Wednesday, June 30, 2010

A Facebook Exchange

I had an interesting exchange this morning, facebooking with a Christian-turned-atheist young friend. Because it dovetails into some of the current discussions here, I asked the friend if I could post our exchange here. He agreed, and it follows:

John

30 June at 08:52


So. I'm sure you more or less remember me, I used to go to your church. Well, a lot has changed since then, I've lost my religious side, and became atheistic. I realized that maybe I shouldn't just listen to what everybody has told me was true, and so I started first not with evolution but with the history of the bible. I started reading that the writers of the bible weren't even eye witnesses, let alone within decades of eyewitnesses. I started reading the bible more, Genesis 30:27-30 anybody? There were stories that we know are false that people just believe. It gave me reason to doubt. Now, I may be only 15, but I know I shouldn't just believe in a talking donkey. Since then, I've read. I've read a lot, I've studied evolution in and out, from the bad design of the recurrent laryngeal nerve to atavisms to the evolution of DNA, sex, death, movement, everything. I've found a passion of it. I've studied the laws of physics, mostly quantum mechanics and relativity. I've studied the fossil record in and out, looking at transitional fossils such as tiktaalik rosea, and I've looked at our own embryonic state (we develop a tail and an embryo sac..)


All this lead me to believe that there wasn't, couldn't be a god. What I had been raised believing was true, I realized wasn't. I started debating evolution with a pastor from Toledo. Honestly, I've never been more saddened by a person in my life. He's a pastor and he doesn't know anything about his own religion. He says everyone were eye witnesses. He says we have no evidence for macro or micro evolution, he brings up arbitrary ideas such as the laws of entropy, and then he questions me, he says that because I'm 15 I have to copy/paste all my answers to his questions. I met with him in person, and we went over carbon-dating. He says that the formula for half life, (y=ae^kt) must be wrong. He wouldn't tell me why. He told me I was going to hell for not believing in his god, and that his god was the only truth, and that I wouldn't be happy without him. I'm a lot happier now, without a god, than I was with one.


I've been reading your blog, and you seem like quite the intelligent person, who is interested in the same topics as I. It'd be nice to talk to someone as intelligent as you, who won't just say that we should believe in talking donkeys because the Bible tells us to.




Cliff Martin 30 June at 11:29


Thanks for writing, John. I enjoyed visiting with your mom yesterday.


I tracked with your first paragraph. Since you listened to me teach at TCF (I must apologize for passing along a lot of misinformation ... but that is all in the past), I too have developed a deep interest in DNA, sex (well, I've always been interested in THAT!), death, movement, quantum mechanics and relativity, even evolutionary psychology, etc. I understand how the recurrent laryngeal nerve drives the last nail into the coffin of "Intelligent Design". But when you write, "All this lead me to believe that there wasn't, couldn't be a god", I have to say that I have come to radically different conclusions. Surely the findings of science today, which are largely trustworthy, alter the ways we must think about God, and how we define him, and how we understand his involvement in the cosmos, etc. But how do they rule out the possibility of his existence?


I probably think more like you than your pastor friend. But I have not even come close to abandoning my hope that humans have infinite value, that suffering is not meaningless, that justice will prevail in the end, that we are more than chance chemical assemblages moving futilely through an ultimately inconsequential universe. In a way, I reject atheism because I reject its inescapable nihilistic despair. I choose hope. And such hope is, for me at least, richly rewarded and more than worth the risks involved!


But we all must choose. And our choices ought to be intellectually viable. That is why I say I have more in common with you. Fundamentalist Christians are either uninformed of the current state of science (and willfully remain so) or they live with a cognitive dissonance that would for you or me be unbearable. But is this the result of TRUTH, or the result of religious constructs designed in fear and maintained for the manipulation and control of the religious masses? It is clearly the latter, in my opinion.


Before you discard the bathwater, I highly recommend that you reconsider the baby!


As for the debate with your friend; Christians who reject carbon dating do so because they feel they must. They do not understand carbon dating. But they find great comfort in the relative few anomalies in the process which are well understood by scientists, but appear ridiculous to the lay-person. Such people will typically say things like, "no one knows what happened 200 million years ago because no one was there!" So I use a different tack with friends who reject ancient evidence:


I ask them to consider the same basic evidence that first convinced Darwin (and many of his contemporaries) of evolution in a time before much fossil evidence had been discovered, and we knew nothing about carbon dating, radioactive dating, DNA, etc. Darwin (if I'm not mistaken) was convinced by two things: 1) The newly developing understandings of Mendelian Inheritance (which no one denies), but even more so by 2) Biogeography, or the consistent patters of distribution of the flora and fauna throughout the earth, particularly on the islands of the world. These patterns are everywhere consistent with the predictions of evolutionary theory, and are weird to the extreme if we postulate special creation of the species. And this evidence is available to anyone today, requires no dating methodologies, no reliance upon the "witness" of “biased” paleontologists, and can be analyzed by anyone willing to THINK, without the huge learning curve on the front end of DNA evidence.


Ask him what logic can explain why a creator went out to all the islands of the world and proceeded to create life so as to make the earth look exactly as it would if it had been populated by living organisms over 100s of millions of years through the very process Darwin describes.


I have a limited respect for the few (very few) Creationists who actually understand the evidence for evolution and explain it this way: God made the cosmos to appear as though it had evolved (à la the Big Bang) and life appear as though it has evolved (à la Darwin) to find out if we would believe him when he declares that it all happened in 6 days, a mere 6,000 years ago. They make God into a trickster and a deceiver, an insecure person who so fears rejection that he actually sets it up (some sick people actually do that, you know).


Let's talk sometime.


66 comments:

Ian Moss said...

Well, Cliff you explained it better than i could, but basically its exactly what I've been thinking. But I'm still studying evolution. Its frustrating to think that i feel this huge weight to make a well informed, educated decision, but I don't know where to look online for the info/data. Any recommendations?

Cliff Martin said...

I could recommend lots of books. Borrow some of mine. I suggested to John that the three of us get together. John and I could gang up on you re. evolution. You and I could gang up on John re. God. And you and John could gang up on me re. old age.

So we'll find a time and do coffee or whatever...

John said...

Ian, the internet isn't going to suffice here. Talkorigins.org has a really good post on it, though, if you do not want to go to the Library to find books. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html is a really useful reference with evidence for macroevolution, why we should believe it, and all the possible falsifications.

Carey Folk said...

John,

All I can say is wow - wow that you are struggling with and working through these questions at 15. I applaud you and want to encourage you about the path you are on.

I too, like many others here, have walked the very path you are walking (although I waited till I was in my 30's to do so). As much as the two extremes - the fundamentalists and the atheist communities take hard line position - please be assured there exists a third way. A way that is thoughtful, reasoned, intelligent, and faithful. Yes, all those words can coexist in the same sentence.

If I may offer one suggestion for your journey - find people (like Cliff Martin and company) that invite reasoned, open and respectful dialogue and engage them.

Again, thanks so much for your openness and willingness to join the conversation.

Tom said...

What an enlightened 15 year old! Rebelling with actual evidence! Good for you!

Cliff said,
I reject atheism because I reject its inescapable nihilistic despair.

Cliff, I'm sure we will keep re-hashing this, but I want to continue and try and understand why you think this. I see your statement as a fundamentalist idea. Coming from my own Christian fundamentalist background, I see the "logical extreme" of Christianity as Christian fundamentalism. You criticize such Christian fundamentalism as setting up false dilemmas, but do you think your stance also sets up a false dilemma?

Carey Folk said...

Interesting thing about false dilemma's - they involve two or more choices - all being incorrect, unsubstantiated, false, etc. (at least from the perspective of the person describing said false dilemma).

Yet, when that same person describes their own choice of beliefs, it's a choice between what they believe to be true contrary to what they think is false - not a false dilemma at all, but a choice for what is true (in their own mind).

Other than what you can see and feel (and even that is up for dispute sometimes), EVERY idea, piece of knowledge - involves some degree of faith or belief.

I believe atheist are people of faith - everyone has faith. We can argue till the cows come home about which objects of faith make the most sense but in the end, it is still faith.

At least that's what I believe...

John said...

Carey- Thanks! I find that my generation is too opposed to seeking answers to questions. I plan to go into the field of evolutionary neuropsychology in college, it's something that interests me a lot.

In my way of viewing things, though, I don't believe that a paranormal, ubiquitous being can coexist when you juxtapose it with the scientific findings. One of the biggest epiphanies that I had when I was studying the history of Christianity, was that I accepted Christian miracles while disposing all other ancient miracles as superstitious. Who am I to say that Christian miracles happened, when I say that the world as we know it happened by chance? How do I know that the greeks or the celtics weren't correct? Why would a god create people predisposed to believe in a different religion, so that they would burn in hell, and yet he loves them? The Christian answer is that we just have to trust god's judgement. I don't find that to be a reasonable answer. I believe that science can answer moral questions easily.

Tom- I agree. I don't find nihilistic despair from my atheism. Personally, I don't believe that religion is an important aspect to my life. I don't see why our society finds it necessary to believe in a higher being as a way to do well in life. I don't think we should need an institutionalized church system in order to believe that we should do the right thing.

Cliff Martin said...

Just to clear up name confusion ... I believe (but cannot verify) that the "John" who posted the third comment here is not the same "John" with whom I conversed in the main post.

And I presume the "John" Carey addressed in the subsequent comment is the "John" of the original post.

I think.

Tom, my contention that atheism leads inevitably to nihilism is not sourced in any fundamentalist idea for me. It is simply following the rabbit. If all life dies with this cosmos (which has a death sentence), then please tell me how we are anything other than what I wrote: "chance chemical assemblages moving futilely through an ultimately inconsequential universe." I know you are content with short range goals, that your life has a meaning of your own making ... I get that. It just seems to me that you are (philosophically) postponing the inevitable. We all die, our progeny all dies, nothing remains, all is vain. How is that a false dilemma?

