Ezra Klein: The Wages of Atheism

« Phased Recessions | Main | Spiderman 3 »

May 05, 2007

The Wages of Atheism

I've never said this before, and never will again, but I'm with Karl Rove. I deeply envy individuals of faith, and would happily bargain away whatever satisfaction I supposedly derive from my bold freethinking for a sense of serenity, a perceived connection to a more permanent and grounding plane, and a steadying faith in the continuation of my consciousness. I know many atheists and even agnostics who seem to extract great pleasure from their worldview and its implications, but I'm manifestly not one of them.

May 5, 2007 in Religion | Permalink

Comments

I really just don't get religion. I used to feel a lot like you do, but then I realized that there's really no point in being afraid of dying and just stopping - not a lot I can do about it. I'm not afraid I'm going to go to Hell. What I am glad about is that I derive my sense of ethics from the world I see around me, and a sense of duty to help the people around me to be happier and healthier. I'm not tempted to ignore suffering because God works in mysterious ways or is testing someone. It's reassuring to know that my standards of goodness are at least evidence-based, even if I end up making the wrong determinations about what is good from time to time.

Posted by: Sara | May 5, 2007 2:43:56 AM

I feel much the same way, Ezra. That is, I feel the draw of faith, and I think it's irrational that I (it seems) am wired to prefer my brand of rationality to the rationality I see in faith. If that makes sense. I don't think it's a good trade, but it's who I am.

Sara, your ethics, and a lot associated with them, owe more to faith than you probably suspect. I can't speak for others, but it's not primarily fear of dying that gives religious faith its appeal to me. It's love of living, and of those we live with, the things we value, and the highest things we feel.

Bladerunner just ended on TV, not a bad frame for this, in its way.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 5, 2007 5:10:37 AM

Are you sure you're not just envying a genetic predisposition towards low anxiety levels or a predisposition towards social conformity rather than faith itself? Or possibly just low intelligence?

Posted by: Ronald Brak | May 5, 2007 6:00:04 AM

Or possibly just low intelligence?

I wish atheists were smarter than this.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 5, 2007 6:42:07 AM

Y'know, a non-trivial number of believers don't get anything like simple serenity from their faith. Experiences that people find make most sense interpreted as encounters with the numinous are often scary, weird, and troubling. Jonah tried to run as far from an assigned mission as he could, and went through a lot of misery, and didn't have fun when he finally did surrender and fulfill his calling. Jesus shouted in agony at his crucifixion and died without any obvious answers coming in, and his disciples ended up martyred. Philip Dick was unusually articulate about his years of struggle to make sense of his experiences in early 1974, but in the years I was active in one church or another, I ran into quite a few members who were going through something very similar with a less elaborate verbal apparatus.

For that matter, thoroughly flaunted religiosity of the evangelical or fundamentalist style seems not to bring much comfort to many of the most prominent flaunters, from Aimee Semple Macpherson to Ted Haggard.

Posted by: Bruce Baugh | May 5, 2007 7:06:18 AM

most of the popular religions on offer today are wish-fulfillment fantasies.

So, *of course* it would be nice if the world had the wish-fulfilling entities that they offer.

Cuddly Jesus and All-Knowing Daddy and even Donna Reed Mommy if you swing Roman. Sure, cool, don't we all wish there were super-heroes coming to our emotional rescue.

Thing is--that doesn't show much about the nature of religious vs. non-religious outlooks. Because religions have generally not been as benign, over the course of the millennia, as Cuddly Jesus Worship has been in the last few decades.

I mean--if Ezra were surrounded by Baal worshipers, I think he'd be less likely to envy individuals of faith. Serenity, joy, and a peaceful easy feeling were not on the menu. Dead babies were.

It's just that the current state of religion in the US offers us deities that are vast improvements over most of the deities available to earlier generations. They have been softened, humanized, secularized, and market-tested. They say reassuring things, like giant talking hug-me dolls. Jesus loves you.

Want to know if faith is really preferable to rationality? Try on a few of the more demanding faiths first.

Hell, even the faith of our colonial nut-job forefathers was no picnic. Start playing the sermons of Jonathan Edwards and you'd empty out a mega-church faster than a fire-drill.

Posted by: lister | May 5, 2007 7:07:48 AM

Ezra, have you ever listened to Julia Sweeney's [sp?] "Letting go of God"? Or read "The God Delusion"? Just curious.

Most religious people I know don't seem to have any more peace than I do.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 | May 5, 2007 7:51:44 AM

It's hard to accept the truth. It's kind of troubling to see someone who, having glimpsed the real world, would prefer it if he could pull the wool back over his own eyes, but people are fundamentally weak and I suppose that's to be expected.

Me, I wouldn't trade an uncomfortable truth for a convenient lie. I've never seen religion buy anyone peace. I've never seen it spur anyone on to help others. Most often, I see people using it as an excuse to feel superior to other people.

Posted by: soullite | May 5, 2007 8:20:44 AM

Rove's and Ezra's comments seem to me to oppose each other. Rove's is a sort of fetish for all things religious while Ezra's is a recognition that an Atheist cannot simply offload responsibility in a prayer nor fear in a faith.

Always remember Rove only says/does things that support his agenda.

Posted by: Fr33d0m | May 5, 2007 8:58:34 AM

As a believer, I envy much about being an atheist. I try to be a good person, and I do succeed to a large extent. In fact, on many dimensions of character, I am as good or better than most people. If I were an atheist, that would be enough to get by, and I wouldn't worry so much about the aspects of my character that are flawed. Moreover, there wouldn't be the constant call to do more for the less fortunate and stand up for justice. Certainly there would be pressure, but as before, I could reach some level and call it "good enough". But the moral standard for a Christian isn't "most people", it's Jesus, so there never is a good enough.

Posted by: Greg | May 5, 2007 9:04:36 AM

a little less ignorance from both sides, shall we?

about theism: "I've never seen it spur anyone on to help others."

wrong. Beliefs get people to do all sorts of things. Sometimes, people's religious beliefs get them to help others. As a matter of sociology, this is about as undeniable as "sometimes advertising influences people's shopping behavior". There are a ton of religious people--Mormons, Jesuits, Salvation Army, Quaker, on and on--whose religious beliefs spur them on to help others. If you haven't met any personally, try reading a book.

about atheism: "If I were an atheist...there wouldn't be the constant call to do more for the less fortunate and stand up for justice."

wrong. Lots of atheists stand up for justice, and lots of atheists have ethical codes that are maximally stringent. If you make ending poverty and suffering your life's work, then you're going to be working for your whole life. Jesus may set one sort of unattainable ideal, but there are lots of other unattainable ideals you can set for yourself.

And as to calling it "good enough"--how complacent or how tormented you feel by your failure to live up to your ideals is a completely different question from where your ideals come from.

You can set out to conquer world poverty, help a few people here and there, and then react either way--complacent satisfaction or agonized awareness of the millions unhelped.

You can set Jesus as your ideal and feel anguish at your manifold imperfections. Or you can be a complacent fuck driving your SUV with a bumper sticker saying "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."

So, look: there's probably no way to carry on this post without a lot of cheap sociology going on. But maybe just avoid the obviously stupid claims?

