Atheism is Nothingness

[polytropos]

This is the classic example of beauty that I would have used . But if we’re being conditioned to find it beautiful, why is that? That would imply that it’s somehow right to find it beautiful but if there’s no objective standard of beauty then it’s just an accident. Anything we find beautiful is an accident and meaningless, which is related to the point originally made in the OP.

I think that you are taking the argument further than it can go. In the case of “subjective” beauty, beauty is not a thing, it is just a word we tend to ascribe to things that elicit a certain class of psychological responses in us. It is not a standard.

What is a valid question, I think, is why humans agree that so many things are beautiful, even when there is no conceivable evolutionary advantage to seeing them as beautiful (for example, the night sky). One can argue, I think, that beauty is subjective, but I don’t think one can claim to understand beauty purely in terms of evolutionary psychology.

 

[balto]

Only if said “objective standard” was dependent on the perspective of a deity. If it is something that could be described algorithmically (just as an example) then the answer would be “no.”

Well, yes, but again I think we’re not talking about the same thing here. I think that what most people think of when they think of a “deity” is some ethereal humanoid that lives in the sky and shoots lightning at people . All humor aside, that’s not what most theist philosophers or theologians mean by God, at least if I’m understanding them correctly. Fr. Barron said something in his Catholicism series along the lines of “if you think that you have an understanding of God, run from that because that’s not God.” If God really is infinite, then we can’t classify Him under terms like “deity” and even “God”, even though we humans like to try to understand things and categorize them. It’s probably the reason why He told Moses His name is “I am who I am.” So God and the objective standard of truth, morality, etc. are one in the same. The Christian theology is just a development of that fundamental understanding that claims that these standards if you will are manifest in a Trinity of three divine Persons with a single nature.

I should add a caveat that I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian so I may have some part of this wrong, but it’s interesting to think about.

That sounds like something that is specifically in line with Catholic teaching, but not necessarily specific to other forms of Christianity or non-Christian theistic religions.

Yes, you’re right about that, I should have clarified. However I do maintain that the Catholic understanding is the most complete understanding of theism, hence my identification as “Catholic.”

 

[balto]

It seems like you’re not defining the objective standard as God, but defining God as an objective standard - so that any objective standard would be called “God” even if it had no personality whatsoever.

Well yes you could call any standard an “objective” standard and then claim it’s God, but unless it’s the actual objective standard it’s not God. A common view of God is that He is that of which nothing greater can be thought. If God only gave us the Ten Commandments because they were “right,” then the standard is greater than God and He’s only reflecting a greater standard. I’m arguing that the standards are part of God’s nature.

For example, I would call mathematical coherence an objective standard by which to measure the truth of certain propositions. Does that mean that mathematics is a God?

This illustrates the point I’m trying to make. God is the standard of Truth, all Truth. Mathematics is a reflection of this standard in that it can tell us the truth of, as you said, certain propositions, but not all. Mathematics can’t prove why it’s wrong to steal, even though that’s a true statement. Therefore, mathematics is only a relative standard. I know it sounds strange to say that God is the standard of Truth, but if it were completely understandable it wouldn’t be God, seeing as though He’s infinite and we’re only finite beings

 

[balto]

I think that you are taking the argument further than it can go. In the case of “subjective” beauty, beauty is not a thing, it is just a word we tend to ascribe to things that elicit a certain class of psychological responses in us. It is not a standard.

What is a valid question, I think, is why humans agree that so many things are beautiful, even when there is no conceivable evolutionary advantage to seeing them as beautiful (for example, the night sky). One can argue, I think, that beauty is subjective, but I don’t think one can claim to understand beauty purely in terms of evolutionary psychology.

I see where you’re coming from, but the question you posed I think is an argument for a standard of beauty. If there’s no objective standard of beauty, then the consensus of humans on why so many things are beautiful makes no sense. If there were no standard of truth, it would make no sense as to why so many of us agree that mathematics is a reliable system, to use an example from an earlier post. If an objective standard of beauty exists, then maybe the vast majority of us find beauty in a sunset because it just is beautiful. That’s one hypothesis but I could be wrong.

