As a former believer, in some ways I miss believing

[Portofino]

In what way? I agree that it’s rational–but then, I think it’s rational because it derives from the divine nature, which is the source of all reason.

My argument for empathy – independently of whether a Supreme Being exists, or not–is:

–empathy is natural (meaning, it naturally occurs in human beings; which is not to say that it occurs in everyone, or to the same degree)

–it is rational because it contributes to the welfare of our tribe (for whatever reason, it is natural that we care about the welfare of our tribe, to greater or lessser degrees; even wolves are social animals, and so are human beings); it is rational because a life lived without empathy would be extraordinarily painful (for one thing, it would make you a lot of enemies, if not get you locked up for life)

For most human beings, as individuals, empathy just comes naturally; it is, ironically, a function of human intelligence (a being with no empathy is a sociopath, I believe – not fit for society). Being poured into a vat of boiling oil would be hell on earth for any of us, as an individual. Because we are conscious and have intelligence, we can “project” our consciousness into the skin of another human being, and both understand and empathize that this would cause them pain, as well. It is amazing to me how even those who seemingly have no empathy, can acquire it – if you can raise their awareness to it. This is why teachers tell misbehaving students, “how would you feel if someone did this to you?” And the average child who hears this understands, and feels ashamed or remorseful. It’s interesting to me that the teacher need not say, “did you know God forbid it, or that you will to hell?” He or she simply says, “how would you feel, if someone did it to you?”

A child smiles at its mother; a child needs its parents and fears abandonment; human beings need each other; a child that has physical sustenance, but not affection, apparently will not survive; the worst punishment that can be given to a prisoner is solitary confinement; the worst social punishment that exists is shunning, ostracization, or the “silent treatment”; etc., etc. Aristotle observed “man is a social animal”, which is to be disregarded to our own jeopardy. Most people I know who have no friends, no family, are pretty miserable. The problem is, you cann’t nurture family relationships, or nurture relationships with friends or lovers – or, even, count oneself a member of a community – without empathy. This is wonderfully obvious when there is an emergency, and we see how quickly members of a community will rush to the aid of strangers. That’s our tribe; this is our extended family; as with real families, this sometimes becomes clear and obvious only in crises and emergencies.

These may sound like paltry reasons, and they are far from fail-safe. But at least they are empirical! Talk of God, even if God exists, are metaphysical, and thus based on speculation.

God and metaphysics is a top-down explanation; pragmatism and appeals to enlightened self-interest or to “nature” are bottom-up explanations. I personally have more faith in the latter, including because the former tends to bring irrational moral laws along with it – for example, “we can’t tell you the pragmatic reason, hygienic or otherwise, why you cannot mix meat and dairy; you just can’t. God doesn’t want you to do so.”

And even believers enlist common-sense and self-interest when arguing for morality – for example, with abstinence, they say, “you don’t want to get a disease; you don’t want an unplanned pregnancy; you’re too young, you have to finish school; have fun with your friends; etc.” Or they may say, if you are a woman, “you want to find someone who really cares about you, not just someone who is using you as an object.”

 

[Portofino]

Christianity is unique among the major world religions in requiring a kind of “cultlike” faith in a founding figure. That is to say, we are asked to believe that this person is the be-all and end-all of human existence.

Oh, God – this is an insight I’ve had about Christianity, and which I’ve lamented in terms of the damage that it’s been capable of causing.

Judaism believed in miracles – the parting of the Red Sea; the ten plagues; the Flood and Noah’s Ark. But Christianity is the only religion I’m aware of that is founded on a miracle – the resurrection of Christ.

Paul insisted that belief in this miracle was the sine qua non of the Christian religion. Not love of neighbor; not turning the other cheek; not feeding the hungry and healing the sick; these were essential but ultimately secondary, in comparison. If you did not believe in the miracle that Jesus resurrected from the dead, after three days, then you could not be a Christian.

In this respect, Christianity depends on faith in a way that even Judaism does not, by comparison. It becomes very strangely intellectualized – not “do you believe in loving your neighbor as yourself” but rather "do you believe that Jesus Christ was physically resurrected from the dead?

