A few personals thoughts by a simple atheist on all the big questions.
Dave "Nawhead" Shin
I would just like some critical opinions on whether my logic is sound
or else flawed, as a Christian friend of mine keeps telling me. I
refer to God with an emphasis on broadly accepted Islamic and
Christian doctrines. The following are all excerpts from my own
e-mails. Thanks for reading!
On theism, atheism and agnosticism:
Why can you be close-minded but I can't??? Your God is the only God.
Your religion is the only right religion in the world (with maybe the
exception of Judaism and Islam as having the same original God).
Agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism,
saying one cannot know one way or the other. Which is nice, but
I hold the view that belief and disbelief is in direct contrast
to each other and doesn't require a middle ground. I regard
agnosticism the same as saying "there might or might not be
Leprechauns, but I really don't know for sure, so maybe I'll say
there might be Leprechauns to be safe." If you want to sort of
believe in anything authoritative sounding that anybody says,
you're not open-minded, but someone too afraid or too uneducated
to truly believe in anything. You'll eventually start believing
in every half-cocked theory someone tells you (which too many
people do today because they "just want something to believe
in," as if that's a valid reason in the first place--me being no
exception at times). I find this explanation from the Skeptic's
Dictionary under the headings "atheism" and "faith" quite
satisfactory:
<definitions snipped>
Simply (in my own words), you can either have faith in the
existence of God, or you can have evidence in the existence of
God. If you have undeniable evidence, faith is not needed. I
do not agree that there is enough evidence for belief in God,
thus I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I choose not to make
that "leap of faith" for the existence of God because, to
summarize, I see no reason to. Thus, I am an atheist.
On close-mindedness:
I change my mind. I am close-minded, but I'm open to the right
arguments is what I mean. Something that makes sense in a
profound way; if nothing else, I merely seek knowledge. We
couldn't hold any opinions on anything *unless* we thought we
were right and everybody else was wrong. Can we? How can
someone truly believe in one thing and be casually open to all
others? Then you really wouldn't believe what you believe in
the first place, or am I wrong here?
On morality:
I was of course, instructed on the merits of good things and
bad things, morally good behavior and morally bad behavior, and
I tried to live my life relatively close to how I was raised,
and thus would say certain things mimicking what my parents
taught me, but as I grow older and come into my own self, I
realize that's not what *I* truly believe or can believe as an
adult. Morality and being right or wrong are not so clear cut
for me anymore. I guess I don't believe there is an absolute
right or wrong, only what we humans have devised for ourselves
and for society. Morality shifts as quickly as the winds, from
age to age, from one state religion to the next. Humans don't
really change, actions of men don't really change, politics and
consensus do. And I certainly don't believe every choice that
leads you to prison is a morally bad choice. Modern society
puts too much weight on individual actions these days. Actions
that were once reprehensible are common. Actions that were
common are now reprehensible. Great men are jailed and
persecuted by the governments of their day, and yet we hail and
applaud their teachings/actions in the next generation. What is
right? What is wrong?
The existence of the concepts of Good and Evil are man made. Nature
has no good or evil. The stars and the moons are not good or evil. A
grizzly bear that kills fish for food is not good or evil. A
hurricane that destroys a beach and kills a thousand people is not
good or evil. Humans are not good or evil. The actions of men are
not good or evil. We only label things good or evil, or morally right
or wrong as we perceive them to make sense in our culture and times.
As we evolve into more sensitive creatures, what was banal in the past
has become evil to us in the present. This ties into morality.
Good or Evil is poetic and makes sense to us, but is nonsense in
logical terms. What is Evil? What is Bad? What is Immoral?
On Murder:
The value of human life, or any life for that matter, is very
subjective from culture to culture, from time to time, even from
religion to religion. In ancient times, a woman could be killed
for sleeping around, and by the laws of the day, this was the
moral thing to do. Also, heretics being burned at the cross by
the Church was the utmost urgently moral thing to do for people
in Medieval days. However, I see your point. I think murder is
wrong, no matter what the cause. But that's a personal
viewpoint, and I see myself as a humanist (and this philosophy
has been readily cultured into modern industrialized countries for the
last several decades... where people today got these bleeding
heart liberal ideas about the value of human life is certainly
not from the Bible). I still fail to see an absolute morality.