 

[polytropos]

I see where you’re coming from, but the question you posed I think is an argument for a standard of beauty. If there’s no objective standard of beauty, then the consensus of humans on why so many things are beautiful makes no sense. If there were no standard of truth, it would make no sense as to why so many of us agree that mathematics is a reliable system, to use an example from an earlier post. If an objective standard of beauty exists, then maybe the vast majority of us find beauty in a sunset because it just is beautiful. That’s one hypothesis but I could be wrong.

Right, and I do take human consensus on beauty as a gesture towards a standard of beauty. But I acknowledge that it isn’t a “proof,” just something that points me towards God. If I really wanted to (as I have wanted to for many years in the past), I could try to conceive of an alternative.

As far as mathematics goes, I would hesitate to call it a “standard” in the sense of what we are considering for beauty. Mathematics is a logical system abstracted from real relationships between real objects. Its reliability is consequent of its basis in generally applicable premises and its utility. Calling it “relative” is a bit of a stretch - but we do alter our premises in mathematics when it’s convenient. It has been constructed by man for his use. Beauty, we propose, is inherent. Mathematics can act as a logical “standard” to evaluate propositions, but propositions in themselves are not real beings.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

Perhaps an atheist can share with me how it is they wake every morning, proceed through the day, achieve goals and milestones in life and all the time be looking forward to “Nothingness” when they die.

What can motivate a person to continue with the struggle if they truly believe that at the end, it will amount to “Nothingness”?

The “moment” is meaningless, if in the next moment death can remove you to “Nothingness”.

I can only imagine that the total existence and purpose of living as an atheist is to embrace as much of the material product of life as one can, believing that tomorrow may be “Nothingness”. But wouldn’t such a life become stale after the 1,000th bottle of the best wine, best cars, best food, best entertainment, best whatever you can afford ?

Is “Nothingness” the ultimate goal and achievement of a life led as an atheist ?

I’m not an atheist but I don’t think you quite have the right idea here about atheists. There are millions of people in the world who don’t believe in God or a god and yet they don’t consider their lives meaningless or a struggle that isn’t worth pursuing because it will end in nothingness.

Atheists don’t believe in God. Otherwise, they work, get married, raise children, pursue interests, care for their family and workmates and neighbours, worry about what sort of world will be left for their grandchildren,go out to dinner sometimes, worry about the bills, plan family gatherings, give what they can to charity and so on. All the things that all people do. The difference is that atheists do it believing this is the only life we have.

(And actually, sadly I know some Catholics who are forever chasing that latest and best material thing or experience).

A belief that this life is all there is doesn’t take away the things that make us part of a family or a community or a country, it doesn’t take away the wonder people feel when looking at the stars, it doesn’t take away the need to find meaning in the big and little things and it doesn’t take away the need to do things that are meaningful in the long and short term. That comes with being a human, not with a belief in God.

 

[Portofino]

I see where you’re coming from, but the question you posed I think is an argument for a standard of beauty. If there’s no objective standard of beauty, then the consensus of humans on why so many things are beautiful makes no sense. If there were no standard of truth, it would make no sense as to why so many of us agree that mathematics is a reliable system, to use an example from an earlier post. If an objective standard of beauty exists, then maybe the vast majority of us find beauty in a sunset because it just is beautiful. That’s one hypothesis but I could be wrong.

Beauty may be an even tougher nut to crack than morality, in a way.

That is, in terms of objective goodness, you can really come up with a definitive, dogmatic formula – this is good, this is bad.

With beauty, it would be much harder to pin down anything but a much vaguer definition.

Emerson once pointed out – and he not alone – that “there is no object so foul that intense light will not make beautiful.” Yet darkness is experienced to be beautiful, as well.
For some, twilight is the most beautiful of all, or moonlight, because it is precisely the darkness and shadow that throws the source of illumination into more intense relief, renders it more poignant and subtle. It’s hard to derive an entirely non-subjective aesthetics, in the same way one can claim to derive a non-subjective definition of morality.