What I lament is that this has created such false divisions among would-be Christians – those who might like the idea of loving one’s neighbor, but who simply cannot assent – intellectually-- to the physical resurrection of God on earth, 2,000 years ago, as reported in 4 (not entirely consistent) accounts written by his earliest followers. And, moreover, this intellectual disagreement becomes a moral disagreement; lack of faith is perceived as immorality.

There are all-too-many accounts of Christians who became infuriated when this foundational miracle was not believed in; and, indeed, it is foundational, in a way that the parting of the Red Sea is not. This is a quite demanding aspect of Christianity, and not one that hasn’t led to countless frustration and even animosity towards – or vilifying of – those who do not assent to this truth-claim on which the Christian religion rests.

It becomes almost bizarre, from the perspective of a non-believer… I know of no other religion that focuses so much on the question, “Do you believe that this happened? Do you believe in this event?” It is the only religion I’m aware of that depends so fundamentally on belief in a would-be historical event – so insistently and, at times, so indecorously. The more time passes from the event itself – 2,000 years and counting – the more baffling it is to the non-believer, that this is the foundation upon which the entire edifice of Christianity rests (Tolstoy, for one, didn’t agree, and counted it as an insult to say that Christian morality and all of Christ’s moral teaching, without the reality of the resurrection, would be worthless).

 

[Portofino]

I’m happy that you choose to act according to those particular neurons instead of others, but one can’t call that rational behavior.

This is an argument I’ve heard again and again, on this forum and elsewhere. Ultimately speaking, it is indeed unimpeachable. But to make this argument takes us very far away from pragmatism and from life as it is experienced.

To give an example:

*money is intrinsically worthless; it is just pieces of paper, or hunks of worthless metal; ultimately, it is just matter in motion; but the value of money is as real to us as the hardness of a brick wall, pragmatically speaking

*if God doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t matter whether I eat nutritiously, or dine on razor blades and nettles; whether I care for myself, or bang my head bloody into a wall; whether I live, or whether I die

But this is very theoretical speculation. The fact is, most of us want to live, rather than die; and all of us prefer pleasure to pain (no human body is capable of not considering pain a great evil, if the temperature were suddenly elevated by 1,000 degrees; every human being alive, without exception, would scream in agony).

I understand the emotional need to know why we are living, but the answers to that are not forthcoming – there is a choice between agnosticism, faith, and deluded certainty What we do know is that we want to live, and that–while this will to live is not demonstrably metaphysical – it is likely the very basis on which our rationality developed in the first place (we want to survive; reason helps us correlate our thinking with reality; by correlating our thinking with reality, we survive more skillfully).

I’ve recently thought that I’ve wanted to amend Dostoevsky’s dictum, “if God does not exist, everything is permitted” to read, “if God does not exist, everything is permitted – as long as we are willing to accept the consequences.” Case in point – if the entire world suddenly were to stop believing in God, I doubt many individuals would suddenly stop eating nutritious food, and start eating dirt, just because there is no metaphysical prohibition against it. Nor would there be many takers for pulling their fingernails out, just because there’s no cosmic prohibition against it.

Just so, I don’t expect society to say, “murder is ok; stealing is ok; there are no speed limits on the road, nor any mandatory wearing of seat belts”, nor does it matter whether we execute the innocent or the guilty; or for friends to say, “it’s ok for my friends to betray my trust and engage in back-stabbing. It certainly hurts, but why should it?”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But this is very theoretical speculation. The fact is, most of us want to live, rather than die; and all of us prefer pleasure to pain (no human body is capable of not considering pain a great evil, if the temperature were suddenly elevated by 1,000 degrees; every human being alive, without exception, would scream in agony).

This is itself a generalization though. Of course, up to a 1000 degrees, yes, you are correct.

But I know somebody who was near-suicidal. And I know many people who cut, to feel pain, and I have very strong feelings about these matters.

So would you find it okay to let people commit suicide or self-harm if that’s what they want? Because you seem to be saying so, to me at least.

These are things that a person needs help on-telling them it’s okay to do these things is absolutely unacceptable to me.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Oh, God – this is an insight I’ve had about Christianity, and which I’ve lamented in terms of the damage that it’s been capable of causing.

Judaism believed in miracles – the parting of the Red Sea; the ten plagues; the Flood and Noah’s Ark. But Christianity is the only religion I’m aware of that is founded on a miracle – the resurrection of Christ.

