Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In the absence of objective morality, or in other words, a final judgment, then a thinking person would not “prefer to follow rules”. Why would they? They would prefer to feel good, right? What would be the point of feeling worse, if there’s no reason to? They would not conclude that following the rules leads to feeling good, because every time they have the choice of either following the rules or feeling good, they would choose feeling good. To prioritize rules over feeling good, following the rules must have existential importance. Otherwise what would be the purpose of following the rules?
But, perhaps an atheist can will himself to believe that following the rules actually does have existential importance. I intuit that you might have done this, as you go immediately to “lead to maximal flourishment of humanity”. (There is no reason to care about this in atheism, because it doesn’t matter. It feels good to give to someone you like, due to evolutionary prosociality, but it does not feel good to construct rigid systems of maximal flourishment of humanity, which is artificial.) I suppose I agree an atheist can have this kind of faith. But at that point, they might as well maximize the benefit of faith by believing in a Just and Loving God.
What is this benefit of faith that believing in a Just and Loving God maximizes?
For one, there’s consequences for your life as a whole, so you’re never left without motivation and purpose, which humans require constantly given our evolution. God is a “final consequence” that makes sense for every human; if you remember doing well in school and showing a parent, or getting the praise of a teacher you admire, God is constructed as a maximization of these experiences. He’s Parent/Mentor but also King (powerful and grand) and Judge (righteous, truthful). So you are always motivated to do your best because you will answer to the greatest possible human (or human-like being, more precisely). I’m not saying here that “the God in the Bible is all-loving”, I don’t care about that, I am saying “if you define for yourself that God is the most loving and just you can conceive”, that is taking full advantage of your mind. You’d be hard-pressed to find a more satisfying basis for a teleology. You can wake up every day and examine all of existence and be happy, not confused. It’s a good basic source code.
The other benefit is prayer, common to so many religions, because humans are social. Being able to always communicate with this maximal Being aids happiness and motivation. I mean, if you’re choosing what to believe, what is better than believing in this? Human psychology shows that simply observing something beautiful is beneficial to mood. And so if we’re deciding on the best teleology, certainly willing ourselves to believe in the most beautiful Being/World is the best thing to do before we die. The act of praising God is the act of organizing our mind around our best memories. Which is gratitude training.
Then I would just say, the fact that monotheism expanded so well in humanity’s most competitive era is probably good proof that it is useful. And the 2500 years of poetry and stories on God is beneficial simply because now you have libraries upon libraries to bolster your teleology. Whereas thinking atheists just have Dawkins, Hitchens, maybe some Sam Harris, Rick and Morty…
I have motivation and purpose. Theists still have crises of faith, so it doesn't look like much of an improvement. Besides, brainwashing oneself into a belief that I'm glaringly aware is false doesn't sounds like something a "thinking" atheist does.
God as Father and Lord also does not motivate me in particular. If I had reason to believe he existed, I would likely feel smothered and shackled by the existence of such a being. The most Loving and Just a God can be is to effectively not exist and free up the celestial throne for the uplifted humanity.
Of course, you can continue to call "finding value in things out of your reach" faith and "if God is real, it better be me" religion if you want. I find that really tortured and useless for the purpose of explaining power, though.
Most literature isn't purely Godly the way you've picked out the counterexamples to be "purely atheistic". I reject the attempt of Christianity to claim full credit for all those 2500 years.
You’ve already brainwashed yourself into believing that “human flourishing” matters, when objectively it does not as all of humanity will die and be forgotten — mere blip on the timeline, an accident, a nanosecond to eternity’s year. So I’m asserting that there is a superior way for you to brainwash yourself for maximal happiness.
When you imagine the perfect Father-Son relationship, is it one of smothering? If not, then you haven’t even succeeded in imagining a perfectly loving deity, let alone trying out belief. When you imagine perfect justice, do you imagine shackles? If not, you haven’t succeeded in creating in your mind the image of a perfectly just creator. By definition, imagining a perfectly loving deity can’t make you feel smothered. It would make you feel “loved such that there is no greater experience of love”, that’s what perfect means.
No, I do not grant that those are similar types of belief at all. There is no "objective" outside of humanity's scope, therefore by definition it matters. Once the last observer in the universe dies, the universe does not exist and does not matter for all intents and purposes, whether it lasts for a year or an infinity afterwards.
Human flourishing is a real and evident thing, choosing to believe in its importance is an opinion. Choosing to believe into an external source of objectivity, especially deliberately, is self-brainwashing.
The rest is just "you simply haven't prayed hard enough" goalpost moving, not to mention that a perfectly loving being cannot by definition be imagined by an imperfect mind. I suggest you try harder to be a thinking atheist who doesn't need nor want a God to lord over and judge him, and if you can't, well, you're just not thinking hard enough.
Right, it’s a faith statement unevidenced by the atheistic framework. Why an animal would care about “animal species as a whole” does not make sense scientifically in an evolutionary sense. “Thinking atheism” does not support the importance of human flourishing as a personal pursuit.
It’s no less unevidenced than your dogma that a human is motivated by species-global flourishing.
Not at all. You failed the exercise in being able to imagine a “loving God”. That’s not goalpost moving, that’s an inability to understand religious language.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link