My Journey From Catholicism To Atheism And Back

[Dr_Asik]

It's not in vain, because the experiences of those who are alive, both now and in the future are apparently real. At the very least, the illusion of the continuity of consciousness creates experiences that feel real. That the universe may come to an end or to a point where life will be impossible in no way diminishes the lives lived up until that point. It could be argued that it makes it even more important to minimize the suffering in those lives, since they are truly brief. The absence of a larger, perpetual purpose does not render lower order purposes meaningless.

Well, let's put it this way: if I were to die now, in a naturalistic perspective, then I would completely cease to exist. Therefore all my subjective experiences would be completely lost. Therefore, the nature and content of these experiences would not matter anymore. In other words, once I'm dead, it doesn't matter how much I suffered or how much I enjoyed the moments before; none of this subsists in any sense.

 

I can't come to terms with the notion that the present matters simply because it's real. If anything could be meaningful by virtue of being real, then that amounts to say that everything is meaningful in and of itself, and that's just a gratuitous thing to say, and I don't see that as intuitive either.

 

[Winchester]

Well, let's put it this way: if I were to die now, in a naturalistic perspective, then I would completely cease to exist. Therefore all my subjective experiences would be completely lost. Therefore, the nature and content of these experiences would not matter anymore. In other words, once I'm dead, it doesn't matter how much I suffered or how much I enjoyed the moments before; none of this subsists in any sense.

 

I can't come to terms with the notion that the present matters simply because it's real. If anything could be meaningful by virtue of being real, then that amounts to say that everything is meaningful in and of itself, and that's just a gratuitous thing to say, and I don't see that as intuitive either.

 

Unless you did not interact with anyone at all, they would not cease, completely.  But that wasn't my point.

 

Your actions have lasting consequences. If apprehension of this does not move you to act in a decent manner, then I'm glad you're not an atheist.

[Dr_Asik]

Unless you did not interact with anyone at all, they would not cease, completely.  But that wasn't my point.

 

Your actions have lasting consequences. If apprehension of this does not move you to act in a decent manner, then I'm glad you're not an atheist.

You mean, lasting longer than me? In the grand scheme of things, humanity as a whole has existed for an infinitesimal fraction of the 13 billions of years that the universe has existed so far, and has occupied an incommensurably smaller fraction of its space; and for all we know, our universe is only one bubble of spacetime among an incommensurable number of universes. To think that me, spec of dust existing for a blip of time, matter in a purely materialistic perspective, is extremely preposterous I think (it's also an interesting pun :P).

 

More the point, in order to give meaning to my actions, I need to relate them to something that has meaning in itself. But I fail to find any such thing in a naturalistic worldview. In such a perspective, even my own perception of myself and how the world is is largely illusory as I've alluded to.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Socrates]

It's not in vain, because the experiences of those who are alive, both now and in the future are apparently real. At the very least, the illusion of the continuity of consciousness creates experiences that feel real. That the universe may come to an end or to a point where life will be impossible in no way diminishes the lives lived up until that point. It could be argued that it makes it even more important to minimize the suffering in those lives, since they are truly brief. The absence of a larger, perpetual purpose does not render lower order purposes meaningless.

 

Actually, it makes a world of difference whether human beings are persons deliberately created in the image and likeness of God to be with Him for eternity, or merely randomly evolved pieces of meat, the chance product of the meaningless, purposeless collusion of atoms.

 

The problem with atheism as it relates to this issue is that if atheism is in fact true, then the meaning or value of human life is entirely subjective.

 

One person (or, rather, randomly-evolved piece of sentient meat) may experience the pretty illusion that life is meaningful and precious, but another piece of sentient meat may find life instead meaningless and worthless.  

If atheism is true, neither of these subjective experiences is any more or less true or valid than the other.

 

There's really nothing from a consistent atheistic perspective to refute the utilitarianism of Peter Singer and his ilk.

If Bill derives more happiness from killing Bob than Bob would derive from continuing his miserable existence, why should anyone stop Bill from putting Bob out of his misery?

 

If the majority thinks their happiness will be increased by killing a minority, why not?

 

If people figure letting a person live will result only in more suffering for that person and others, why not just kill it?

 

 

In case you think this talk is purely academic, it's not mere coincidence that the majority of strongly-believing orthodox Christians are against such things as abortion and euthanasia, while most atheists find such things acceptable.

