really believe in supernaturally-granted morality? That is not the case. Humans certainly have evolved morality, but here’s the traditional response to your attack: If you (personally) believe that without God you would still treat your neighbor well, you have conceded your position. If you believe that wihout God you would go around raping and murdering, then you are a scoundrel and not worth speaking to any longer. :^)
Back to:
Yesssss…. So frakking what? So do you. So does the Pope. The number of people who live entirely according to their greatest ideals is so vanishingly small that it can safely be rounded to zero.
I’m all for continuing this if your point was something other than finding atheist websites just to call the maintainers hypocrites.
May 1st, 2009 at 14h07
Joshua,
The point is not that atheists are hypocrites.
It is that they say something fundamental about the universe–it has no meaning or purpose. But they cannot live without meaning and purpose, so they choose to “invent” their own meaning and purpose to life.
If the universe is without meaning, why create it? What’s the point? There is no meaning and purpose to the universe. What good does it do to create for yourself what really isn’t there?
Atheists say something fundamental about human beings–they are animals. But then they do not treat humans and animals the same. They say humans are animals, but then treat human beings as higher than the animals.
If humans are in reality the most highly evolved forms of life, but in essence the same as animals, why not treat them the same? It’s because it just doesn’t work.
The fundamental statements of atheists–the universe is meaningless, human beings are animals, morals are relative, free will is an illusion, death is the end–have logical ramifications that most atheists refuse to follow to the end.
Is it not an atheistic leap of faith to invent meaning in a meaningless universe; to dignify humans animals over other animals, to judge right and wrong when morals are relative; to promote freedom when its reality is dubious; and to deny death’s negation of life?
The fundamental statements of atheists are not existentially viable. They are stated but not lived out because they lead into the abyss, as Neitzsche stated.
Respectfully,
May 1st, 2009 at 14h13
What good does it do to invent a deity that isn’t really there?
go out seeking atheist websites to rant about this? And why, even if all of this were true, would it make belief in supernatural forces any more reasonable? Maybe the universe is meaningless. Maybe free will is an illusion. Human beings absolutely and literally are animals. Death is the end.
But theism is not the “default position”. Even if you were to prove every thing you say about atheism, so what? It doesn’t give supernatural claims any support, it just makes them feel-good. I go back to my AIDS analogy. You could find a thousand sucky things about AIDS and HIV infection. It would be ludicrous to take these horrible fears and use it to justify not believing in AIDS.
OK, one at a time:
1. It is not a “leap of faith” to invent meaning, it is a choice. The choice may have elements of hedonism to it — it certainly has motives of utilitarianism — but it is a choice.
2. I believe that it is an error to dignify humans absolutely over all the other animals, and that so-called “humanists” commit speciesism. There are some extremists who say things like “the life of an ant and the life of my child have the same importance”. I don’t believe this, and I find it revolting. To be sure, I choose not to believe this, or at the very least behave as if I do not believe this. I do think there are some very good reasons for elevating some animals above some other animals, ability to think and ability to suffer being paramount. But why kill a fox for its fur, when it may well have a family that will miss it and will certainly experience terror and pain at being trapped and killed? The answer is easy: don’t kill foxes. I sure don’t.
3. The morals thing: this bit is more complex than I can really cover in an overview, but given what you have read, you’ve probably read Kant and Rousseau?
4. Freedom: Because, in my opinion, it is the only assumption that allows society to function. It may turn out that it is all an illusion; but were we not to punish wrongdoing, by at least some minimal standard (evolved, deduced, or calculated), as a society, the society would fail. It may be that murderers in a real sense “don’t have a choice”. But we cannot assume this if we want to survive with one another. Note that this is not an existential claim, it is a practical consideration.
5. “deny death’s negation of life”: Death ends life. But if you mean “deny” in a #1 sense of undoing all that the life accomplished, I would point you to Emerson’s definition of success:
I feel like this is the third or fourth time you have presented essentially the same arguments, so if I’m missing subtleties, you are probably as frustrated with me as I am with you. Atheism may make one feel bad. So what? In my younger, brasher days I once said “College freshmen should be given Camus, Sartre, and a razor blade. If they survive, they can be admitted to intelligent society.” I try to temper it these days, but there it is. If the prospect of success only to an Emersonian degree is still fatally chilling, then maybe the person should go ahead and die, or at the very least not make any claims to leading an examined life. Sounds really fucking harsh, but there it is. Adults need to deal with these adult issues, and inventing gods to give one’s life meaning is a cop-out — and frankly childish.
If you have an answer to “so what”, you need to present it clearly.
I’ll end with someone usually given less intellectual credit than RWE, namely, Andrew Wood:
“Life is what you make it; and if you make it death then rest your soul.”
Take the last two words figuratively.
With respect and warmth,
May 1st, 2009 at 14h17
You describe the fundamental statements atheists make about reality as “uncomfortable.”
