Can we talk religion?

[Blackthorne]

I don't want to stoke the flames much longer on this specific topic of discussion, but could you give an example? I too felt like a lack of purpose and a lack of a God that controls all things went hand in hand. On a daily basis, we humans find a much deeper meaning and purpose in our life. Maybe not in the beginning, but maybe after one becomes a father, he feels like he needs to protect his family for as long as he can. Or a man who takes pride in his work and hopes to make a difference in the world. The list can go on, but would you not say that a God is there to control that which humans can not, and also provides a purpose that we do not fully understand as of yet? It's fine if an Atheist still believes that life has a purpose, but to be honest, I don't think there would be much left to cling on to without a God. They'd already be a borderline nihilist, in my opinion.

As a lifelong atheist (born to atheist parents), I want to respond to this.  I think this is a real gulf between atheists and religious people that both sides often have trouble bridging, and I'd like to try to do it here.

Simply put, for me as an atheist the lack of a God or an afterlife is precisely what gives purpose to my life.  Because I believe my life has no intrinsic value or purpose, I believe that it is my mission to create a life with value.  Whether or not I'm a good person depends on what I do in my life.  Either I live by a moral code, am kind and generous and helpful to others, contribute to the sum total of human knowledge and existence -- or my life was in fact not worth living.  In sum, my behavior and actions become the determiner of my purpose in life.

If I believed in God or an afterlife, I would actually lose a sense of purpose in my life.  I would feel no obligation to make a difference in a life that was just a waiting room for the great hereafter.  And I would feel no desire to make the world better if there were already an all-powerful God who could do that without my help.  There would be no point if my good behavior and actions weren't actually necessary to the improvement of humanity.  To me, becoming religious would lead to nihilism, because of my background and my current beliefs.

I have come to understand that for religious people it is exactly the opposite.  Their sense of purpose is tied to a belief that there is an omnipotent and caring God who made them special and who will preserve their existences after they die.  I have no problems at all with this belief.  In fact, I think it is a similarity between religious people and atheists that too few of us recognize.  Both of us believe what we believe because it gives our lives a maximum of purpose and meaning.  I think that's a key tenet that crosses the boundary between belief and unbelief.

Great post!  I think this is the thread winner, folks.

Seriously, I want to get up an applaud that post.


Bt

[KatieHal]

Agreed! Very well said, Nonpartisan. 
(hmm. I thought we did have an applaud smiley. Note to self!)

[Cez]

*applauds* Great post!

[Nonpartisan]

Thanks, guys!  Much appreciated.

[Damar]

It has always bothered me when zealots paint atheists as being purposeless and immoral specifically for that reason.  One can find a purpose in life whether one believes that purpose was created by God or not.

That said, I think that the idea of a purpose is secondary to the main question that religion answers, which is, "Why?"  And I think that's the main question that atheism has trouble answering.

One can find a purpose, like Nonpartisan said, in contributing to the advancement of humanity.  But that doesn't answer the question as to why?  Why do that?  Why advance humanity as opposed to, say, living a life of hedonism?  Or advancing your own commune as opposed to humanity as a whole?  One could argue that a completely selfish life simply causes society to turn against the individual, but that doesn't answer the question as to why one should live a certain way.  It's just a cause and effect.  Creating a purpose for life doesn't answer any question as to why we're here.  To me there's no concrete answer as to "why" when it comes to atheism.  Someone is drowning in a lake so I saved their life.  Why?  Because that person need not die if I can help them.  Why?  Because an individual life is important.  Why?  Because we are unique individuals.  Well that's a statement of fact, not an explanation.  Because that person deserves to live out their life, then.  Why?  Because they do.  Why?  Because why should a person's life end needlessly?  Why shouldn't it?  Why should it?  Why are you asking me?  I'm just a question.  If you don't have an answer, what do you have?

Now one could certainly argue that religion is just mankind's attempt to answer that question without going into an infinite loop of "why."  But the idea that there is a god or a force bigger than us that created the world and has a purpose allows an answer as to "why."  People being people can pervert that (God wanted this to happen, or God made that disaster happen) but that's just a skewing of the answer, not a disproof of the answer itself.  Likewise, that answer does lead to problems like free will and why bad things happen to good people and good happens to the bad.  But those issues also exist in a world without god (free will being an illusion since everything is stimulus/response or the fact that good things happen to bad people with no end game at all.)  Religion gives a purpose because it answers the question of why.  Morals exist because goodness is an attribute of god.  Without a permanent answer, morality is just a creation of society.  Something that doesn't have a definite purpose.  Is morality what's right for the most amount of people?  Well why do they matter?  Why not what just works best for me?  Is morality something that's created by the weak to put themselves in authority over the strong?  Well, doesn't that make them stronger than you, Nietzsche?  And it's still not an actual morality.  It's just a construct.