Some would find a brilliantly blue sky to be a thing of great beauty, while others might find it pretty, but somewhat uninteresting. Cloud formations, or even a rainstorm – light shining through the clouds, after a rainstorm – would seem more beautiful to them.

When it comes to aesthetics, it’s very easy to be in danger of calling everything and its opposite beautiful – day is beautiful, but so is night; sunlight is beautiful, but so is a thunderstorm; slender girls are beautiful, but so are plump girls; etc.

One could even say that, on the most profound level, everything is beautiful. A good example would be the beauty of the crucified Christ, largely based on the beautiful idea that is represents, where beauty is construed in a more metaphorical or figures sense. But still, this metaphorical or figurative sense animates the physical spectacle of Christ on the cross, rendering it beautiful. Those of other religions, truth be told, often find it rather morbid! This also gets one far beyond the traditional boundaries of classical beauty, into the “awful and sublime.” In the Pieta, Mary is holding her dead son in her arms, and we find that to be beautiful, even though – if a man were to come upon his wife cradling her dead son in her arms, and he was seeing it for the first time – he would be shattered, devastated. It would be anything but an object of aesthetic appreciation.

Also, in something like the beauty, and the aesthetics, of carving Christ on the cross, the “outward” and “inward” significations of beauty join. In other words, acts of a moral significance are often described as being beautiful – a beautiful gesture, a beautiful deed, while immoral actions are often described as ugly. Thus, the sacrifice of Christ is the ultimate of beautiful gestures, what makes Christ on the cross not only not morbid, but beautiful.

When we speak of inner beauty, we are referring to a beautiful character, to virtue – honesty, kindness, warm-heartedness. We are speaking aesthetically about moral qualities, saying that moral qualities are beautiful, immoral qualities ugly.

 

[Blinky]

Matthew 16:26

 

[minion]

Most Buddhists, for example, are non-theists but believe in reincarnation. The idea actually makes an amount of sense: Our physical bodies are reused, so if our consciousnesses are made of some other material different from them, maybe they also could be reused. It’s possible, and if it were true it’d be rather awesome.

I don’t see how one can be so certain of the non-existence of God to be an atheist, but believe an invisible “ego” can still continue to exist - there’s no scientific proof, and can’t even be logically deduced there is life after death, unlike the basic first cause arguments that go the other direction.

Seeing the beauty and meaning that are in life. Wouldn’t you say that your life has inherent value, in the natural material part of it, not just in the future after you die?

If I were an atheist, I would say no, because “beauty” and “meaning” are meaningless, nominal terms - everything is just “stuff” like dirt. Loving someone is no different that murdering someone; it’s just a movement of matter.

The questions you are asking are largely topics of concern in the area of psychology called “motivation theory.” I think you’ll find a lot of your answers by looking into it. Note that the information that you find isn’t specific to atheist, but tries to address these questions about humans.

I will look into it (someday ). However, if it eventually amounts to saying something like “everything is motivated by matter only” I would say that premise can’t be proven either.

The question to look into is “What causes annihilation anxiety.” From there you can then look at non-religious people on an individual basis and see whether or not they are subject to the factors you find. Take note that a religious person could also fall victim to the same causes.

Any data that one finds can’t be verified, because people’s minds can’t be read though, correct? Any data received must be accepted on faith.

From the wording of your question I get the feeling that your expectation is that people are generally going through a catalog of philosophies of life and selecting one from it. While there may be prescriptive elements to how some one lives their life I think you might want to look at it descriptively instead; some one whose life falls into a certain philosophical category may do so without the person specifically trying to fit into that category. So a person’s choices would not be limited to what I could enumerate here.

I’m trying to see it from an atheistic perspective…won’t any descriptors or choices fall into either nihilism or hedonism anyway? Transcendental values like love and goodness don’t exist; they’re illusions a hedonist can exploit to maximize pleasure.

A some what related question for you. Let’s say you have a painting on the wall. Ultimately the painting will be destroyed whether from being discarded, damaged, decayed, or put through some other process. If this painting doesn’t contribute to your ultimate happiness then why have it? I ask this because questions like this come to mind when ever I read threads like this. So I figured I would share my question this time.