I get your analogy of Christian Fundamentalism ... and the implication that I erect a straw man atheist (e.g. Nietzche, Hemingway, etc.) and say ergo all atheists are Nihilists. I'm not saying that. I am not saying that you are of the formal Nihilism school. But from where I sit, if you follow your beliefs to their logical conclusion, you will end up where Nietzsche did. He was simply brutally honest. Tell me where my thinking goes astray.

John said...

Oh, Cliff, I am. I'm just too apathetic to sign into my Google account (I'm not sure if it's set up for Blogger or not.) I'll confirm this, my mom's debbie, and my two brothers are Adam and Matthew. I went to toledo christian fellowship. Both of those posts were from me. I'll set up my Google account for blogger now to avoid future dilemmas.

Carey Folk said...

John,

Regarding a few of your comments around Christian miracles being true and other religions being false, and the burn in hell comment, and the just trusting god's judgment comment:

All of these statements seem to come from very dogmatic versions of Christianity. The discussions of faith, Jesus and science that I engage in don't have these categories.

I fear that what you are choosing not to believe is, in my book anyway, a false Christianity. I would encourage you to seek conversation with Christian that have a high regard for science - oh, that's this website:)

Cliff Martin said...

John,

So you know where I am coming from ...

• I agree with you about miracles.

”I don't find that to be a reasonable answer”
• I agree!


“I believe that science can answer moral questions easily.”
• Whoa! I don’t know that science has a great track record in that department. Of course, neither do religious institutions. “Easily” you say? I think I have to disagree.

“I don't find nihilistic despair from my atheism.”
• I’m glad that you have found a way to hold your atheism without nihilistic despair. Remember, I did not say that atheists are all nihilists. I said that I reject atheism because it leads to nihilistic despair. It would for me. I believe that if you follow it to its ultimate end, it will for you, too.

“I don't think we should need an institutionalized church system in order to believe that we should do the right thing.”
• I totally agree!

Cliff Martin said...

Carey writes,
"All of these statements seem to come from very dogmatic versions of Christianity."

And that is so often the problem in these discussions. We shoot right past each other, and fail to recognize that our thinking (everyone in this conversation so far!) is actually much closer than we thought. Truth-seeking, empirical-knowledge people by definition will share much common ground.

Tom contends that I do the same thing when I speak of atheistic nihilism. But it is actually quite different. I can tell you why theism does not demand blood sacrifice, talking donkeys, Buddhists burning for ever in hell, or world-wide cataclysmic floods. But can an atheist please explain why atheism does not demand ultimate futility.

Anonymous said...

John,

You said you started by looking at the history of the bible and found it wasn't written by eyewitnesses or who they claim to be written by. I know that is a largely propagated assertion on the web but you should have come across the works of Richard Bauckham 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses', Martin Hengel's 'Four Gospels' and Graham Stanton's 'Jesus and Gospel'? James Dunn's works would also figure to a degree here.I know the conversation on here hasn't gone into this, but I found it rather ironic that the past ten years have provided probably the best evidence since the earliest Christian centuries that the Gospels were based on eyewitness, oral sources, and that they were probably written by the names of those who were attached to them.

I was wondering therefore what writings you read, or websites you visited, that gave you such a firm impression on the state of scholarship into this issue?

I did also wonder why you believed that a bad design in the human body negated God. Of course the intelligent designer will point out that cars have faults [e.g. recent Toyotas] but that doesn't make us think that the cars weren't designed. As a Christian I should point out a fundamental teaching of our Scriptures is that the created world is decaying, changing and is corrupt. I know that can seem a bit of a cop out. We can claim anything that depends upon complex design points to a creator beyond natural means, and that anything badly designed can be attributed to corruption. But if we take our teachings on the fall and its consequences seriously it is to be expected.

I'm also not totally convinced that Scripture demands we stand against evolution. But that is perhaps a subject that requires great depth than can be given to it here. See

http://www.instonebrewer.com/visualSermons/Gen1-2/_Sermon.htm

and

http://publicchristianity.org/Videos/reading_Genesis.html

The issues of miracles is an interesting one but I will leave that aside for now.

Thanks.

Don

Carey Folk said...

To all,

First, I'd like to say thanks for this respectful conversation - this is my first conversation to engage in on this blog and it's been a very good experience.

Second, I sincerely would like to ask John and Tom a question. Please know that I am not trying to get to a specific answer to make some argument but would honestly like to know what you think (apart from all these discussions):

Towards the end of your life, as you look back on all you have done, accomplished, experienced - what would lead you to say "I have live a good life?"

Put another way, what things, experiences or way of living would lead to a rich and full life? Conversely, what things could you regret?

Anonymous said...

Don- Oh wow. It's been nearly 2 years since I've bridged that topic. I can't remember the neames of the books I read. I did find an article recently on anatheist.net, http://www.anatheist.net/articles/christianity/eyewitness-to-jesus-the-gospel-authors/ that provides a great analysis of the eyewitnesses.


Well if you recall the name of the books I would be grateful if you past them on to me.
That article by James Tracy's, I am sorry, shows little awareness of scholarship on the topic on the origins of the titles of the Gospels. In the comment section he seems to suggest that he thinks that the Gospels were written hundreds of years after the time of Jesus. It appears he has been told that they had no assigned authors and has merely interacted with that theme and extrapolated from that.

As Richard Bauckham notes 'The assumption that Jesus traditions circlulated anonymously in the early church and that therefore the Gospels in which they were gathered and recorded were also originally anonymous was very widespread in twentieth-century Gospel scholarship. It was propagated by the form critics as a corollary of their use of the model of folklore, which is passed down anonymously by communities. The Gospels, they thought, were folk literature, similarly anonymous. This use of the model of folklore, which is passed down anonymously by communities.[this suggestion has run into road blocks] but it is remarkable how tenacious has been the idea that not only the traditions but the Gospels themselves were originally anonymous.'- Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 300-301.

Furthermore, there is no awareness of the problems that suggesting that 2nd century Christians assigned the names to the Gospels. By that time Gospel manuscripts would be found in Spain, Italy, Greece, Israel, Egypt [etc...] with a HIGHLY fragmented and divided church that was really only a series of localized church groups. A group cannot just invent names for the Gospels and they magically appear in all of the manuscript lineages. Nor would they make up the names of people to write some of the gospels who had no known authority or even recognition within the Church, and think ' ah hah. We will name it after Mark'...'erm. Who is Mark?'. Your source was nearly there when he referenced the pseudographical books that emerged, all written in the names of people of authority.
For that you will need to read some Hengel.

You suggested this was the first topic you studied and lead you away from Christ. I would be delighted if along with your pursuit of science if you could find the time to revisit your acquaintance with history.



I must confess I wasn't immediately familiar with the Genesis 30:27-30 until I looked it up. Of all the stories I didn't imagine that would be the one you found most troublesome. But then that's maybe because when I was younger I easily convinced by elderly grandmother than I was her brother Andrew, so perhaps I don't have quite the same disconnect to the situation, or find it so counter-cultural.

Thank you for the congenial conversation,

Don.

Cliff Martin said...

Don,

Thank you for your comments here. I appreciate the scholarship on Gospel authorship you have offered. These nagging textual and literary skirmishes have not been a major focus for me, and I often leave such claims unchallenged. But there is little doubt that Revisionism has become popular over the last 100 years, that it has extended its reach to the Bible, and that attacks upon the Bible are relentless. It is fashionable to disassemble and discredit the Bible, and skeptics can fall into gullible "group think" as readily as fundamentalist Christians, it seems. So your rebuttal is a welcome breath of fresh air to me!
Thank you.

Tom said...

Carey asked,
Towards the end of your life, as you look back on all you have done, accomplished, experienced - what would lead you to say "I have live a good life?"

Put another way, what things, experiences or way of living would lead to a rich and full life? Conversely, what things could you regret?


I infer that since you are singling out the atheists with these questions that you think these questions are either unanswerable for the atheist or different from the theist's response. Such meaning-of-life questions are the same for us all. Our individual responses are subjective, but generally revolve around making the world a better place while enjoying it all the same. If you think theists have a qualitatively different response, do tell.

Tom said...

Cliff asks,
But can an atheist please explain why atheism does not demand ultimate futility?

Do we really know there is an end? If you point your browser to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe, you'll find it is an open debate. But let's take the two options: eternity or not. Now, if you want to say there is an end, say even a trillion years from now, that certainly feels like an infinity to me, so I can operate as if the world will not end. Even though I know we have the nuclear capacity to end humanity even now, I don't operate as if this will become a reality by not having children to protect them from such a calamity. We, like all creatures, march on with life protecting ourselves the best we can with the expectation and hope that even though there will be a day when we die, today is not that day. And even moreso, we hope today is not that day for our children. And what do we do with the day? Carpe diem.

It can easily be argued that eternity is meaningless. An economic argument could go that if everyone was handed an infinite supply of money, money would be worthless. While that is an extreme statement, it is recognized that socialism breeds unproductive, unfulfilled people. Similarly, if life is temporal, each day is precious. You get evolution. The surest way to devalue time is by making it infinite. So, how can an eternity be fulfilling?

Cliff Martin said...

Tom,

I don't know of any cosmologies that predict a universe in which our race can go on indefinitely. Do you?