I consider your description an understatement. These atheistic statements are not existentially viable.
When you were younger and brasher, you posed the correct challenge. You took the logical implications of atheism seriously. You followed them out to their ends.
As you have aged, you have tempered your views. You could probably recite many reasons for the change.
My bottom line contention is that you learned you could not live in the reality of atheism.
So you chose meaning for yourself in a meaningless universe. You insist that humans are absolutely and literally animals, yet you treat humans differently than you do animals. You pass moral judgments on others though morality is relative. You claim freedom though free will may be illusory. Though death is the fate of good and bad, tolerant and bigoted, greedy and generous, lazy and industrious, you strive to achieve.
This isn’t about hypocrisy. It’s about the nature of reality.
If the universe is meaningless, why do human beings seek it?
If humans are absolutely and literally animals, why treat them any different?
If morals are relative, how come humans pass judgment on others?
If free will is illusory, why do humans take responsibility?
If death is the end common to all, what difference does it make how we live?
I think that atheists are wrong about the nature of reality.
Conversely, theists generally, and Christians in particular, think the universe is meaningful and so they seek meaning for their lives.
They think humans have been endowed with special capacities, so they treat human beings differently than animals.
They think that there is a standard for morality and so they make moral judgments.
They think humans have been given free will, so they take responsibility for their actions.
They do not think that death is the end of human existence, so they strive to achieve, with the hope that their labors are not in vain.
Theism in general and Christianity in particular offer a “better” description of reality, one which people live according to everyday.
The nature of reality makes it more reasonable that God exists than that He does not exist.
Respectfully,
Wade
May 1st, 2009 at 14h17
Here ends what I have transcribed. Henceforth the posts will be new and by their authors.
May 1st, 2009 at 15h11
I would say that they do so by begging the question, though. See Joshua’s point above: “Maybe the universe is meaningless.” That must be considered as an option. The default option, I’d argue. The burden of proof isn’t on the atheist to prove lack of meaning. That’s the natural state. What does a rock mean? What does the wind mean? &c.
Well, they sure offer a “somewhat more comforting” one*, but “better” seems really loaded. And unclear. Do you mean better as in, like, “good plus some”? Or better as in “more conforming to actual lived conditions”? Either way, and I know that I’m echoing a point that Joshua has made several times: so what? Really, so what? Why should it matter if it seems more good?, or, Why should it matter if it seems more like what people believe? I don’t intend these questions to be rhetorical. Or rude.
It’s just that none of this seems to address whether or not what you believe in is true. The point you’ve made several times, if I read it correctly, is that it would be difficult to believe (and to live) in a universe that has no inherent or divinely granted meaning. But ‘difficult to believe’ does not equal ‘necessarily false’. And if it’s just enough to argue that things are difficult to believe in, I find it difficult to believe in a divinely created universe that contains skin-mites that look like tiny crabs, and duck-billed platypuses, and Two and a Half Men. But there it is, nonetheless.
*though I’d argue that being judged for my actions by somebody who has not adequately explained the rules is actually rather less than comforting, but that’s for another post.
May 1st, 2009 at 15h13
Not the the skin-mites look like platypuses and Charlie Sheen. That could have been clearer.
May 1st, 2009 at 19h18
Still a troll. One that can spell and has proper sentence structure, but don’t let the wrapping paper fool you.
Nice replies to him, though, you have more patience than I do.
May 2nd, 2009 at 05h54
This isn’t about a view of reality that is more comforting, it is about which view is closer to the truth. Which view of reality–the atheist or the theist–is closer to reality?
The general atheistic position claims the universe is the product of matter, energy, time and chance. This is an accidental universe where there is no meaning, morality is relative, humans are animals, free will is an illusion and death is the end.
Atheists make these assertions about the universe and the nature of reality and then choose to live counter to them. The choose meaning for themselves in a meaningless universe. They make moral judgments though morality is relative. Though they are the same, atheists treat humans and animals differently. Though free will is an illusion, they think, speak and act as responsible agents. Though they live with death’s finality, they choose to achieve.
The problem is not hypocrisy. It is their view of reality. Their basic affirmations about the universe are countered by the lives they choose to live.
Theists in general and Christians in particular claim the universe is the product of a divine intelligence, a first cause in a universe of dependencies. As such, the universe has meaning and purpose, humans possess unique capacities, morality has a basis, humans are responsible agents and death is not the end.
Their basic affirmations about the universe are how people intuitively live–both theists and atheists.
The position of theism and particularly Christianity is better than atheism in that its view of reality is how all people live. All people seek meaning. All people make moral judgments. All people treat animals and humans differently. All people think, speak and act as responsible agents. All people strive to make something of their lives.
This is a profound problem for the atheist viewpoint. They make fundamental assertions about reality in the universe and then spend their lives choosing to live “in spite of” the realities they have described.
This is a key reason that many theists, myself included, reject atheism.
