"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"
I think I'm in danger of turning this post into a tired musing on the quotes above, committing all kinds of interpretive sins. So I'll leave Camus and Nietzsche alone for the moment and just keep this short.
There is an assumption held by many in this "Christian Nation", an assumption that I myself once held, that any truly meaningful life was dependent upon a belief in the proclaimed god of this Nation. A meaningful life was only possible because the life I lived originated from, was dependent on, and would eventually live in eternal communion with, a supernatural and benevolent being. So, meaningful here is understood in a grand way, on a cosmic and eternal scale, and any alternative to that way of framing things would seem a little trite. A meaningful life could only be seen as some version of an eternal life, it seemed.
I now think that this is not necessarily true. My personal experience has confirmed this in my own mind. The kind of satisfaction that is sought after when we talk about a meaningful life does not have to be based on a belief in the supernatural or an eternal life. But the issue for me is another question of the proper representation of the human population. So, ok, it's possible to find meaning in life without a belief in god, but what do we know about the implications of a widespread atheism? Nietzsche worried about this himself, and he felt there really needed to be something else to fill the void. Was he right?
If the basic idea behind transcendent meaning is that of living your life for a cause that is bigger than yourself, then I say "perhaps." I think that many people desire this and know what it feels like to be a part of something bigger than yourself. It feels really good. Like you're doing something that "Matters."
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not sure on what basis one could think that the answer is positive. Part of me wonders whether the desire that one's life be Meaningful isn't just a manifestation of pride or arrogance. If so, then it isn't something someone should want. But even if it isn't you might wonder why it is something we should want? Perhaps the answer is: It matters because it is True.
But if what you're interested in is the Truth (in some more than crass pragmatic sense), then I'm not sure why transcendent meaning matters. On the one hand, if the denial of transcendent meaning (of the supernatural variety) is supposed to be an objection to the Truth of naturalism, then this simply begs the question. On the other hand, the fact that a Theist's beliefs cause her to lead a more meaningful life (by her own lights) doesn't by itself entail anything about the truth of the Theist's beliefs.
Is not meaning of life based on our beliefs about that life? If I believe that the here and now is all there is then a meaningful life is dependant on how I can make the here and now a better, more peaceful place. If my belief is that I am apart of bring God's kingdom into play, than meaning is focused around the joy of being in that kingdom and contributing to the kingdom.
ReplyDeleteSo it is possible to find meaning in life without a belief in the Creator God. (however one has a bit harder time finding meaning in death)
The wide spread implications of atheism-- I fear would not be based on those who found meaning in life but for those who did not. There are those who claim to be atheist based on study and evaluation and those you claim to be atheist simply out of disillusionment. It would be those who are disillusioned that would bring about any negative implications of widespread atheism. Which brings up the question: Does a religion based on belief in the supernatural have a greater percentage of fulfilled people who have found meaning in life than a religion that does not have a belief in God? My christian friends would immediately say YES but what about buddists? I wonder if there are statics out there comparing percentage of sucides within various belief systems?
The phrase "finding meaning in death" simply begs the question vis-a-vis the naturalist. What does it mean other than TRANSCENDENT Meaning, i.e. a purpose which transcends this world, a metanarrative beyond all human narratives? Of course a naturalist would have a hard time finding transcendent purpose, for that is precisely what naturalism denies!
ReplyDeleteAnd to the question: "does meaning depend on our beliefs?" the answer is "of course" if you're talking about non-transcendent meaning (with a small "m") but "of course not" if you're talking about transcendent Meaning (unless God's purposes depend on human beliefs). Rather, part of the point of the theist's life is to discover God's purposes and it is only in doing so (i.e. coming to have true beliefs about God's purposes) that one discovers Meaning. This discovery doesn't depend on human beliefs for it to be true (according to what I would think would be the most common theistic belief). I may believe that the meaning of life is to be reincarnated as a cow or to reach Nirvana but that wouldn't by itself make it true.
Finally, suppose there was a higher suicide rate among Christians than Hindus (which is in all likelihood the case). What would that show about the TRUTH of the respective beliefs? I suggest that it would show precisely nothing. And what if there were a higher suicide rate among self-proclaimed atheists than self-proclaimed Christians? Again, probably nothing. Perhaps there would be some interesting stuff for sociologists, but what about metaphysicians? I'm not sure suicide rate or conversely any measure of well-being would show anything about the truth of the respective belief systems. No one should doubt that what you believe can affect the quality of your life. The problem is that these positive or negative effects can occur whether or not those beliefs are true.
In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, he imagines an atheistic society in which Henry Ford (capitalist, defender of consumption, implementer of the assembly line) has replaced God. Nevertheless, there are religious ceremonies (Solidarity Services) which sound just like a Pentecostal Worship service (except for the fact that they end in a group sex orgy). In this case there is certainly something replacing religion and very much resembling it in certain respects.
ReplyDeleteIn a South Park episode ("Go God Go XII," season 10) Cartman finds himself in the future, which is totally atheistic, due to Richard Dawkins's tireless efforts. Nevertheless in this Dawkinsesque atheistic future there are warring parties of scientists pursuing their favored theories with religious zeal, willing to kill those who would disagree.
More seriously, there are number of authors who have commented on the fact that many sporting events look curiously like religious services. Perhaps there is some human needs for assembly together, to experience something collectively and that is what Huxley was getting at and what sporting events help fulfill in a post-christian society.
[Sorry I disappeared there for a while...]
ReplyDeleteI guess my point in the post was closer to Martilou's concern than Silentio's. I think Silentio is right to make objections about the validity of drawing metaphysical conclusions from data like suicide rates among various religions. But suicide rates actually do say something about my question: what are the implications of a widespread atheism. Martilou and I are considering the pragmatic implications of how belief or nonbelief may affect the lives of human beings in the 21st century. Sociological stats would be helpful to know, and I hope to spend some time looking into that.
Also, I think Martilou makes a good distinction between the disillusioned and the skeptic. And I think it really may be true that disillusionment has more to do with an inability to devote yourself to something larger than yourself, not just to a god or a religion, and the well informed skeptic doesn't necessarily experience more depression than your typical believer. The pragmatic question is, then, are people more or less likely to be disillusioned in a society where religion is prevalent? Does it depend on the religion or religions? Again, complex sociological questions, not meant to address metaphysical issues.
And as for A Brave New World and South Park, I think those examples are closer to what I actually believe. Huxley's vision isn't a utopia, of course. He's not saying everything would be just wonderful if we got rid of religion. But some of the functions that religions have served may easily be served by other means, the upside being that we would no longer have to reconcile modern scientific knowledge with pre-modern conceptions of a personal deity. But can we entirely replace religion without losing something of legitimate and lasting value?
OK, rather than end with yet another question, as I did in the previous comment, here are my admittedly speculative thoughts:
ReplyDeleteThe main issue here is the idea that some human beings, if not most, may need to believe that there is a life beyond this life or else they will get very depressed. And they may erase their own map because of it.
Even if there is a correlation between a high proportion of atheism and high rates of suicides in some countries, I'm not sure what that would say. I'm not convinced that it would mean the following: a given society (or humanity as a whole) cannot discard belief in an afterlife and at the same time have a reasonable proportion of its members live "meaningful" lives.
As I said, my personal experience tells me that it is possible to live a meaningful life without believing in a god or an afterlife. And, in the above paragraph, "meaningful" should really be understood as "satisfied"--emotionally, psychologically, etc.. It seems to me that most (or many, at least) people who consider themselves be Christian or religious are very seldom consciously engrossed in the particular beliefs of their religion. Their satisfaction in life has more to do with what kind of job they have or the state of their family relationships or friendships. In times of extreme hardship they may seek religious counsel, but I think the same positive outcome could result from non-religious counsel from friends and family. So, again, it's just assumed by the religious that a satisfied life could only come from their religion, and their religion gives satisfaction because it gives meaning, and this meaning comes from a personal deity who offers the possibility of eternal life in heaven.
Well, I think there is something to this satisfied life that many religious people live, but I want to suggest that it may not be eternal life that is providing all of the meaning/satisfaction in their lives. It may simply be the fact that they are in a community where people are talking about right and wrong, about how to be good, about how to be a better person. But this, as I've been arguing in this blog, is not dependent on the existence of a god or dependent on the belief in the existence of a god.
So, it may be that A Brave New World without religion, without belief in a personal deity or eternal life, could be an awful place to live. It may be unsatisfying or unmeaningful. But that would be because the absence of religion would at the same time be an absence of moral dialogue. I think satisfied and meaningful lives within a society are only possible if people regularly talk about what a good life means, or what kind of good lives are possible. And I think a society that does not have religious belief in a personal deity or eternal life but at the same time provides moral dialogue is possible. Many Christians think that people who have lost their faith must have lost their ability to conceive of life beyond the pleasure principle. They think that immediate gratification essentially possesses the minds of people who do not believe in eternal justice. As if Christians are the only people who experience the shallowness of solipsism and the exhilaration of helping someone else, of putting your time and effort into something larger than yourself, the good of your community.
Also, a comment on the word "meaningful." Some Christians use this concept, like they use the existence of morality, to argue that only the existence of a god could explain how it came to be. As with morality, I realize that there must me a natural explanation for...well, anything that exists, including what we mean by the word "meaningful." I won't go into a thorough explanation of how I understand meaning to have come about. Suffice it to say that I think it's well within the possibility of chemical and biological evolution to produce something like us. Meaning creating animals. We are the ones who create meaning, it isn't something out there that we discover. However, it's no less real and moving and satisfying. Yes, we killed god. But we created god. We don't need to become gods, because we've been gods all along. And Nietzsche knew this as well as anyone.
ReplyDelete