Posted by: ayee | May 5, 2007 9:27:42 AM

I don't envy "people of faith" because I've yet to meet one who wasn't, under the surface, faithless and looking for someone or something to fill the void.

And, by the way, this is a wholly christian centered view of what "faith" would look like. Hinduism doesn't presuppose that faith in gods means faith that good things will happen, or that its all meant for the best, or any of the other crap christianity and, toa certain extent, islam and judaism peddle. And as far as I know neither did the roman or greek pantheons. As I posted elsewhere it was more like "pay for play" with many religious systems.

Having "faith" is a meaningless construct unless you detail what the "beliver" believes in. A manichean world view, for example, which many christians *actually* posesses though they try to cover it up, really doesn't offer much comfort.

And, of course, I agree with ayee that the claims being advanced for atheists and their moral stances are simply bogus--part of the manicheanism I was alluding to myself. It is not the case that because "believers" believe X that "atheists don't believe x" or that because believers think they do y then atheists, in order to be atheists, must do "Not y." On the contrary. I'd be much more comfortable asserting that most christian believers utterly fail to live up to the moral contract that their belief in a christian god demands but that has nothing to do with whether atheists do or don't have a moral compass. What I believe, and how I act as an atheist, has literally nothing to do with what my christian sister in law is mumbling in church tomorrow. But I'll put my good works up against hers any day.

aimai

Posted by: aimai | May 5, 2007 9:35:13 AM

At the GOP debate, I think it was Huckabee that said something like "atheists don't believe anything". Talk about prejudicial phrasing!

Posted by: Mark | May 5, 2007 10:09:23 AM

right, whereas theists *will* believe anything.

Posted by: buh duh | May 5, 2007 10:16:17 AM

I won't attempt to understand, on a fundamental level, what it is that truly religious people get from their faith. I know what they say. I know what they do. And from those observations I would suggest that a drug habit involving something fairly non-addicitive would probably fill the same bill.

If you want things that do not exist, you can wish for them. Some call it prayer.

If you want peace knowing you're always right and guided by a force greater than you...that one is tougher but as I suggested above, perhaps some drugs would give you the same feeling.

And while this sounds like 180 proof snark, it's not. It's just a statement recognizing that ponies don't magically appear even though we wish they would. And those same ponies don't free you from the responsibility of making decisions that affect your life and the lives of others. In a sense, religion is the desire to be someone's puppy. You want to be cute. You want to be ruled over by someone who will always love you, always tell you what to do and when you shit on the floor, they'll swat you lightly with a newspaper and all will be forgiven. Problem is, life here on Earth doesn't work that way. I didn't arrange it but that's the way it is.

Posted by: ice weasel | May 5, 2007 10:20:40 AM

As an atheist I derive great satisfaction from the fact that American fundamentalists still admire GWB whose actions directly caused deaths of so many people and created misery for so many others. If he can be accepted so readily as a person of faith, the whole concept of God and religion is clearly a sham.

You do not become a good person just by closing your eys to fake sincerity as all major religions of the world tell you to do.

Posted by: gregor | May 5, 2007 10:36:09 AM

I wonder if "envy" is the right word. Children, believing in Santa Claus as they do, experience Christmas in a way that is forever closed to me. But is it right to say that I envy them? I certainly don't wish I believed in Santa Claus. I wouldn't choose to believe in Santa Claus if given the choice. What I want is a way to express the idea that children genuinely find Christmas more exciting than I do, yet for all that, I don't desire to be like them in this regard. Is "envy" the right word?

Posted by: Nate W. | May 5, 2007 10:38:49 AM

yeah, good point Nate W.

the children's feeling looks desirable.
the children's state of ignorance is not desirable.

could you have the feeling without the ignorance? only if there really were a santa clause, and you knew it.

that would be an enviable state, full stop:
if the world were such that those feelings were a natural response to our clear-eyed knowledge of the world.

so, if there's a possible world in which there is a santa, and in which the children know that there is a santa, and in which the children feel about that real, non-delusory santa the way that actual children feel about the santa-delusion here,
then i envy those children.

getting suckered by montgomery wards marketing myths? not so enviable.

Posted by: iphonely | May 5, 2007 10:48:18 AM

Most who posted in this thread seem to be athiests. Most who post on this board are pretty far to the left. Would it be fair to make a correlation between the far left and atheism?

Since most of you athiests seem to think that religion simply fills a human flaw, are athiests really immune, or have they substituted something else to fill that flaw?

I seems to me that those on the far left use certain causes and treat them as their religion. Global warming would be a good example.

Here is an interesting article on this very subject.

http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 5, 2007 10:55:26 AM

The more stringent of the comments here seem to take a more narrow view of the benefits one derives from religion than does Ezra's post. His phrase "a perceived connection to a more permanent and grounding plane" strikes me as less connected to eternal life and / or salvation through prayer or whatever than it is with the notion that there is something underlying and unifying our being. For all my dislike of organized religion, that's an idea that doesn't bother me in the least.

That said, as a non-religious person who does believe in God -- though, and this will sound paradoxical as all truly honest religious thought is, I'm not sure that man didn't invent God, but I don't think that invalidates his existence -- I certainly don't get any sort of great comfort from that mere belief in existence. And I do tend to take a humanist approach to most things, and those things for which humanism holds no answers I'm willing to consider open questions rather than settled by the text of an old book written by fallible mortals.

Actually, it's the dialetheias (a type of paradox) of it all that I think are so interesting and, in their way, add strength to religion rather than detract from it. (Examining paradoxical notions was also my favorite thing about being a philosophy major, so I suppose I'm predisposed to accepting their possible truth than most.) And the fact that it doesn't fit into the overly-neat version of logic that underlay western thought from Aristotle until Nietzsche blew it up (oh irony!) has never struck me as a reason to reject it. I usually do, but not for that reason.

But the thing I've always found attractive about religion isn't God per se; it's the community. Even though I don't get anything out of going to church, I know my mom does, so I go with her when I'm staying with my parents. I know it adds to the experience-of-community she has there, and all it takes is an hour of my time. That's a feeling I wish I could get out of it; I just don't. That's the only thing I envy.

Posted by: jhupp | May 5, 2007 11:07:56 AM

fred, it's a good mark of how deluded you are, that you think that most of Ezra's readers are "pretty far to the left".

I'm just an ordinary, middle-aged, buttoned down, married guy with two kids. I support Social Security and greater income equality and universal health-care, I think the Iraq War was a disaster and I disapprove of Bush's performance.

In other words, I'm right in the middle of the American public.

It's losers like you, Bushist dead-enders pimping for the Permanent Republican Majority, who are way, way out of the mainstream.

The fact that I don't believe in any gods probably makes me part a minority in the US. The fact that I *admit* to not believing in any gods *certainly* makes me a minority. (Much of the alleged religiosity in this country is just go-along-get-along conformism, not that there's anything wrong with that.)

If you claim to believe in gods, fred, then you agree with the majority of Americans on that one issue.

If you are still pushing your Bush-loving sycophancy, your Republicanism über alles partisanship, your Religious Right authoritarianism, and your global-warming denialism, then you are way, way, out of the mainstream.

In other words, a far right nutjob. But then we knew that about you.

Posted by: centrist atheist | May 5, 2007 11:08:57 AM

So, look: there's probably no way to carry on this post without a lot of cheap sociology going on. But maybe just avoid the obviously stupid claims?