But your comments really miss the point. I don't recall ever mentioning eternity in this discussion; "forever in heaven" does not even factor into my thinking here. Where atheism comes up short for me is in the area of overall purpose for existence, questions of ultimate justice, the meaning of suffering and pain, the existence of evil, personal accountability to anyone or anything transcendent. An atheist might concoct some answers and philosophies that work for him/her personally; but in honesty, all of those question are answerable with "nothing, nothing, nothing." I see no escape from nihilism for an atheist, except to conceal nihilism with a kind of existentialism which is, for me at least, just as unsatisfying.

Perhaps from where you sit, the purpose you are able to attach to your life is enough, and satisfies your need for significance. The story into which I fit my life is (for me) much larger, more encompassing, attaches purpose to life, lends the possibilities of meaning to suffering, validates all human life, settles all injustices, etc. To abandon my hope in God would be to abandon all of those things. Sounds like nihilism to me.

Tom said...

Cliff said,
I don't recall ever mentioning eternity in this discussion; "forever in heaven" does not even factor into my thinking here.

But earlier you said of the materialists' view:
If all life dies with this cosmos (which has a death sentence).... We all die, our progeny all dies, nothing remains, all is vain.

So which is it?

With respect to your other critiques of atheism, a few quick responses.

overall purpose for existence: To reproduce and evolve.

questions of ultimate justice: It's relative. it's dynamic. We don't live in a bubble. Everything has a consequence.

the meaning of suffering and pain: To strive to avoid it.

the existence of evil: See ultimate justice

personal accountability to anyone or anything transcendent: See ultimate justice. How I behave is much the same when I think God is looking vs. when he isn't paying attention. In fact, morality can reach a much higher level in cases where we act on our own accord without the notion that we're being monitored.

(Speaking of morality, I do think science can answer and study morality as Sam Harris suggested in his Ted talk. Sean Carroll had a strong debate with him, over this, however. What struck me in Harris' presentation was the suggestion that there should be a morality elite. This idea I found very off offensive. How can you grow morality by limiting it to a few judges?)

Cliff Martin said...

Tom,

“So which is it?” (is it about eternity, or not)
Yes, a materialist maintains that material existence is all there is. And material existence, in addition to lacking anything transcendent, is temporary. My points about nihilism are indeed tied to a materialist view ending in the death of our reality, and a theist view includes transcendence, permanence, culmination, and eternity (probably an eternity in so many dimensions that we can not imagine it at all, could not begin to discuss its meaning, or how fulfilling (or un-) it might be. Its not something I obsess about, and it does not, per se, factor into my assessment of atheistic nihilism.

“overall purpose for existence: To reproduce and evolve.”
Makes me smile. Kind of like a club, the sole purpose of which is to have membership drives.
“But why does your club exist?”
“We exist to get more members, to grow.”
“But to what end?”
“So we have more people to help with our membership drives!”

“questions of ultimate justice: It's relative. it's dynamic. We don't live in a bubble. Everything has a consequence.”
Really? I see injustices all around me in which the abusers win, the abused lose. History is riddled with unresolved injustices. It is a major theme, if not the major theme of human history. You are contending that everything will come up roses somehow? automatically? What exactly is relative justice? How would you apply relative justice to the Ivan the Terrible, Atilla the Hun, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler? Has justice been served in any of those cases, or millions of others? Yes, there were consequences to all their actions. But one of those consequences was not the righting of the tables of justice. Not even close!

“the meaning of suffering and pain: To strive to avoid it.”
Are you serious? Pity the pour souls (billions of them) who have been unsuccessful. Apparently, you would say, they never figured out the meaning of suffering. You would comfort them by telling them they ought to have striven harder? I look for something a bit more profound. Something that can make sense of millions upon millions of years of pain and suffering, especially the suffering of people at the hands of cruel people. Senseless, we call it. You must surely agree, “Senseless”. A materialist can have no other answer. The philosophy of materialism is bankrupt when it comes to answers to such questions. You have no meaning for suffering.

“How I behave is much the same when I think God is looking vs. when he isn't paying attention.”
I believe you. The thought of God looking on is not really much of a morality motivator for me either. That is not the point. The point is that millions of people do not live by any ethical standard. They misuse and abuse, they kill and maim, they live selfish, horrible lives. Sometimes whole classes of people, or entire nations work in concert to cruelly exploit other people. Think, "slave trade." Think, "human trafficking." Think, "sexual exploitation." In your book, they all skate.

I agree both with you misgivings about Harris; but I also agree with the overall notion that man can figure out ethics and morality. I think the Creator has arranged it such that we can do that. The fact that all the religions of the world pretty much agree on the basics of morality would suggest that. I am not suggesting that we need God to be good. But I am suggesting that we need God to make sense of life, of existence. And I’ll say it again: without God, we are left with nihilism.

Cliff Martin said...

Tom,

“So which is it?” (is it about eternity, or not)
Yes, a materialist maintains that material existence is all there is. And material existence, in addition to lacking anything transcendent, is temporary. My points about nihilism are indeed tied to a materialist view ending in the death of our reality, and a theist view includes transcendence, permanence, culmination, and eternity (probably an eternity in so many dimensions that we can not imagine it at all, could not begin to discuss its meaning, or how fulfilling (or un-) it might be. Its not something I obsess about, and it does not, per se, factor into my assessment of atheistic nihilism.

“overall purpose for existence: To reproduce and evolve.”
Makes me smile. Kind of like a club, the sole purpose of which is to have membership drives.
“But why does your club exist?”
“We exist to get more members, to grow.”
“But to what end?”
“So we have more people to help with our membership drives!”

“questions of ultimate justice: It's relative. it's dynamic. We don't live in a bubble. Everything has a consequence.”
Really? I see injustices all around me in which the abusers win, the abused lose. History is riddled with unresolved injustices. It is a major theme, if not the major theme of human history. You are contending that everything will come up roses somehow? automatically? What exactly is relative justice? How would you apply relative justice to the Ivan the Terrible, Atilla the Hun, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler? Has justice been served in any of those cases, or millions of others? Yes, there were consequences to all their actions. But one of those consequences was not the righting of the tables of justice. Not even close!

“the meaning of suffering and pain: To strive to avoid it.”
Are you serious? Pity the pour souls (billions of them) who have been unsuccessful. Apparently, you would say, they never figured out the meaning of suffering. You would comfort them by telling them they ought to have striven harder? I look for something a bit more profound. Something that can make sense of millions upon millions of years of pain and suffering, especially the suffering of people at the hands of cruel people. Senseless, we call it. You must surely agree, “Senseless”. A materialist can have no other answer. The philosophy of materialism is bankrupt when it comes to answers to such questions. You have no meaning for suffering.

CONTINUED ...

Cliff Martin said...

... CONTINUED:

“How I behave is much the same when I think God is looking vs. when he isn't paying attention.”
I believe you. The thought of God looking on is not really much of a morality motivator for me either. That is not the point. The point is that millions of people do not live by any ethical standard. They misuse and abuse, they kill and maim, they live selfish, horrible lives. Sometimes whole classes of people, or entire nations work in concert to cruelly exploit other people. Think, "slave trade." Think, "human trafficking." Think, "sexual exploitation." In your book, they all skate.

I agree both with you misgivings about Harris; but I also agree with the overall notion that man can figure out ethics and morality. I think the Creator has arranged it such that we can do that. The fact that all the religions of the world pretty much agree on the basics of morality would suggest that. I am not suggesting that we need God to be good. But I am suggesting that we need God to make sense of life, of existence. And I’ll say it again: without God, we are left with nihilism.

Cliff Martin said...

Tom, et. al.

Forgive the stridency of these last two comments. I don't mean to come on so strong. But for me, it seems a no-brainer that atheism, followed to its logical end, leads to nihilism. I welcome the debate, and am willing to be shown otherwise (I think). But everything said so far falls far short of lifting atheism out of it's inescapable hopelessness. It has no answers for what I consider the most important questions.

Tom said...

Fine. Let's leave eternity out of the picture, but please define transcendence, permanence, and culmination.

I know my responses were short, but it does not mean books can be written around these statements. Evolution by selective pressures gives overall purpose for existence. With the simple rule of reproducing with enough variability to imbue one's progeny with a better means to operate in a universe with limited resources, you get the evolution of bodily forms and behavior. With behavior you get group cooperation and scheming. With that you get laws and ethics, and yes, demands for justice. So, while horrible people exploit and operate, they don't do it without consequence for themselves or others. It doesn't mean that justice on an individual basis is fair, but we as a group strive for that. We can do this because we can empathize. And when I talk about pain and suffering, I'm not saying one can necessarily avoid it. We as a society can strive to ameliorate and cure pain through medicine, policies, and learning ourselves what to avoid where we can.

As we begin to understand more of the mechanisms of evolution, psychology, behavior, communication, physiology, energy, and our material universe, we have the capacity to generally make life safer, last longer, more experiential, more comfortable, and more fulfilling for us and our children. Again, evolution, for all its waste and extinct species is overall an ordering process. Patterns beget patterns making ever more complex systems including you, me, and Hitler. It's not perhaps perfect, but it is an amazing process, and I'm at ease with being part of this process and shaping it where I can.

Cliff Martin said...

Tom,

With all due respect (and I do respect you very much) lengthened responses, even tomes of responses, would inevitably leave materialism infinitely short of theism in providing meaningful, hope-filled answers to these questions.

"please define transcendence, permanence, and culmination." ... I'll try:

Transcendence A reality existing beyond our material world, not empirically perceived, (and I would add) in some way responsible for and/or vitally interested in the life of the material world. I do not use the term here in theological contrast to immanence, as though God could not be both. But I do use the term here in contrast to materialism which claims (I think rather arrogantly) that if it can not be empirically perceived, it must surely not exist.