Paul insisted that belief in this miracle was the sine qua non of the Christian religion. Not love of neighbor; not turning the other cheek; not feeding the hungry and healing the sick; these were essential but ultimately secondary, in comparison. If you did not believe in the miracle that Jesus resurrected from the dead, after three days, then you could not be a Christian.

In this respect, Christianity depends on faith in a way that even Judaism does not, by comparison. It becomes very strangely intellectualized – not “do you believe in loving your neighbor as yourself” but rather "do you believe that Jesus Christ was physically resurrected from the dead?

What I lament is that this has created such false divisions among would-be Christians – those who might like the idea of loving one’s neighbor, but who simply cannot assent – intellectually-- to the physical resurrection of God on earth, 2,000 years ago, as reported in 4 (not entirely consistent) accounts written by his earliest followers. And, moreover, this intellectual disagreement becomes a moral disagreement; lack of faith is perceived as immorality.

There are all-too-many accounts of Christians who became infuriated when this foundational miracle was not believed in; and, indeed, it is foundational, in a way that the parting of the Red Sea is not. This is a quite demanding aspect of Christianity, and not one that hasn’t led to countless frustration and even animosity towards – or vilifying of – those who do not assent to this truth-claim on which the Christian religion rests.

It becomes almost bizarre, from the perspective of a non-believer… I know of no other religion that focuses so much on the question, “Do you believe that this happened? Do you believe in this event?” It is the only religion I’m aware of that depends so fundamentally on belief in a would-be historical event – so insistently and, at times, so indecorously. The more time passes from the event itself – 2,000 years and counting – the more baffling it is to the non-believer, that this is the foundation upon which the entire edifice of Christianity rests (Tolstoy, for one, didn’t agree, and counted it as an insult to say that Christian morality and all of Christ’s moral teaching, without the reality of the resurrection, would be worthless).

Interestingly, I find you to be right on the money, but I don’t find it problematic. Other religions contain elements of the truth, but none of them really think it’s that important to stay on the historical straight and narrow-except Judaism and Christianity.

Without the Resurrection, our religion would be just another philosophy. But if that occurred, we have a Savior, and we know the promises Jesus made are true.

We’re dependent on history because we believe that we are the fulfillment of all religions on Earth; other religions have gods that have been resurrected, but in our religion we say the rising of God from the dead was a historical event! The myths that pointed to Christ were no longer necessary-the “Real thing” arrived. But for this to be true, it has to be REAL. And this is what Christianity offers.

 

[norain]

Without the Resurrection, our religion would be just another philosophy. But if that occurred, we have a Savior, and we know the promises Jesus made are true.

I’m with Portofino on this. It bothers me as well. Christians put too much emphasis in faith in Jesus as the Christ. In other religions, a person is saved by his works, not his faith. Christians neglect that it is precisely through works that faith is itself manifest.

Yes, Tolstoy, Thomas Paine, and Deism.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m with Portofino on this. It bothers me as well. Christians put too much emphasis in faith in Jesus as the Christ. In other religions, a person is saved by his works, not his faith. Christians neglect that it is precisely through works that faith is itself manifest.

Yes, Tolstoy, Thomas Paine, and Deism.

If Jesus was not the Christ, he would be another admirable philosopher. That He is ACTUALLY, literally, God, who is a man, is what separates Christianity from other religions.

 

[Contarini]

I’d object to this. Not sure what you mean by “grounded in objective reality”, first.

What I mean is that the atheist chooses to obey one set of impulses over another, and, if he/she is a truly moral person, considers that one set of impulses to have an absolute claim on him or her. There is nothing about the atheistic view of reality that explains why this is rational. It’s easy to make a utilitarian case, based in a materialistic/naturalistic view of reality, for acting morally most of the time. But that’s not what I would consider a moral position–it’s nothing more than self-serving calculation. The atheists who really believe that you should obey moral intuitions even if doing so results in your death (i.e., even when it clearly does not benefit you in any way) are taking a position that has no connection whatever to their understanding of objective reality.

Second, if God did create all things, then the morality that the atheist subscribes to should default to God’s morality.