Killing the terminally sick, killing retarded babies, killing
the very mentally ill, killing the old and useless: this was all
very common and seen as, well, necessary for society in the
past. What absolute morality serves as a guide? Is killing
wrong, unless there is a necessity? Is killing wrong, unless
the person is dangerous? Is killing wrong, unless a person is a
burden? God kills so many people in the Bible, it's ridiculous.
Like the Egyptians in the Moses story. All those first born
Egyptian babies dying. So wrong in my opinion. But the
Biblical God saw this as necessary. And of course, Christians
would say, for a higher good. So is killing right if done by
God? Or is it still wrong? But who can rebuke God for doing
wrong things??? So this sets up an objectionable example: can
we kill innocent people if it's for the right reasons, or for
retribution for the harm done by their parents? Maybe we should
let God take a rest and do the killing ourselves? Save him the
trouble... ya know? Murder is wrong if people say it's wrong,
period.
Back to the "murder is wrong" idea, take mass murder. Mass
murder is of course today, by a civilian, evil, bad, and
immoral. Mass murder however, sanctioned by the military in
wartime is patriotic and allowable. A person who commits such
acts is absolved of guilt and comes home a hero. A person who
pushes a button to launch a missile that destroys a building in
Afghanistan with some terrorist rebels and maybe some innocents
like a cook or a maid or a janitor doesn't really feel that bad
about himself. He killed some very "bad" people, but he also
killed some "not so bad" people that, if done in peacetime in his own
home country, would land him in the electric chair. The value of
human life goes from very great to very little even in this day
and age, when put into different contexts. What really is evil?
> Thou Shalt Not Kill? It would almost be better if
> it was written in an updated form with sub-sections, clauses,
> sub-clauses, and of course, exceptions. Definitely
> exceptions.
>
> This is a mis-translation used in a lot of King James-based
> Bibles. The correct translation from the original language is
> "Thou Shalt Not Murder." Makes a big difference, no? And the
> "rules" are for us to abide by, not God.
Then what rules does God abide by? What makes Him good then?
Who judges God's actions? And can God perform an action
considered evil by men's standards, as put forth by God Himself?
On God:
But if God is above killing, excuse me, MURDERING people in
malice, His own law, what else is He above? One can only
logically assume He's above every one of His own laws, like
jealousy (coveting a neighbor's house, or as might pertain to
God, the worshippers of a fake god???). God actually says he is
a ANGRY and JEALOUS God in his 1st Commandment. How is a
perfect being capable of jealousy? This inherently implies it
is imperfect, and not worthy or desirable of all sub creatures'
attention and worship. Logical fallacy. Why is God
jealous? How can a perfect being be jealous? Why would someone
want to worship a God that becomes angry? Hell, how can a
perfect being become angry in the first place? Anger implies
emotion; perfection is always perfect, or unperturbed--anger
implies an imbalance of emotion, a preference of one emotion
over all others. Perfection cannot get angry, for perfection by
definition is never out of balance; it is perfect and *always*
in balance. Imperfection after imperfection in His own words,
yet those who believe in God believe He is infallible and
perfect. It is illogical.
So I, myself feel compelled to either accede that I can either
worship an imperfect God, capable of error and emotion and
constantly showing lack of many things, capable of committing
immoral acts, as judged by humans since we are ruled by certain
UNIVERSAL and UNCHANGING laws of conduct (let me borrow your
beliefs for just the sake of argument) which somehow doesn't
apply to He whom made it... or else believe it is but an
imperfect creation of imperfect beings, us. We have created God
in OUR image. Not the other way around.