Personally I would find the world of amorality (even if you have a moral code, it would be arbitrary or at best what is of use at that place in that time) terrible to live in.  Mainly because of the confusion and the fact that there is no final answer to anything.  There is no answer to "why."  Religion answers it.  And while religion may have its own issues, I'd rather face them with a final answer to life than face a life that has no answers for me at all.

[Fierce Deity]

To me, becoming religious would lead to nihilism, because of my background and my current beliefs.

That could be argued, but I think the definition of nihilism is not a negative one. The existence of an overall purpose to life is exactly what religion tries to advertise. They go to people who are down in the dumps and say "You don't need to be miserable, cause you have Jesus!" Whether the purpose is actually existent is clearly not a debatable issue. Being an atheist myself, I don't feel like I need that "overall purpose", because I plan on making my life the way I want it to be. I deserve no less, in my opinion. From the discussion that I am having with Delling, purpose is something that is earned through one's actions, not one that is thrust upon you by an overseer. In short, I'm agreeing with you, but I'm using nihilism as a literal term, and not so much as the practical term that it has turned into. I wouldn't want to have it misconstrued with what I'm saying. When I say nihilism, I don't mean "there is no purpose", but rather "there is no rulebook to life, and you are free to do what you want". Religion provides a rulebook, atheism suggests you should write your own rulebook. That in itself, is nihilism.

[Nonpartisan]

Fierce Deity, understood.

Damar, that's a great question.  My answer is that for me morality is a social construct, but it's also a choice that I make.  Ultimately, the "final answer" is "because it's my choice, and it's what I want to do."  Now, the reason I want to be moral is that I've been conditioned to by society -- but societies are also culturally self-perpetuating, so it's a pretty safe bet that my children and my children's children will be conditioned to be moral as well.

Again from my perspective as an atheist, the choice to be moral is actually more meaningful because it is a choice.  It's something that I come to in the fullness of reason and understanding, and that I embrace because it's an identity I want for myself.  That's more affirming to me than being moral because there is an absolute moral right and wrong in the world, and I'm just doing what is obvious and externally determined.  Again, I recognize that for religious people it is precisely the opposite.  Both I and a religious person believe what we believe because it is the most meaningful for each of us.

[Fierce Deity]

I now what to bring up a new discussion: the definition of morality. I always thought it was doing what was right and being the best person you can possibly be. I've come to my own conclusion that 'morality' is a relative term. I would never hurt anybody or cause them any emotional suffering. I'm very reserved when it comes to any sort of conflict. I don't even support any violence, like war, hunting, or even euthanasia of unwanted pets, etc. I base my perspective of the world on what I would do personally. Like I had brought up earlier, I have my own rulebook to life. So on the whole, I'd say I'm a pretty moral person, but I also know that other people have justified reasons for acting on impulses that I personally would deem inappropriate. But for them, it's okay. How would one distinguish what is right and wrong, knowing full well, that there is no right or wrong? Is it purely imposed by one's personal level of conduct and psychosocial behavior? The silver lining, however is the laws that a government sets on society. Within that society, the laws are not optional, and the repercussions are intact for all cases.

[Nonpartisan]

In terms of morality, I don't see a whole lot of difference.  The fact that I don't believe that there is an absolute right and wrong doesn't change the way I choose to behave or the standards I choose to set for myself.  Those standards are to some degree socially constructed, but there is an element of choice as well.

What it comes down to is that I have a worldview -- I have a way of looking at the world that deems some choices right and some wrong.  I evaluate my choices in light of that worldview.  I evaluate other people's choices in three ways:

1) in light of the worldview that I choose for myself (i.e., I don't drink, so I find other people's drinking immoral);
2) in light of the worldview the other person chooses for herself (she views drinking as an important part of social interaction, so I appreciate that her actions are consistent with her beliefs);
3) in light of government laws, which represent the consensus of the majority of individual worldviews in a society (it's legal to drink if you're over 21).

As much as possible, I try to evaluate people according to 2), because that helps me understand and appreciate them and their choices.  However, there are times when 1) has to come first (I can't be your friend if you're rude and offensive toward women, even if it's legal and makes sense in your worldview) and times when 3) has to come first (no matter how much you or I might think murder is justified in a certain case, the laws prohibit it and the laws are more important).

However you choose to evaluate them, I think the key principle to keep in mind is that all three frames of reference are different.  I think that people too often assume that they are the same: if you do something I think is wrong, you're being intentionally perverse.  That sort of thinking leads people to dehumanize one another, which is bad in my view.

[Fierce Deity]

Very true. Perspective is everything, but it still comes down to whether a right and wrong can still be constructed from neither the first or second perspective. Not to sound condescending, but there was a time when women couldn't vote, and that was socially acceptable. Even though I'm a man, I think it's wrong to exclude women from voting. It's a national convention for choosing representatives for office, so why should a portion of the citizens be turned away from the voting polls? Perspectives can't always be a good indication though, because perspectives change just as easily as the seasons do. For instance, I wasn't always an atheist, nor was I as accepting of another person's opinion. In fact, I was my own worst enemy. I like that I've matured and grown a sense of mind that helps me understand more about the world, rather than reject facts out of ignorance and spite.

There is no absolute right or wrong, but there is also no consistency with what can be considered moral. It's relative to the person, the people, or the entire generation, but above all else, there is no fine line that separates what is moral or immoral. It's just an amoral opinion for the time being. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just trying to get an idea of how people view morality.

Nonpartisan's view is logical. To take different views and come to a rational conclusion of whether something is acceptable or not.

[KatieHal]

I just have to say that guys, this discussion is great, and I'm so glad to see it's continued for 3 pages now and is still a very civil, intelligent and polite discussion. We CAN all get along!

[Big C from Cauney island]

I recommend taking a sociology class, as it explains exactly why religion came about. 

[Damar]

Somehow I doubt that all religions ever can be explained by a soc 101 class.  There's a lot more complexity there than just  a societal desire to explain the unknown or tie together the community.  Then again, I've never had much use for sociology.  The study of the individual is where it's at.  That informs the group dynamic.  Not that I want to start a flame war.  Psychology vs. sociology is potentially an even bigger rivalry than religion vs atheism!

It ultimately might just come down to personality and how we view the world, but where Nonpartisan sees freedom, I would feel nothing but futility.  One can say that they're creating a morality in their life, or a purpose, but if there is no ultimate answer, then those are just words.  I know I personally require an ultimate answer, or at least an attempt to solve it, rather than saying "This is what works for now."  And to be fair, that exact same thing bothers me when religious people try to explain away legitimate concerns or tough questions about their beliefs by simply saying that they have faith.  Faith is necessary but it is not a "believe whatever you want without getting called on it" card.

To put it another way, using Fierce Deity's example of women voting, the law stated for a long while that women couldn't vote.  Ultimately that was changed.  But was it wrong not to allow women to vote?  Well if there is no concrete morality outside of what is constructed, then no, it wasn't.  Any injustice in life is no longer morally wrong.  It might disgust us on a primal level but we can't say, "that was wrong."  All morality is constructed based on what is of use or what a person's belief is.  Unless you want to argue that there is an underlying morality, that some things are just wrong, regardless of societal construction and personal belief (like child molestation, or murder, or talking during a movie.)  But then there still needs to be an answer as to why.  Why are these morals in existence?  Who says they must be followed?  Where did they come from?  And when you're dealing with a moral code that does rule humanity that is seemingly higher than us, isn't that getting close to a god figure, whatever you say your belief is?

Also, as to Fierce Deity's question of how morality is defined, from a religious aspect I think there's more than one definition, depending on your belief.  One could argue that what is pleasing to God is morally right.  Personally, I would define morality, based on my own beliefs, to be the attributes of God.  If you accept that God is benevolent and good (meaning entirely good and without evil) then living according to the attributes of God is by definition moral.  Good isn't something you do.  It is something that simply exists by extension because everything is created by God and therefore reflects to an extent what God is.  Evil, then, would be the absence of good.  It is the things that fall short of the attributes of God, or that are direct perversions of those attributes and creations.

[Fierce Deity]

Also, as to Fierce Deity's question of how morality is defined, from a religious aspect I think there's more than one definition, depending on your belief.  One could argue that what is pleasing to God is morally right.  Personally, I would define morality, based on my own beliefs, to be the attributes of God.  If you accept that God is benevolent and good (meaning entirely good and without evil) then living according to the attributes of God is by definition moral.  Good isn't something you do.  It is something that simply exists by extension because everything is created by God and therefore reflects to an extent what God is.  Evil, then, would be the absence of good.  It is the things that fall short of the attributes of God, or that are direct perversions of those attributes and creations.

That is a great definition of what morality would be, and although this is not supposed to be a debate, I would like to point out an inconsistency. If morality would be the attributes of God, and God created the world, then why are there immoral events and attributes in this world? The immoral perversions must have at least existed in the mind of God.