Not sure how you think that is disagreeing with what I’m saying.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m with Portofino on this. It bothers me as well. Christians put too much emphasis in faith in Jesus as the Christ. In other religions, a person is saved by his works, not his faith. Christians neglect that it is precisely through works that faith is itself manifest.

I can’t see that Christians in general neglect this, and I certainly can’t see how this criticism has anything to do with anything that Marc Anthony actually said.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My argument for empathy – independently of whether a Supreme Being exists, or not–is:

–empathy is natural (meaning, it naturally occurs in human beings; which is not to say that it occurs in everyone, or to the same degree)

Sure, but so do many other impulses. That doesn’t give a reason for preferring one thing over another.

–it is rational because it contributes to the welfare of our tribe

Much of the time, but not always. For instance, having empathy for an enemy who may destroy the tribe may not contribute to the welfare of your tribe at all. Yet pretty much all major religious/philosophical traditions consider this as admirable, even if they don’t all emphasize it to an equal degree. And on purely materialistic grounds, it’s not clear why one should care about the welfare of one’s tribe except insofar as it contributes to one’s own, which it doesn’t always. In fact, I tend to go with the much-derided argument of C. S. Lewis that on materialistic grounds it’s not clear how anything could be rational at all. Certainly a materialistic view of reality can’t give good grounds for preferring one end above another. But at least personal survival is, on materialistic grounds, the basic precondition for the satisfaction of any other desire one might have (including the pleasures of empathy), and so behavior that threatens personal survival (which ethical behavior often does) would surely be particularly questionable if one is grounding one’s ethics in one’s ontology. (I want to repeat that I’m not assuming that atheists do this–on the contrary, my argument is precisely that moral atheists do no such thing.)

For most human beings, as individuals, empathy just comes naturally

But again, so do other things. It’s not enough to show that we “naturally” have a certain impulse–you need to show why one should prefer this impulse to others. Many impulses frequently overcome empathy in human beings, or the world would be a much better place than it is!

My own rather ironic conclusion after having had this conversation a number of times with folks who think as you do is that atheism only makes sense to very, very good people, who simply can’t imagine being otherwise.

Talk of God, even if God exists, are metaphysical, and thus based on speculation.

You seem to think that this is a bad thing:shrug:

God and metaphysics is a top-down explanation; pragmatism and appeals to enlightened self-interest or to “nature” are bottom-up explanations. I personally have more faith in the latter, including because the former tends to bring irrational moral laws along with it – for example, “we can’t tell you the pragmatic reason, hygienic or otherwise, why you cannot mix meat and dairy; you just can’t. God doesn’t want you to do so.”

But you haven’t shown, it seems to me, that any moral laws are any more rational than, for instance, these taboos. After all, people seem to have a pretty strong instinct to construct and obey taboos. That’s also a natural impulse. Why is it any less rational than the impulse to practice empathy? You simply seem to be picking and choosing the impulses that further ends you like, and calling those impulses “rational” without any metaphysical warrant for doing so.

But if you really think metaphysics is somehow removed from the practice of real life, then it’s hard to have a conversation about metaphysics with you, isn’t it. To me, one’s ultimate view of reality is the one thing that matters. I am, in a phrase my wife picked up from some article she read, a “big-picture worrier.” (I completely identify with Woody Allen in Annie Hall refusing to do his homework because the universe will end in a few billion years.)

And even believers enlist common-sense and self-interest when arguing for morality – for example, with abstinence, they say, “you don’t want to get a disease; you don’t want an unplanned pregnancy; you’re too young, you have to finish school; have fun with your friends; etc.”

Those motivations may have some very limited value, but I think people rely on them far too much, and that’s one reason that this aspect of our society is in such a mess. I would frankly be disturbed if we produced a generation of people who valued such cold calculations over the impulses of eros. Fortunately, at least in my neck of the woods (or rather the cornfields), we don’t seem to be doing any such thing, given the number of hostesses at Bob Evans who appear to have children (I am not conducting a survey on the subject–I have a five-year-old daughter, and people tend to remark, “Oh, mine is the same age,” or something like that.)

Or they may say, if you are a woman, “you want to find someone who really cares about you, not just someone who is using you as an object.”