On religion itself:
Religion is a disease that preys upon the human psyche. It is
man-made and imperfect, as every denomination is at the center
of God and understands Him as He intends, or purports to. It
has been the cause of too much human strife, conflict, death and
suffering. I don't blame this on humans being born to sin or on
the inherent wickedness of man; I blame it on the institution
and thought process that makes man so self-important as to think
an indisputable and perfect being created him and backs him,
serving as justification for his actions and thoughts, no matter
how irrational they may be. The belief system is to blame. The
religion itself is to blame. You're the one rationalizing (you
once thought this was a bad word) why Christianity is good
despite bad followers. You see yet you choose not to see
because you are inside its grasp. Yes, the teachings of Christ
do this; his exhortations to his followers do this.
Christianity *as well as* all other absolute religions does this
to man and impedes our forward progress in the humanities and
the sciences, as it has always done. As it always will,
unfortunately.
Realistically, I doubt man can ever rid itself of religion.
People just need it too much to feel good about themselves, to
feel comforted from the reality that man IS NOT at the center of
everything. We are nothing and when we die we will go back to
nothing--we are but natural creatures, thus we can only live for
the moment. You call me self-important for thinking there is no
God and humans are the center of everything, but you've got it
ass backwards. I say no such thing. You're the one serving a
being at the center of everything, which puts you right next to
the center, does it not? You propose you are a supernatural
creature, created by supernatural means, made by a supernatural,
infallible God that can do no wrong--thus allowing you the
freedom of unquestionable justification in your beliefs. You
chide me for thinking I'm self-important, yet you worship
self-importance embodied. A being that must create other,
infinitesimally weaker beings to "allow" them to worship,
praise, and glorify it. Yet when they do not, it punishes them
for all eternity for they choose to exercise His gift to them of
FREE WILL. And you defend Him and His ways and think it makes
you somehow better as a human being. If a man did such things,
he would be called a monster and a sadist.
I knew these things in my head as a Christian, yet I dismissed
it as the ravings of godless heathens, and kept on praying like
always... "For God is love and God is good." And the
rationalization I said to myself: "God is so good, that He
cannot stand to allow evil near Him, so He is forced to punish
those who cannot live up to His standards. It is His law."
This isn't the behavior of a perfect being; this is the behavior
of a confused, imperfect being. Why would a perfect being
create lesser, imperfect creatures, knowing full well in advance
most would not fit His criteria for being good enough to be near
Him? Eternal Goodness has created pain and suffering, not of
any garden variety sort though, but ETERNAL PAIN AND SUFFERING
where there were none to begin with. How is this the creation
of a being ultimately Good and/or even Perfect?
On human insecurity:
> Humans are nothing. We're here now and then we'll be gone the
> next in the blink of the cosmos.
>
> Yes, we will indeed be "gone" someday... but to think we are
> truly "nothing", in that our existence does not matter in the
> long run, is disturbing. We are the only things on Earth that
> can create, love, hate and destroy as we do. It certainly
> begs the question: why us? Opposable thumbs? Yes, perhaps,
> but more than that... Right?
Actually, mere insecurity about your insignificance in this
universe does not beg any real question. We are not the only
things on Earth that can create, love, hate, and destroy. We
can do it at a higher level than all other creatures, and with
greater intelligence, but we're not the only ones with these
particularly unique qualities. With the advent of intelligence
in higher level complex life forms comes all such amazing
abilities. Monkeys can also create art--paint simple pictures
of the sun or the forest, and even express abstract notions of
love or hate through just color. A monkey can even lie, did you
know that? A gorilla can love its offspring, or even a kitten,
"adopting" it as if its own. What is to love, but to feel
affection for something known or familiar or dear? Can not a
dog love its owner then? When it recognizes you and shows
excitement and happiness upon knowing you are near? All animals
hate and fear that which puts it in pain or danger. We only
have the added ability to hate and or fear not only physical
things, but completely abstract things as well, even fears
within our own minds.