[Socrates]

I love this way of putting it. Dare I say it sounds very Lebowski, but I mean that in the best way possible.

 

Really enjoyed your writeup.

 

The Dude Abides.

[Fidei Defensor]

Actually, it makes a world of difference whether human beings are persons deliberately created in the image and likeness of God to be with Him for eternity, or merely randomly evolved pieces of meat, the chance product of the meaningless, purposeless collusion of atoms.

 

The problem with atheism as it relates to this issue is that if atheism is in fact true, then the meaning or value of human life is entirely subjective.

 

One person (or, rather, randomly-evolved piece of sentient meat) may experience the pretty illusion that life is meaningful and precious, but another piece of sentient meat may find life instead meaningless and worthless.  

If atheism is true, neither of these subjective experiences is any more or less true or valid than the other.

 

There's really nothing from a consistent atheistic perspective to refute the utilitarianism of Peter Singer and his ilk.

If Bill derives more happiness from killing Bob than Bob would derive from continuing his miserable existence, why should anyone stop Bill from putting Bob out of his misery?

 

If the majority thinks their happiness will be increased by killing a minority, why not?

 

If people figure letting a person live will result only in more suffering for that person and others, why not just kill it?

 

 

In case you think this talk is purely academic, it's not mere coincidence that the majority of strongly-believing orthodox Christians are against such things as abortion and euthanasia, while most atheists find such things acceptable.

While you are correct, it doesn't really bother atheists if life is devoid of meaning. It never bothered me when I was one.

[Winchester]

You mean, lasting longer than me? In the grand scheme of things, humanity as a whole has existed for an infinitesimal fraction of the 13 billions of years that the universe has existed so far, and has occupied an incommensurably smaller fraction of its space; and for all we know, our universe is only one bubble of spacetime among an incommensurable number of universes. To think that me, spec of dust existing for a blip of time, matter in a purely materialistic perspective, is extremely preposterous I think (it's also an interesting pun :P).

 

More the point, in order to give meaning to my actions, I need to relate them to something that has meaning in itself. But I fail to find any such thing in a naturalistic worldview. In such a perspective, even my own perception of myself and how the world is is largely illusory as I've alluded to.

 

I take the Horton approach to specks of dust.

 

It's a simple exercise of empathy to respect the suffering of other individuals. Whether or not the suffering of the individual registers at the macro scale (or whether its perceptible in your imagining of the macro-scale (which is not the same thing, at all)) or not should easily be apprehended as unimportant from the view of the individual. Yes, a horrible crime against one person won't knock the universe wibbly wobbly, and it's likely that in a few millenia, the effects of the suffering will be essentially nil. But people do not live that way. We live for those short spans. We are aware of those short spans. I find meaning in that. In fact, it's the only meaning of which we're assured, and the golden rule (as spoken by Christ) seems quite concerned with that short span of time.

 

Whether it's illusory or not is of no import. We live that illusion. The illusion feels real. It feels real to others. I have found that in the decline of my faith, I have come to feel more need to protect and preserve life. Not the opposite. I see what you're saying as more a failure of imagination than a shortcoming in the naturalistic worldview (whatever that means). 

[Winchester]

[Dr_Asik]

I take the Horton approach to specks of dust.

 

It's a simple exercise of empathy to respect the suffering of other individuals. Whether or not the suffering of the individual registers at the macro scale (or whether its perceptible in your imagining of the macro-scale (which is not the same thing, at all)) or not should easily be apprehended as unimportant from the view of the individual. Yes, a horrible crime against one person won't knock the universe wibbly wobbly, and it's likely that in a few millenia, the effects of the suffering will be essentially nil. But people do not live that way. We live for those short spans. We are aware of those short spans. I find meaning in that. In fact, it's the only meaning of which we're assured, and the golden rule (as spoken by Christ) seems quite concerned with that short span of time.

 

Whether it's illusory or not is of no import. We live that illusion. The illusion feels real. It feels real to others. I have found that in the decline of my faith, I have come to feel more need to protect and preserve life. Not the opposite. I see what you're saying as more a failure of imagination than a shortcoming in the naturalistic worldview (whatever that means). 