Hmm…let me think this through.

I would say the painting has value because good art, and each painting, points to specific, eternal truths. Even if the matter the art is composed of is transient, the truth behind it is eternal. All art someone wishes to possess needn’t make one happy if one is after truth.

I don’t know if that answered your question, but I tried to answer as honestly as I can.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I will look into it (someday ). However, if it eventually amounts to saying something like “everything is motivated by matter only” I would say that premise can’t be proven either.

I can’t say I’ve ever come across anything in psychology that is dependent on that premise.

Any data that one finds can’t be verified, because people’s minds can’t be read though, correct? Any data received must be accepted on faith.

This almost sounds solipsistic.

Data received doesn’t have to be accepted. It can be challenged (or one can respond in some other way). Though there is the question of how much effort you are willing to consume on validating, challenging, and researching. If your occupation and way of life isn’t contingent on knowing any of this information then it may be nothing more than a passing interest and the question can be left up to speculation. Of course at the end of it at best a tentative model of behaviour would be the result. While less than perfect it may be useful for understanding , predicting, or assisting in modifying the behaviour of others.

I’m trying to see it from an atheistic perspective

…there are multiple perspectives. Some of these perspectives are going to depend on one’s life experiences and their evaluation of their state of existence. There seems to be some correlation between anxiety/depression and nihilism. That’s why I suggest that as a starting point.

…won’t any descriptors or choices fall into either nihilism or hedonism anyway?

Some may, but not all.

Transcendental values like love and goodness don’t exist; they’re illusions a hedonist can exploit to maximize pleasure.

Not sure which meaning of “transcendental” that you mean here (outside the natural world, existing in concept only, so on…). Conviction that a deity exists doesn’t seem to be a requirement for some one to be impacted by these feelings/emotions and for some one to value them.

I would say the painting has value because good art, and each painting, points to specific, eternal truths. Even if the matter the art is composed of is transient, the truth behind it is eternal. All art someone wishes to possess needn’t make one happy if one is after truth.

I don’t know if that answered your question, but I tried to answer as honestly as I can.

Okay, thanx. Sounds similar to an answer some one else provided earlier.

 

[durrsmc]

I must admit that i haven’t read all of these, so hopefully I am not repeating anything. The main fact that matters is that you can’t choose what you believe. Atheists don’t choose to not believe, and death is a bummer, but I could easily ask why a christian doesn’t choose to believe in reincarnation, because that sounds pretty fun. Atheism is simply the statement that I don’t believe the religious claim that a god exists and nothing more. some may even still believe that there is some kind of an afterlife, just no god.

 

[polytropos]

I must admit that i haven’t read all of these, so hopefully I am not repeating anything. The main fact that matters is that you can’t choose what you believe. Atheists don’t choose to not believe, and death is a bummer, but I could easily ask why a christian doesn’t choose to believe in reincarnation, because that sounds pretty fun. Atheism is simply the statement that I don’t believe the religious claim that a god exists and nothing more. some may even still believe that there is some kind of an afterlife, just no god.

I don’t think I agree with the bolded statement. That was something that I said very frequently as an atheist. Belief is much more of a choice than it seems; I think we tend to think of it as something that “just happens” because a lot of people maintain the belief system that they were born into.

I originally left the Catholic Church at the age of 12 because I was kind of lukewarm about the Faith (mass and CCD were not very fun). I was introduced to the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution in school and I thought that they were incompatible with belief. That was pretty voluntary; I stopped believing because I did not want to believe and I found a justification for it. If I had picked up a book and learned more about the Faith, I might have realized that I did not have a rational basis for leaving. But I wasn’t about to do that, because I did not want to be a Catholic anymore.

Likewise, it’s probably fair to say that I am a Catholic again because I wanted to be. I starting reading more about the Faith and I started going to mass because I wanted to be a Catholic. Which is a bit worrying and demands additional introspection to avoid confirmation bias.

So belief is a choice, IMO. Desire to believe, perhaps, is not.

 

[durrsmc]

I am not talking about belief in one religion or another, i am talking about belief that a god exists. I could use the spaghetti monster idea. Is it possible for you to believe that a giant floating spaghetti monster exists, and truly believe it, or is it just too crazy to rap your mind around. that is how most atheists feel about the idea of a god. I could lie and say that i am christian just to fool people, but it doesn’t change the fact that i don’t and no matter how many people tell me there is a spaghetti monster and that i am a fool for not believing it, i just can’t trick myself into actually believing it.

 

[durrsmc]

Also, why don’t you believe in all the other religions, as they are similarly believable. It could be that you were religious when you were young. I wonder if, while you claimed atheism, you could have studied the Koran more closely and decided that it is the truth, or if you simply fell back into your old religion because you were already primed for it.

 

[polytropos]

I am not talking about belief in one religion or another, i am talking about belief that a god exists. I could use the spaghetti monster idea. Is it possible for you to believe that a giant floating spaghetti monster exists, and truly believe it, or is it just too crazy to rap your mind around. that is how most atheists feel about the idea of a god. I could lie and say that i am christian just to fool people, but it doesn’t change the fact that i don’t and no matter how many people tell me there is a spaghetti monster and that i am a fool for not believing it, i just can’t trick myself into actually believing it.

I suppose that some atheists do find the idea of a God too ridiculous to consider. I have a couple friends who were not raised in any religion. I don’t think they would “choose” to believe because they don’t think they need to. They have both expressed the belief that religion is personal and belief is not constrained by the way you see the world but by the way you want to see the world. Their concept of religion is that it’s something nominal and inconsequential. I guess they did not choose that concept; it has to do with the fact that none of their parents were religious and that’s the message that society sends out about religion.

So I guess I would say that we can’t choose to believe against reason. But as far as the major world religions are concerned (+ atheism), there are at least pseudo-reasonable justifications for any one of them that one can either acknowledge and consider or choose to ignore in favor of the preferred worldview.

 

[polytropos]

Also, why don’t you believe in all the other religions, as they are similarly believable. It could be that you were religious when you were young. I wonder if, while you claimed atheism, you could have studied the Koran more closely and decided that it is the truth, or if you simply fell back into your old religion because you were already primed for it.

Part of the reason I returned to Catholicism was because I was familiar with it, I would admit. But I also learned about Islam and Judaism and Protestant Christianity (as well as eastern religions) in my history classes. Even as an atheist, I saw them as less plausible and for me it has always been a decision between Catholicism and full-blown atheism. You could argue, I supposed, that I am then constrained by biases and misinformation, that I did not actually have a choice - but then no one has a choice about anything.

What I really would like to argue is that people often have the option of being open to sources of information about religions. The choice is to remain uninformed; once you inform yourself, perhaps you are “constrained” to belief in whatever convinces you most.

 

[durrsmc]

I suppose that some atheists do find the idea of a God too ridiculous to consider. I have a couple friends who were not raised in any religion. I don’t think they would “choose” to believe because they don’t think they need to. They have both expressed the belief that religion is personal and belief is not constrained by the way you see the world but by the way you want to see the world. Their concept of religion is that it’s something nominal and inconsequential. I guess they did not choose that concept; it has to do with the fact that none of their parents were religious and that’s the message that society sends out about religion.

So I guess I would say that we can’t choose to believe against reason. But as far as the major world religions are concerned (+ atheism), there are at least pseudo-reasonable justifications for any one of them that one can either acknowledge and consider or choose to ignore in favor of the preferred worldview.

Which of course points to the main reason that the debate will never be finished. just as the original poster in the thread just can’t understand how someone could bare to live a life as an atheist, and therefor will never even consider it for themselves, and atheist can’t understand why somebody would want to live a life based around a religion, which of course makes no sense to them, and therefor will probably never really consider it for themselves. It is just important for people to understand that you should never laugh at someone else’s beliefs because they are quite possibly laughing at yours when your not around. Of course we could all be completely wrong, and 1000 years from now we will all get laughed at.

