Atheist Hope? Death, Nihilism & the Meaning of Life
Honest Atheism - Part II
In the 2013 thriller Gravity, actress Sandra Bullock’s character, Dr. Ryan Stone finds herself in the middle of a nightmare 254 miles above the the earth. Stone’s crew receives a message from mission control that the Russians would be shooting down a defunct satellite. After a major miscalculation about the effects of the impact, a massive debris field from the destroyed satellite hurtles through space right into the path of Stone and her fellow astronauts. The impact from the debris field ripped through the shuttle, the HSS (Hubble Space Telescope), and severely damaged the ISS (the International Space Station).
Dr. Stone survived the impact, but became completely detached from the shuttle arm to which she was attached. She had nothing solid, stable or stationary to stop her from spinning wildly through space. There was no reference point except the blue-white earth beneath her. Because space is a vacuum, she would have continued to spin and drift in space unless she could find something to stabilize her. Stone’s predicament is a frightening scenario if it had actually happened, but also makes for an intense drama and thrilling cinema!
Gravity - Warner Brothers - 2013
Astronaut Stone’s predicament is an appropriate analogy for atheists whose worldview has nothing to anchor ultimate meaning, objective morality, and ultimate purpose, or any hope beyond the grave. This might seem like an unfair assessment, and I am positive that there are atheists who will disagree with this.
In my previous article Honest Atheism my purpose wasn’t to construct an air tight argument, but to pose an honest existential question - “Why aren’t atheists following their wordlview to it’s logical conclusion?” I only wrote it to provoke thought and introspection by those who lack a belief in God, and I am grateful for the feedback from several atheists who have helped me to understand where they are coming from, and also for helping me clarify some of my own ideas on the matter. It is my hope that this follow-up article will provide further clarification and meaningful dialogue.
WHAT I AM NOT SAYING ABOUT ATHEISTS AND ATHEISM
That Atheists Can’t Have Convictions About Meaning & Value
Many atheists find great meaning, significance and enjoy very fulfilling lives. On a personal level I know many who would fall under this category, and I also know this is true by reading and listening to people from various backgrounds who happen to be atheists. So, I do understand why many atheists or non-religious people say that they don’t need God or religion to make them happy. Even C.S. Lewis said, “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” Atheists can certainly find meaning and significance in this present life and enjoy it very much.
A similar issue which I would like to clarify are my thoughts on the philosophy of nihilism as it relates to atheism. I am very well aware, and acknowledge that not all atheists are nihilists, and that not all nihilists deny meaning or value. I can certainly understand why someone who read Honest Atheism might get that impression.
John Marmysz makes this point precisely in his excellent book, Laughing at Nothing: Humor as a Response to Nihilism (2003). He writes:
Though the nihilist must despair of attaining the absolute, this is not an unequivocally negative situation. In finding every actual thing to be worthless and without value, the nihilist still retains an ideal notion of what would constitute value. Thus, it is not quite correct to claim that nihilism is a doctrine holding everything is worthless [1].
So to be clear, I admit that not all atheists are existentialists, nor nihilists, nor do they deny meaning. Just as the theist’s camp is composed of a myriad of personalities, reasons and variations of beliefs; the same is true for atheists and atheism. Sadly today, many Christians demonize atheists and the atheistic position, but that is certainly not my purpose here or anywhere else. Atheists also love their families, and provide for them (I would even argue better than many professing Christians). Carl Sagan had a very happy, healthy and loving family life, and it should be praised, alongside some of his best scientific accomplishments.
But, the question at hand is not who loves their families better, or who believes in meaning, but which view can provide assurance and hope beyond the grave, and can anchor an ultimate meaning to life, to an eternal, transcendent Being, and to reality?
THE PROBLEM OF DEATH & ULTIMATE MEANING FOR ATHEISM
The last act is bloody, however fine the rest of the play. They throw dirt over your head and it is finished for ever. (Pascal, Penseé, 165)
So, what am I saying about atheism? What I am simply saying is that death is a problem for the atheists’ position. What I attempted to say in Honest Atheism, and what I am trying to articulate here, is that the nihilists (& absurdists) actually have it right - despair and absurdity are what an atheistic worldview entails and implies. In my view, the atheistic-nihilists are the most honest of the various views that exist within atheism, and I am calling for other atheists to have the honesty to own up to the fact that atheism can’t give ultimate meaning in either life or death. Kierkegaard would call the atheists position on life and death an immanentalist position, and the Judeo-Christian view a transcendentalist position, in the sense that meaning, life and death as value that is transcendent. In her excellent article on Kierkegaard’s analysis of death and how it figures into his overall philosophy, Julia Watkin helps us to see how the two views of reality (of life & death) are different:
In his description of the Greek world, Judaism and Christianity, Kierkegaard gives us concrete examples of mans response to death in societies of an immanentalist, semi-immanentalist and transcendentalist type. In the immanentalist or semi-immanentalist types Kierkegaard shows us that the norm is to assume that man is meant to be as happy as possible in this life, even if there is nothing else after death. One must make the best of human existence, even if it cannot be given a meaning or significance that really transcends immanence. Even where belief in an actual transcendence begins to appear, it is a shadowy version of this life, whereas for a strongly transcendentalist outlook it is this life that is merely a sketch of what is to come: ‘The more intense earthly life is, the weaker eternity becomes’ says Kierkegaard…[2].
For their part, Sartre, Camus and Simone de Beauvoir stressed the absurdity of life in light of death. This fact - the fact of death - seeps into every crevasse of life and make it absurd and ultimately meaningless. It is certainly a depressing way to look at life, but it is also an honest one too. This is what makes atheism unlivable. As Kierkegaard points out, atheists must live as though their lives do indeed have significance, and that there is a transcendent meaning that goes beyond the here and now. As a philosophy, however, it is unlivable. It must borrow capital from a more transcendentalist outlook such as Christianity, etc…
Kierkegaard and Sartre flirted with the idea of suicide as an escape from absurdity, but eventually tempered their views on it. The notion of life’s meaninglessness wasn’t merely the conclusion of these few thinkers, others throughout history have said similar things.
The author of the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes actually sounds a lot like Kierkegaard, Camus or Sartre:
Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. All things are wearisome, more than one can say. - Ecclesiastes 1:2-8
And elsewhere he wrote:
But for him who is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing. And they have no reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished. Nevermore will they have a share in anything under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 9:4-6
Death is certainly problematic for atheists and atheism, whether they like to admit it or not.
CAN THE SOUL FLY? IS IT IMMORTAL?
It affects our whole life to know whether the soul is mortal or immortal. (Pascal, Penseès, 164)
Having studied and taught archaeology for over 20 years, I’ve come to some very interesting observations and conclusions. One observation, is that atheism is virtually non-existent among ancient peoples, and the majority of our ancestors had a robust view of the afterlife, which in turn strongly affected their view of life and how it was to be lived. The two are intimately linked together. This truth is especially pronounced in the ancient Egyptians. In a recent scholarly publication on the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Egyptologist Foy Scalf clears up a common misconception about the title and theme of the Book of the Dead. He writes:
The title “Book of the Dead” is a modern designation, derived from the German name Totenbuch used in the nineteenth century, itself perhaps influenced by the Arabic phrase al-umwat “books of the dead” used by Egyptian villagers to describe papyri found in tombs. Ancient Egyptians called the composition “Book of Going Forth by Day.” “Going forth by day” refers to the soul, called the ba in the Egyptian language, with the ability to leave the tomb, fly out into the daylight, and join the sun god in his long journey across the heavens. Book of the Dead spell 15B, Section 3, elaborates the concept of going forth by day: ‘As for any spirit for whom this book is made, his soul (ba) goes forth with the living. It goes forth by day. It is mighty among the gods [3].