That’s a better consideration. But still a bit abstract when it counts. Saying “this will make the Virgin Mary cry” probably worked better. (Yes, I find such utilitarian calculations to be at least as abstract as metaphysical ones and far more so than the devotional ones that traditionally have derived from the metaphysical, or at least been supported by them.)

Edwin

 

[Portofino]

This is itself a generalization though. Of course, up to a 1000 degrees, yes, you are correct.

But I know somebody who was near-suicidal. And I know many people who cut, to feel pain, and I have very strong feelings about these matters.

So would you find it okay to let people commit suicide or self-harm if that’s what they want? Because you seem to be saying so, to me at least.

These are things that a person needs help on-telling them it’s okay to do these things is absolutely unacceptable to me.

I wouldn’t want anybody to harm himself, and I certainly would feel compassion for anyone who wants to harm himself. This may not be my brother, my father, or my son, but it is still a fellow human. But that he is free to do it, if he is willing to accept the consequences (death) – that, unfortunately, is true. It is true even if God exists; God will not stop a person from killing himself. If it is morally wrong by God’s standards, it means it can be freely chosen by anyone – but will incur punishment. For the non-believer, the punishment is death, and the irrevocability of the decision; for the Christian believer, the punishment is the possibility of an eternity in hell (which seems a cruel doctrine to me, especially for a victim of suicide – which is how I would describe it, free will notwithstanding).

I don’t deny that it is a valid attempt to prevent someone from killing himself, by telling him that God forbids it and that he will incur punishment. But a just as good way – perhaps better – is to listen, not to judge, to show compassion. Judging the person – “your desire is wrong, it has no right to be; how could you be so selfish, etc.” – could just make things worse, if one is not careful.

 

[Portofino]

Sure, but so do many other impulses. That doesn’t give a reason for preferring one thing over another.

I don’t claim that it’s infallible, but–generally speaking – empathy is the path that leads a happier, more fulfilled (in that sense, more fully human) existence, just like water slakes thirst and nutritious food satisfies hunger. Anger, jealousy, hatred tend to lead to unhappiness and to cause self-isolation. This is similar to metaphysics in the sense that it requires wisdom or discernment; one either sees it, or one doesn’t (and many adolescents, and many adult criminals, don’t see it at all). I dare say that more women see it than men; young men, especially, sometimes need help seeing it. I know that the Christian sees it (hopefully), but I think the Christian misjudges in saying that, without faith in God, one could be a sociopath and be perfectly happy and fulfilled. I don’t see it, in the profile of those who lack empathy and who hurt others; I see unhappy people, who are in pain. That’s where a lot of that anger comes from, it seems.

I grant that this can’t be proven empirically (because it is psychology, not natural science), but – speaking to Norain’s point – many Christians agree with this, and point to it as circumstantial evidence that God exists and that there is justice in the world. Selfish, vengeful, embittered, mean-spirited individuals grasp at happiness, but it eludes them. Even Augustine says, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” If God is love, then the believer and the humanistic atheist are in agreement – one cannot rest, until one rests in love.

It’s also very telling to hear the testimony of prisoners who have found more insight into their behavior in prison. They don’t say, "life was so wonderful, so fun, when I was a criminal, the happiest time of my life; but I gave it up, sacrificed it, and decided to take the straight and narrow. Instead, they tend to say, “I was so miserable; hurting so much inside; trying to numb the pain, constantly; when I victimized people I didn’t even know, I saw the faces of all those people who had ever hurt me; I had such rage inside of me, such bottomless hurt and rage; and now I have peace, for the first time in my life; I have self-understanding.”

 

[Portofino]

Much of the time, but not always. For instance, having empathy for an enemy who may destroy the tribe may not contribute to the welfare of your tribe at all.

That is a valid point; it haunts Christianity, even. It is the debate between the just war theory (which I understand is the predominant Catholic doctrine) versus absolute pacifism. Or, rather, you are to have empathy for the enemy, but still resist him – with violence, if necessary.

As I know you’re aware, the early Anabaptists were considered monsters for saying, “if the Turks attack us, we should not resist them with violence; we should not take up arms against them.”

And on purely materialistic grounds, it’s not clear why one should care about the welfare of one’s tribe except insofar as it contributes to one’s own, which it doesn’t always.