 

I'm referring to what New Advent calls "Materialistic Naturalism", i.e. the belief that the only thing that exists is matter and laws governing its behavior.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see any convincing reason for holding that it's true. It seems like a convenient device of the "imagination", as you suggest, to keep holding unto our intuitive ethical norms despite the failure of our metaphysical worldview (in a naturalistic perspective) to support them. Saying "I feel that XYZ" is all well and good, but feeling is subjective and not communicable. What if someone comes around and says "well I don't feel that XYZ"?
 

[Winchester]

In my experience, it's clearly true, insofar as people do, in fact see the world this way. You can choose to dismiss it. There's no stopping you from throwing all the rest of us benighted souls into your little box.

Same thing that happens with any other disagreement.

[Socrates]

While individual atheists may or may not see life as having meaning and value (and, in accord with natural law written on the hearts of all men, most do at least to some extent), the truth remains that if atheistic materialism is in fact true, all such value is entirely subjective.

 

If one makes subjective human "happiness" and avoidance of suffering the ultimate ethical goal, it's all too easy to justify snuffing out a human life in order to eliminate existing or future suffering.  And that's indeed a dangerous path to go down.

 

From a standpoint of atheist materialism, there's really not much to logically refute the Peter Singer utilitarian ethic, which many of his fellow atheists do in fact accept.  While there are exceptions, atheists are on the whole far more likely to accept things like abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide than are religious Christians.

 

Of course, this issue in itself doesn't settle the question of the truth or falsity of atheism, but there is little in reality to support the claim that atheism overall tends to increase respect for the value of human life.

 

 

(Btw, Winnie, have you gone atheist?  Honest question, not being a smart@$$.)

 

 

[Winchester]

Atheism requires a leap of faith the same as theism.

 

 

While individual atheists may or may not see life as having meaning and value (and, in accord with natural law written on the hearts of all men, most do at least to some extent), the truth remains that if atheistic materialism is in fact true, all such value is entirely subjective.

 

If one makes subjective human "happiness" and avoidance of suffering the ultimate ethical goal, it's all too easy to justify snuffing out a human life in order to eliminate existing or future suffering.  And that's indeed a dangerous path to go down.

 

From a standpoint of atheist materialism, there's really not much to logically refute the Peter Singer utilitarian ethic, which many of his fellow atheists do in fact accept.  While there are exceptions, atheists are on the whole far more likely to accept things like abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide than are religious Christians.

 

Of course, this issue in itself doesn't settle the question of the truth or falsity of atheism, but there is little in reality to support the claim that atheism overall tends to increase respect for the value of human life.

 

 

(Btw, Winnie, have you gone atheist?  Honest question, not being a smart@$$.)

 

It's all subjective, anyway. It always comes down to your interpretation. Rule of law (divine or man made) is ultimately illusory.

 

The Golden Rule is problematic if the person living by it is a masochist, isn't it? Do you consider that a flaw in the rule itself, or in mankind?

 

I really don't know how to deal with what I see as grossly oversimplified criticisms. OP created a simplified, stupid atheist and then proceeded to argue against him. I didn't make happiness a goal in my arguments, so I'll let whomever you're arguing with there defend against your slippery slope fallacy.

 

A lot of atheists have a superstitious view of when humanity is bestowed. Some believe in might makes right (so do many, many Christians. I know because they extoll the virtues of mob rule democracy) There are any number of reasons why atheists might believe that. 

 

Who was arguing that is overall tended to increase respect for human life?

 

 

Edited June 9, 2014 by Winchester

[KnightofChrist]

Atheism requires a leap of faith the same as theism.

 

It's all subjective, anyway. It always comes down to your interpretation. Rule of law (divine or man made) is ultimately illusory.

 

Theism and atheism does require a leap of faith. But God as a moral law giver exist as a matter of fact or does not exist as a matter of fact, and which belief is true is true with or without faith in which ever is true. If God in fact exist then there is objective moral truth, if He in fact does not exist there is no objective moral truth. Our inability to prove one is true and the other false doesn't make it all subjective. 

Edited June 9, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Dr_Asik]

In my experience, it's clearly true, insofar as people do, in fact see the world this way.

That's mere appeal to popularity.

[Winchester]

That's mere appeal to popularity.

No, that's a clear statement of personal experience. It's anecdotal. I did not imply that it justified a position. Note the qualifications in my statement.

 

Here's the page you should have used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal

You're welcome.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Winchester