 

[polytropos]

Which of course points to the main reason that the debate will never be finished. just as the original poster in the thread just can’t understand how someone could bare to live a life as an atheist, and therefor will never even consider it for themselves, and atheist can’t understand why somebody would want to live a life based around a religion, which of course makes no sense to them, and therefor will probably never really consider it for themselves. It is just important for people to understand that you should never laugh at someone else’s beliefs because they are quite possibly laughing at yours when your not around. Of course we could all be completely wrong, and 1000 years from now we will all get laughed at.

Well, I don’t think that all atheists or theists close themselves off to the other side. There were Catholics in this topic who argued against the provincialism of the OP (which I would argue was not a Catholic view, since in the Catholic view of man’s nature one would not find life meaningless and empty even if one could not see God in it). The atheists on this forum are in many cases examples of people who have considered and are considering the other perspective.

I don’t know if I would laugh at someone else’s beliefs, but I will certainly judge them, out of respect for my own beliefs. And I would expect them to do the same. Perhaps I would cease to judge if I capitulated and lost hope of knowing truth.

 

[durrsmc]

Well, I don’t think that all atheists or theists close themselves off to the other side. There were Catholics in this topic who argued against the provincialism of the OP (which I would argue was not a Catholic view, since in the Catholic view of man’s nature one would not find life meaningless and empty even if one could not see God in it). The atheists on this forum are in many cases examples of people who have considered and are considering the other perspective.

I don’t know if I would laugh at someone else’s beliefs, but I will certainly judge them, out of respect for my own beliefs. And I would expect them to do the same.

your right, laugh was the wrong word to use there, what i meant was pretty much what you are saying. The only point i am trying to make is that if the OP feels that there has to be a purpose, and there is no other choice, it is not possible to convince them that there is no meaning, and that even though that idea isn’t a pleasant one, that doesn’t make it true or untrue. I would absolutely love it if we all had a purpose, and if heaven was real, i would love to go there. Nobody wants to not exist anymore, but as lying about belief does not constitute belief, and therefore would not ensure a passage to this heaven, i find it useless to even pretend to be religious. However, this does not mean that i don’t take every opportunity to find proof of it,and wouldn’t personally mind if religion were proven real. I actually adore truly religious people, because they are willing to stand up for what they believe in, but I would never claim it unless i truly believed it and I don’t entirely believe that every religious person truly believes it either.

 

[Portofino]

It is just important for people to understand that you should never laugh at someone else’s beliefs because they are quite possibly laughing at yours when your not around. Of course we could all be completely wrong, and 1000 years from now we will all get laughed at.

I like that sentiment very much, and I think I know where you’re coming from. There’s a certain complacency in one’s beliefs that can often take the form of poking fun at the beliefs of others, that most of us have done, at one time or another. It could be a case of a Christian who finds Mormonism funny; or Grec-Roman paganism; or, who knows, Scientology.

What you wrote remind me of something that the Latin poet Horace wrote; it went, “why do you laugh? Turn it around, and the joke’s on you.”

I was also reminded of the late Roger Ebert’s review of the film “Religulous.” He concluded with the words, “I have done my job and described the movie. I report faithfully that I laughed frequently. You may very well hate it, but at least you’ve been informed. Perhaps you could enjoy the material about other religions, and tune out when yours is being discussed. That’s only human nature.”

p.s. I have not excluded the possibility that all of us are wrong, if we are measuring truth by the standards of being 100% right. It could be that Buddhists were right about some things, wrong about others; Christians right about some things wrong about others; for that matter, even atheists right about some things, precisely where theists tended to be mistaken. Atheists, for example, could be right in disbelieving in the God that most theists propound because, indeed, the supreme being bears little resemblance to those conceptions of God, such that their disbelief was partially justified. The atheist could also be right in essentially saying, “if there is a God, it’s not clear that a God could take offense in anyone’s not believing in him” (contra someone like Calvin, who declared, “A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”) In other words, perhaps God doesn’t need his believers to fight his battles for him, nor conceives of it as a battle, at all.