What ayee said, the whole thing.

Threads about atheism and belief always devolve into a contest of atheism versus belief, but it does not need to be so.

I'm going to give Ezra, and Sanpete and others the benefit of the doubt and believe that they have met people with religious beliefs who are not deceived by "montgomery wards marketing myths," who do not think of prayer as wishing for ponies, who do not use their religious faith as a bludgeon or as a crutch to replace critical thinking.

That there are highly ethical, compassionate atheists is so obvious it should not need to be mentioned. But atheism should not be confused with inherent enlightenment. It may be for you, but there are many for whom it is merely a way to reject what they see as the negative impact of their parents or George Bush or some other thing, an ultimately ineffective way to deal with their psychological hurts.

The religious belief described in this comment thread would be unrecognizable even in many Southern Baptist churches. It's a caricature, developed most recently and fully by Dawkins and Harris, that serves to bolster their outrageous claims and unscientific conclusions, nothing more. Religious faith in America, especially Christianity, is in straits dire enough without having to resort to the intellectually deficient claims of Dawkins and Harris to find a case against it.

Posted by: Stephen | May 5, 2007 11:11:35 AM

"I deeply envy individuals of faith, and would happily bargain away whatever satisfaction I supposedly derive from my bold freethinking for a sense of serenity, a perceived connection to a more permanent and grounding plane, and a steadying faith in the continuation of my consciousness."

This makes no sense to me. It seems as if you are either being disingenuous or are not actually an atheist. How could you envy someone for their illusions? If you truly don't believe, you are saying you would rather be mistaken about something that will guide the course of your life.

Your statement is like saying that you would rather be married to someone who cheats on you and doesn't actually love you than remaining single.

Posted by: Josh Nelson | May 5, 2007 11:23:10 AM

Well, except for the centrist, married guy with two kids part, centrist atheist took everything I was going to say to Fred. The reason so many people think theists are stupid is because the most vocal and politically involved among them tend to be people who are simply uninterested in actually, you know, thinking about their religion. Instead, it's just a good opportunity for them to push anti-liberalism. Jebus, why would anyone want to be part of a religion like that?

Posted by: jhupp | May 5, 2007 11:25:38 AM

I suppose I envy the religious in their brighter moments. I like gospel music. But I'm pretty certain that were *I* religious it wouldn't bring me much comfort. Instead of living with the anxiety that death is the end, I'd live with the anxiety that death is *not* the end and I might be going to hell. I'd be anxious about whether I'd chosen the right religion, and the right sect of that religion. And so on ...

Posted by: Kevin B. O'Reilly | May 5, 2007 11:27:40 AM

I am (believe it or not) a rather big lefty. I am also very religious. I don't think it's proper at all to repeat the stupid "the right is religious and the left isn't" silliness. For that matter, the vast majority of catholics (that I know, at least) are quite liberal.

I agree with Stephen: sitting around wishing for God to give you ponies is not religion, much less Christianity. But religion, if it is an actual core value to you (that you're not using it as a social crutch or bludgeon), inspires you to do great things, and if you are lucky, it will inspire others. That isn't to say that an atheist can't do that (far from it), but it has more effect when you all have a common purpose and common ground.

I know that morally, I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how I can be "good enough" for God. It is like having a strong-handed parent, but one whom you respect. You want to do well because you know the standards are fair and you want to show that you are a mature, good person.

As for doubt, I think it would be silly to say an atheist can't have moments of doubt but a theist can. Ezra has every right to wish or question his atheism on occasion, just as I have every right to question myself whether or not God exists. I would suggest that when that happens he goes and talk to a Rabbi about it, but that's because of my perspective.

It all comes down to respect: the theist has to be willing to walk out of the clique and say that God loves everyone, not just people who don't believe in him, and the atheist has to admit that we're not all just ranting loonies and talk about invisible fairies in the sky.

That and we should stop capitalizing "him" when talking about God. It's a bit silly.

Posted by: Fnor | May 5, 2007 11:55:01 AM

That there are some people of faith who are very moral and are not in the same league with the followers of falwell et. al is beside the point.

The fact remains that the organized evangelical religion in USA has supported GWB all along more than 100%, and that itself is proof enough that religion as practiced and propagated by these guys is a fraud, clear and simple.

This is the religion that most Republican leaders talk about when they talk about faith.

Posted by: gregor | May 5, 2007 11:57:26 AM

thanks, Fnor.

your post is a good example of a central point:

nice people have nice gods. Jerks tend to worship jerks.

it's like lister said up above about Baal--there aren't too many Baal worshippers around these days (outside of the deep South, that is), but that's because most human beings have become more civilized over the millenia.

Yeah, the religions should get some credit, but humans have done as much to make the gods more humane as the gods have ever done to make humans better. it's kinda like we all grew up together.

Clearly you're a nice person, and a good person, too. The reason that you can tell that your god's standards are fair is because you compared them to your own sense of fair and unfair, which you have independently of anything a burning bush might say.

(cue obligatory Monty Python references to watery tarts).

Posted by: fritz | May 5, 2007 12:18:23 PM

Dunno... I've become more comfortable with my doubts over time, strangely enough, although it's possible that advancing age will eventually change my perspective yet again. I'm probably closer to Rove (and that phrase alone can make me doubt the existence of God, sadly) in that I'm officially an adherent, but relatively short on personal faith. It's simply not a level on which I can operate comfortably. OTOH, I know that my subjective experiences are absolutely no indication of any kind of higher truth, so approaching the faith question from that angle is a bit easier. The bottom line IMHO is that the mystery is the message, and that presuming to know the answers, whether through science or faith, actually diminishes us in some ways. Sometimes my understanding of faith is based entirely on hope-- few who have lost loved ones really are comfortable believing that they've simply been snuffed out-- and sometimes on a certain awe at the complexities of existence, and sometimes I'm just exhausted and can't believe in much at all, but the notion that I actually cannot and should not expect to understand all the whys & wherefores is a bit more comforting. Sometimes the limitations of simply being human are a good thing, I guess.

Posted by: latts | May 5, 2007 12:25:54 PM

Try nature. I'm serious. If you want "a sense of serenity, a perceived connection to a more permanent and grounding plane" I that find looking at the sky, or huge old trees, or a seeminglhy endless meadow provides just that.

Okay, maybe you wont' get "a steadying faith in the continuation of my consciousness" though I actually see myself becoming part of nature when I die.

In a letter written shortly before she died , George Eliot (a noted agnostic/atheist) said : "I am so glad to know that the sunlight will be here when I no longer am."

No doubt this strikes many people as extraordinarily silly, but I find 19th century humanism a very satisfying substitute for religion.

Posted by: Maggie Mahar | May 5, 2007 12:33:55 PM

I struggle to avoid condeming people for what they believe about religion or deities, but when their beliefs enter into the public forum in the form of mandates on the actual behavior of others, or the implementation of plans that shape other's lives and wellbeing, then they have put their beliefs up for critical examination. And they must be prepared then to be under the microscope of reason and the general welfare.

In a lifetime of listening to (and personally thinking about) what people say and do regarding their beliefs and relationship with some religious belief system, I can't quite escape the feeling that they often just can't accept the finality implied by the question "Is that all there is?" about life.