The counter intuitivism of atheism, along with the existence of the universe, the unique capacities of human beings, the existence of the scriptures and of Jesus Christ are among the evidences that support theism in general and Christianity in particular.
May 2nd, 2009 at 09h14
Not mine.
I choose to behave as if my behavior matters because a) I think it’s a better option than dying, even if you can’t fathom why I would think that; b) I wish to honor a social contract, which would be unreasonably difficult if everyone were running around all crazypants everywhere; and c), and this is the important one, I think it actually does matter. Our lives matter. Not because they’re designed, not because they’re created, not because they’re a stepping stone to heaven, not because we we’re made in His image, but because they’re all we have. I think you would say that if they’re all we have, then why don’t they just not matter? And I would say, then why don’t they just not NOT matter. We could do it all day. My point is that “the universe has no inherent meaning” and “life is pointless” are not synonymous. Nihilism is not the logical conclusion of atheism, and I think you think it is. But it isn’t.
You chose to embrace Christianity, which involves belief in a vengeful deity who manifested himself as flesh in the body of his son so that he could sacrifice himself at the hands of his chosen people thereby freeing them from sin that were a byproduct of his own creation, because of problems in the internal logic of atheism? Uh… that’s… interesting? Problematic? Like embracing a boxing career because golf is too violent?
May 2nd, 2009 at 19h15
Oh, Mr. Duroe: I see you are using your name here, but was the “wljc” on Crystal’s site “Wade Loves Jesus Christ”, by any chance? If so, can you assure me that your momma didn’t say to knock me out?
May 4th, 2009 at 12h15
I would agree that nihilism isn’t automatically the logical conclusion of atheism, but it is difficult for atheists to avoid nihilism.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid nihilism because atheism claims this a universe where there is no meaning and morality is relative and humans are animals and free will is an illusion and death is the end.
It is all five of these basic statements taken together that make atheism so bleak.
It is so bleak that atheists admit the universe has no meaning and yet they go on to choose meaning for their lives. They admit morality is relative and then go on to pass moral judgments. They admit humans are fundamentally and absolutely animals and go on to treat humans and animals differently. They admit free will may be an illusion and they go on to think, speak and act as free agents. They admit that death is the end, and then strive to achieve that which is good.
To say that these are the only lives we have is true primarily for the invidividual, not the species. You are just one in the midst of billions of people. Surely if you, as an individual, died or dishonored a social contract, the world not stop spinning. Unfortunately, the world might not notice at all.
The fact that individuals only have one shot at life doesn’t lessen the bleak outlook of atheism, it increases it. It’s difficult to see how an individual–in a vast universe that is the product of matter, energy, time and chance, where there is no meaning, morality is relative, humans are animals, free will may be an illusion and death is the end–makes much difference at all. If the nature of the universe is as the atheists describe it, the life or death, and the honor or dishonor, of a specific individual makes virtually no difference at all.
I would argue that the life of an individual only matters in this vast universe, if indeed God exists.
Atheists commonly claim to be champions of reason, yet they can be unreasonable and irrational. They demand hard evidence for God’s existence and then go on to make any number of statements that lack any hard evidence. Atheism does have problems in its internal logic.
As a theist, I maintain that faith and reason are more poweful together than either one is separately. Faith without reason is blind superstition. Reason without faith is limiting and reductionistic. Reason and faith, operating together, give us a clearer picture of reality, than either one by itself.
Your summary of Christianity, with certain loaded words and phrases, may seem unreasonable. But I maintain that theism in general and Christianity in particular offers a more reasonable explanation for the existence of this vast universe with all of its life forms than does atheism.
To Joshua: whatever else the letters “wljc” may stand for, they are first and foremost the initials of the four members of my family.
May 4th, 2009 at 13h28
And I would argue that that’s really sad, but I see where you’re coming from. I just think it’s sad.
I really do hear where you’re coming from. I would summarize your argument like this:
“It would just be too difficult to live in a world without inherent meaning, so I must believe in God, in order to believe in meaning.”
and I would characterize mine like this:
“It is very difficult to live in a world without inherent meaning, so I must find my own.”
At the end of the day, I think these views are irreconcilable. I won’t make the logical leap from “life would be hard without meaning, therefore God.” You won’t make the leap from “life is difficult without meaning, but it’s still beautiful.”
I do hear where you’re coming from. I do. Been good talking to you.
Peace.
May 5th, 2009 at 11h36
Dave, thank you for hearing me.
Your summary of my argument is good, as far as it goes.
But you’ve left off four key components of it: humans are animals, morality is relative, free will is an illusion and death is the end. It is all four of these atheistic statements, along with the denial of inherent meaning in the univese, that throws into question whether or not the life of individuals has any value or meaning.
I conversely feel sad for atheists who must find meaning in a meaningless universe, morality in a world of moral relativism, the value of human beings who are fundamentally and absolutely animals, freedom when free will may be an illusion and life when death is the end.
Good to talk with you.