Permanence No one denies some aspect of permanence. The longing for permanence beats in the heart of every human being (Ecclesiates 3:11), and the materialist looks for it things like Einstein’s cosmological constant, or Hoyle’s steady state, or in multiverse theory, etc. But when I use the term here, I am thinking more of the permanence of human experience ... that is, that what we do here matters in some eternal sense. The works of man are not swallowed up and forever left in the ash bin of the cosmological big crunch or in the deep freeze of an entropically wasted cosmos.

Culmination I mean by this that the whole of human history, and more broadly the whole story of life in our cosmos, is leading to a climax, a final accounting. Someone is keeping score, and there is a coming “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21)

Rich G. said...

Tom:

You are comfortable being part of the process of evolution? That sounds to me like a snowflake saying it is comfortable being a part of the whole process of thermodynamics.

We are part of a vast unconscious process that cannot be aware of any constituent part, especially as insignificant as you or I. This universe is inexorably, imperceptibly, winding down, and even the so-called "progress of evolution" is no more than a localized anomaly that is still subject to the overall unwinding of the universe.

For me, your solution is no solution at all. For any meaning I can conjure up will die with me, whether or not it was personally satisfying. And I am supposed to be satisfied that there are, at the moment, some 6 or 7 billion independent 'meanings' that exist at the moment?

And what good is it to say that you are serving evolution (which is a man-made model) by removing the very tools (competition, struggle, disease, etc.) that evolution has used to get us here?

"Evolution has used..." Hmm... That sounds like evolution has a mind and a goal in sight. That sounds somewhat transcendent... But 'Evolution' is simply man's attempt to describe an observed unconscious natural process, like electromagnetism or cosmic expansion.

Without something transcendent, I don't see any other choice (that is logically consistent) than a soulless determinism. But no one that I know has been able to live as if that were true. All they have done is to retreat from the edge of the void and make up their own [private] meaning to keep themselves occupied until they are swallowed forever by that void.

Rich G. said...

I'd like to present a possible definition for "Eternity" that I've been pondering for a while now.

"Not subject to the passing of time"

I started this thought when considering when considering my individual time-line with the mathematical concept of limit conditions. Ever since, I have been wondering about the consciousness experience at the limit state. For the outside observer, the individual's time-line stops. But for the individual who experiences it? Does consciousness feel itself ending, or is that last flash seem to go on forever? Does the consciousness take a right angle turn away from our time-constrained universe (like turning off of Main Street)? The near-death-experiences that I have read share one common thread - the lack of a sense of time. They could not tell if they were 'gone' for a flash or for days, weeks or years. Granted, these were "mostly dead", not "all dead". But it raises an interesting question - just what does one experience after that final heartbeat? And does it feel like forever?

I don't think there is any way to tell, as an outside observer.

However, I do believe that the common explanation of eternity as simply time-without-end is both inadequate, and personally unsatisfying.

Rich G. said...

For John, Tom and...

When I read your discoveries about the problems with The Bible, I realized that most atheists and fundamentalist evangelicals seem to share a similar view of Scripture - that is, it is either literally true or totally worthless. I was reminded of a recording I have from Will Willimon (A Methodist bishop, past Chaplain at Duke University). A short excerpt:

"The biggest impediment to evangelism on our campus is Scripture. It isn’t because it is old-fashioned and pre-scientific and… (and all the important stuff they read is, too)…But, it’s because the Bible is so wonderfully expansive, and messy, and poorly edited, and evasive, and aggressive, and most of them, having scored at least 1350 on the S.A.T.s are ill-equipped to read literature that’s that interesting. They’ve lost the skills of reading literature that comes at them in a non-linear, non-propositional, non-foundational way."

(I particularly like the "messy" and "poorly edited" descriptions.)

It seems to me that many of the detractors and defenders alike are trying too hard to look into the details analytically. I'm going to borrow a saying from E.B.White... Analyzing The Bible is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it. Skeptics analyze the inconsistencies to prove the human, non-miraculous origins, while the "True Believers" (TM) try to shoehorn every detail into a forced logical conformity. Neither works for long, and both kill the life-giving spirit of the writings.

Like Jesus is reported to have said over and over again: "Ah, if ya got ears to hear it, hear it!" (implied "I'm not going to explain EVERYTHING.")

Cliff Martin said...

Rich,

Re. Eternity, and the nature of time.
Fascinating topic!!

Some (e.g. Hugh Ross) have suggested that eternity involves not less of the commodity we call time, but more. We only know linear (1d) time, limited further by that inexplicable arrow. He suggests additional dimensions, 2d or even 3d. In such a case, making that right angle turn off Main Street would not be "no-such-thing-as-time", but rather time in a plane instead on a line. In 3d time beings could move through time at will, forward, backward, right, left, up, down and every conceivable angle in between. It is more than my brain can wrap itself around. But it doesn't sound boring.

This is why I find judgments materialists often pronounce upon eternity ("its boring", "its meaningless", etc.) such non-starters. We haven't a clue! Its like an gnat deciding that humans are much too big to possibly be interesting.

Ross suggests the possibility of additional time dimensions in relationship with the need implicit in String Theory for additional spacial dimensions. The concept raises all kinds of possibilities.

Maybe some brilliant physicist will find the T of E, linking relativity to quantum mechanics, through the concept of additional time dimensions. Hmm.

BrownPanther said...

I think this conversation (concerning meaning) keeps getting lost in the mire of semantics, context/scale-switching, double standards, and even some WILD assumptions (usually of shared opinion). I know a back-to-basics approach would help me understand what everyone's actually saying. For example, Cliff, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by “meaning” and, again, why you insist that permanence is integral to it. That seems to continually beg the question and, from what I've seen, has yet to be answered here by a theist. Permanence seems to be one of the biggest sticking points here, but it'll help to know why it's necessary for meaning (again, what you mean by meaning will be necessary here). People keep on arguing that to a materialist, the universe and everything in it will have an end, yet I haven't heard anyone disagree. What is the significance of an end to you and why should it necessarily deny meaning? We know what you mean by “permanence” now, but I'd love to hear the reasoning behind what seems to me to be the assumption that “The longing for permanence beats in the heart of every human being.” Is there a non-biblical argument for this or is it an assumption or self-projection?
You also seem to often refer to the atheists' points of view on here as “arrogant.” I have to admit that I've struggled with that one. To clarify, the POV that acknowledges the limits of human perception and its place in the vast nature of the cosmos, along with a humble understanding of our place within the Animal Kingdom itself (instictivism), which refuses to claim knowledge of things it can't know, and is capable of enjoying this life fully as it's being lived (as each here has self-reported) is the arrogant one, while those who claim to have access to information far beyond their sensory capability even to the end of telling others what their own experiences are (or will be), that requires that not only the fabric of the universe and everything in it be for a single primate species' benefit but that an entirely separate and superior dimension or force necessarily needs to revolve around them in order to feel significant and meaningful is the humble position? 'Splain please.
As far as I can tell, the primary difference is that the materialist (along with the more humble religions: Taoism, most North American Indigenous traditions, etc) can find meaning and fulfillment without being a necessary figure in some cosmic-scale drama. It's pointed out over and over that “everything will come to an end and you won't have your impact on the cosmos will be for naught.” To which I say, so what? If one doesn't feel the need to have a god-like influence on the universe, this doesn't pose a problem. The fulfilled materialist took their parents' advice and said “I'm happy with and appreciative of what I have” where you seem to be saying “sure I have all this experience on this plane, but it's not enough. I want, nay, I NEED more, more, more to be happy. I need more dimensions of experience. I need to be all-important,” ever the ultimate consumer. Is this an unfair description? Probably, but, in your opinion, why is it unfair?

BrownPanther said...

You keep saying that people are wrong or dishonest about their senses of fulfillment in their own lives, that if followed to its logical conclusion, our philosophies will inevitably destroy us. If we were to apply that same logic the other way around, where will we arrive? If the level of suffering of individuals is proportional to both the power it has to defeat Evil as well as their bliss once freed from the mortal coil, wouldn't your primary moral duty be to both take on and inflict as much suffering and death as possible? Isn't the Indian child murdered with infected blankets the most fortunate among us? I realize we're continuing this tradition all the time in a more indirect way via the American lifestyle, but couldn't we do more to cause suffering and kill? And if everything is only justified by this “culmination” you speak of, isn't it end-based? Wouldn't that mean that the point of your life isn't to live, but to hasten our collective way to the finish line? Wouldn't that mean that your “meaning” isn't fulfilled until this culmination, which would imply that those of us without an ends-based source of meaning are free to be completely fulfilled now, in this life, where we'll be enjoying it so, so much more? Of course I don't think you believe in the looking forward to the end and causing and taking on as much suffering as possible. I, personally, don't see another logical conclusion based on my understanding of your philosophy as expressed by yourself, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not try to tell you what your experience is or will be. Shouldn't that work both ways?

Rich,

“Like Jesus is reported to have said over and over again: 'Ah, if ya got ears to hear it, hear it!' (implied 'I'm not going to explain EVERYTHING.')”
Ah yes, condescension's calling card: “you just don't get it.” Am I reading that right? I agree that there's truth in the Bible in so much as there's truth in all art. As literature, it ranks right up there with the Homeric epics, the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana, Gilgamesh, American Indian myths, etc. I doubt many would refute that. It's some of the claims of many who follow it as a basis of religion (those great souls capable of reading properly and the dunces alike) as to what truths are contained therein that are more than arguable.

Rich G. said...

Brown! Haven't heard from you for a while.

"“you just don't get it.” Am I reading that right?"

Yup. The stories of Jesus repeat this kind of statement over and over again. And they are often glossed over in the churches to make Jesus seem more palatable to our modern American sensibilities.