The Buddhist does a fair of job of it, saying that the other person is a fellow sentient being. It is a recognition of the humanity of the other – that they are no different than you, at bottom. This speaks to one of the most humanistic passages in all of Shakespeare (though there are many!): “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?”

Science seems to bear it out – everything from the Big Bang, where all of existence sprang from a single point of energy; to the genetic similarity between humans (and other mammals, for that matter); to the fact that the common individual ancestors of millions of modern-day humans are surprisingly few in number. Diogenes the Cynic had proclaimed: “I am a citizen of the world”; it was one’s isolated social tribe that was the artificial unit, whereas one’s membership in the human family was natural and biological. National boundaries, differences in religion, in language, in culture, created artificial boundaries between human beings, that blind us to the underlying similarities as fellow homo sapiens. Young children, famously, cross those boundaries with ease.

Certainly a materialistic view of reality can’t give good grounds for preferring one end above another. But at least personal survival is, on materialistic grounds, the basic precondition for the satisfaction of any other desire one might have (including the pleasures of empathy), and so behavior that threatens personal survival (which ethical behavior often does) would surely be particularly questionable if one is grounding one’s ethics in one’s ontology. (I want to repeat that I’m not assuming that atheists do this–on the contrary, my argument is precisely that moral atheists do no such thing.

The humanistic ethic, as I can discern it, is this – life is preferable to death, pleasure to pain. This is pretty reliable as a *de facto *standard of human nature (and of animals, as well). Altruism depends on it, because it forbids me to cause unnecessary suffering to my neighbor. The surprising thing about this humanistic ethic is that pleasure is ultimately more important than life itself – hence euthanasia, for example. For the humanist, there are certain conditions of life that are worse than death itself; if the conditions of life are conceived as “cruel and unusual punishment,” then death may be preferable (which is why they euthanize horses or pets, not because horses or pets are worth less than human beings, but as an act of mercy).

Lewis is right that it cannot be proven that life is better than death, pleasure better than suffering, however. It’s just taken as a given, pretty reliably so. Even those who would play around with “masochism” are not talking about being tortured as POW’s! They don’t say, “please break my knee caps.” And I grant that it’s a very subtle manifestation of hedonism (though not at all hard to understand) that says, “if I had to choose between my life and my child’s, I’d choose losing my own life” or, “if I had to endure torture so that my child might live, I would willingly endure it.” Indeed, sacrifice is surprisingly natural – a mother bear would attack, with great ferocity, anyone trying to harm her cubs, even though it is putting her own life at risk. She is laying down her life for her offspring, willing to risk death, so that they might live. Few parents who love their children would not say, “I would give my life for my child, if necessary” or, “I would endure any suffering for those I love, because any harm that came them would hurt me more.”

The non-believing humanist-- such as the Buddhist – would simply be more aware of his connection with a total stranger, than would the non-Buddhist. He could see his daughter, mother, or sister, in every woman that he encounters; see his son, father, or brother, in every man. This is not at all far from Christianity, which speaks of brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers. But this is surprisingly natural, as well – to extend one’s existing sense of kinship with the neighbor who is near (which is natural, a kind of herd instinct) to encompass one’s neighbor who is far (thus, not just the Jew, but the Samaritan as well, because “Samaritan” and “Jew” are just artificial distinctions, anyway – not natural).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I wouldn’t want anybody to harm himself, and I certainly would feel compassion for anyone who wants to harm himself. This may not be my brother, my father, or my son, but it is still a fellow human. But that he is free to do it, if he is willing to accept the consequences (death) – that, unfortunately, is true. It is true even if God exists; God will not stop a person from killing himself. If it is morally wrong by God’s standards, it means it can be freely chosen by anyone – but will incur punishment. For the non-believer, the punishment is death, and the irrevocability of the decision; for the Christian believer, the punishment is the possibility of an eternity in hell (which seems a cruel doctrine to me, especially for a victim of suicide – which is how I would describe it, free will notwithstanding).

I don’t deny that it is a valid attempt to prevent someone from killing himself, by telling him that God forbids it and that he will incur punishment. But a just as good way – perhaps better – is to listen, not to judge, to show compassion. Judging the person – “your desire is wrong, it has no right to be; how could you be so selfish, etc.” – could just make things worse, if one is not careful.

