Consistent Atheistic Worldview? Part 2
Donalgrant writes:
[M]y claim in my remarks is that these atheists are not living a "completely consistent atheistic world view". I'm focused especially here on materialism -- the idea that there is nothing outside of the physical world.
Donalgrant claims that he hasn't misrepresented atheism in his first post, but if that is true he definitely has done so here: atheism isn't equivalent with materialism. On the one hand this is arguably a minor quibble because, after all, most atheists that one is likely to encounter in the West are probably materialists. Thus, it's fair to regard a critique of materialism as being, at least indirectly, a critique of atheism as well.
On the other hand, this error points to a deeper and more profound issue: like oh-so-many I have encountered in the past, I really don't think that donalgrant has spent any time whatsoever talking to atheists about what they believe, asking them what they think, and then contemplating what that might mean. Instead, he seems to just launch into critiques on a few assumptions about them. I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but this is why I used the phrase "monumental arrogance" above.
I note that Austin Cline, in his critique, while claiming that "You don't need a god to have a reason to live" does not actually provide a "reason to live". In fact, it is difficult to find a root basis for morality, rational thought (how does an electronic event come to represent an external objective reality?), or even just a "reason to live" in a purely materialistic world.
Excuse me, but when someone comes along and says (or implies) that it's impossible for atheists to have morality, a reason to live, a reason to be rational, or an ability to be consistent in their worldview, it isn't my obligation to prove them wrong. It is, instead, their obligation to support their claims about me. Of course, that said I have still played along with their game on more than one occasion. My Hate Mail section is filled with people who decided to write in order to persuade me of the error of my ways and thought they could cleverly do so by pointing out that, unlike themselves, I have no reason to live, to love, or to be moral. I'm tired of it frankly because not a single one of them has ever demonstrated the least bit of evidence that they had ever tried to learn something about the subject before inflicting their half-baked ideas on me.
But I'll play the game one more time...
We come from supernova dust, we end up as dissipated heat in the entropy death of the universe. What happens between is temporary and has no impact and no possible final consequence. There is nothing more unique about the organization of matter in a human or animal than in a star or snowflake -- no reason to treat one more carefully than the other. Wherefore, then should one care about what happens to neighbor, spouse or children?
Donalgrant seems to be assuming that, if life is transient rather than eternal and in the grand scheme of things doesn't have a permanent impact, then we can't have a reason to live. What does he base this on? Well.... nothing, actually. He just asserts it. As it stands, it's not a credible assertion because he provides no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. A far better way for him to put it would be "Given what I believe about life and the universe, I can't imagine my life having any meaning if it isn't eternal and/or doesn't have permanent impact (consequence of my non-materialist belief system)."
Now, if that's the case then I would accept it as being true about him. Why dispute it? His testimony about what he currently can and cannot imagine about himself should be treated as credible and accepted at face value. His error is in presuming that the same must apply to everyone else in the world, including me. The rest of us, though, are not limited in our possibilities by one person's lack of imagination. If he can't figure out how to ascribe meaning to something non-permanent, that's his problem — not mine.
As for myself, the lack of permanence isn't a problem. I doubt that it's normally a problem for donalgrant, either. I'll bet he enjoys good meals, despite the fact that each meal is temporary and has no possible final consequence. I'll bet he enjoys good movies, despite the fact that each movie (or at least the experience of viewing it for the first time) is temporary and has no possible final consequence. Even for non-materialists who believe in an eternal afterlife, most events in their lives are temporary with no possible final consequence — yet, for some strange reason, they don't abandon them as meaningless.
Why? Probably because they enjoy those experiences and value them for what they are, right then and there. I have the same perspective on life. overall It's not permanent. Someday, perhaps today, I'll die and that will be it for me — my memories and personality will disappear as my physical brain dies. Does this logically entail that I cannot value and enjoy what I have right now? Of course not. Are there people who cannot psychologically make this move? Absolutely. There are people who are so attached to what they have that they not only cannot imagine letting go, they also cannot imagine valuing it right here and now without pretending that it's actually permanent. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of this attitude is that you spend so much time trying to hold on to what you have that you never take the time to really appreciate and enjoy it.
Readers who have been paying attention will have noticed by now that this is not a view that in any way depends upon materialism, atheism, or even irreligion. Not once have any of them appeared as premises. This position is perfectly consistent with those ideas, but there are millions and millions of people in the world who hold (or try to hold) this view, some of whom are theists, some of whom are not materialists, and many of whom are religious. Most are Buddhists and no one can reasonably accuse them of lacking any reason to be moral, to care about family, or just to live. I'm not a Buddhist, to be quite honest, and I arrived at this position independent of any study of Buddhism. I don't agree with most of the Buddhist religion. That doesn't mean, though, that they aren't right about a thing or two.
On a final note, I should emphasize once again that when a person is making claims about how they feel or what their perspective is, we shouldn't expect them to provide all sorts of evidence and logical arguments on behalf of what they are saying. Matters change dramatically, however, when they make claims about others.
When a person says that an entire class of other people doesn’t have a sound reason to love their families, doesn't have a sound basis to even argue for their position, and only manages to achieve any of this to any degree "by avoiding the full implications of their own world-view," they have assumed a very serious burden of proof. You don't say such things without being able to defend your claims, provide evidence, explain what you mean, and construct very rigorous logical arguments that demonstrate the validity of your conclusions. If a person is going to say that "the atheist in making an argument for materialism undermines the credibility not only of her own argument, but her ability to make any rational argument at all," then they better be able to provide the arguments being described in order to show that this is true.
Donalgrant does absolutely none of this. Not a single piece of evidence. Not a single logical argument. Nothing. All we read are assertions based upon assumptions about what life is like for others and these, in turn, frankly seem to be based upon an inability to imagine how anyone else can live without his assumptions and beliefs. What I wrote originally seems even more true than ever:
It's a common mental virus: "Everyone who isn't pretty much like me must have something pathologically wrong with them." It's a dismissal of the very conception that people can be different on fundamental issues and yet still manage their lives just fine.
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment