How can we be happy without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_II

Guest
Bertrand Russell from “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903)

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collections of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave. That all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction…that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried. All these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand…Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

Will someone explain to me how the last sentence is a rational conclusion to what comes before it?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Bertrand Russell from “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903)

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collections of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave. That all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction…that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried. All these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand…Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

Will someone explain to me how the last sentence is a rational conclusion to what comes before it?
Click to expand...
He assumes that unyielding despair is all that man has in the first place. It’s the whole point of the argument–that man is basicly dust, his works are dust and they amount to what he describes as unyielding despair. The despair comes from man’s desire in what he describes as “the temple of man’s achievment”. Without, man despairs, and he believes that to be the true man. And upon that despair man builds his soul.
 
The beauty and audacity of merely being, think last hurrah…like the alamo
 
sounds like a question from a philosophy course in college!!
my answer is no!!!
may you enjoy your journey in coming to the same conclusion!!!
 
Any philosophy that denies our finitude is a lie and will only serve to damn us. Once we realize our finitude only then can we begin toward God and what lasts.

Remember, he means despairing of worldly things.
 
Actually… looking at the man’s views I have absolutely no idea what he meant. Atheist was he.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Bertrand Russell from “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903)

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collections of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave. That all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction…that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried. All these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand…Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

Will someone explain to me how the last sentence is a rational conclusion to what comes before it?
Click to expand...
It’s a logical conclusion if one assumes the preceding lamentations to be true. This is why I have more respect for atheists like Sartre and Russell than the new brand. They at least admitted they were miserable.
 
prodigalson

**They at least admitted they were miserable. **

They did. But they also admitted it wasn’t a good condition to be in. So how does one safely build a “soul’s habitation,” as Russell calls it, on so flimsy a foundation as despair?

Russell was supposed to be one of the premier logicians of his day. But this paragraph above cited from “A Free Man’s Worship” makes him out to be a slave to despair.

One suffers, and then one dies … and that it? :confused:
 
I suppose he means we can be more comfortable in this life if we don’t tear our hair out worrying about the next which doesn’t exist.

Or,
there’s nothing to fear after death, so enjoy life.

This is appealing to atheists,
for now, anyways.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
prodigalson

**They at least admitted they were miserable. **

They did. But they also admitted it wasn’t a good condition to be in. So how does one safely build a “soul’s habitation,” as Russell calls it, on so flimsy a foundation as despair?

Russell was supposed to be one of the premier logicians of his day. But this paragraph above cited from “A Free Man’s Worship” makes him out to be a slave to despair.

One suffers, and then one dies … and that it? :confused:
Click to expand...
I think he means that any other foundation of belief (religious, namely) is obviously false and, therefore, doomed to exposure as such, which would have devastating spiritual effects on the former believer. So, better the dull, persistent agony of atheism than the sharp, sudden, perhaps fatal, stab of disillusionment. The irony is, of course, in propagating such philosophies he is, intentionally or not, instigating just such pains among those of less solid faith.
 
prodigalson

**The irony is, of course, in propagating such philosophies he is, intentionally or not, instigating just such pains among those of less solid faith. **

Nor does he allow what many believers have experienced: that faith is an antidote to despair, and that upon the foundations of faith and hope have been built many acts of charity. Even if he is only arguing as a pragmatist, it is difficult to see what value there is in “unyielding despair.”

It seems that Russell is putting the ultimate value on despair, rather than hope. That truth is really our enemy rather than our friend, since it offers us only the “unyielding despair.” This is a peculiar notion for a philosopher to be flouting.

Your earlier remark was very insightful. At least Russell was up front about his despair without God. Christopher Hitchens said God is not great and religion spoils everything; Russell seems to be saying just the opposite: lack of religion spoils hope and is the cause of “unyielding despair.”
 
prodigalson2011 said:
It’s a logical conclusion if one assumes the preceding lamentations to be true. This is why I have more respect for atheists like Sartre and Russell than the new brand. They at least admitted they were miserable.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t write off such an argument even if it is by an atheist. The Lord admitted his misery in the garden of Gethsemane. He even admits his misery by saying that he is sorrowful even unto death. His suffering, dying upon a cross is all “unyielding despair”.

The life and death of Jesus proves that suffering is the truth in the flesh. I do, however, disagree, with the philosopher’s conclusion that “the habitation of our souls must be built solely on unyielding despair” because of the Beatitudes that Jesus explains on his sermon.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Bertrand Russell from “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903)

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collections of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave. That all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction…that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried. All these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand…Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
Click to expand...
I get the distinct intimation that Bertrand is saying “Do, Do, Do” here, as though by sheer dint of humankind’s own efforts she can somehow ‘achieve’ immortality. Like a credit score. What if instead of “Do, Do, Do” there was only “Be, Be, Be.” That I think is more appealing to the heart and mind than any philosophy of works, no matter how seemingly noble.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
prodigalson

**The irony is, of course, in propagating such philosophies he is, intentionally or not, instigating just such pains among those of less solid faith. **

Nor does he allow what many believers have experienced: that faith is an antidote to despair, and that upon the foundations of faith and hope have been built many acts of charity. Even if he is only arguing as a pragmatist, it is difficult to see what value there is in “unyielding despair.”