As a textbook of moral standards, I think the Bible is not all that remarkable. Moral behavior has been prescribed, often in better clarity, by other authors throughout human history, both in religious and secular texts. It's not even a very good record of "man's attempt to reach out to God" as it also seems to be a record of a people who don't want God to be all that close to them. But there seems to be something compelling in this disorganized collection beyond it being a scrapbook of one tribe's attempts to make sense of the universe.

I think many atheists may be more honest than many believers by saying "This 'God' you say is out there... If he exists, is DANGEROUS, I wouldn't **** with him."

BrownPanther said...

Rich,
Yeah, my participation ebbs and flows with my homework load...and mood sometimes :).
I do like that view of scripture. As a Christian I also tended toward the view of the Bible as a historical record by flawed men with their own intent and about flawed men with their own intent that is overlying deeper truths. I still do, except now I ascribe a more literary value than a divine value. I see it differently from the outside looking in. In a lot of contexts, whether it's religious figures or haughty hipsters, I find that "you just don't get it" is more often the hallmark of the confidence man and b.s. virtuoso than the superior intellect or divinely inspired.

Cliff Martin said...

Brown Panther,


I'd like to know exactly what you mean by “meaning”

The dictionary definition will do:
• implied or explicit significance
• important or worthwhile quality; purpose

Why [do] you insist that permanence is integral to [meaning]

Well, it certainly is integral to the meaning I assign to life, the meaning I hope life has. It comes down to “significance”. I suppose you could concoct some level of “significance” to the paintings of Rembrandt’s third-cousin, on his mother’s side, who tried his hand at painting, and actually spread oils on a couple of canvasses (which were lost shortly after he died). But I think the significance of Rembrandt’s art lies in its (relative) permanence. Likewise, there can be limited significance within the scope of finite, short-lived material existence. But when I look for meaning, I look for significance. And when I look for significance, I look for permanence. Does that make sense to you?

People keep on arguing that to a materialist, the universe and everything in it will have an end, yet I haven't heard anyone disagree.

Precisely. What divides my worldview from yours is not the temporal nature of our material world. The dividing line is that you claim this is all there is. I claim otherwise.

Is there a non-biblical argument for this [the longing for permanence in everyman's heart] or is it an assumption

Its an assumption. If you’d like, you can blow it out of the water by claiming you have no longings for permanence. But I did offer a few examples from secular scientists who have seemingly always looked for some principle of permanence in physical reality.

You also seem to often refer to the atheists' points of view on here as “arrogant.” I have to admit that I've struggled with that one.

Well, struggle no more. The word has only been used once, and that not in reference to atheists, or their POV in general. I do not consider any of the atheists I know (including yourself) to be arrogant. I used the term in reference to the singular claim that “if it can not be empirically perceived, it must surely not exist.” That claim is arrogant! Do you make such a claim? If not, my statement does not refer to you at all. If so, would you please explain the logic of it. You refer to what you think are theistic baseless “WILD” assumptions. Care to insert a base under this materialist assumption for us?

'Splain please.

You put a boatload of words into my mouth, things I neither said nor profess to believe, and then you ask me to explain? Then you go on to put more words in my mouth. Rather than taking shots at what I “seem” to be saying, why don’t you respond to what I’ve actually said? For starters, respond to “my hope that humans have infinite value, that suffering is not meaningless, that justice will prevail in the end, that we are more than chance chemical assemblages moving futilely through an ultimately inconsequential universe,” words I actually did write in the O.P?

Cliff Martin said...

...CONTINUED ...

You keep saying that people are wrong or dishonest about their senses of fulfillment in their own lives, our philosophies will inevitably destroy us

Actually, I have never said either of those things (or at least, I did not intend to). I do not question whether atheists have a “sense of fulfillment in their own lives.” In fact, I have often agreed that the ones I know do have such fulfillment. I’m discussing here the philosophically inescapable nihilism of the materialist worldview.

wouldn't your primary moral duty be to both take on and inflict as much suffering and death as possible?

Of course not! nothing I’ve said would attach any moral virtue to inflicting pain.

where we'll be enjoying it so, so much more?

Actually, I resent that a bit. I’d gladly stack my overall enjoyment of life against that of any atheist. You clearly do not understand, and are reading far too much into my post on suffering. As long as that post was, I realize it left a lot of questions unanswered. The topic deserves a book or two. But it would probably be best to actually discuss that post in that comment thread, separate from the myriad of existing issues discussed here.

Or perhaps your point was about “the benefit of the doubt” all along, and you only posed your exaggerated (and ridiculous) comments to suggest that I am guilty of the same thing (??)

Shouldn't that work both ways?

I intended to give the benefit of the doubt to atheists when I’ve made such statements as “I welcome the debate, and am willing to be shown otherwise (I think). But everything said so far falls far short of lifting atheism out of it's inescapable hopelessness.” (from my comment 7/1/2010 8:39 pm)

BrownPanther said...

Well, it certainly is integral to the meaning I assign to life, the meaning I hope life has. It comes down to “significance”…
That it’s meaningful to you makes sense to me. That’s groovy. It’s when you say that meaning, whether it’s equal to or greater than that which you derive, doesn’t exist within another world view that it ceases to make sense to me because many, many others don’t require permanence in order to have significance and, therefore, great meaning. I’m sure the paintings of Rembrandt’s relatives don’t have great meaning to you or most others, but I’d be willing to bet they did to the painter and several others. The difference I’m trying to point out is that, like Rembrandt’s less famous contemporaries, materialists don’t need to matter to the cosmos to live a life full of meaning. I have several things that matter to me, rituals, objects, experiences and people that may not matter to anyone else, especially the universe or extra-dimensional forces. Do you mean to say that because those things aren’t permanent that they can’t have sufficient meaning? If so, that wouldn’t make sense to me. To me, not needing what matters to me to matter to “the big picture” or God or the cosmos, etc. is a justifiably humble worldview. If you always said “I don’t understand how…,” I would get it. I feel as though you going beyond that and saying that “materialists can’t” or “must” or “will.” I could be wrong.
Precisely. What divides my worldview from yours is not the temporal nature of our material world. The dividing line is that you claim this is all there is. I claim otherwise.
I would go further. Of course, correct me where I’m wrong, but it seems that you’re saying that by materialists acknowledging that “this” (I’m spreading my arms in a grandiose gesture of presentation here, just so ya know) is all we have perceptual access to, our lives are necessarily deficient when it comes to meaning. Conversely, you’re saying that without the metaphysical icing on the experiential cake, meaning isn’t sufficient to escape despondent nihilism in the end? It makes sense that you would need that, but you seem to be saying that, as a materialist, I do too and the meaning that I think I get is insufficient without it. I disagree for reasons I’ve stated. It seems that by saying that that’s what you need, then we all must, or we’ll fall into hopelessness. Am I wrong? Why? Can you at least see how you may have come across that way?
But I did offer a few examples from secular scientists who have seemingly always looked for some principle of permanence in physical reality.
I agree that some, many, and possibly most people who come from our culture look for permanence. Again, I feel like you’re making claims beyond “some people look for permanence to derive meaning” to “one needs permanence to derive meaning.” And again, this is how I understood the constant recurrence of the “but someday everything will be gone” point.
Well, struggle no more…the singular claim that “if it can not be empirically perceived, it must surely not exist.” That claim is arrogant! Do you make such a claim?
That honestly helps. Cheers. I don’t make that exact claim (I will argue that that which can’t be perceived is about as relevant as that which doesn’t exist. Does that count?), but I’ve never heard

BrownPanther said...

anyone make the claim that this is all there is here, so maybe it was the question of the relevance of your mentioning it that tripped me up.
You put a boatload of words into my mouth, things I neither said nor profess to believe, and then you ask me to explain? Then you go on to put more words in my mouth. Rather than taking shots at what I “seem” to be saying, why don’t you respond to what I’ve actually said?
Sorry if I offended. Definitely wasn’t intentional. You contradicted the general point by clarifying that you don’t think the materialist view in general is arrogant. Some was definitely hyperbole for the purpose of making a point, some of it is probably a misunderstanding of your views on the cosmic narrative and the human experience. Do you not think that this is the best of all possible universes, that the creator is both benevolent and competent? I’ve understood your view of suffering to be that suffering is not only justified according to the inevitable cosmic narrative, but that it enhances it and that existence post-temporal-imprisonment is better than our current existence. If I’m wrong, I’ll look forward to further writings on the subject.
For starters, respond to “my hope that humans have infinite value, that suffering is not meaningless, that justice will prevail in the end, that we are more than chance chemical assemblages moving futilely through an ultimately inconsequential universe,” words I actually did write in the O.P?
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who believes we’re “chance chemical assemblages moving futilely through an ultimately inconsequential universe.” Have you? As to humans having infinite value, I would very much like to know what constitutes “infinite value.” I’m not familiar with that idea. “Justice prevailing” only makes sense if one anthropomorphizes the idea, ascribing it agency. I don’t understand what that would mean. It seems as silly to me as applying the same war metaphors to “good” and “evil.” It’s like defeating a quality, hoping that someday “blue” will destroy “smelly.”
Actually, I have never said either of those things (or at least, I did not intend to). I do not question whether atheists have a “sense of fulfillment in their own lives.” In fact, I have often agreed that the ones I know do have such fulfillment. I’m discussing here the philosophically inescapable nihilism of the materialist worldview.
Misinterpretation on my part. Probably should have stuck to quotes. For example “if you follow your beliefs to their logical conclusion, you will end up where Nietzsche did.” Well, I would call Nietzsche’s end point destruction. And if he was simply being “brutally honest,” what does that make those of us who don’t fall in to Nietzshe’s despondency? You can at least see how I went wrong with my interpretation. I assumed that the contention of “philosophically inescapable nihilism of the materialist worldview” would imply some of those things because, as has been stated, nihilism is the destruction of meaningful aspects of life and, as a materialist, I’ve, in fact, escaped nihilism and experienced a production of meaning, not a destruction.
Or perhaps your point was about “the benefit of the doubt” all along, and you only posed your exaggerated (and ridiculous) comments to suggest that I am guilty of the same thing (??)