Also, I don't want to rock the boat, but it's agreed among many religions that killing is a sin, yet there are events where God has killed people. The world flooding, burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, sacrifices, etc. I think defining morality as something that is attached to a divine figure would be an adamant deduction if it weren't for the writings that impose the divine being's will. This is only assuming that the writings are true, but as many have tried to point out, the Bible was written by man, not God. The actions of the past could easily be natural disasters, and the blame was wrongfully directed towards God in conclusion. The world may never know what really happened in those times. Still, defining morality as the 'act of being God' is an interesting suggestion.

[Damar]

That is a great definition of what morality would be, and although this is not supposed to be a debate, I would like to point out an inconsistency. If morality would be the attributes of God, and God created the world, then why are there immoral events and attributes in this world? The immoral perversions must have at least existed in the mind of God.

Ultimately that question depends on what religion is doing the answering.  In the case of a religion that believes in a god who is entirely good, the evil comes from the fact that people have free will.  A wholly good god would be incapable of creating sin, however could create a being that was good but capable of choosing whether to behave in one way or another.  Therefore the evil that is in the world is the result of people choosing to act in discordance with what is good for immediate gain.  Other things that are in the world, I would define as good or evil.  For example let's say a child gets struck by lightning and dies.  To me that's sad but not evil.  It's unfortunate but we live in a world with lightening.  The lightening is not evil.  The child wasn't morally wrong to be outside.  It simply happened.  Actually, this is also my view on hell.  And yeah, I know that's not really part of what's being discussed but it's only a matter of time before it gets brought up (particularly when religion and ultimate morality are being discussed.)  Briefly I wouldn't consider hell to be the punishment that it has been expressed as.  It's simply an inevitability.  To me, the concept behind Christianity is that people are either accepting God or not, which is an outgrowth of free will.  Those that accept God live with God in heaven.  Those that do not live without God, which is what is called hell.  I don't see it as a fiery tormenting punishment.  It is simply an afterlife without God.  Scriptures of fire and gnashing teeth are simply metaphorical ways of expressing the existential separation from God.  So again, like morality, I would see the concept of hell as just being an outgrowth of what God is.  God granted free will, so if a person uses that free will to choose not to be around God anymore, then that's their choice.  It's just mankind's need to see other people be wrong and punished that led to hell being turned into what it is seen as now.

Other issues with god (in the Judeo-Christian belief) doing or sanctioning things that seem evil would depend on a few different things.  First would be whether it was even sanctioned by God.  An example would be the Crusades.  The Crusades seem appalling and it's hard to believe that a loving God would have wanted such violence to take place.  The simple answer would be that it's not sanctioned by God.  End of story.  That was mankind acting on their own prejudices and desires then attributing it to God as a means of justifying the behavior.  Other arguments would be that it's God's work in a broken system.  There's violence because mankind chose to act in discordance with God, therefore now there's violence and so on.  A lot of the bloodiest parts in the Old Testament, for example, seem to be a means to one end which is keeping God's chosen people alive in a world that was far bloodier than it is today.  And one could argue that God could make things be less bloody, thereby making the system less broken and not necessitating the occasional smiting.  But then that would take away free will.

Anyway, that would be my quick yet meandering answer to those questions without trying to escalate the discussion to a debate.  Because, after all, discussions are more fun than debates.

[Lambonius]

Morality has nothing to do with personal religious belief.  Morality is a product of social conditioning.

[Fierce Deity]

Morality has nothing to do with personal religious belief.  Morality is a product of social conditioning.

Would you like to elaborate?

[Lambonius]

Morality has nothing to do with personal religious belief.  Morality is a product of social conditioning.

Would you like to elaborate?

We live in a society that espouses a certain set of civic & moral values that determines our laws and practices.  Man, by nature, seeks whatever actions or situations will most benefit him.  Regardless of personal religious beliefs, we all know that if we break certain laws, our lives as we know it will end.  In most Western countries, this civic code is defined in roughly Christian terms, so even atheists find themselves following a more or less Christian moral code.  In other parts of the world, where other societies are set up around other sets of values, people's individual moralities may differ.

[Damar]

But there has to be more than just the social conditioning.  Take slavery for example.  Society thought it was not only acceptable, but actually moral for a long while.  Both religion and science at the time tried to justify why it was alright (the mark of Cain or evolutionary throwback).  But obviously slavery wasn't morally right.  If we go to morality being solely a social construct though, then there's no way you can point to a higher moral law that overrides society's law.

[KatieHal]

There are reasons why (for example) the US Constitution is phrased "we hold these truths to be self-evident".