For those, like myself, who believe the answer to the 'all there is" question is 'yes, there is nothing more', then it seems that we must let that shape what we do for ourselves and others before there is nothing more for us - but that others lives will go on influenced by what we have done. That can be, and often is, a true challenge.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 5, 2007 12:40:43 PM

Ahem.

Black Gospel Choir Makes Man Wish He Believed In All That God Bullshit

Posted by: Jason | May 5, 2007 12:43:31 PM

Most of us humans can't bear reality.

We will use Jesus,Celexa,LSD,Bourbon- or a bullet to the head- to escape/make it more tolerable.

Posted by: David | May 5, 2007 1:01:55 PM

heh

In my post above, I discuss the need for religion and how some use social causes for substitutes. I provide an interesting article by a professor of MIT.

Here's an interesting response that apparently wasn't listening to the conversation:

If you are still pushing your Bush-loving sycophancy, your Republicanism über alles partisanship, your Religious Right authoritarianism...(excess unwarranted bullshit rant truncated for your convenience). --resident maroon

heh.....heheheheh

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 5, 2007 1:07:54 PM

If you can come to see (self-ordering) systems and their emergent phenomena as The Maker's algorithm at work
Or even Maker-as-actor....it gets easy.

It's really very nice.
But for the good-willed person...that you certainly are --
It will surely come.

Posted by: has_te | May 5, 2007 1:15:23 PM

Ok, who tracked the fred all over my nice, clean kitchen floor?

I wondered what that smell was.

Posted by: ice weasel | May 5, 2007 1:16:25 PM

We will use Jesus,Celexa,LSD,Bourbon- or a bullet to the head- to escape/make it more tolerable.

Thanks for the dumbest comment in the thread. For people who have depression, antidepressants hardly count as a way to "escape" reality; rather they are the only way that a depressive can actually engage reality.

That some abuse antidepressants hardly means they can't be useful tools for others.

Posted by: Stephen | May 5, 2007 1:40:52 PM

Hope and Fear are both equally the opposite of Peace. Whether you hope for eternity or fear oblivion, you're still attaching to things that you ultimately have no possible way of knowing or influencing until it's too late. The believers and nonbelievers who yell loudest are the ones who have the most anxiety about their ignorance. You get to choose your actions, but you don't get to choose the fruit of your actions. So choose the right action and let the fruit fall where it may.

Posted by: Consumatopia | May 5, 2007 1:41:07 PM

"Ezra, have you ever listened to Julia Sweeney's [sp?] "Letting go of God"? Or read "The God Delusion"? Just curious."

Didn't read the whole thread. Just wanted to say "The God Delusion" is a terrible book. Dawkins simply can't accept supenatural claims about anything, but that's precisely the issue at hand. He's a fundamentalist in the worst sense of the word, never bothering to examine the origin of his foundational beliefs. The most grossly transparent of these beliefs is the idea that religion can be replaced with "truth" and "secular humanism" simulataneously, when in fact the latter two are in precise conflict. Dawkins goes so far as to assert that human morality is rooted in the "darwinian misfirings" of the process of natural selection--perhaps true, indeed I think it is, but incredibly lacking in moral authority.

It's thus patently ridiculous when he uses his own (undefended) moral system as a cudgel to attack religion in the latter half of the book. Just one example that jumped out to me, he claims that teaching Catholocism to children is more harmful than sexual abuse by Catholic priests! Utterly absurd.

Posted by: Korha | May 5, 2007 2:11:01 PM

I deeply envy individuals of faith, and would happily bargain away whatever satisfaction I supposedly derive from my bold freethinking for a sense of serenity, a perceived connection to a more permanent and grounding plane, and a steadying faith in the continuation of my consciousness.

Welcome to the big scary world. If you start feelin' fetal, read some Nietzsche. Else, grow up.

Posted by: ethan | May 5, 2007 2:34:57 PM

Left-wing is not inherently correlated with rejection of religion. There have been, and no doubt still are, Marxist priests and nuns in Latin America. Joseph Needham, the brilliant Marxist historian of science and author of Science and Civilisation in China, was a Christian (and an admirer of Daoism), who believed that the evolutionary perspective of dialectical materialism (or "dialectical organicism", as he preferred to call it) revealed the workings of God. Needham was not being self-contradictory. The atheism of the Soviet Union was a political, not a logical, matter.

My own father, a politically progressive historian and social scientist of some considerable influence, had no use for fundamentalist religion, and deplored the appalling mixture of religion and right-wing politics in the U.S. But he was a firm believer in reincarnation, and lived his long life full of wonder at the marvels of nature, with considerable optimism about the long-term future of humanity, and with no fear of death. He lived life as a great and never-ending adventure.

Posted by: mijnheer | May 5, 2007 2:36:11 PM

In my post above, I discuss the need for religion and how some use social causes for substitutes. I provide an interesting article by a professor of MIT.

Ohhhh, he's a professor at MIT! Well, that makes his claim that second hand smoke isn't harmful authoritative. I wonder how much he got paid by the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise to spout their pro-industry line?

Posted by: Col Bat Guano | May 5, 2007 2:53:26 PM

A lot of the envy of religious belief from athiests I know doesn't come from a desire for continued existence after death so much as a desire for a form of supernatural justice that balances out the rather flawed version of same that exists here on Earth. Let's face it, living in a universe where child killers and murderous dictators die in their beds of old age and go to the same fate as their victims kind of blows. Wouldn't it be nice if things were otherwise?

Posted by: Feathers McGraw | May 5, 2007 2:53:52 PM

> teaching Catholocism to children is more harmful
> than sexual abuse by Catholic priests! Utterly absurd.

The comparison with sexual abuse seems a bit over the top.

However, indoctrinating children with religious teaching seems pretty cruel.

I assume they do this because it yields large numbers of believers. If they waited until adulthood to lay out the case for religion, my guess is that there would be a lot fewer believers.

Posted by: Mark | May 5, 2007 3:42:02 PM

Not really different than indoctrinating children with any other sort of propogating belief system, which is a completely unavoidable outcome even if you assumed benevolent state control.

The point is that Dawkins thinks that modern-day Catholic indoctrination in countries like Britian is a greater evil than child sexual abuse by Priests. Is this rational? No, it's a very strong emotional belief which he holds. Since the whole edifice of "The God Delusion" rests on the supremacy of reason and truth, it's startling to see how much of it is based on obviously arational arguments.

Posted by: Korha | May 5, 2007 4:03:09 PM

Interesting range of comments.

Y'know, a non-trivial number of believers don't get anything like simple serenity from their faith.

Most religious people I know don't seem to have any more peace than I do.

Having "faith" is a meaningless construct unless you detail what the "beliver" believes in.

All very true. Some feel better without faith. Many, it seems, don't find consistent peace either way, but find more with faith than without. Faith does offer additional avenues not fully possible without it.

It's an individual thing, and depends a great deal on what the faith is in. It's faith that works that's enviable, not faith per se.

Because religions have generally not been as benign, over the course of the millennia, as Cuddly Jesus Worship has been in the last few decades.

Neither has any other type of foundational belief system, including cuddly rationalist political schemes. Humanity has always been pretty screwed up. But that's nothing to hold against religion when it works for the better.