BrownPanther said...

That’s exactly right. Too much?
“But everything said so far falls far short of lifting atheism out of it's inescapable hopelessness.”
Really? Even several people saying that they’ve escaped hopelessness as atheists or “hav[ing] often agreed that the ones I know do have such fulfillment.” Or is only through self-deception and the inability to be as honest as Nietszche that this is accomplished? Again, claiming that atheism is “inescapably hopeless” that I comment on. I can understand how you could more than justifiably argue how you couldn’t find hope in atheism, but the assertion that atheism, by its nature, needs to be “lifted” from hopelessness is a wild assertion.

BrownPanther said...

And on a hopefully refreshing point of agreement regarding the OP, I also agree that John would be unfortunately misled if (big if) he were abandoning the entire spectrum of Christianity on the basis of those dogmatically science denying sects. I care much less about what people believe than why they believe it. Discrediting by association, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, would be an unfortunately unproductive practice to get into.

Cliff Martin said...

Brown Panther,

“I’ve never heard anyone make the claim that this is all there is here.”

True, in this comment thread, it was only stated by me as an assumption. I assumed that would be the position of a materialist ... but I would love to stand corrected! My assumption is based on what I have understood for years about materialism from my reading. For example, the leading sentence of the Wikipedia article on Materialism reads as follows:

“In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter”

Could you tell me how your thinking is different?

Cliff Martin said...

I should try to clarify this sticking point about philosophical nihilism, verses practical life fulfillment.

I do not doubt that atheists, many of them at least, establish meaning for their own lives, strive to live consistent with the ethic they derive from that meaning, and live fulfilled lives.

When I state my opinion that atheism leads inevitably to nihilism, I have in mind the philosophical fruit of atheism, fruit which may not appear in a single lifetime or a generation, but which will certainly set, grow, and ripen over time. You are free to disagree. But I maintain that Nietzsche, arguably the most brilliant spokesperson for secular philosophy of recent history, understood this. And the case appears, from my perspective, to be prima facie.

So, my atheist friends, you may stop trying to convince me that you are happy, fulfilled, and that you are not despairing! I'm happy for you. Genuinely. And I do not doubt it is true.

Rather, examine with me the fruit of materialism. Philosophy has consequences, if not immediately felt by individuals, then manifesting itself in more broadly in cultures.

Cliff Martin said...

Do we have any basis for comparing the fruit of the philosophies of secularism (or materialism, or atheism) against the fruit of theism? History is filled with data. But we need not delve into history. A cursory examination of current affairs is sufficient!

My atheist friends have spoken of the power of our evolutionary development to cancel out much sickness and pain. Atheists, searching for meaning and purpose for life, often speak of leaving this world a better place than when we arrived. When I ask about the meaning of suffering, my atheists friends answer, in part, that we can strive to alleviate it wherever we see it, and that this is a noble purpose. When I speak of pervasive injustice, past and present, my atheist friends say we ought to address injustice, that it is up to us to right the tables of injustice. And of course, I agree with every one of these noble endeavors, and will lock arms with any person of any theistic persuasion to work toward these ends!

But for me, it is telling to look around the world today, and see who is doing the great bulk of this type of work. Which philosophical system has shown itself to be the greater motivator for charitable giving, charitable work, alleviation of suffering, carrying forth the torch of justice?

Jesus spoke often of assessing truth claims by the fruit that follows. Anyone care to marshall some data indicating that the fruit of atheism in these arenas even comes close to the fruit of theism?

Tom said...

Rich asked,
You are comfortable being part of the process of evolution?

Yes. It is the process that gave rise to my life.

...[With your view, any] meaning I can conjure up will die with me, whether or not it was personally satisfying.

This would only be true if we lived in a vacuum. I assume things I find meaningful will transmit to my associates and my children to varying degrees. Even now it looks like we're engaged in a conversation that is affecting you! At least your time! ;-)

And what good is it to say that you are serving evolution (which is a man-made model) by removing the very tools (competition, struggle, disease, etc.) that evolution has used to get us here?

Unlike Dawkins, I do not think we can sidestep evolution. We can only modulate it. Our means of helping otherwise childless parents twenty years ago to have children today may promote deleterious genes' survival in our gene pool. Our ability to provide 20/20 vision to nearly anyone is probably making the average human's eyesight worse -- all those nearsighted people who were at a reproductive disadvantage are no longer so disadvantaged. Our ability to cure symptoms via antibiotics only breeds nastier organisms when misused. I'm not saying that we should be taking other steps. What I'm saying is evolution is always with us and we may very well take one step forward and two steps back as we muck with what might be more "historically natural", but all we can do is modulate the process.

With respect to it being a man-made model, I don't get your point. E=mc^2 is a man-made model. Putting equations down and finding formulas that fit natural phenomenon is not an anti-theist thing to do.

"Evolution has used..." Hmm... That sounds like evolution has a mind and a goal in sight.

I cringe every time I hear this phrase by evolutionary biologists because it does sound like evolution has a directed goal. It doesn't, and I try to be careful not to say such things. So please, tell me where I said this.

But back to my appreciation for evolution. Helen Keller believed in Christ so we can argue that the senses are meaningless when it comes to accepting Christ. Nevertheless, I find life more fulfilling by being able to hear and see, don't you?

Now, onto transcendence. What is so unspecial or unremarkable in your life that you need to supplement with magic? And as an evolutionary creationist, do you think other animals had this transcendence? If so, how does it manifest itself? If not, why the discrepancy between us and other critters?

Mike said...

“I’ve never heard anyone make the claim that this is all there is here.”
Carl Sagan said, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Does that qualify or am I misunderstanding something here?

BrownPanther said...

“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”
I stand corrected by the responses to this. I assume a more nuanced reading of this idea, which is probably one assumption too much. I understand this to mean, when typically uttered, "if there's anything outside of this, we don't have perceptual access to and is therefore irrelevant." Because that's where I stand, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, self-project, or just assume that it's slightly more nuanced than "this is all there is." I do maintain that anything outside of "this" is as irrelevant to any modern human's life and philosophy as Rembrandt's distant relation's painting that was lost to history. It may have been the greatest work ever put to canvas but it can't be recovered. As a materialist, I simply say that I have no clue if said painting ever existed or what it looks like and it would be silly to guess at it's image and alter my view of art accordingly.
That is, of course, if I am a materialist. By qualifying the "this is all there is" wikipedia definition the way that I do, would you say I'm not a materialist? How would you describe this slightly different view?

BrownPanther said...

But for me, it is telling to look around the world today, and see who is doing the great bulk of this type of work. Which philosophical system has shown itself to be the greater motivator for charitable giving, charitable work, alleviation of suffering, carrying forth the torch of justice?
You ask if we have a basis for comparing the fruits of different philosophies. I would answer no. Culture, philosophy, and the individual enjoy a far too complex dynamic. I have no clue how you could begin to isolate factors like that with any kind of precision. A few days back we were discussing the importance of methodology in research in order to gather accurate data. I would be especially curious to know where you've gotten yours concerning "who is doing the great bulk of the work." Are you stating simply that theists are doing most of it, that they would not be doing it but for their theism, that they do more proportionally to their numbers and resources, etc., etc. I'm afraid it's not as self-evident to me as it is to you. I think it would be difficult enough to accurately ascertain the number of theists v. atheists in the population in general, MUCH less connect that philosophy's direct effect on their actions. I didn't know anyone had figured out a way to do that. If you have, it would be absurdly useful to share.

BrownPanther said...

Jesus spoke often of assessing truth claims by the fruit that follows. Anyone care to marshall some data indicating that the fruit of atheism in these arenas even comes close to the fruit of theism?
A question concerning the "fruit of atheism" is silly to begin with. It describes the absence of a quality, it doesn't ascribe one. What is the fruit of nothing? It's an irrelevant question. Again, I'd like to know how you assess the fruit of theism and whether or not you apply consistent criteria to both positive and negative effects. I, like you, get frustrated when people ascribe the actions of some Christians (the nigh-complete holocaust of the Americas, the crusades, witch hunts, hate crimes of various sorts in the name of Christianity, etc., etc.) to Christianity or theism as a philosophy. I'd like to make sure we're not applying that same erroneous reasoning and over-simplification to the alleged positive effects of theism

Cliff Martin said...

Brown Panther,

“I do maintain that anything outside of ‘this’ is ... irrelevant to any modern human's life”

Okay. I accept your view as more appropriately nuanced, and less presumptive. Sagan’s (and other’s) certainty about a negative (which logic tells us is impossible to prove) has always struck me as overreaching, a polemical tactic that in the end typically only serves to weaken’s one’s position. I should know!

So, are you a materialist? Now there’s a telling question, and one that only you can answer. Either you believe that the material world is all there is, or you don’t. If you don’t you either know there is some metaphysical reality, or you allow that there may exist some metaphysical reality. I presume this last statement fits you best.

But here’s the rub: the last statement defines me, too. Yes, I may attach a greater likelihood to a metaphysical reality ... even approaching certainty. But in the end, you and I both allow for the possibility of the metaphysical. The difference between us is that you doubt so strongly that you could ever perceive the metaphysical that you have laid down the search. For me, the mere possibility is enough to justify a lifelong search: the possibility that this is not all there is, that ultimate justice may one day be served, that suffering may not be in vain, that human life is not merely an expendable commodity, that the universe is teleological ... the vibrant hope these possibilities inspire in me is more than sufficient to justify that search. Billions of our co-journeyers, including myself, testify to having gained much experiential confirmation for these possibilities. My theism, as stated in an earlier post, is driven by a choice. Atheism, too, comes down to a choice ... particularly for one who grants the possibility.