The spiritual (ba) [soul] of Tjenena in the form of a human-headed bird, hovers over his desiccated corpse in the vignette from the Book of the Dead , spell 89 (Louvre, Paris. N3074)
Under atheism, death is the annihilation of consciousness and personhood (however it may be defined). In a purely materialistic/naturalistic outlook, there is no such thing as a soul - it does not fly, nor does it survive death. At death, personality and personhood completely vanish forever. Whatever the person has done or accomplished in their lifetime will eventually be forgotten and annihilated into meaningless oblivion. Ultimate (i.e. eternal) meaning and significance is only illusory. Therefore, ultimate meaning does not and cannot exist for atheists or atheism.
Atheists may object and state that their life DOES indeed have significance, value and meaning, to which I would agree. But, I would also add that having temporal signifcance, value and meaning is only diversion from the real question of death. One’s entire view of the meaning of life should also include a view of death as well. Death is just as much a part of life as life, and it should be included for a comprehensive view of one’s existence. This is was what Kierkegaard argued in many of his books. Watkins accurately conveys this idea. She writes:
Søren Kierkegaard shows in his writings that one’s view of death is very much linked to one’s total view of existence. In his discussion of various attitudes to, and beliefs about, death, he lets an important distinction emerge between views that presuppose only the world order as we know it, and views that presuppose in addition, a transcendent order of existence. …[he] reminds us that in ordinary human terms death is the only finality and certainty, an uncertain certainty because it can strike us down at any time. The dead return to dust, to nothing, their efforts to leave any lasting form of immortality of name behind them are frustrated by the hand of time. Death in itself offers no explanation to account for the perpetual annihilation of creation, to account for the event that reduces all to one common mould, mocking distinctions made in life. This is what the physical position [i.e. those who think that this present world is all there is] really is regarding death: man is finite, the human race is finite - individuals and cultures pass away, everything eventually passes away [4].
Right in line with Kierkegaard, Peter Kreeft states:
"Death is the most unsentimental of facts: simple decisive, businesslike. There is no non-sense, no evasion, no “nuancing,” no little mental “two-steps” about death. …It can ruin your whole day. In death, you lose everything. No matter what you've acquired in life, no matter how happy you've been in life, even if you've conquered the whole world, we all know that we're going to lose it all in death. Death drains oceans away. Death drains the universe away." [5]
Death is the one reality in which ALL people including atheists must come to terms. The reality of death can’t be fully solved with modal logic, nor will a well crafted syllogism rescue one from death’s cold grasp. It is a vital existential question to which each person must ponder alone in his or her own heart and mind.
In 2015 research physician and writer, Raymond Tallis published a book with a fascinating title and subject matter:The Black Mirror: Looking at Life through Death (Yale University Press). Tallis approaches the question through several lenses; philosophy, personal anecdotes and an occasional foray into the physiology of death. In my view, Tallis’s book has a critically important subject, but it doesn’t provide any novel insights or hope other than, “Think about death, because it will affect how you live and hopefully provide you some guidance on how to live your life.”
Death is a reality for all people, regardless of one’s cultural background, intelligence, wealth or age.
FIVE OPTIONS WHEN DEALING WITH DEATH
In his excellent book and mini-commentary on Pascal’s Penseés, Kreeft lists five options that all people have when it comes to death [6]. They are well worth pondering here. As I’ve stated in Honest Atheism, I believe, like R.C. Sproul, that in actuality, only two of these options reflect the truth of things.
(1). DIVERSION (BURY THY HEAD IN THE SAND)
We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop seeing it. (Pascal, Penseès, 166)
This first option, or “solution” to the problem of death that Kreeft offers is diversion, or perhaps a better word might be evasion. In this solution we simply don’t look at death, think about death or give it a second thought. The idea is to stay busy, pour yourself into your work, hobbies, video games (where ironically, death is not real and life can be “re-set” or lives “added” by the push of a button), or whatever. Stay busy - keep it “off the radar.” Diversions, however, do not solve the problem, they only put it off until the end - it is only a pseudo-solution. I would venture to say that moderns, especially young people today (millennials in particular) don’t give a nano-second’s thought about death or their own mortality. Our heads are buried not in the sand like an ostrich, but in our cell phones like zombies or crack addicts.
(2). STOICISM or EPICUREANISM (HOLD YOUR CHIN UP! ENJOY LIFE!)
For the best explanation of this view imagine the R.M.S. Titanic on it’s maiden voyage across the North Atlantic, steaming full power ahead towards it’s destination. At around 11 pm the ship strikes an iceberg and begins to take on water. It becomes apparent that the ship will sink and go down to the bottom of the Atlantic. Many of the crew members carry on their duties as long as they are able, with chins held high, including the band who played on as the ship sank into the icy waters beneath them. “Death will take us all, but we’ll do our damnedest to keep our dignity until the bitter end. Good show, ole boy! Good show!” The end…
A variation of this would be indifference. Indifference to the question of death and God’s existence is probably more widespread and dangerous than militant atheism, or methodical naturalism combined. Indifference is a colossal yawn to the big philosophical questions: whether or not God exists; or whether or not the soul exists and survives death. “Perpetual indifference,” writes Kreeft, “…is like turning off the alarm clock and going back to sleep when the house you are in, which you have built on the sand, is about to be washed out to sea.” [6]
Epicureanism - Pleasure is our highest aim in life. This option is self-explanitory. There is only one life (YOLO - you only live once!), so make the best of it. To be clear, classical Epicureanism is not the same as hedonism, because it stresses moderaton, but the goal of life is still the same - pleasure.
(3). DESPAIR (AWAITING YOUR TURN TO DIE)
Imagine a number of men in chains, all under sentence of death, some of whom are butchered in the sight of others; those remaining see their own condition in that of their fellows, and looking at each other with grief and despair await their turn. This is an image of the human condition. (Pascal, Penseès, 434)
In Either/Or the response of Kierkegaard’s young aesthete to this situation is one of despair. He wants to view enjoyment as life’s ‘purpose’ but sees man as tragically at the mercy of fate, suffering and death robbing him of pleasure and happiness: [Kierkegaard writes], ‘No one returns from the land of the dead, no one has come into the world without weeping; no one asks one if one wants to come in, none when one wants to go out. Even ‘Life’s highest and richest moment of enjoyment is accompanied by death. Thus, pleasure cannot be the meaning of life…[8].
(4) TECHNOLOGY (PUT YOUR HOPE IN DR. FRANKENSTEIN)
This view looks to technology for eternal life, immortality, and hope beyond the grave. It is the story of Prometheus and Frankenstein. Will we humans we ever learn? Will the science of cryogenics, genetic engineering, artifical intelligence or brain transplants into a different body (or a genetically engeineered body), give us immortality? This has been the hope of mankind since Renaissance alchemy. Technology and science is a weak hope indeed to place all of one’s hope, value and meaning.
(5) CHRISTIANITY (TRUST IN CHRIST & THE RESURRECTION)
Between us and heaven or hell there is only life half-way, the most fragile thing in the world. (Pascal, Penseès, 152)
By all accounts, Blaise Pascal is one of Christainity’s most interesting converts. Simply put, he was a genius. Pascal made major contributions in mathematics, probability theory, calculus, hydrodynamics, and a device that could be considered the pre-curser to the modern computer. It would be convenient to say that Pascal converted to Christianity through a careful contemplation of Theistic arguments, but that is not true. On November 23, 1654 between 10:30 pm and 12:30 am, Pascal had an intense religious experience and became a devout believer in Christ and His resurrection from the dead.