Jesus loves you.

Actually not a product of market research.

Want to know if faith is really preferable to rationality? Try on a few of the more demanding faiths first.

Odd remark. Faith isn't necessarily irrational, and it happens that the more demanding faiths often work best.

Me, I wouldn't trade an uncomfortable truth for a convenient lie.

Come on, soullite, you trade "convenient lies" for truth all day long. The truth is much more complex than you seem to want it to be, not so black and white. You'd have lead quite a cloistered life to never see the good religion does.

If I were an atheist, that would be enough to get by, and I wouldn't worry so much about the aspects of my character that are flawed.

This greatly oversimplifies things, but there's something to it in my own experience.

And as to calling it "good enough"--how complacent or how tormented you feel by your failure to live up to your ideals is a completely different question from where your ideals come from.

Actually there is a connection. If, for example, you believe your ideals are a reflection of something far greater than you or human creation, of something of vast or infinite value, then you're more likely to feel them more vividly and compellingly than if you believe they're merely the results of human inventions and evolution, ultimately dependent on your own feelings and choices about them. My experience, at least, is consistent with that.

You can set Jesus as your ideal and feel anguish at your manifold imperfections.

This kind of thing can be the dark side of the previous idea. The burden can be crushing. If you do it right, though, it's supposed to be light, and it can work that way for some.

I don't envy "people of faith" because I've yet to meet one who wasn't, under the surface, faithless and looking for someone or something to fill the void.

What amazing presumption.

The last part underlines the first part: you aren't attempting to understand. You actually are attempting the 180-proof snark instead. No one who tries to understand will remain as in the dark about what religion offers as your comments imply you are.

You mean self-satisfaction? Congratulations.

You do not become a good person just by closing your eys to fake sincerity as all major religions of the world tell you to do.

What ignorance.

Is "envy" the right word?

Why not? You envy the good part of their experience; you may or may not envy or even find acceptable some of the means necessary to have it.

Baloney. It shows some serious problems, I think, but not that it's fraud.

No doubt this strikes many people as extraordinarily silly, but I find 19th century humanism a very satisfying substitute for religion.

19th-Century humanism had some important religious elements; it just wasn't theistic.

We will use Jesus,Celexa,LSD,Bourbon- or a bullet to the head- to escape/make it more tolerable.

Perhaps there are important distinctions to be made among those options?

Hope and Fear are both equally the opposite of Peace.

Hope is consistent with peace in a way that fear isn't.

Julia Sweeney's [sp?] "Letting go of God"

While there were some interesting points in it, it was mostly extremely shallow and snarky.

read some Nietzsche. Else, grow up.

Nietzsche has always struck me as a permanent adolescent. His writing appeals to the adolescent urge to reject authority, the past, the dominant wisdom, etc. His own positive views aren't any more rational than those he criticizes.

Left-wing is not inherently correlated with rejection of religion.

Not inherently, perhaps, but in fact there is a correlation.

indoctrinating children with religious teaching seems pretty cruel.

Why? Children are taught their parents' beliefs because their parents think it's good for them.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 5, 2007 4:06:44 PM

I assume they do this because it yields large numbers of believers. If they waited until adulthood to lay out the case for religion, my guess is that there would be a lot fewer believers.

This makes no sense. Similarly, those who claim to not "indoctrinate" children with anything, or that they weren't "indoctrinated" when they were young are delusional.

Were you disciplined by your parents? Do you believe in right and wrong? Do you think that consuming tubes of processed offal topped with mustard while watching millionaires play a pointless game is fun? Oh my stars and garters, Myrtle, you've been indoctrinated!

Funny how I just raise my kids normally while everyone else indoctrinates them.

My wife and I attend a church. Our children come with us. We even read Bible stories to them. But we're not teaching them to be racists, or sexists, or even Republicans for that matter (quite the opposite).

The thought process that calls all religious education "child abuse" is the same one that spawns such idiocy as calling for the Ten Commandments to be posted in public schools: my way is the best way and must be followed by everyone.

Posted by: Stephen | May 5, 2007 4:16:54 PM

SUCKER!

There's this idea among many religious and even non-religious people that religious people universally have a comfort and certainty that their life has meaning.

And, of course, if one belongs to a religion and lack this certainty, it isn't because religion has failed to deliver on its promise--it's because the believer has somehow failed to receive the wisdom.

It's ridiculous, and it's reinforced by the fact that the ranks of atheists are populated by many who are frustrated that they couldn't get this comfort from the religion they were indoctrinated into as small children because they were the wrong sexual orientation, or too logical thinking to ignore the inherent contradictions in their religion's teachings, or they're women unwilling to accept second-class status in the very thing that's supposed to give their life meaning.

These people think THEY failed religion. They don't get a life with meaning. They lost the prize. But the fact of the matter is that religion failed them.

You don't have to have religion to believe your life has meaning. But if you were raised within a religion that has told you there is only ONE WAY to have a life that has meaning--believing in God in a certain way and arranging your life around it according to a narrow set of rules--well, it's a VERY difficult for many people to get over.

And, of course, let's not forget about all the people who are in a religion, but who don't admit that they don't get comfort or certainty or all kinds of other peace that people are supposed to get from religion. It's rather embarrassing to admit this, though, isn't it? Voicing these doubts is often a large threat to one's friendships and family and entire social network. So it's not a surprise that few religious people go, "Yeah, I don't really get much comfort from god and I'm anxious all the time and I think life is pretty much horrible."

For myself, I don't believe in religion, and my life has meaning. And if I'm being honest, while I would never begrudge anyone the comfort they get through religion, I think it's very very sad that they have to believe in such obviously false and restrictive things to get this comfort. But again, so few people--religious or not--have this comfort that I'd never want to take it from anyone under the guise of "helping them."

But don't be a sucker. Every religion is, first and foremost, a sales game. They sell this sense of peace, and they'd have you believe not only is their way the only way to get it, but every one of their adherents has it. They don't. And you don't need to buy any religion to get a life that has meaning.

Posted by: anonymous | May 5, 2007 4:32:46 PM

Isn't it great to live in a country where unpopular atheists can spew all they want, hold office, vote etc?

I do. I also think those who have a different opinion also get to spew that as well and they, too, get to hold office, vote etc.

There seems to be a sense of unfairness that Christians should band together for political purposes the way any other group with common interests do. Separation of church and state simply means that there will be no state sponsored religion. It doesn't mean that those who particpate in democracy must be atheists. If that were the case, there wouldn't be hardly anyone left to participate.

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 5, 2007 4:44:21 PM

"would happily bargain away whatever satisfaction I supposedly derive from my bold freethinking for a sense of serenity, a perceived connection to a more permanent and grounding plane, and a steadying faith in the continuation of my consciousness."

It wouldn't take much rewiring of your brain to achieve this - just snip a few neurons and implant a randomly-activated current generator in the right spot. Still interested?

Posted by: rilkefan | May 5, 2007 4:45:19 PM

whoo, tough call here.

The "Fred Jones" at 1:44p is considerably stupider and less literate than the "Fred Jones" at 7:55a.

For instance, "I do." has no discernible antecedent in the previous sentence. (Unless FJ is admitting that he spews all he wants. And holds office? Oh god....). And then the "wouldn't be hardly anyone"--a classic.