I am utterly confused how you got the idea that I was advocating “scaring” people with the threat of God’s wrath, or something to that effect, to stop them from self-harming. I don’t think that at all.

You really want to know? My current girlfriend/soon to be ex-girlfriend (we had a discussion and decided that we wanted to break up in person, so we’re having one last date. It makes sense, ) self-harmed and, while never quite suicidal, thought about it often. I also have other close friends who self-harm.

My girlfriend is agnostic. When I noticed her exhibiting suicide warning signs I made sure she knew I cared-and I swore that if I got any inkling that she tried to attempt it, I would call the police. I was dead serious. I still am.

I have other friends who self-harm. That is entirely different-with self-harm, it really is all about making sure people know you’re there. The principle is the same with suicide prevention, but to prevent death sometimes action must be taken.

And yes, I consider the desire to harm yourself or commit suicide wrong. I don’t tell people who want to commit suicide or self-harm this, though-what point would that serve? It sounds antagonistic, and I make it clear I think it’s wrong anyway by making them know I care about them and don’t want them to die or hurt themselves.

 

[Portofino]

My own rather ironic conclusion after having had this conversation a number of times with folks who think as you do is that atheism only makes sense to very, very good people, who simply can’t imagine being otherwise.

Have to smile at that one I’ve been thinking lately–somewhat in this connection, somewhat in a different vein-- about the extent to which these disputes of whether morality makes sense, without God, are more germane to debates between men, versus between women. The value of kindness, empathy, and “nurturing” (for all sorts of creatures, whether for “cute little doggies” or for children) seem more self-evident to most of the women I know or have observed. The sociopaths, the serial killers, the anti-social misfits, tend to be – almost without exception – poorly adjusted (and often, quite intelligent) young men. This is true of fictional examples such as Raskolnikov or Travis Bickle; or real-life examples such as the Columbine shooters, or the Aurora gunman. Young men seem to get lost more easily – are more in danger of being “cut off from the source” (assuming that source is love).

You seem to think that this is a bad thing:shrug:

God and metaphysical speculation is great–more than great–but I think it’s dangerous in social discourse–as opposed to in the privacy of one’s heart, something so precious that it’s almost incommunicable–because it’s unprovable. Each side (believing humanist and non-believing humanist) sees the other’s position as socially dangerous, not without reason – the believer is putting morality on an absolutely firm foundation, but one that is invisible (transcendent) and, ultimately, unprovable; the non-believer is seeking to put morality on an only relatively stable foundation (tenuous, at worst), but one that is, at least, comparatively more empirical (pragmatism, intelligent self-interest, natural empathy).

you haven’t shown, it seems to me, that any moral laws are any more rational than, for instance, these taboos. After all, people seem to have a pretty strong instinct to construct and obey taboos. That’s also a natural impulse. Why is it any less rational than the impulse to practice empathy? You simply seem to be picking and choosing the impulses that further ends you like, and calling those impulses “rational” without any metaphysical warrant for doing so.

It’s true that I’m not questioning the human desire for survival and the general preference of pleasure over pain. I grant that there is nothing rationally necessary about these preferences; just that these preferences are a *de facto *reality. I’m standing by that nutrition analogy – that we don’t drink crude oil, or eat dirt and rocks. There’s no rational reason why we don’t drink crude oil, and eat rocks, by the more rigorous standards you’re invoking. Just so, a “healthy” society doesn’t reward rapists, murderers, and thieves, while locking up non-rapists, non-murderers, and non-thieves. It just wouldn’t make sense, and few people would want to live in such a society (“we guarantee non-safety for all our citizens!”).

I don’t think it’s an unfair foundation to stand on; the Buddhists stands on it, as does–ultimately–the Christian. What in the world do you say to someone who, when you tell them, “don’t do this, because you can go to hell,” and they ask, “what’s so bad about suffering eternally in hell? Sounds like an unwarranted prejudice, to me, to prefer the bliss of heaven to the suffering of hell. That’s nice that it’s what God wants; why should I want it?”

To me, one’s ultimate view of reality is the one thing that matters. I am, in a phrase my wife picked up from some article she read, a “big-picture worrier.” (I completely identify with Woody Allen in Annie Hall refusing to do his homework because the universe will end in a few billion years.)