One of his most famous arguments, that most people know is the Wager. The essence of this argument is simply that we (humans) are all playing the same game (life), and we are betting our lives and our souls that either God exists, or he doesn’t. Much has been written on this argument, and my point is not to re-hash it all here, but I would like to make a couple of points about it.
- It is possible to test whether or not God exists. Examine the evidence, pro and con.
- It is not possible to test whether there is an afterlife or not, until it is too late.
Kreeft makes two important observations on these facts above:
- At death we will find the coin of life coming down in one of two ways: either “heads” — you see God face to face — or “tails” — God’s retreat, God’s death, God’s non-existence. At death you will find out which one of the two possibilities is true, atheism or theism.
- But now before death, you must choose to believe one way or the other. Both theism and atheism are leaps of faith, bets, wagers, chances. [which one has the better evidence?] [9].
Of all options open to a person alive today only Christianity in the person of Jesus Christ offers any hope for life beyond the grave. Only in Christianity is the cardinal doctrine - a physical, bodily resurrection from the grave by it's founder, Jesus Christ.
All other contenders in the effort to give life meaning and hope beyond the grace pale in significance to Christ and His resurrection.
On what, will you place your bet? Where will you place your hope? What will you choose?
FOOTNOTES
[1]. John Marmysz, Laughing at Nothing: Humor as a Response to Nihilism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2003), p.157. For similar ideas see also Robert Solomon’s “A More Severe Morality: Nietzche’s Affirmative Ethics” in his, From Hegel to Existentialism (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 105-121; and Walter Kaufman’s, Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (New York: Meridian Books, 1989), pp. 11-51.
[2]. Julia Watkin, “Kiergegaard’s View of Death,” in History of European Ideas, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Pergamon Press, Great Britain), p. 68.
[3]. Foy Scalf, “What Is the Book of the Dead,” in Roy Scalf, Ed. Book of the Dead: Becoming God in Ancient Egypt (Chicago: Oriential Institute Museum Publications 39, The Oriential Instiute of the University of Chicago), pp. 22-3.
[4]. Watkin, “Kierkegaard’s View of Death,” pp.65-66
[5]. Peter Kreeft, in his Christianity for Modern Pagans, pg. 141, and also in https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/philosophy/death-and-sin.html (accessed, 29 March, 2018).
[6]. Peter Kreeft, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Penseés Edited, Outlined & Explained (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), pp. 145-6.
[7]. Ibid., pg. 189.
[8]. Watkin, p. 68.
[9] Kreeft, 298.
1/2
ReplyDeleteI'm being told by the site software that comments are limited in length, so I'm posting my response in two pieces:
Thanks for getting your next installment out, Mr. Wright. Since I appear to be among the first commenters, I'll provide a relatively detailed response.
I'll start with the end of your article: Pascal's Wager? REALLY? That argument has been so thoroughly and frequently debunked that your using it unavoidably suggests that either you're woefully unprepared to discuss these things, or you have insultingly low opinions of your readers. Sorry to be so blunt, but if you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than this.
Backing up a bit, you state that the question is "which view can provide assurance and hope beyond the grave, and can anchor *ultimate* [emphasis in the original] meaning to life, to an eternal, transcendent Being, and to reality?" Let's take a look at that.
There are lots of problems here. The first is the most obvious: you seem to be phrasing it as though atheism and Christianity are the only available choices. This is obviously incorrect, and insisting on this does not help you come across as a serious thinker. The next most obvious problem is why you keep insisting on ULTIMATE meaning. The meaning in my life is not ultimate; it's limited, temporal, and human. So what? I AM human; why wouldn't human-scale meaning be enough for me? You ask about anchoring to "an eternal, transcendent Being". First, you have not demonstrated that any such beings exist. Second, you have not established that being anchored to such a being is necessary for happiness and fulfilment, or *even a good thing*. Finally, your capitalization of the word "being" makes it clear that you're thinking of Yehovah specifically, *once again* bringing in the completely unwarranted assumption that your specific brand of Christianity is the only religion worth considering.
“you seem to be phrasing it as though atheism and Christianity are the only available choices. This is obviously incorrect, and insisting on this does not help you come across as a serious thinker.”
DeleteYep. And by focusing on just atheism and Christianity, he can avoid the rather awkward fact that religion can so not get its story together that it can’t even agree on how many gods there are or what their names are.
“The meaning in my life is not ultimate; it's limited, temporal, and human. So what? I AM human; why wouldn't human-scale meaning be enough for me?”
That’s the fascinating thing about this post. He says, “Uh, you guys realize that you don’t have ultimate meaning, right? Oooh—super embarrassing.” It’s like saying, “Uh, you guys realize that you can’t breathe underwater, right?” Uh, yeah, and neither can you.
Maybe the problem is that atheists aren’t supposed to read this, and it’s only for Christians.
"Maybe the problem is that atheists aren’t supposed to read this, and it’s only for Christians."
DeleteHe doesn't seem very interested in having a dialogue with us, that's for sure. I'm a bit disappointed.
I apologize for the delayed response. I've had a super swamped schedule the past few days. I had to fly out of town, and will be speaking at a conference tomorrow, so I haven't had the chance to respond in the way I would like. Just a couple of passing observations & statements in response.
Delete1. I stated at the outset that death is an "existential problem" for atheists - I do believe that objective, rational evidence for God exists, and that Christianity is true, but I have given none of that here. What I am addressing is an **existential issue** but you guys are acting as if you are impervious to the thought of your own mortality: as if it doesn't concern you at all - but here's where I don't think you're being honest (which [btw], was the title of my original post). You can posture and pontificate and name all of the fallacies that you think I am committing all day long (& I know how to play the philosophical "game"), but at night, or when you are alone with your thoughts, you MUST have serious questions about why the universe is the way it is, and why we are here? You must think about death... or maybe you don't...
(for the record, I am NOT a morbid person at all, and sit around thinking about death. I don't - I love life and enjoying life, but I do find the writings of the atheists existentialists philosophers fascinating, and their voices are sorely missing in today's dialogues/debates about God & atheism)
2. As for this claim Eric: "And finally, after nine paragraphs of discussion, it's at last time to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Your entire article is one long Appeal to Consequences fallacy: "if atheism were true, you would be sad, therefore atheism is false." I won't insult your intelligence by trying to explain why that's a problem."
If that is your assessment of what I have written, then you haven't really understood what I am trying to say. Let me spell it out. Here is what I AM saying. If atheism is true, then there is no objective morality (no absolute right and wrong), and life ultimately has no meaning in the end. Not that it is false, but there are certain things that follow from it, if it IS in fact, true. One of the things that follows from it, is that ultimately (i.e. - in the end), nothing will matter. In the end all will die: rich, poor, educated, uneducated, etc.. etc... Steve Jobs, Steven Hawking, etc... in 1000 years, or 10,000 years will their achievements be remembered? No. Will anything you've ever done MEAN anything? If atheism is true, then again, the answer is no. Do you disagree with this? If so, then why? Please tell me what an atheist would say? Tell me why your life matters now? To what is its purpose? What is the meaning of your life? Why do you act as if the impersonal universe has some sort of plan. order or meaning to it? It doesn't. It just IS.... meaning is purely subjective - or whatever you say it is... that is all. Nothing more...
The universe is cold and indifferent. I could give a rat's *** about you, or your loved ones, or all of your achievements. You will die and be remembered no more except for your close family and friends, and after a few years, you will be completely forgotten - forever. Maybe you're satisfied and content with that, and that is your prerogative. But I think most sentient people would stop and seriously consider that there might be more to this life than meets the eye. That there actually may be an afterlife, and a Creator-God.