Say an intelligent, purposeful creator has in fact designed this cosmos with purpose, a possibility I presume your view allows. You say such a being is irrelevant. I say that if this be true, nothing could be more relevant!

Cliff Martin said...

Brown Panther,

I cannot pick up every thread of our discussion. But a few of your questions warrant answers ...

"I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who believes we’re 'chance chemical assemblages moving futilely through an ultimately inconsequential universe.' Have you?"

Absolutely! (although I will admit those are my words. I did not frame it as a verbatim quote). What part of that statement do you disagree with?

Cliff Martin said...

“I would very much like to know what constitutes ‘infinite value.’ I’m not familiar with that idea.”

I’m a little perplexed that you are not familiar with the notion that human beings have infinite value. Particularly with your background in theology. That each human being has “infinite value” is a distinctly Roman Catholic idea. A few quotes:

“The human person, created in the image of God and called to progress toward the divine likeness, is unique and of infinite value,” (Fr. John Breck, professor at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris)

“... absolute respect [is] due to human life and to the infinite value of the human person, that is not tied to one’s external features or on the ability to relate to other members of society.” (Pope John Paul II)

“Both the OId Testament relationship of covenant and the New Testament relationship of infinite, self-giving love indicate that God’s unwavering love of the people God created endows them with infinite value.” (Catholic Higher Education: a Culture in Crisis By Melanie M. Morey, John J. Piderit)

It is the basis of Catholic resistance to abortion and biomedical experimentation. But, more important to our discussion, the concept of infinite value, which I will contend is a derivative of Christianity, has profoundly influenced Western culture, and has impacted even “Enlightenment” thinking and “secular” humanism (a relationship Hart characterizes as “parasitic”).

Even though he despised Christianity, Nietzsche recognized how it undergirded our shared cultural values, and feared its demise. Hart writes:

“... Nietzsche was a prophetic figure precisely because he, almost alone among Christianity’s enemies, understood the implications of Christianity’s withdrawal from the culture it had haunted for so many centuries. He understood that the effort to cast off Christian faith while retaining the best and most beloved elements of Christian morality was doomed to defeat ...” (Atheist Delusions, p. 238)

Nietzsche understood that, like it or not, we have nothing to replace the moral imperatives implicit in Christianity. When Christianity goes away (as he insisted it must) the infinite value of each human (based on the imago dei) goes with it. Get ready for Huxley’s brave new world.

Have your years of philosophical materialism actually erased the notion of infinite value? If the value of human life is not infinite, it means we can place a dollar value upon life. Are you prepared to assign a "sub-infinite" value?

Tom said...

Okay, I'll bite. I would say that every human life has sub-infinite value. How can something have "infinite value"? The phrase seems meaningless when taken literally.

BrownPanther said...

"You say such a being is irrelevant. I say that if this be true, nothing could be more relevant!"
Sounds nice on its surface, but, again, I argue that we so long as we lack perceptual access to it, even if it exists, it's irrelevant. Our imaginations can conceive of countless possibilities that MAY be true and influence every aspect of our lives, but that doesn't mean they are or should be relevant to our lives in any way as far as the individual is concerned . We may accept the theory of relativity now, but if someone in the first century made claims about the fabric of space-time or the speed of light without the proper observations and reasoning, it would be foolish despite its truth.
"Absolutely! (although I will admit those are my words. I did not frame it as a verbatim quote). What part of that statement do you disagree with?"
The "futilely" part.
"I’m a little perplexed that you are not familiar with the notion that human beings have infinite value. Particularly with your background in theology."
Okay, I have to admit that I was familiar with the term. I've always understood it to be an ill-conceived, gross oversimplification of the concepts of "value," particularly concerning human morality. I wanted to see what meaning you ascribed. I maintain that the concept of "human value" is more complex than you represent, that the application of monetary metaphors is inappropriate, and that such an oversimplification is counterproductive to our understanding of our perception of human value.
"Nietzsche understood that, like it or not, we have nothing to replace the moral imperatives implicit in Christianity. When Christianity goes away (as he insisted it must) the infinite value of each human (based on the imago dei) goes with it."
I agree that Nietzsche may have MISunderstood the case to be such. I believe nearly absolutely both that we do have not only the equivalent moral imperatives in place and that it's not something that needs "replacing." Such "moral imperatives" seem to have existed long before Western monotheisms, within monotheisms, and will likely continue after. I see no reason why secular humanism would necessarily not improve social moral hygiene (although it won't necessarily improve it either) in the same way that many philosophies throughout history have demonstrated, in my opinion, higher orders of moral imperatives than Christianity has. In fact, I believe secular humanism holds the highest potential. I could go on and on about Hart's arguments specifically, but a comprehensive critique of both his solid and hypocritical, fallacious, and selective reasoning would require a book in itself.
"Are you prepared to assign a "sub-infinite" value?"
Yes. I feel to be so prepared is a part of abandoning an oversimplified black-and-white world of right and wrong in order to find the ideal way to live a good life and I think that every advance in moral philosophy required just this kind of preparation.

Cliff Martin said...

Brown Panther,

Just a couple of comments:

on futility:

So, you would concur that we are "chance chemical assemblages moving through an ultimately inconsequential universe"?

If you cannot see the futility of the human experience in a materialistic reality, you merely haven’t stepped back far enough.

on the value of the human being:

You object to “infinite value”, and monetary valuation is “inappropriate”, yet you offer no calculus for human worth, other than to say it’s “complex”. Okay, I’m ready; lay out your complex understanding. Infinite simply means, not finite. It must then be your view that the value of the human being is finite, which is another way of saying that it is measurable. Please measure it, and report back. This question is vitally important. You want mankind freed from what you consider an artificial valuation based upon religious conviction, and concepts like eternal justice. With what will you replace that? Do you really trust man to self-police? Are you not frightened by Huxley? On what basis of judgment might future man determine a humanistic valuation to be superior to a pragmatic statist valuation? I trust your enlightened sense of morality. But, like it or not, you are steeped in Christian principle. Who decides the huge moral and ethical questions of the future after we have removed any appeal to an external, higher-than-man moral law?

Imperfect as we may be, our nation was founded in a set of principles based squarely upon external divine moral law. Individual human rights were considered inalienable precisely because those rights were God given. It is not that I fear some future megalomaniac; the fact is there will be another Hitler, another Pol Pot, or Stalin. My fear is that future man will lack any real basis for judging, we will lack a moral rational for interdiction. By what right will the enlightened moral sensibilities of your idealized secular humanist justify interfering?

But my convictions about the infinite value of the human being has less to do with states and mores and the application of natural law. Those are the by-products. My sense of extreme human worth comes from my consideration of people, of you, for instance. I see profound and immeasurable value as being intrinsic to individual, unique human beings. As I ponder the people I know, I cannot escape from the powerful notion of imago dei that pervades humankind. It is not merely fear of the consequences of devaluing humans to high-functioning mammals that drives “infinite value”; it is my reflection upon the nature of people.

Cliff Martin said...

Tom,

"How can something have 'infinite value'? The phrase seems meaningless when taken literally."

I suppose that depends on which dictionary definition of infinite you are using. While "infinite" can mean something like eternally expansive, it can also simply mean "immeasurable" or even "very great".

Unlike you and Brown, I have no problem with any dictionary meaning of the phrase. But I can live happily with those later two definitions. Does that help?

And if so, as I have asked Brown Panther, could you elaborate on what you consider the "finite" value of humans?

One reason I favor the use of "infinite value" is that it implies invariability. Does your view of finite value include variability? And if not, how do you lock that out, and prevent the ghastly consequences of unequal human values?

Cliff Martin said...

... or perhaps you welcome those consequences, as the natural extension of evolutionary development?

Rich G. said...

Guys:

I see Cliff's "infinite Value" not as a statement of extent (immeasurable may be better). I think the choice comes down to deciding whether a human being has an *intrinsic value* or *utility value* and upon what basis. I am convinced that our society has been moving away from the intrinsic view toward the utility view, and our morality has been following.

One result has been a drift away from seeing natural rights as inviolable, toward the idea that rights are only those defined and granted by government. Rights that are seen as "endowed by their Creator" are many and stable, while those that are granted are few and changeable. The former says "you are free except in these few areas", while the latter states by implication "You are free in [only] these areas...until conditions change."

BrownPanther said...

“If you cannot see the futility of the human experience in a materialistic reality, you merely haven’t stepped back far enough.”
I would if I knew how. How, epistemologically speaking, do you transcend your perceptual limitations from a human perspective and see the world from “back far enough?” I understand this to beyond human capability. How are you transcending your own biological limitations? Can you teach such a technique?

“You object to 'infinite value', and monetary valuation is 'inappropriate', yet you offer no calculus for human worth, other than to say it’s 'complex'.”
Yes, I think that these one-dimensional units of measurement are inappropriate due to the complexity of the human system of morality and transient nature of the “value” of life, human or otherwise. “Infinite simply means, not finite.” Yes, but it is not an all-encompassing quality. It is a unit of measurement, which I think is inappropriate and irrelevant. Not only that, I think that very few, if any, people believe in the “infinite value” of human life. If that were the case, one life could never knowingly be taken for another or any other consequence, which is a position that I would deem immoral. I believe that there is a time to kill and a time to die. I'd also argue that we put a dollar amount on human life and suffering every day, and it's not nearly as high as we would hope. I see no significant flaw in Peter Sellers' estimation that for every $300 dollars spent frivolously in our country, we have effectively committed murder. Someone is dead who wouldn't be if not for our extreme greed. There are countless examples where we could easily demonstrate the degree to which we're concerned (or, more often, not concerned) with human life, including yourself and other Christians.