But is the difference big enough to show that a new paid troll went on shift?

Or is it just the normal variance in stupidity that any stupid troll demonstrates?

(I'm leaving the "Fred Jones" of 10:07 out of consideration. That was clearly Glenn Reynolds.)

Posted by: wondering | May 5, 2007 4:52:34 PM

Nietzsche has always struck me as a permanent adolescent. His writing appeals to the adolescent urge to reject authority, the past, the dominant wisdom, etc.

I hear this a lot, and I think it is based on an inaccurate caricature of Nietzsche. Nietzsche perhaps wanted to progress beyond tradition in some ways, but in this regard he isn't any different than Christ, or Thomas Jefferson, etc.

Nietzsche had a lot of respect for traditional belief and value systems (especially the Greeks'), and whether or not one agrees with his description and assessment of them, he examined them carefully and on their own terms. He had a critique to make, to be sure, but there's absolutely nothing "adolescent" about that.

It's important to remember that when Nietzsche talked about the death of God and the end of Christianity as a driving moral force, he wasn't advocating this, he was pointing to something that he thought had already happened - i.e., that people had stopped really being Christians in the way they used to.

Nietzsche was NOT a nihilist - in fact, he was primarily concerned with how to avoid nihilism in the aftermath of Christianity.

Posted by: Jason | May 5, 2007 5:15:47 PM

I really don't understand the rush by some to defend religion *against atheism* on the grounds of comfort or the utility of belief. I quite see the point of the revealed religions and in particular the jesus saves school requiring not only more and more converts but also the determined massacre or exclusion of non-belieers but I don't see why *atheists* are more of a problem than non-believers or other sectarians.

As the old atheist joke goes "I just believe in *one fewer* god than you do." I don't see why atheism, or agnosticism, or indifference to someone (sanpete et al's) personal faith is a problem for these guys unless something about the very existence, the happy existence, of atheists is a challenge to their totalizing world view. That is to say that I do think it is a challenge to specifically that milquetoast view that Ezra is espousing--that religion makes people more comfortable, offers answers to tough questions, explains away life's dissapointments or promises salvation to those who wait long enough and are "faithful."

I was approached many years ago by a young moonie who sympathetically tried to draw me out, in her broken english, with tales of how dire my life must be and how deeply comforting her religion would be to me if I accepted it. I stumped her at the time by saying "what if I"m not miserable, do I need to convert then?" She actually said "No" and then her minder removed her from my dangerous sphere of influence.

The "you'll be happy if you believe" version of religion is only one version, of course. There's also the not exactly identical "you'll be miserable if you don't believe" or the ever popular "you are going to hell if you don't believe." But the first iscertainly one of the most popular selling points. But if that's all you've got, its not much of a sales job.

aimai

Posted by: aimai | May 5, 2007 5:33:32 PM

Jason is correct. C'est tout.

Posted by: jhupp | May 5, 2007 5:47:44 PM

Oh, I suspect that faith isn't all that much of a comfort in itself. Your earlier blogging about the material benefits of religion hits closer to home on this.

Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | May 5, 2007 6:02:08 PM

But don't be a sucker. Every religion is, first and foremost, a sales game. ... And you don't need to buy any religion to get a life that has meaning.

Religion is far more than you allow, and seldom primarily what you say it is. I don't think anyone has said you can't have meaning without religion. But religion does offer different kinds of meaning, which is important for many.

Jason, it isn't only Nietzsche's criticizing of tradition and so on, it's his adolescent manner in doing it. He appeals to the nihilistic urge, even while trying to get beyond it, which he really doesn't do in any satisfactory way. His critiques are filled with sarcasm and lashing out of the bitter kind characteristic of adolescence, not the kind of more playful punches you might see in Plato, which have the better humor one hopes comes with maturity and wisdom.

Aimai, I can't follow your post. Who are you responding to? I don't recall anyone saying the things you seem to be responding to. You seem to attribute a personal faith to me, but I can't tell what you have in mind. Whatever you're trying to say, your characterization of religion and Ezra's views is perverse. Maybe you could explain in what way Ezra's comments represent anything milquetoast. But try to be accurate, not to rely on some parody of what he said or of religious faith, if you can.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 5, 2007 6:04:52 PM

> Not really different than indoctrinating children
> with any other sort of propogating belief system,
> which is a completely unavoidable outcome even if
> you assumed benevolent state control.

Very different. You want to teach children religious fantasy and tell them that it is true.

I suppose children are smart enough that eventually they compartmentalize the stuff that is "faith based" and the stuff that is "science based" but why make them go through that? What is the goal if not getting them to believe while they are young - before they have the knowledge and reasoning ability to make an informed decision?

Posted by: Mark | May 5, 2007 7:35:16 PM

Hope is consistent with peace in a way that fear isn't.

I would put it differently--hope and fear are both inconsistent with peace, but in completely different ways. Not only in the obvious way that hope can easily lead to fear in the same way that one feels sad upon awakening from a happy dream.

By attaching your beliefs to a distant future, you detach yourself from the present. Sometimes, on the outside, that looks like peace, in that you disregard immediate pleasures and pains. But it's still chasing after a goal. It's wishing the present life away instead of appreciating it for what it is--God presumably created the present life for a reason.

It's not so much that I don't think there are enviable features of Hope, but I think the enviable features of Peace and Love are greater, and those have the advantages of existing with or without any particular religious belief. If hope dispels your fear, good for you, but there's a better option out there. Or rather, a better option within you.

Posted by: Consumatopia | May 5, 2007 7:49:26 PM

"But religion does offer different kinds of meaning"

I can't see how, given the Euthyphro dilemma.

Posted by: rilkefan | May 5, 2007 8:35:55 PM

Yeah, I'm with you Ezra--I dig being an atheist much of the time, but I couldn't believe in religion even if I wanted to, and it can be pretty scary to think about eventually rotting in the ground with no consciousness whatsoever. Ah well.

Posted by: Mikhaela Reid | May 5, 2007 9:25:24 PM

Mark, of course part of the goal of teaching religion to children is to get them to believe it, for most people at least. There's nothing wrong with that unless there's something wrong with religious belief. And, as Stephen pointed out, religion is hardly unique in this. Children are taught morality and cultural attitudes as well, along with the more science-based stuff you seem to allow is OK to learn when young.

Consumatopia, hope doesn't entail not living in the present in any pernicious sense, no more than getting a mortgage, marrying, getting an education, and so on. It need not involve wishing anything away. Whether it involves not appreciating life for what it is depends in part on whether what's hoped for is a real possibility, among other things. I don't see how it conflicts with peace or love, so there's no need to choose between them. As I said earlier, the point of hope (or faith) need not be about avoiding fear. It can just as well be about love and living according to life's best and highest possibilities.

Rilkefan, you stumped me with the reference to Euthyphro. What's the connection you see that would interfere with religion offering meaning? Religion is compatible with either horn of the dilemma, if that matters.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 5, 2007 9:51:41 PM

Haha!

The poor atheist will always try to make himself feel better by belittling the theist out of the fear that he has missed something that more than 90% of the population understand.

Poor atheist!