Tell me how your comfort yourself at the thought of your own impending death? You personally....
Correction: "IT could give a rat's ***" (above)
Delete(part 1)
Delete“1. I stated at the outset that death is an "existential problem" for atheists”
. . . implying that it’s not for the Christian. Unless you can convince us of that, then death is an existential problem for everyone.
“What I am addressing is an **existential issue** but you guys are acting as if you are impervious to the thought of your own mortality: as if it doesn't concern you at all”
Uh . . . because we’re adults? I’m not sure where the disconnect is.
It’s nice to be taken care of as a kid, but, like it or not, you have to grow up. You have to pay bills and taxes, you may have to do a job you don’t like to pay those bills, you may have a spouse or kids who sometimes make your life miserable. That’s life.
And death is part of life. Well-adjusted adults are able to tolerate the idea that, at some point, they’re not going to be around anymore.
#FirstWorldProblems
“(& I know how to play the philosophical "game")”
Hmm. That’s not a good thing.
“but at night, or when you are alone with your thoughts, you MUST have serious questions about why the universe is the way it is, and why we are here? You must think about death... or maybe you don't...”
?? No, not really. I’d rather think about life. For most people who obsess over death, that’s a problem.
“I do find the writings of the atheists existentialists philosophers fascinating, and their voices are sorely missing in today's dialogues/debates about God & atheism”
Why?? As Eric pointed out, even if atheism were a dismal worldview (it’s not, as we’ve explained), so what? So therefore Christianity is true??
I don’t work that way. I can find zero value in saying “worldview X makes me sad for reason Y” as an argument against worldview X.
“If atheism is true, then there is no objective morality (no absolute right and wrong), and life ultimately has no meaning in the end.”
If it is indeed true that you’re not a fish, you will die after being held under water for more than a couple of minutes.
Yup, that’s a true statement. I don’t know why you’d ever bring up the observation about a fish. Likewise, I can’t imagine why you’d bring up the observation about objective morality (since you’ve done nothing to show that it exists!).
“One of the things that follows from it, is that ultimately (i.e. - in the end), nothing will matter.”
I marvel at what fascinates you. Uh, yeah, if there is no objective meaning, then a billion years from now, my life won’t matter. I’ve come to grips with this terrible fact so long ago that my boring acceptance of this is long since forgotten.
“Will anything you've ever done MEAN anything? If atheism is true, then again, the answer is no. Do you disagree with this?”
It’s like you’ve just learned about atheists for the first time last month and you’re fascinating by them and how weird they are, asking all sorts of odd questions. But OK, welcome to atheist world.
There were people behind the development of the UN. Behind the fact that there is no more smallpox. Behind the Green Revolution, which feeds billions. Behind the technology that gave us the “pale blue dot” image of Saturn’s rings. And on and on and on. That’s history that will likely be taught 1000 years from now, so in a tiny way, yes, those people’s work will have meant something in the long term.
(part 2)
Delete“Tell me why your life matters now?”
Are you new to this planet? My life matters the same way anyone’s life might matter. I have a family. I work on projects and take satisfaction in their completion. I help other people. And so on. What else did you imagine I’d say?
“The universe is cold and indifferent. I could give a rat's *** about you, or your loved ones, or all of your achievements.”
Hmm. Now who’s the one with an empty, shallow life? If I met one of your loved ones, I might risk my life to save them if they were in danger. You wouldn't reciprocate?
Here’s a fragment from a book I’ve written. It’s the response of an atheist to a Christian.
“And what if I’m right [about there being no God]? Then you will have missed seeing your life for what it truly is—not a test to see if you correctly dance to the tune of an empty set of traditions; not a shell of a life, with real life waiting for you in the hereafter; not drudgery to be endured or penance paid while you bide your time for your reward. But rather the one chance you have at reality. We can argue about whether heaven exists, but one thing we do know is that we get one life here on earth. A too-short life, no matter how long you live, that you can spend wisely or foolishly. Where you can walk in a meadow on a warm spring day, and laugh and learn, and do good things and feel good for having done them. Where you can strive to leave the world a little better than you found it. Where you can play with children, and teach someone, and love.”
Back to your comments:
“You will die and be remembered no more except for your close family and friends, and after a few years, you will be completely forgotten - forever.”
So what?? You’re wringing your hands about reality. Jeez—grow up. Or, if I’ve misunderstood about how reality works, show me another way!
“Maybe you're satisfied and content with that, and that is your prerogative. But I think most sentient people would stop and seriously consider that there might be more to this life than meets the eye. That there actually may be an afterlife, and a Creator-God.”
Is there?? Not according to any reasons you’ve provided!
Hey, thanks for writing back. I'll do my best to address your new points, but it's hard to pare things down to 4,096 characters. Please feel free to keep the dialogue going!
Delete1. Yes, I do have serious questions about why the universe is the way it is, but those are physics questions, and they're answered with telescopes and particle accelerators, not with bronze age myths. Why are we here? I can walk you back from "parents having sex" to just after the Big Bang, but you're clearly asking about purposes, not causes, when you ask "why?" As for me, I'm humble enough to accept that there isn't any purpose for my being here. I'm just a thing that happened and it's up to me to make something of it. Do I think about death? Well, I pretty much got that sorted out a while back.
2. I'm disappointed that you think you need to tell me about what I believe and what it means. Do you really think I don't understand all this? Do you really believe that when you tell me that I'll eventually die and ultimately be forgotten, that you're delivering shocking news to me?
You've got two blog articles and a bunch of impassioned comments in which you desperately try to get it through to me that I will die and all that I am and all that I have accomplished will be undone as utterly as though I had never existed.
I've been fully aware of that for some time now; long enough for the shock of first realizing it to wear off; long enough to have had time to roll it around in my mind and get familiar with it; long enough to think about it. You seem young, in your profile pic; maybe you haven't yet had time to get to that level of familiarity with your own mortality. If it's still new and shocking to you, I can understand and sympathize with your failure to understand that it CAN be grappled with and accepted.
Listen, I'm sure a scholar with your impressive credentials will initially scoff at the idea that you could learn anything from . . . ugh . . . TV Tropes, but I strongly suggest that you take a look at these pages, especially the quote pages:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheAntiNihilist
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Existentialism
It might help you understand us.
"Tell me how your comfort yourself at the thought of your own impending death? You personally...."
Contend not with monsters, Mr. Wright, lest ye become a monster. But, since you asked nicely, I'll tell you.
First, read this article for some perspective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
Once you've digested that, you'll be in the proper frame of mind to understand my answer: I understand that while it might be nice to have a few hundred or a few thousand more years to spend doing things, dying beats the alternative.
And finally, I'll leave you with a quote that I've long admired:
"I am alone. I look at the heavens and think them empty. And if not empty, I find the idea of worshiping whatever dwells there obscene. It doesn't change what is right. If there is nothing in this world but what we make, brothers...let us make good." -- Beta Ray Bill
"I think most sentient people would stop and seriously consider that there might be more to this life than meets the eye. That there actually may be an afterlife, and a Creator-God."
DeleteIt's logically possible; that is, those ideas aren't inherently nonsensical or self-contradictory (although specific Christian implementations of such ideas often fail that test). However, that's not an endorsement--it's the bare minimum floor that an idea needs to meet to be considered. Other things that are logically possible include leprechauns, Russell's Teapot, the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, and Eric the Magical God-Eating Penguin (whose name is a coincidence, I assure you (no, really, look him up)).
When claims are made that a thing exists, the first test is logical possibility. If the claim fails that test, it gets rejected out of hand. If someone claims that four-sided triangles exist, we have no need to investigate further.