BrownPanther said...

And because naturalistic morality is complex, I would probably have write volumes on the topic. It seems to me that evolutionary psychology/neurology are to extra-dimensionally-dictated moral value systems as the germ theory of disease is to demon-caused sickness and spontaneous generation. I'd mostly just encourage everyone to brush up on their natural history, biology, and neurology (especially neurology) for a better understanding of the source of self and morality. I think we're better served by recognizing the apparent actual source of our morality (a naturally evolved brain), gaining a maximal understanding of our base nature, our autonomic moral framework, and applying cognitive accommodations as best we can figure. This is, of course, not necessarily always easy. It's why ethical dilemma puzzles are so interesting. What we call “morality,” in the light of modern understandings of our central nervous system, seems to be a complex and dynamic interrelationship of multiple processes and preferences. We have selectively evolved survival processes that manifest as preference in a given situation, both cognitive and subconscious. They are often discrete but can also conflict with each other. The combinations of these instincts are probably innumerable right now and not specifically able to be mapped yet, but to understand this interaction as much as possible is to maximize the human experience for the maximum amount of people. That's what I would call morality. If you ask someone if they'll indirectly cause a person's death in order to save a dozen lives, they'll give one answer. If they have to directly kill the person, they'll offer a different answer even though the math is the same. In the first case, the preference of cognitive calculation is more pressing, in the second, your impulse to not harm a member of your species without cause (a trait common throughout social species) is more pressing. This is one example of why morality is contextual, not set in stone by divine mandate. The value isn't measured in the life itself, but in the dynamics of circumstance. To ignore the neurological source of our morality with black-and-white moral statements of value seems much less constructive to me. To apply imperative values via archaic cosmic narratives, in my opinion, will keep an individual from realizing there highest moral potential in its denial of nuance.

BrownPanther said...

“By what right will the enlightened moral sensibilities of your idealized secular humanist justify interfering?”

By rationality, natural law, and commonality in human experience, the closest we can come to truth on an “objective” scale.

“Imperfect as we may be, our nation was founded in a set of principles based squarely upon external divine moral law. Individual human rights were considered inalienable precisely because those rights were God given. ”

When were individual human rights considered inalienable in this country? Certainly not at its founding, its “base.” I agree that it was founded on the concepts of divine moral law. It's also rooted in the most massive holocaust in known history, built on the backs of slaves, and carefully defined “human” as exclusively as they wanted. If you want to connect this countries history to any given philosophy, you must equally apply the good with the bad or demonstrate different causal relationships.

“I see profound and immeasurable value as being intrinsic to individual, unique human beings. “ “But, like it or not, you are steeped in Christian principle.”

Can this idea be derived in the absence of a supernatural, prescribed narrative akin to Abrahamic religions? Are you suggesting that no naturalistic philosophy has adopted similar values? I'm not saying that they should, but I understand that there have been many that held these values without the introduction of un-perceivable, extra-dimensional forces. Even if there weren't, it doesn't mean that we can't improve cultural moral hygiene in a predominantly materialistic society. I'm not arguing that that's where we should be headed per se, but I still don't see how materialism precludes an improved society. You say, with much appreciation from myself, that individuals can derive meaning and attain the highest degrees of goodness as a materialist and/or atheist, so why wouldn't a large collection of these individuals constitute a moral, meaningful society?

To be honest, my first reaction to the “you are steeped in Christian principle” (the steeping which I do appreciate, by the way, both for it's epic virtues and epic failures) is to resent the comment, so I'd like to know what you mean. I understood it to mean that I would not have a meaningful moral base without it. Am I wrong? A question if my assumption is correct (otherwise, ignore): Considering the many principles and many sources in which I'm steeped (although I have many more to go), what would make Christianity the necessary source of any aspect of my world view?

BrownPanther said...

Rich,

“I am convinced that our society has been moving away from the intrinsic view toward the utility view, and our morality has been following.
One result has been a drift away from seeing natural rights as inviolable, toward the idea that rights are only those defined and granted by government.”

That may or may not be the case. I haven't seen any causation there. If the only rights that are recognized are those defined and granted by the government, I agree that that's bad. I agree that a materialist majority has the capacity for all kinds of awfulness. I also think that it has the capacity for a higher order of morality than has ever been proposed by a supernaturally-based philosophy that I've heard of.

Tom said...

Brown,

I value your eloquent phrasing. You echo my ideas/beliefs, but seem far better than I at verbalizing them. I'm taking notes! Thanks!

Rich G. said...

Brown:

"That may or may not be the case. I haven't seen any causation there. If the only rights that are recognized are those defined and granted by the government, I agree that that's bad. I [think] that a materialist majority has the capacity for... a higher order of morality than has ever been proposed by a supernaturally-based philosophy that I've heard of. "

While "causation" may be difficult to prove, the fact that both movements are occurring together may be indicative of some form of linkage.

I'm not so sure that the materialist majority has the capacity for a superior morality. If you can show an example, I am interested.

That "supernaturally-based philosophy" is capable of producing a morality has been demonstrated, both for good and for ill. I am of the opinion that we cannot simply retreat to a "because God says so" when we are standing for moral issues, for that is as immature as the kid who only understands "because daddy says so". We must have a more mature understanding that moral behavior is what should be expected from mature individuals who respect our shared humanity as well as the image of God that we all carry.

BrownPanther said...

Tom,
Cheers! I think that's a first for me.

Rich,

"While 'causation' may be difficult to prove, the fact that both movements are occurring together may be indicative of some form of linkage."

I'll agree with that.

"I'm not so sure that the materialist majority has the capacity for a superior morality. If you can show an example, I am interested."

Maybe on a different thread sometime. I think I was overstating my point and ended up distracting from it, so I'll rescind that for now (if you'll allow it). Here, I'm not really so interested trying to one-up this philosophical framework over that one as much as I'm trying to come to the defense of materialism. I will maintain that materialist philosophy is capable of at least as good a society as one with a theistic majority, which was the subject of my last post. My last post was very briefly addressing why I think materialism is morally viable and I still haven't heard a convincing argument as to why it wouldn't be. We could probably debate the materialistic nature of some religions like many NA Indian philosophies, sects of Taoism, etc. (I would classify them as such). But even if (this is a big "if" for me) there aren't examples in history of materialist-majority societies thriving, it would hardly preclude the viability of the worldview. I had never seen a kitty litter made of corn (nor would I have imagined it coming to pass), but, unfortunately, just such a brave new world was introduced to me by a commercial a couple months ago.

"That 'supernaturally-based philosophy' is capable of producing a morality has been demonstrated, both for good and for ill. I am of the opinion that..."
I agree with you again on this portion. I didn't mean to imply that I thought that a supernatural philosophy couldn't be good. I know there are some atheists who will argue that theism produces naught but evil, but I'll readily stand by you in defense against those arguments (which I've unfortunately had to do before). Within your theistic moral framework, I wouldn't expect any less of you or Cliff as far as adhering to a more meaningful, nuanced morality than the most basic "because daddy said so" variety. If it seemed like that's what I was saying, I apologize. Didn't mean to.

Rich G. said...

Brown:

"Within your theistic moral framework, I wouldn't expect any less of you or Cliff as far as adhering to a more meaningful, nuanced morality than the most basic "because daddy said so" variety. If it seemed like that's what I was saying, I apologize. Didn't mean to. "

Not to worry. Sometimes my comments go beyond your point, but are for the benefit of the lurkers who are quietly sitting on the sidelines.

Rich G.

Cliff Martin said...

Brown Panther,

I think we've opened up some topics that would lead to endless debate ... which I do not care to perpetuate.

A couple of over-all comments, and then I'll give you the last word.

When I said “If you cannot see the futility of the human experience in a materialistic reality, you merely haven’t stepped back far enough”, I didn't think it required elaboration. If you view is that we are “chance chemical assemblages moving ... through an ultimately inconsequential universe,” that strikes me as a futile existence. You have fashioned what is for you a meaningful existence, and you have created a sense of purpose for your life. So long as you limit your scope to your lifetime, or even the life time of humankind (however long that may be), then it might not look futile to you. But in the end all your efforts are inconsequential. For me, that means all of life is ultimately futile. I acknowledge this is not your view. It is mine. And I have to say that the meaning you (and Tom) have fashioned could never satisfy me. It would lead me straight into nihilistic despair. And I fail to see how you avoid the same conclusions except by shielding from your view the larger scale. Focusing on the trees can successfully eclipse the forest.

As for the question of ethics: comparing the prospects of secular humanism versus those of Christian faith in positively influencing humankind can make for interesting, if irresolvable, polemics. I will not argue against man’s ability to devise ethical standards that would potentially lead to betterment of the human condition. The human conscience, whether evolutionarily derived, or culturally nurtured, is common on most questions of ethics. The apostle John speaks of the light that enlightens every man. But this misses the heart of the issue for me.

If the new atheists have their way, the death of God (I mean this philosophically à la Nietzsche) will usher us into unchartered territory. You welcome this territory. I shudder at the prospect. I do not share your optimism in the goodness of human nature. I believe a pervasive human sense that our actions matter to some Being, whether real or imagined, that we are accountable both as a race and as individuals in some way, has provided both a check upon abuses, and (more importantly) the moral force to fight for causes of righteousness. You look to a godless future and see a utopia of human engineering. I look to that future and see what Huxley saw.