You seek a problem where none exists. You assume self-importance and
seek to differentiate yourself completely from all other non par
intelligent creatures when such an actual difference does not exist.
We are intelligent through the benefit of continual and rapid
evolution, as all living creatures can benefit from evolution. Our
path to this point in our evolution has not been exclusive or unique
to us alone, though we have made progress faster than any other Earth
organisms. It is inherent in any organism which feels it is superior
to also feel it is somehow more special than all lesser organisms, and
to find differences where there are none. Hence the human plights
of sexism, racism, and nowadays more prevalently, nationalism, as
well as the ever-enduring speciesism (thinking humans are more
important or more special than all other living creatures).
But knowing this does not make your existence trivial or
unimportant. You are sitting in front of that computer there not by
an accident or by a fluke of the cosmos. You yourself "are the end
result of a 4.5 billion year unbroken chain of reproductive successes
that extend back to the first living thing on Earth. If any members of
that chain had failed to exist, you wouldn't be here. You owe your
very existence to countless unnamed members of that chain. You are
their immortality" (Denis Loubet, alt.atheism). As will your
offspring be your immortality as they carry on your genes to the
thousandth generation. We live for the sole purpose of living.
Adapting and changing to better suit our environment, to make us
better living organisms. That is life.
I'd like to quote something from a Lars Eighner on Usenet on the
alt.atheism discussion board when confronted with this same
question, for I don't think I can say it any better:
"Meaning is a sensation that exists in the mind which suggests
an association between one thought and another. Meaning is not an
intrinsic property of anything outside of brain software.
Existence doesn't have a meaning - unless of course you think
existence only happens in the mind.
"Have you ever seen an ink blot test? Or better, have you ever
played the parlor game in which you make your own ink blots and
then take turns with your friends "interpreting" them? Do you
think the random patterns of the ink blots have meanings, of
themselves? Of course not. They are just random splatters,
made symmetrical by folding the paper while the ink is still
wet. Where do they get their meaning?
"They get their meaning in the human mind, and that's the only
place they have any "meaning" - and what is more, people won't
all agree on what the ink blots "mean." Meaning isn't a
property ink blots have; it is a property assigned to ink blots
in the mind.
"That's what life is: a whole bunch of ink blots and fluffy
white clouds. If we see faces in them or little old ladies with large
hats, those are events in our brains, nothing that is intrinsic
to the ink blots and clouds. If you don't have much insight and
you are not very bright, I suppose you may think "God made that
cloud look like a sheep as a sign to me!" But if you are not
quite that thick, you realize that it's bound to be pretty easy
to see a fluffy white animal in a fluffy white cloud and it is
all on the side of perception - not a divine message. If you
don't take it seriously, looking for shapes in clouds and ink
blots can be a harmless amusement. But you ought to realize,
you are deluding yourself and you are missing what is really
there: clouds and ink blots.
"Likewise, if you are looking for the "meaning of life" all the
time you are bound to miss experiencing what life is. It's like
being the bumpkin who goes to an exhibit of abstract art - all
he can say is "My nine-year-old nephew can draw bettern that!"
because he cannot experience the paint and canvass for what they
are. He has this notion that it has to represent something or
it isn't a "pitchure." It's got to be a "pitchure" *of
something* or he just can't experience it. He can't appreciate
scat singing, because "How can it be a song if the words don't
mean nothing?" He can't absorb the beautiful sounds because he
can't understand the "words."
"If you are fully experiencing life, the only just answer to
"What is the meaning of life?" is to live.
============
Thanks to Dennis Loubet and Lars Eighner for their thoughts which I
borrowed from them. I hope you don't mind, sirs!
nawhead
<nawR...@REMOVEpobox.com> wrote:
>
>I would just like some critical opinions on whether my logic is sound
>or else flawed, as a Christian friend of mine keeps telling me. I
>refer to God with an emphasis on broadly accepted Islamic and
>Christian doctrines.
A correction: I meant Jewish and Christian doctrines, specifically the
Ten Commandments. Not Islamic.