The second step is evidence. The party making the claim that a thing exists (Higgs Bosons, black holes, dark matter, gods) must provided evidence. It's important to note here that arguments are not evidence. We had very solid arguments, for example, that the Higgs Boson existed. The Standard Model of Physics predicted it. The Standard Model had enjoyed immense success and predictive power in other areas, to the point that most scientists agreed that if the model predicted the boson, then then boson must exist.
However, the scientists followed that up with two demonstrations of intellectual humility and honesty that I don't see coming from religions apologists of any flavor, to include Christians:
1. They admitted that their arguments, predictions, and models could be flawed, and were prepared to revise or abandon their ideas as necessary.
2. They put large amounts of money, time, and effort into finding evidence for the Higg's Boson, being sure to avoid fooling themselves with results they wanted to be true.
So, yeah, there MAY be an afterlife. There MAY be a creator god or gods. Where's your evidence? What experiment can I do to verify your claims? Where are the Large Prayer Colliders being built by religionists to determine which theological points are correct?
Hi again! Just trying to keep the dialogue going here. Mr. Wright wrote:
Delete"will their achievements be remembered? No. Will anything you've ever done MEAN anything? If atheism is true, then again, the answer is no. Do you disagree with this? If so, then why? Please tell me what an atheist would say? Tell me why your life matters now? To what is its purpose? What is the meaning of your life? Why do you act as if the impersonal universe has some sort of plan. order or meaning to it? It doesn't. It just IS.... meaning is purely subjective - or whatever you say it is... that is all. Nothing more..."
I've been thinking about that, and I think in this passage we're seeing the motivation for these articles: fear. I am, of course, open to the possibility that my reading between the lines here is hilariously off base, and I stand ready to welcome corrections. However, it still looks to me like in this passage Mr. Wright is letting his own fear come through; that these articles are a mix between him desperately trying to reassure himself that Christianity does too answer these fears, and desperately hoping that the atheists have an answer that will make the warm fuzzies come back.
The actual answer, of course, is that you don't actually need the warm fuzzies, despite the fact that you've been taught that you do.
Mr. Wright, did you see WALL*E? These fears are like an Axiom passenger panicking about how they'll get by without their hover chair. The answer is not "you can stay in your hover chair forever" nor is it "we have better hover chairs outside the ship".
The answer is, "We learned that we could just walk everywhere. And yeah, there were some sore muscles as we learned it, and yes, sometimes our feet hurt and sometimes our legs get tired. However, once you get used to it, it's not really a problem and you'll find that being able to walk wherever you want gives you a lot more freedom and options than being confined to the chair."
And finally, since you like quoting Nietzsche, I'll leave you with a quote from his works:
"If we affirm one moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Apologize once again for not responding to your comments and thoughts in a timely fashion. I've been swamped lately. Eric & Bob, I am very grateful for sharing your thoughts on this subject. Eric has finally admitted what I was looking for - honesty. And no, Eric, the article wasn't written out of my fear of death, or my fascination with atheism. I've studied atheism (philosophically and personally for well over 20 years), and I've taught courses in philosophy of religion for 14. I wanted to raise the existential question of death to atheists today, because many of my colleagues today focus primarily on propositional arguments for God's existence. Let me be clear, I DO believe that good, rational, and philosophically rigorous arguments for Theism and Christianity exist. This article has made no pretensions that it is some sort of argument for God's existence. It is not. If you really want to engage this issue philosophically, then engage with the arguments in Ed Feser's book, "Five Proofs for God's Existence" and refute those. There are others as well, such as the work of Alvin Plantinga, and William Lane Craig. This article was written for one purpose, and one purpose only - To raise the (existential) question of death for atheists. And yes, it is a problem for ALL people, no matter what their belief - atheist, agnostic, pantheist, & Theist alike. The reason I contrasted Christian Theism and atheism, is that they both represent two diametrically opposite views on meaning, value and death. My own view is that atheism is utterly and completely bankrupt in providing meaning, value and significance to both life and death. Once again, it's not that I think atheists are bad people (in and of themselves), or that they can't find meaning, significance, etc.. (even on a human scale, or however you want to look at it). But evaluating it as a worldview, and a philosophical position - I find it (1) Untrue (It doesn't correspond to reality) and (2) Appalling and completely empty. Eric finally answered my question and admitted that indeed, "Grown-ups" (who I assume are atheists), and probably the "enlightened ones" face the fact that there is no God, no afterlife, and no eternity. Perhaps I just need to "grow up?"
DeleteBut if I [and other Christian Theists] am/are correct, and Christian Theism is true (about Christ/God and the afterlife), then it is right and understandable that I would write and urge my atheists friends to really reconsider their position. If I DO in fact believe in God and an afterlife, then why shouldn't I warn (with passion) those, who in my view are doomed to eternity without God, and exist in conscious, eternal torment? (Just trying to let you know where I am coming from - not trying to be intentionally insulting). It is out of love, not hate, nor condescension or arrogance, that I write.
What I do wonder about, however, is why atheists like yourselves think that it is worthwhile to engage with people like myself, or even read and respond (with an entire blog and website) to Christian Theistic claims? Bob, interesting that your blog is called CrossExamined. I am the former Executive Director for CrossExamined.org of Dr. Frank Turek. I assume you've heard of him, or read his book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" Frank, debated Christopher Hitchens, whom I've met, and I must say, he was a great guy to have a conversation with! But Frank said something in the second debate that I think may hold true for many atheists today - Frank said, "To sum up Christopher's position - I hate God, and He doesn't exist." Disagreement with the way the universe is, or with how God runs the universe, is not an argument against the existence of God. It's a complaint. Complaints aren't arguments.
I appreciate your honesty Eric, and for your comments Bob.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHello again, and thanks for responding and keeping the dialogue open. This is going to end up as multiple parts again, because I'm not good at being concise and I'm having some technical issues with the site.
DeleteMr. Wright, you said that I have "finally admitted what I was looking for--honesty," and also that I "finally answered [your] question and admitted that indeed, 'Grown-ups' (who I assume are atheists) and probably the 'enlightened ones' face the fact that there is no God, no afterlife, and no eternity." You also, in your closing, specifically call me out for my "honesty".
Frankly, after looking back over my last post, I'm at a loss for what you think I've finally admitted, or only just now been honest about. Is it that I mentioned that accepting the lack of caring in the universe takes a little work? That can't be it, because I mentioned prior to that comment that coming to accept this does require work and growth.
Also, the closest I ever came to saying anything about "growing up" was noting that I agreed with something that Bob wrote in which he used the term. I also never mentioned "enlightened ones". And yet, you put those words in quotes when referring to my "admission" (see what I did there?) as if to indicate that you got those mildly insulting words direct from my writings. I suppose that one could read that sentence as you simply imagining the sort of thing you think your opponents would say, and using scare quotes to indicate that they're not your words. However, the fact that you're doing so in a sentence about my answers and admissions makes the other interpretation--that you're attributing those words to me--easier to reach. I'm a little annoyed at what looks like you putting words in my mouth . . . and of course, still confused about what you think I suddenly "admitted".
Moving on:
You wrote: "This article was written for one purpose, and one purpose only - To raise the (existential) question of death for atheists."
Why did you think this was even remotely necessary? Is it because atheists don't seem to be as sad or depressed about their eventual death and non-existence as you think they should be? If not, then why? What was your goal; the desired outcome of someone reading your articles? Are we atheists not actually the intended audience--did you write these articles to help Christians feel better about having made a superior belief choice?
"My own view is that atheism is utterly and completely bankrupt in providing meaning, value and significance to both life and death."