It seems that Russell is putting the ultimate value on despair, rather than hope. That truth is really our enemy rather than our friend, since it offers us only the “unyielding despair.” This is a peculiar notion for a philosopher to be flouting.

Your earlier remark was very insightful. At least Russell was up front about his despair without God. Christopher Hitchens said God is not great and religion spoils everything; Russell seems to be saying just the opposite: lack of religion spoils hope and is the cause of “unyielding despair.”
Click to expand...
Beautiful things can come from “unyielding despair”. It’s what you do with what you have is the test of the character of a man. Many saints were in despair throughout their lives and they came out as little flowers to the Lord. Despair has great value to the human soul in the way that it transforms it into something new.
 
Sacred Heart

**Despair has great value to the human soul in the way that it transforms it into something new. **

That’s true if despair yields to hope, as it sometimes does. Unyielding despair leads to suicide, a problem confronted by Sartre and Camus and the statistics worldwide showing a higher rate of suicide among atheists than among believers.

The new atheists would have you believe atheism is positive and spoils nothing.
 
Sacred_Heart said:
Beautiful things can come from “unyielding despair”. It’s what you do with what you have is the test of the character of a man. Many saints were in despair throughout their lives and they came out as little flowers to the Lord. Despair has great value to the human soul in the way that it transforms it into something new.
Click to expand...
Despair is defined by the Church as a sin. I think you misunderstand the word. Despair is the rejection of hope. What the saints experienced was the suffering of spiritual drought, through which they maintained their hope anyway. This is the antithesis of despair.
 
Sacred_Heart said:
I wouldn’t write off such an argument even if it is by an atheist. The Lord admitted his misery in the garden of Gethsemane. He even admits his misery by saying that he is sorrowful even unto death. His suffering, dying upon a cross is all “unyielding despair”.

The life and death of Jesus proves that suffering is the truth in the flesh. I do, however, disagree, with the philosopher’s conclusion that “the habitation of our souls must be built solely on unyielding despair” because of the Beatitudes that Jesus explains on his sermon.
Click to expand...
My point was that these new atheists (Dawkins, etc.) present atheism as if it is a cure to the world’s misery. So I tip my hat to atheists like Russell who have the honesty to admit that atheism can’t lift a finger to relieve man’s spiritual suffering. I never meant to suggest that suffering should be absent from the Christian life. On the contrary, it’s a vital and important part of it. The difference is the lens through which we see it. Through our misery, we foresee the greatest joy to come. Atheism cannot offer any such joy.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Sacred Heart

**Despair has great value to the human soul in the way that it transforms it into something new. **

That’s true if despair yields to hope, as it sometimes does. Unyielding despair leads to suicide, a problem confronted by Sartre and Camus and the statistics worldwide showing a higher rate of suicide among atheists than among believers.

The new atheists would have you believe atheism is positive and spoils nothing.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with atheism in no way. No matter what they argue they are always lacking.

However, our Lord was in unyielding despair, as he stated, I am sorrowful even unto death. Hope is not the only answer. If you fall in love with your sorrow and make it the part that shines then you can bear under “unyielding despair”. It’s what you make it out to be in your perceptions. Of course there will be hope but that hope should not diminish your suffering. The point is to take suffering and turning it into something beautiful, even when hope fades away. I do agree with you that hope draws us out of despair; but in the moment of suffering it is how you manage without hope. A man can live in unyielding despair without committing suicide, even without hope, through acceptance of his own fate. But you are right hope is brilliance.
 
Sacred_Heart said:
I don’t agree with atheism in no way. No matter what they argue they are always lacking.

However, our Lord was in unyielding despair, as he stated, I am sorrowful even unto death. Hope is not the only answer. If you fall in love with your sorrow and make it the part that shines then you can bear under “unyielding despair”. It’s what you make it out to be in your perceptions. Of course there will be hope but that hope should not diminish your suffering. The point is to take suffering and turning it into something beautiful, even when hope fades away. I do agree with you that hope draws us out of despair; but in the moment of suffering it is how you manage without hope. A man can live in unyielding despair without committing suicide, even without hope, through acceptance of his own fate. But you are right hope is brilliance.
Click to expand...
Again, sorrow and despair are not the same thing (see my previous response to you.)
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Despair is defined by the Church as a sin. I think you misunderstand the word. Despair is the rejection of hope. What the saints experienced was the suffering of spiritual drought, through which they maintained their hope anyway. This is the antithesis of despair.
Click to expand...
He who doesn’t know himself, knows nothing. Despair and hope can exist at the same time. There are moments in which we despair and there are moments in which we hope. Whoever experiences a “spiritual drought” is in despair. Despair is not a sin. It is a perception that can develop our relationship with God. If it brings us to God, what sin have we committed by our despair? That’s just an example of the working of despair. Do you say I’ve come to God through my sin (despair)? No one comes to God through sin. Rather, we come to God through a sinless path.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top