Posted by: Fred Jones | May 5, 2007 10:41:04 PM

poor troll

Posted by: ice weasel | May 5, 2007 11:19:48 PM

I don't know whether I want to believe that my consciousness will continue after death. While it's unpleasant to contemplate the end of my existence, there's a way of looking at it that presses me further into the immediate sources of happiness available to me. It's sort of like how knowing that your drink is near empty can make you savor every precious drop a little more.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 5, 2007 11:38:53 PM

Or you could collapse into nihilism and depression. On a societal scale, I think belief in life after death is a very useful fiction.

"Very different. You want to teach children religious fantasy and tell them that it is true."

Fantasy? Who are you to say what is or not fantasy? Who are you to tell others what to believe? I'm not being pedantic, these are the relevant questions to consider when you're talking about assigning religious instruction a special, "this is evil and ought to be outlawed" sort of category. Parents teach their children all sorts of things, fantasies and truths alike, indoctrination all. It's indoctrination by necessity--you wait until they're too old, and it'll be too late.

So what are the grounds for you to consider religious instruction beyond the pale? There may be some--perhaps that religous belief has motivated people to start wars, etc.. But the supposed truth of religion is the weakest grounds of them all. Surely you're not suggesting that children be taught the truth? Horrifying. The truth is that free will doesn't exist, there's nothing when we die, most people are selfish stupid assholes out to get you, the world is a dangerous and terrible place, there is no god, and we're all descended from monkeys. These things are not exactly conducive to the inculcation of socially acceptable morality and behavior.

Religious instruction doesn't strike as fundamentally different from any other propagating belief system, i.e. instructing children in political idealogy, which is just as if not more objectionable. It's not really a question of whether religion is dangerous and harmful, either. My next door neighbor is a hard-right (atheist) conservative, and is certainly intent on passing those beliefs down to her children. Now I think hard-right conservatism is dangerous and harmful to the country. But it's not wrong or cruel for conservative parents to raise conservative families. Indeed, it's perfectly natural.

Posted by: Korha | May 6, 2007 12:04:15 AM

"Rilkefan, you stumped me with the reference to Euthyphro. What's the connection you see that would interfere with religion offering meaning?"

Euthyphro shows that god or gods are irrelevant to morality, and meaning works the same way. I.e., if we knew there were superpowerful space aliens (which is what gods are after Euthyphro) out there it wouldn't add meaning to the universe. It would just mean (if the entities happen to interact with us) that you may catch a lightning bolt or have your mental pattern subjected to eternal torment if you don't behave according to their whims.

Posted by: rilkefan | May 6, 2007 12:50:11 AM

"In my post above, I discuss the need for religion and how some use social causes for substitutes. I provide an interesting article by a professor of MIT."

Firstly, the article wasn't by a professor at MIT.

Secondly, the writer of the article couldn't even get Lindzen's specialty right (Lindzen's a climatologist, not a meteorologist). Thirdly, when Lindzen was calling belief in AGW a religion, he wasn't intending it as a compliment.

Lastly, in fact Lindzen has admitted the existence of AGW. Why he's calling it a religion now I don't know, except it indicates how marginal he's become, since he lost the argument in the technical journals on the existence of an "infra-red iris" which would come to our rescue.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | May 6, 2007 12:57:48 AM

Speaking of Nietzsche, it's worth noting that he had choice words for devotees of 'scientism', positivism, materialism as well:

"It is no different with the faith with which so many materialistic natural scientists rest content nowadays, the faith in a world that is supposed to have its equivalent and its measure in human thought and human valuations - a 'world of truth' that can be mastered completely and forever with the aid of our square little reasons. .... That the only justifiable interpretation of the world should be one in which you are justified because one can continue to work and do research scientifically in your sense (you really mean, mechanistically?) -- an interpretation that permits counting, calculating, weighing, seeing, and touching, and nothing more -- that is a crudity and naivete, assuming that it is not a mental illness, an idiocy.

"Would it not rather be probable that, conversely, precisely the most superficial and external aspect of existence - what is most apparent, its skin and sensualization - would be grasped first - and might even be the only thing that allowed itself to be grasped? A 'scientific' interpretation of the world, as you understand it, might therefore still be one of the most stupid of all possible interpretations of the world ....

"We cannot look around our own corner .... But I should think that today we are at least far from the ridiculous immodesty that would be involved in decreeing from our corner that perspectives are permitted only from this corner."

Posted by: Jason | May 6, 2007 1:26:05 AM

No "Blue pill" jokes so far? Really?

Posted by: Jacob | May 6, 2007 1:34:14 AM

Rilkefan, the dilemma raises some issues about the relation of Good and value, and thus meaning, but it doesn't imply irrelevance. To take a few examples from the conventional Christian view, God is the guarantor of our eternal life, the possibility of which does indeed have a potentially profound effect on the meaning of life. God is also believed to love us and, at times, support us when no one else can or will, which also affects meaning. God is believed to have created all things and to be immanent in them all, giving them a unifying purpose and meaning different than they would have otherwise. And so on. Even your example of possible eternal torment would have an effect on meaning.

Jason, interesting quote from Nietzsche. Science and materialism, in any narrow sense, were and are very far from being able to explain human experience.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 6, 2007 2:52:25 AM

Screw faith - we all should be judged by our works -- atheist and theist alike.

Posted by: καθολικός | May 6, 2007 5:06:59 AM

Belief in the afterlife does not entail detachment from the present, but hoping for that belief to be true, in the same way that hoping for a particular outcome of your finances, marriage, or education would. That's not to say that you shouldn't believe in the afterlife, get a mortgage, marry, or seek education. Just don't get attached to the outcome, which is ultimately unknowable.

Posted by: Consumatopia | May 6, 2007 9:44:21 AM

"it doesn't imply irrelevance"

Of course it does. Either one does good because it is good, or one obeys a more powerful entitiy's commands like a dog obeys its master.

"Even your example of possible eternal torment would have an effect on meaning."

Well, so you believe in a space alien who may torment you eternally. That's fine, but it doesn't give you meaning - it gives you information if it's true, that's all.

Posted by: rilkefan | May 6, 2007 2:13:45 PM

At the GOP debate, I think it was Huckabee that said something like "atheists don't believe anything". Talk about prejudicial phrasing!

"Oh, say... You don't believe those old legends about the Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, do you?"

"Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything."

Posted by: mds | May 6, 2007 2:48:12 PM

Consumatopia, you seem to be espousing Buddhism, something I'm not an adherent of. I'm not against being attached to things, whether present or possible. I find the theory of Buddhism, while interesting, rather suspect psychologically.

Either one does good because it is good, or one obeys a more powerful entitiy's commands like a dog obeys its master.

Rilkefan. besides ignoring what I actually said, this is a ridiculously false dichotomy. No one who paused for a moment's thought about how life actually works could believe it. People act both out of a sense of what is good as well as, for those who believe in God or law or punishment by law or custom or the wisdom of others or whatever, a whole range of motives relating to external standards and sanctions. The latter need not be anything like a dog. Even if your nutty dichotomy were true, though, it still wouldn't imply irrelevance for God, as the second part of it makes clear.