I’ve thought about these questions myself, certainly I have What I’ve noticed is that many who ask these profound questions – and who suffer enormously from them, as is only natural – often reach a point that is akin to, “the serenity to accept the things I can’t change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.” This was the conclusion of Qoheleth; of Voltaire’s Candide (“we must cultivate our garden”); and even of that popular song, “don’t worry, be happy.” I know that the last can offend the sensitive and thoughtful thinker, for being mindless hedonism; but, in fact, it can be an insight that comes after much deep thinking. It is the same wisdom that says, “few people die saying, ‘I wish I had spent more time at the office.’” It is a kind of Pascal’s wager for this life – enjoy it while you can; live a life that is so worth living, that you can be at peace with dying. The people I know who subscribe to this philosophy tend to have a more thoughtful approach to things, preferring life’s simple pleasures (for example, someone who says that the greatest day of his life was the day his daughter was born; or a doctor talking about what mattered was being there to teach his daughter how to ride a bike, or to play catch with his son).These things aren’t eternal, granted. But when one is facing death, these can be the things that a person regrets most, when they look back on their life.

Regarding “big worriers” – even Woody Allen said, in Annie Hall, “There’s an old joke: two elderly women are at a Catskills mountain resort, and one of 'em says, 'Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” The other one says, “Yeah, I know, and such small portions.’ Well, that’s essentially how I feel about life. Full of loneliness and misery and suffering and unhappiness, and it’s all over much too quickly.” I see that as an affirmation of life, actually, albeit wryly stated

 

[Portofino]

I am utterly confused how you got the idea that I was advocating “scaring” people with the threat of God’s wrath, or something to that effect, to stop them from self-harming. I don’t think that at all.

Sorry about that; I know it all depends on how you tender it (that suicide is wrong). I remember being baffled by the seeming animus that Chesterton had against suicide, which felt almost akin to a kicking a man when he’s down. Then again, perhaps the tone could have redeemed it (he wrote, “Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage… The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite…There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man’s crime is different from other crimes – for it makes even crimes impossible.)”

really want to know? My current girlfriend/soon to be ex-girlfriend (we had a discussion and decided that we wanted to break up in person, so we’re having one last date. It makes sense, ) self-harmed and, while never quite suicidal, thought about it often. I also have other close friends who self-harm.

Thank you for sharing that. Self-harm… I remember from my college days, that more girls than boys tended to do it (at least in the sense of cutting). I also knew a girl who was severely bulimic, which was another obviously self-destructive behavior. I don’t know how to explain it, though I’ve pondered whether self-harm might be a way of reclaiming control over one’s life. For example, “when I try to do things, I fail; nothing I try works. When I harm myself, at least I’m in control; at least I’m succeeding at something (“Suicidal Tendencies” – “Institutionalized”: Sometimes I try to do things, and it just doesn’t work out the way I wanted to. And I get real frustrated and like I try hard to do it.
I like take my time and it just doesn’t work out the way I wanted to.
It’s like I concentrate on it real hard and it just doesn’t work out
And Everything I do and everything I try it never turns out”). Another possibility I thought of (and I’m not a psychologist, in case that’s not obvious )-- is that one is angry and frustrated at the emotional pain that one feels, and that won’t go away. Depression, for example. So one harms oneself physically, out of anger at oneself – because the pain won’t stop. This body is making you suffer – these miserable bones – and so you are punishing that body. ‘Stop hurting me, dammit!’" Perhaps it is like beating at the walls of one’s cage; causing oneself physical pain to dull the emotional pain, even (like a moment in Psycho III when Norman deliberately clenches his fist around a knife and bangs it into the table, to stop the “voices in his head”).

yes, I consider the desire to harm yourself or commit suicide wrong. I don’t tell people who want to commit suicide or self-harm this, though-what point would that serve? It sounds antagonistic, and I make it clear I think it’s wrong anyway by making them know I care about them and don’t want them to die or hurt themselves.

You’re obviously living it. I know the impulse is always to tell the person how much you care about them, how much you would care if they were gone; how much others would care. If they believe in God, I grant it can be very powerful to let them know how much God loves them. If the person is an agnostic, they could be sensible to, “your life is more valuable, more precious, than you can possibly imagine, possibly conceive of.”