You're absolutely correct, atheism is one of a great many beliefs about the world that contribute nothing to those areas. Other examples of beliefs that are "utterly and completely bankrupt in providing meaning, value and significance to both life and death" are a-leprechaunism, fluid dynamics, Newton's Laws of Motion, Boolean algebra, and General Relativity. No atheists are arguing that the belief that no gods exist should somehow give meaning to life and death. You're committing the Straw Man fallacy; you're arguing against a point that your opponents are not making.
2/3
Delete"What I do wonder about, however, is why atheists like yourselves think that it is worthwhile to engage with people like myself, or even read and respond (with an entire blog and website) to Christian Theistic claims?"
This is another question so easy to answer that I have trouble believing that you're asking it honestly: because Christians have done and are still doing massive amounts of harm because of their beliefs.
When the Sikhs start pushing to get their creation myths in public schools, I'll oppose the Sikhs. When people are putting up monuments with the Eight Noble Truths in government buildings, I'll oppose the Buddhists. When parents let their children die because they trust in Apollo, I'll oppose the followers of the Greek gods.
But, in the here and now, it's Christians who are causing damage in my country, so it's Christians that I oppose.
3/3
Delete"I find [atheism] (1) Untrue (It doesn't correspond to reality)"
This is the point where I am willing to get confrontational. Up until now you've been talking about philosophy, but now you've chosen to step into the world of science. Put up or shut up, Mr. Wright: in what observable ways does reality fail to match the predictions of the no-gods hypothesis? What experiments can I perform that will demonstrate the existence of gods? I know of a lot of different things which are not perceivable by my native senses, and yet I know of ways to experimentally demonstrate their existence. If you are going to make the bold claim that atheism "doesn't correspond to reality" then I expect you to provide evidence of gods that can stand next to our evidence for other invisible but real things, such as:
* ionizing radiation
* magnetic fields
* microbes and viruses
* radio waves
* atomic nuclei
* dark matter
* relativistic effects
* quantum superposition
Don't come at me with weak sauce like first cause arguments or anthropic/fine-tuning stuff. You said that atheism doesn't correspond to reality. Show me the data. Show me the peer-reviewed experimental results.
In fact, let me expand on this. If I met an a-microbist, for instance, I would state that their position "doesn't correspond to reality". If they challenged me on that, and asked me to demonstrate that microbes exist, I could perform experiments to demonstrate that microbes do exist. I could start with the classic experiment of sterilizing two samples of growth medium (broth, in the classic case) and keeping one sealed and exposing the other to the atmosphere. I could use a microscope to SHOW microbes to the disbeliever. I could demonstrate their link to disease by getting some mice sick. I could use my knowledge of germ theory to predict future observations which would be difficult or impossible to explain from an a-microbist position. I could--and this is something on which theism fails hard--provide a coherent explanation of my germ theory, and come up with an experiment and a set of possible results on which the a-microbist and I could agree ahead of time that certain results would be strong evidence for my theory and other certain results would be strong evidence for his. My germ theory makes falsifiable predictions
Can your theism do that?
My atheism can. For example, I have myopia and astigmatism for which I need glasses. Medical science knows of no way for such a condition to spontaneously correct itself. My atheism leads to the prediction that if someone lays on hands and prays to their god for miraculous healing of my eyes, that nothing will happen and my vision problems will persist. But here's the thing: IF a theist and I perform this experiment, AND IF my vision spontaneously corrects itself to 20/20 and I find that I can see clearly without glasses (and that the glasses now make things worse), I will be forced to admit that this experimental result violates the predictions of my hypothesis, and constitutes strong evidence that my hypothesis is wrong.
Can your theism do THAT?
Mr. Wright, do your theistic beliefs lead to any predictions which meet the following criteria?
* They can be unambiguously observed and verified (no "travel mercies" or "grant us wisdom")
* Atheists would agree that the predictions are highly unlikely to impossible in the absence of gods (no "turn someone's life around")
* You would be willing to admit that their failure would be strong evidence against your theism hypothesis
If they do, great! Let's test those predictions and get some experimental data into what has been a philosophical debate until now!
If you can't make any such predictions, then you're not talking about reality
2/2
ReplyDeleteYou then waste a lot of words insisting that we should be REALLY UPSET about the fact that we'll die and that's the end. According to you, apparently, any atheist who isn't deeply disturbed by that fact is "not honest". Once again, you've stated and restated your position but haven't supported it. "Atheists must life as though their lives do indeed have significance . . ." you say. True enough; that's necessary for any human's mental health, atheist or not. However, you continue, ". . . and that there is a transcendent meaning that goes beyond the *here and now*." Nope. Not only have you provided no reasons to believe this, your earlier example of Carl Sagan is a striking counter-example. By your own admission, he had a great life and did it without believing in any transcendent anything.
To your credit, you do attempt to shore up your claim that we should be sad about dying by listing some ways to attempt to mentally deal with that reality, presumably with the intent that only the approach that you favor would look acceptable. And--again to your credit--three of the approaches you list do indeed seem inadequate or unsatisfying to a mature adult. A technological solution to mortality may eventually be available, but there are certainly a LOT of people who won't survive to see it. Wallowing in despair is tautologically bad for being happy, and many people agree that distracting yourself from a problem is unproductive in the long run.
Option two doesn't look so bad, though. You list a few variations of it, but never say why they don't work; you seem to simply assume that your reader will automatically and instinctively reject them. One thing I've learned in life is that other people can have very different ideas and different values and priorities than I have--something that you seem to be failing to consider here. Consider your Titanic example: throughout history, *countless* people have gone to their deaths fully satisfied that sticking to their duties and ideals in the face of death is the greatest possible expression of human virtue. Just because such a thing doesn't appeal to YOU doesn't mean it's wrong.
As for indifference, well, most people agree that ignoring problems that you can fix is a bad thing. On the other hand, many philosophers suggest that worrying about things you can't change is something that we should grow out of. Which category death belongs in is left as an exercise for the reader.
For epicurianism, I admit that this may not be for everyone, but once again I would ask: by what reasoning do you say that this is *wrong*? I don't enjoy being drunk but I don't tell the people who DO like it that they're wrong for enjoying it.
Your last listed option illustrates this problem perfectly; you simply name it, without bothering to describe it, and assume that your readers will *obviously* recognize it as the most desirable choice. I won't say much here; let's just note that many people have thought about the Chrisitan concept of heaven and found it quite lacking in appeal.
And finally, after nine paragraphs of discussion, it's at last time to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Your entire article is one long Appeal to Consequences fallacy: "if atheism were true, you would be sad, therefore atheism is false." I won't insult your intelligence by trying to explain why that's a problem.
“According to you, apparently, any atheist who isn't deeply disturbed by that fact is "not honest".”
DeleteI see the flip side: when you grow up and become an adult, you should face reality as it is, not how you’d like it to be. I apologize if this is condescending, but it’s like Ted is frightened by reality and is clinging to the happy message of Christianity like a security blanket.
“A technological solution to mortality may eventually be available, but there are certainly a LOT of people who won't survive to see it.”
And you do wonder if eternal life (or even super-long life) would be a good thing for society.
“Consider your Titanic example: throughout history, *countless* people have gone to their deaths fully satisfied that sticking to their duties and ideals in the face of death is the greatest possible expression of human virtue. Just because such a thing doesn't appeal to YOU doesn't mean it's wrong.”
What is the meaning of a clear, sunny day in heaven when you have an infinite number ahead of you? Gold is precious only because it’s scarce; likewise a finite life here on earth. It has value *because* it’s finite.
“I won't say much here; let's just note that many people have thought about the Chrisitan concept of heaven and found it quite lacking in appeal.”
Christianity itself is a terrible story. A Bronze Age god is so furious at his own creation that he has to have a perfect human sacrifice to assuage his anger? No, a god with an anger management issue isn’t a god that I want to worship. (Which gets into the craziness of a god who’d *want* worship, but that’s a different issue.)
“Your entire article is one long Appeal to Consequences fallacy: "if atheism were true, you would be sad, therefore atheism is false."”
Nicely stated.
Apologies if this is a duplicate post; something went strange when I was working on it.
Delete"I see the flip side: when you grow up and become an adult, you should face reality as it is, not how you’d like it to be. I apologize if this is condescending, but it’s like Ted is frightened by reality and is clinging to the happy message of Christianity like a security blanket."
I agree. Mr. Wright strikes me, through his writings, as someone who's looked into Nietzche's abyss and recoiled in terror. And now that I reflect on that, I have some sympathy for him. Looking into that abyss is neither easy nor comfortable, and I can understand the need to deny it and insist that there really are solid foundational truths to cling to . . . that there MUST be!
His metaphor with the film is more apt than he realizes, in this sense. The astronaut, once separated from the ISS, has "nothing solid, stable, or stationary" to anchor herself. The thing is, she never did.
The ISS may look reassuringly solid and stationary, but it is not. In fact, it too is in orbit, perpetually falling around the Earth, attached to nothing, resting upon nothing, and only as stable as it can keep itself with its own resources. Its orbit is unstable, constantly losing energy to drag on the traces of atmosphere, inexorably heading to a fiery doom unless it gets a boost from something else. It keeps itself stable by storing unwanted angular momentum in flywheels . . . with limited capacity, which can only be spun back down when a rocket-equipped spacecraft is attached. No, the only thing that makes the ISS even appear to be "solid" or "stable" is that, like the church, it has a lot of inertia and it takes time to fall. In being separated from it, the astronaut has not lost any real foundation. She's no more adrift than she always was; she merely sees it more clearly now.
The metaphor breaks down a bit here. In such a situation, it's understandable; it's entirely human to want to crawl back to the comforting illusion of stability that one had been living in. Floating in the trackless void is frightening at first. The adult response, however, is not to cower in fear--it's to accept the void, stay calm, fire up your suit thrusters, and fly.
I hadn't seen that angle on the movie example. Nice.
DeleteTed:
ReplyDeleteTo avoid redundant ideas, I first replied to Eric's comments above. I wasn't trying to ignore you but to minimize clutter.
The problems in your post here are the same as the ones in your previous post, as I recall. Eric and I clearly stated the problems, and yet here they are again, so there's not much point in belaboring them. Assuming that atheists are part of the audience that you're writing for (clarify if I've guessed wrong), keep in mind that wagging your finger at atheists about *their own worldview* as if you know better than they is pretty arrogant.
Don't tell atheists about the limitations in their worldview when yours has the same limitations. You think that yours doesn't? Great--then convincing us of that should've been your first task.
BTW, I used GalileoUnchained simply because it was easy to use that existing identity. I'm not trying to be anonymous, and my real name is Bob Seidensticker. I write the Cross Examined blog using that name (www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined).
BTW, does your blog handle HTML formatting? Bold Italics
ReplyDeleteYeah, I guess it does. You might want to put a note on formatting options at the bottom of the page.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe blockquote HTML command doesn't work, but italics and bold do, apparently.
Delete(1/2)
ReplyDelete“Eric has finally admitted what I was looking for - honesty.”
Finally? Admitted? Honesty? I’m a little confused. I’m not sure that there was any delay, any reluctant period where you dragged us into the light of truth. Your observations about how life and death works are naïve and trivially true. We die—yup, that’s true. I’m not sure how this is an “admission.” Tell us.
“I wanted to raise the existential question of death to atheists today, because many of my colleagues today focus primarily on propositional arguments for God's existence.”
That’s fine, but you’ve dragged a rather obvious “You know that we die, right? And atheism imagines no afterlife?” + “Yup, that’s true” conversation into a discussion lasting many weeks when it really could’ve been handled as quickly as I just did. All I’ve learned is that you’re fascinated by this topic and imagine a difference between our positions that doesn’t exist.
“This article has made no pretensions that it is some sort of argument for God's existence. It is not.”
No, it’s not. And for you to show that the Christian position is better in any way, that’s what you have to do. Not having done that, perhaps you can imagine how childish your argument looks to us. We’re in the same position until you do the heavy lifting to show otherwise.
“To raise the (existential) question of death for atheists.”
I am amazed that we’ve written so many words on so obvious a topic. Yes, we die. Can we move on, please?
“My own view is that atheism is utterly and completely bankrupt in providing meaning, value and significance to both life and death.”
You’ve invented an afterlife and I haven’t? That’s not something to brag about. If you’re saying that you have evidence of this remarkable claim, go ahead.
(2/2)
ReplyDelete“evaluating it as a worldview, and a philosophical position - I find it (1) Untrue (It doesn't correspond to reality) and (2) Appalling and completely empty.”
(1) Show us.
(2a) Which does what to show that Christianity is true or atheism false?
(2b) As we’ve tried to show you, it’s not.
“Eric finally answered my question and admitted that indeed, "Grown-ups" (who I assume are atheists), and probably the "enlightened ones" face the fact that there is no God, no afterlife, and no eternity. Perhaps I just need to "grow up?"”
Yes, please. And also explain how “admitted” is the correct verb. I’ve seen absolutely nothing that you’ve pointed out to us that we didn’t already know.
“But if I [and other Christian Theists] am/are correct, and Christian Theism is true (about Christ/God and the afterlife), then it is right and understandable that I would write and urge my atheists friends to really reconsider their position.”
The “if” above is the problem you need to work on.
“If I DO in fact believe in God and an afterlife, then why shouldn't I warn (with passion) those, who in my view are doomed to eternity without God, and exist in conscious, eternal torment?”
Sure, but now we have the problem of evidence for your remarkable claim. You’ve provided none.
“What I do wonder about, however, is why atheists like yourselves think that it is worthwhile to engage with people like myself, or even read and respond (with an entire blog and website) to Christian Theistic claims?”
In the US, Christianity is the bull in the china shop. Some Christians are trying to get Creationism taught in public schools, and prayer has been put in city council meetings. In dozens of other ways, these Christians are eager to destroy the wall of separation between church and state (ironic, since this is the Christian’s friend as much as the atheist’s).
“Bob, interesting that your blog is called CrossExamined. I am the former Executive Director for CrossExamined.org of Dr. Frank Turek. I assume you've heard of him, or read his book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"”
Small world. Yes, I’ve read the book, and I’ve written a number of posts responding to Turek’s writings.
“I appreciate your honesty Eric, and for your comments Bob.”
I’ll have to work on that honesty, I guess.
Eric:
ReplyDelete“Frankly, after looking back over my last post, I'm at a loss for what you think I've finally admitted, or only just now been honest about.”
It’s like he’s taken the last month to get you to admit that 2 + 2 = 4. (Well, if you’d accepted that immediately, he wouldn’t have had to take so much time, would he??)
“Why did you think this was even remotely necessary? Is it because atheists don't seem to be as sad or depressed about their eventual death and non-existence as you think they should be?”
I love that. “You’re not responding to something inherent in your worldview (of which I’m an outsider) the way I think you should, so therefore you’re doing it wrong.”
“You're absolutely correct, atheism is one of a great many beliefs about the world that contribute nothing to those areas. Other examples of beliefs that are "utterly and completely bankrupt in providing meaning, value and significance to both life and death" are a-leprechaunism, fluid dynamics, Newton's Laws of Motion, Boolean algebra, and General Relativity.”
Nice! Christians proudly point out that their worldview has something to say about morality while atheism doesn’t, not realizing that the Bible’s Old Testament “morality” is pretty terrible.
He also can't seem to make up his mind on whether he's proselytizing or not. At one point, he claims that “This article has made no pretensions that it is some sort of argument for God's existence. It is not.” The problem is that this reduces the two articles and month of back and forth to "NO GUYS STOP BEING HAPPY! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DEPRESSED!"
DeleteOn the other hand, “If I DO in fact believe in God and an afterlife, then why shouldn't I warn (with passion) those, who in my view are doomed to eternity without God, and exist in conscious, eternal torment?”
Yeah, it makes sense. But, if he actually wants to convert us--if that's his actual goal--it's puzzling to the point of being bizarre that given the choice between 1) pointing us to the material evidence of hell, and 2) reminding us of what we already believe and accept, that he would choose the latter.
If he actually wants to convert us, and if the evidence is available, then he's incompetent for choosing the far weaker of the two approaches. If he actually wants to convert us, but he picked the weaker approach because he doesn't have the evidence, then we have to ask why he doesn't have the evidence to present:
* If he simply hasn't bothered to find it, then it seems that he doesn't care much about us going to hell; so much for his "passion"
* If the evidence exists but he hasn't been able to find it, despite his substantial theological training, then he looks incompetent to the point that I'd feel bad about debating with him.
* If he can't find the evidence because there isn't any, then he's wrong.
If he's really NOT trying to convert us . . . then honestly, the only motive I can see for any of this ongoing effort on his part is to make believers feel better about themselves by painting atheists as either too full of existential dread to be happy or intellectually dishonest. I'll admit that there could be other motivations that I just haven't thought of, but, well, I haven't thought of them yet.
Mr. Wright, if you want an admission from me, there you have it: I don't really understand what you're trying to accomplish here.
One possible resolution to the riddle of why he’s telling us what we (obviously) already know is that he’s just doing it for the show. His actual audience is the lurking Christians. Instead of saying, “Hey, Christians, be sure to check out atheism before you jump in; here, let me give you some help,” he’s using us as his foil.
ReplyDeleteWhich, I suppose, brings up the question of whether he likes our input or if he'd prefer this just be Christians' happy place.
Hmm. That makes a certain amount of sense. If all of this is a performance for the benefit of an audience that we're not seeing, that would go a long way toward explaining some of the oddness: he's got a script to follow, and if we don't say our lines, he can't say his. The repetition of the "you'll totally be dead, guys!" message would be his attempt to make us recognize our cue and feed him the line he needs for his scripted response to make sense. His mysterious comment about my "admission" would then be his attempt at damage control; if he can pretend that I said something close enough to "my lines", then he can move on to his next pre-scripted point.
ReplyDeleteOr, perhaps we aren't meant to be participants so much as examples on display. "My brothers and sisters in Christ, I've placed the bait, and no doubt we'll see some atheists show up in the comments soon. Observe how they wallow in despair at their impending death, or desperately try to spin their empty nihilism into a cheap imitation of our salvation." Then we show up and demonstrate that a person can simply accept their eventual non-existence and be okay with it, ruining everything.
Of course this is all just speculation. The only way we'll know for sure what Mr. Wright is trying to do is if he tells us.
When I discovered that he actually responded at length to the comments here, I was excited about the possibility of having a stimulating dialogue. If he tries to tell me how depressed I should be about dying AGAIN, I'm going to conclude that it's all he's got, and think about moving on.
I do hope that he'll address my comment about evidence and falsifiable predictions. I don't expect him to provide any evidence (although, as always, I would be EXTREMELY interested in any actual evidence that came to light) but if he decides to argue that evidence is unnecessary for THIS claim (but no others), it should be amusing.
Well... I am just going to jump into these very interesting and amazing conversations. I believe I am more personally acquainted with Professor Ted Wright, than the other two personages in these post. I prerequisites this to say, I can attest to the way he lives his life and the words that he speaks and teaches are from a heart that cares about the Earthly life and the After life of all human beings that he encounters.
ReplyDeleteI could go down the same intellectual road as all the previous comments I have read. My choice is different. I may not have what you would consider scientific proof of what Christian theist believe, what I do have is personal encounters. I know there are people that believe they have personally encountered Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Aliens and other things that people may joke about or not take seriously. Those encounters could be, to them, true and to others not believable or not attaining enough "scientific proof" to qualify as proof worthy to believe it convince a change of perspective.
Just as all of these previous discussions are considered intellectual verbage, they are the limited, written thoughts of humans.
It is personal experience that can create a positive, life changing, miraculous turn of the human perspective that proves there is a loving, creator God. This is my experience... And there is no intellectual argument or scientific proof, one way or the other, that can dismiss what my experience has been. I honestly come into this discussion to speak love, as I understand it, from knowing with human thinking, and understanding after experiencing "supernatural" emotional healing from very destructive, traumatic, and yes...Evil...events in my life.
(Part 1 of 2)
Part 2...
ReplyDeleteThis comment will not be as long and will complete my interaction in this discussion. I honestly am a believer in the personage and what I consider, part of the Creator God, named as Jesus Christ.
For some of the previous intellectual Minds... This may seem foolish, and not provable. For my life and the life of those around me, it has been proved out for the last 32 years. The life I led before my encounter, was so full of hurt, pain, and destruction... that anyone personally knowing me, can tell you the change is miraculous. I will not argue with cymatics. I will only make an ending statement. How I have chosen to express gratitude, honor and respect to...is naming the source as it was revealed personally to me. That is my "Creator". Just as an experience of a person being healed or restored in their mobility by a surgeon and calls him a surgeon. As you would want to know the name of the fireman that may have come into your burning house when you were almost without breath, picked you up and brought you out and gave you oxygen. I do believe in the biblical knowledge of scripture of Old Testament history lady to New Testament knowledge of the Savior, Jesus Christ. I have encountered this saving creator. On more than one occasion, many experiences, many conversations, and yes the third part, the Holy Spirit, I name it that because it has truly been a spirit of holiness and comfort. I would never want to not share or give opportunity for any other human... 2 not have knowledge of my experiences. Just as a healed blind person, would want to share the possibility of another blind person being healed. That would be cruel to withhold introducing that possibility. I end this with what I know can be trusted above human wisdom. What I have chosen to believe is my Creator's wisdom. Two proof comments that are not my own. They are simple and clear. To many...the passages are very familiar. Just, please ask...what ever force, you have accepted as your source of truth or reality to directly speak to your being. The choice is there to believe or not. I am truly praying that all will choose to believe. There are those who will not. To those who do...I believe there is an unexperienced level of joy, love, and eternal hope.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 1:1
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16
I apologize for a few of the misspelled or wrong words in my previous comment. After "Old Testament history" auto correct put "lady to" instead of "and the".
ReplyDeleteI was using the microphone to write out my comments because my typing is not that fast. Being 60 and using computers for work for the past 30 years...gives me just enough to get by in social media and academia but not the speed of most young people that have been with cells for the majority of their lives. Hopefully the content value to the readers out weighed the spelling errors.
Thank you for this format Prof. Wright. In the future I will be more diligent to proof my comments before hitting the publish button. I was running late to leave for my weekly visit with my 85 yr old Mom that lives in Pineville. I did enjoy the information from your blog and the two gentlemen that contributed their thoughts.
Again...my heartfelt prayers for you all.
God's love, care, knowledge, and blessings, Paula e.