I can't tell what you might be thinking. You say that knowledge of the possibility of eternal torment would provide information but not meaning. What do you mean by "meaning"? What it's supposed to mean is values and ideas that shape life and give it direction and purpose. I'd say the real possibility of eternal torment would definitely affect that. But you can try to explain why it wouldn't. Along with the other examples I gave.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 6, 2007 2:50:06 PM

Sanpete: "besides ignoring what I actually said"

No, that was just me assuming you knew what Euthyphro implies and illustrating it. All the stuff you point to is just Kurzweil plus the garbage can is magic because a Barney the Space Dinosaur dwells in it.

"Even if your nutty dichotomy"

Afaik it's the standard philosophical view - divine command theory is just dead. If you want to claim that your religious rituals - throwing virgins in volcanoes, putting milk out for the pooka, avoiding black cats, whatever - provide you or person X with meaning, well alright, that's fine - you don't need an actual pooka for that, and it's not worth arguing about. In that sense Santa Claus provides meaning for a lot of people. But if you inform me that there's a guy with a club and a can of ambrosia who'll whack me if I don't do what he likes and reward me if I do what he's said to have said, does that provide me with meaning? Of course not. It tells me that I need to keep the club and can in mind.

Posted by: rilkefan | May 6, 2007 6:23:08 PM

Rilkefan, it's hard to follow what you're saying, most of which is just belittling comments about religion mixed with the odd irrelevant philosophical reference. As I've already pointed out in so many words, whether religion provides meaning has nothing to do with divine command theory or its negation. I can't make sense of what appears to be your attempt to explain why it doesn't matter if people believe in a God who will reward or punish them, let alone a loving God who watches over them, gives them instructions for a good life, and will give them eternal life.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 6, 2007 8:37:05 PM

I actually find a lot of comfort in being an agnostic--the fear of death doesn't bother me as often as it used to, and if it ever pops up I can say to myself, "well, we have no way of knowing if there's an afterlife so maybe there is" and go on with my day. Some more hardcore atheists probably think I'm self-deluding, but since I a) don't actually positively believe in an afterlife and b) don't tailor my life in any way shape or form around what will happen to me after I die, I don't really see a problem.

But that's philosophically. Religiously I guess you could call me a secular humanist, though I also am a big fan of Unitarian Universalism (without the Bible stuff, of course)--I believe our lives don't have meaning until we give them meaning, that we must figure out what path in life will give us meaning--whether it's agitating for reform or devoting ourselves to an artform or traveling or seeking security or doing community service--and then do our best to follow it while also doing our best to be nice people and not hurt anyone. Pretty simple, oddly comforting. To me, at least.

Posted by: Isabel | May 6, 2007 10:37:01 PM

Would it be fair to make a correlation between the far left and atheism?
Well, not the *far* left, I don't think.

But anyone who says that Group X "shouldn't be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" ought not be surprised to find that, subsequently, the vast majority of Group X are politically opposed to him. And any party that nominates that person as a candidate for high office, and refuses to repudiate that statement even when its hatefulness is pointed out to them, ditto.

When you declare hostility to a given group of people, they often decide they don't like you much either. Atheists are not that different from anyone else in that regard.

Posted by: Chris | May 7, 2007 10:35:11 AM

Strange that it hasn't been mentioned, but William James's 1896 essay, "The Will to Believe," offers a different take.

http://falcon.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

James's main point (though I would disencourage you from taking my word as the last word--go read the whole thing) is that humans are psychologically structured to believe in something. True excellence almost always derives from passionate belief. Absent something uplifting and ennobling to believe in, humans will believe in whatever happens to be floating about.

And a minor point: I would say that "belief" isn't what people say, it's what we impute to people in order to explain their actions. Someone who says he believes in, say, Christian compassion, but actively abuses himself and others, obviously does NOT believe. He just says he does.

Posted by: powersjq | May 7, 2007 11:23:33 AM

Sanpete, to make my argument simpler and perhaps clearer for you: Euthyphro shows that gods have no privileged position in moral questions. It seems to me that the relevant meaning of "meaning" calls on the same sorts of issues that morals do. I just reread Gene Wolfe's _The Knight_, where he argues that acting with honor means disregarding reward and punishment - it's not goal-oriented beyond itself: that's the sense I have in mind, and the point of several of my examples above. If it's your view that say rooting for the Red Sox can provide meaning, or say the desire to get a raise, then never mind, but if we're talking about participating in a higher or deeper something-or-other then I think Euthyphro applies, and thus (to repeat my initial claim) I don't think religion provides "different kinds of meaning".

Posted by: rilkefan | May 7, 2007 6:41:08 PM

Rilkefan, Euthyphro's dilemma doesn't show that an omniscient God doesn't have a privileged position in relation to morals. If nothing else, such a being would be in the best possible position to tell us about good and bad, and meaning more broadly. The dilemma also doesn't show that a perfectly good being has no privileged position in relation to morals. Even if such a being isn't the author of good or meaning, he would be very much worthy of our admiration and adoption as an example or paradigm. The dilemma doesn't show that a God who is the author of goodness itself isn't in a privileged position with regard to morals. It only purports to show he isn't good in a sense independent of himself. And there are ways to get around the dilemma that allow God to be both the author of good and good himself, such as the view that goodness is no more than the expression of God's nature, neither independent of God nor invented by him.

The dilemma just isn't relevant to whether religion can provide meaning of various kinds. Even the narrow kind of meaning you seem to have in mind can be greatly helped by the proper religious beliefs (and has been for millennia). And you've given no reason to think the kinds of meaning that differ from what you seem to have in mind aren't just as important, or not "high" or "deep" enough, your reference to Wolfe notwithstanding. If you want to make such an argument, and explain why it doesn't matter to the meaning of life whether we live or not after this life, or ever see our loved ones again, or are punished or rewarded, you need to actually make the argument, not simply assume it. I think there's no good argument of that kind available, but I'm willing to hear you out.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 7, 2007 7:55:52 PM

Korha: "Just one example that jumped out to me, he claims that teaching Catholocism to children is more harmful than sexual abuse by Catholic priests! Utterly absurd."

Heh - well, what is at least clear from this fraud of a comment is that you didn't actually read the book.

Posted by: Soma | May 7, 2007 9:40:57 PM

Richard Dawkins:

Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.

Dawkins:

Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place.

From a review of Dawkins' book:

Perhaps the part of the book that will most outrage many adherents of religion is Dawkins's claim that to bring a child up in a particular belief system is literally a form of child abuse, which can have worse long-term effects than some kinds of sexual abuse.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 7, 2007 11:37:52 PM

"Someone who says he believes in, say, Christian compassion, but actively abuses himself and others, obviously does NOT believe. He just says he does."

I think that you'd have to allow for compartmentalization when discussing who's a "true believer"; otherwise you end up with no true Christians. I've never met or heard of a non-cafeteria Christian, one who didn't pick and choose which parts of the Bible she believed to be true and which parts of Jesus's rather long list of what it takes to be saved she wanted to follow. Have you?

Posted by: Gwen | May 8, 2007 1:30:29 PM

I suggest that any of you that think religion is comforting consider reading Graham Greene. Or maybe Kierkegaard?

Trust me, it's not all that comforting.

Posted by: ozma | May 14, 2007 11:41:08 PM

liqingchao 07年08月30日
google排名
 google排名
 wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
呼叫中心
 呼叫中心
 客户关系管理
 客户关系管理
 北京月嫂
 北京月嫂
 china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour