Month: November 2006

So… where does this leave the atheist?

I see two options available to the atheist. The atheist can either live a life of nihilism, suffering under a burden of meaninglessness, pushing the stone up the hill every day for the rest of existence, believing that all of the effort is for nothing. Alternately, the atheist can convince himself or herself that their life has meaning in some way. This meaning would be internally defined, which would lack any external validation. Thus, it would lack objectivity. And thus, it would be considered deceitful to the individual. I don’t know which is worse, living a life of meaninglessness, or lying about it to oneself.

The question now becomes, is there a moral and ethical responsibility for an atheist to alleviate suffering in the world? Peter Singer, in Practical Ethics, argues that there are numerous reasons to act morally. He cites reason [Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, Second Edition, New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pg 318.] and self-interest [Singer, pg 322] as two reasons to be ethically responsible. To this list, I would add compassion as another reason. There is no shortage of reasons for the atheist to be morally and ethically responsible. The only difference between the religious and the atheist viewpoints is in one’s motivations. Regardless of the motivation, the results are often the same. The atheist is just as likely to be morally conscious of one’s neighbour as a Christian would be. Actually, Bertrand Russell, like many other critics of Christendom, argues that religion has been historically responsible for some of the greatest atrocities ever recorded. The Crusades were religiously motivated, as were the attacks of September 11. Atheists would be the first to point out the moral inappropriateness of either of those activities.

Thus, the atheist is just as capable as a Christian to determine right from wrong. Therefore, the atheist is just as morally obligated to protect their children as a Christian would be. By extension, it would only make sense for an atheist to protect his or her children from suffering. This presents a paradox, as the atheist is unable to live a life free of suffering. As I concluded earlier, either the atheist is suffering from an existence stuck in meaninglessness or the atheist is lying to him or herself about their meaninglessness. Looking out over this vast meaninglessness is reckless. The atheist is ill equipped to answer what purpose there is to living life any longer. Why not just quit life now? If life is meaningless, then what’s to stop the atheist from crossing the line now? Wouldn’t suicide be easier than living one more day in the suffering torment of meaninglessness? Life appears to be in vain. For the majority of atheists, the abyss has not yet been contemplated. Instead, many atheists (the masses) simply disregard the abyss. They ignore the fact that they have nothing to live for. These atheists simply go through life pretending that everything is fine. They lie to themselves, trying to convince themselves that their life has meaning. That is worse than accepting one’s fate and still struggling onwards in spite of the futility.

The clever atheist could counter by asking if the Christian is lying as well, simply masking the nothingness that surrounds the whole religious experience. This argument is simply deferred back to the earlier discussion pertaining to the metaphysics of our reality. Both the atheist and the religious practitioner are equally suited to argue their case. The difference is that the atheist chooses nothingness or a self-imposed purpose in life, whereas the religious practitioner chooses an external, pre-ordained purpose. Both the religious and the atheistic worldview are valid choices, based on the evidence presented to support either argument, but only the latter choice leaves the believer with a purpose of hope.

This decision is ultimately one of hope… Is the atheist able to instill a sense of hope into a child, or would an atheist be ill equipped to prevent a child from needless suffering in the world? Horrible, horrible actions could happen to a child regardless of whether that child’s parents were atheists or Christians, so the responsibility for bringing a child into a world where evil exists is equally burdensome to either one. However, the moral and ethical responsibility that the atheist fails is in providing hope to one’s child. The atheist is poorly equipped to protect a child from the eventual view of the abyss that the atheist is confronted with on a daily basis. It is one thing for the atheist to accept the burden of pushing the stone up the hill, like Sisyphus. It is yet another for the atheist to introduce this meaningless existence to his or her child. That goes against the moral and ethical responsibility to alleviate suffering in the world, which is especially applicable to one’s children. Therefore, unless a parent is able to perceive meaning in life, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to bring a child into an existence that lacks meaning. Lack of meaning is, as we saw with Sisyphus, the worst kind of punishment that one could inflict on another.

Todd Dow

What is our purpose in life?

Richard Taylor, in his book Good and Evil, A New Direction, addresses the question of meaning in life. To address meaningless existence, Taylor recalls the ancient myth of Sisyphus [Richard Taylor, Good and Evil, A New Direction, London, England: Collier-Macmillan Ltd, 1970, pg 256-268.]. Sisyphus, after angering the Gods, is condemned to roll a stone to the top of a hill, where it immediately falls rolls back down. Sisyphus then proceeds to roll the stone back up the hill, where it again falls back down. Sisyphus is doomed to repeat this meaningless sequence forever! Taylor uses this story to outline the meaninglessness with which humans pursue life. Looking at this from the outside, Sisyphus is stuck in an endless, miserable loop. His task appears to be meaningless. Consider the engineer who is responsible for building great structures. Are this person’s feats of construction not victims of the same meaninglessness, given sufficient time? Will today’s superstructures degrade to the point of nothingness in 2000 or 4000 years? It can’t be denied that today’s feats of engineering will eventually disappear. How is this any different than Sisyphus and his unenviable task?

Next, Taylor provides a second, slightly different scenario. What if Sisyphus contained within himself an urge to roll stones? What if, by some strange quirk within his mind, Sisyphus felt that his goal in life was stone rolling? In that case, Sisyphus would suddenly have meaning in life. Sisyphus would have internal meaning, as a result of what many would argue would be a misguided desire to roll stones. Regardless of the motivation, if Sisyphus contained within himself the desire to roll stones, then he would be achieving his purpose in life.

Thus, we can see two ways of looking at one’s purpose. To an outsider, the monotonous job of rolling the stone up the hill for eternity is seen as a meaningless task. From an insider’s perspective, life could obtain meaning and purpose. Erik Wielenberg summarizes Taylor’s argument as “creating your own meaning” [Erik J. Wielenberg, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe, New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pg 18.]. Wielenberg offers a couple of additional answers to meaning in life without God, including “Peter Singer’s Way Out: Meaning Through Eliminating Pain”[Wielenberg, pg 23] and “Aristotle’s Way Out: Intrinsically Good Activity”[Wielenberg, pg 31]. Wielenberg’s arguments, while compelling, do not offer the same comfort that meaning from God provides. Wielenberg’s arguments, as listed above, are all internal definitions of meaning.

Different people can interpret elimination of pain and intrinsically good activity differently. I argue that the elimination of pain and intrinsically good activity arguments are similar to Taylor’s “creating your own meaning”. The elimination of pain argument suggests that one could fashion an existence based on eliminating pain and suffering from the lives of others. The intrinsically good activity argument holds that some activities are intrinsically good and should be followed no matter what. Attempting to live according to either of these arguments appears, at first glance to be worthwhile ventures. I don’t mean to detract from them, but like Taylor’s “creating your own meaning” argument, these two arguments are both very subjective in nature. With many ethical discussions, there are circumstances when the eliminating pain argument becomes difficult to support. For example, consider a sick person suffering from a horrible illness. The patient requests your assistance in committing suicide. Do you comply? This case has two equally compelling conclusions, both of which could be argued to be morally or ethically correct, depending on one’s perspective. Similarly, the intrinsically good activity argument is quickly deconstructed when two people debate the ranking of intrinsically good activities. What constitutes an Intrinsically good activity, and which activities are better than others, is debatable. We can see that both of these examples, the elimination of pain argument and the intrinsically good activity argument, fall under the same “creating your own meaning” argument that Taylor laid out.

Thus, in Wielenberg’s examples, there is no absolute standard of purpose. With God, we know the absolute meaning or purpose to life. It is well documented. Different religions may have different descriptions of what that purpose is, but within a religious worldview, there is consistency in meaning and a clear purpose of existence. To the atheist, it is this lack of empirical meaning that is difficult to comprehend.

Based on this understanding, the life of the atheist is a blank slate. It is an existence that is based on internal definition. At what point in the atheist’s life does the atheist become aware of this self-direction? It is possible, for the masses, to get through life without reflecting much on one’s purpose. Considering Socrates: “an unexamined life is not worth living”[ Plato, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, trans. F. J. Church, New York, New York: Macmillian, 1948, pg 45.]. I think that Socrates was right, but unfortunately, I also think that the masses tend to avoid examining their own lives.

Next post: What options are available to the atheist?

Todd Dow

We left off with some heady critiques of Christianity. Time to look at some defenses for the Christian position.

C.S. Lewis simplifies this metaphysical debate in his book Miracles. To Lewis, the debate regarding the existence of God is really a debate about borders. The naturalist claims that our reality can be explained within the boundaries of scientific explanation. The naturalist claims that miracles are either scientifically explained events that occur in nature, or else they are tricks of one’s senses. The supernaturalist claims that miracles are events that lie outside of the realm of scientific explanation. The line is easily blurred between the two, as science is not yet advanced enough to explain all of existence. Thus, Lewis argues that we are at an impasse, both sides pushing for the truth of their argument, while the philosopher sees that either view may be true. The jury is simply still out due to insufficient evidence.

The main problem, as I see it, with the atheistic worldview is the inability to explain existence. The following joke outlines this problem quite clearly:

“A scientist believes that he’s found the secret to life.

So, he goes to God and tells him, ‘God, we (humans) don’t need you anymore. I’ve found a way to create life. We’re self sufficient now. It’s time for you to leave.’

God thinks for a second, and then he says, ‘Well, before I go, maybe you should demonstrate how you create life… just in case there’s something wrong with your method… I might be able the help (God, always the humble guy!).

With that, the scientist bends down, picks up a handful of dirt and starts to pat it into a ball, saying ‘I take some dirt, and make it into a ball…’

God interrupts at this point and tells the scientist, ‘No no… get your own dirt.’”
– Author unknown

The point here is that scientific inquiry does have a lot of answers, but I don’t feel that science yet has a satisfactory answer to the origins of existence. And even if science is able to explain the origins of existence, how would we know if it is the correct answer? After all, aren’t these scientific explanations just theories? As with all theories, there are unlimited possibilities, but until we actually experience the truth, none of them has been proven. Think, for example of the early scientific arguments in support of a flat earth. It wasn’t until a more complete theory came along that this worldview was revised. Similarly, maybe we currently subscribe to a worldview that will be revised when a more complete explanation of reality arrives. With any theory of existence, it seems that there is a certain leap of faith required, even if the theory is scientific in nature.

Regardless, the goal here is not to answer whether God exists or not, but instead, it is to discuss the implications of a worldview that does not include God. To Russell, our reality is not very nice. The bad oranges prevail. Justice is missing from the world. There is no reason to be optimistic regarding justice in the world. Without God, we’re left to our own devices. Russell is referring to loneliness and desolation. Nietzsche explains desolation quite well with his outline of nihilism. To Nietzsche, nihilism means, “That the highest values devaluate themselves” The aim is lacking; ‘why?’ finds no answer.” [Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will To Power, New York, New York: Vintage Books, 1967, pg 9.] Nihilism argues that existence is meaningless. To the nihilist, there is no universal truth and there is no meaning to life. Similarly, atheists also struggle with a lack of meaning and a loss of universal truth. While many atheists will deny that they lack meaning in their lives, I suspect that they would be hard pressed to offer a reason for existence that is derived outside of themselves.

Next post: Sisyphus and the meaning of life.

Todd Dow