What am I Freeing Myself To?
P.Z. Myers over at Pharyngula has a post up about atheism and spirituality, which, along with its excellent comments, brought to mind some of my recent ponderings.
I am still working my way through the whole Moral Argument for the Existence of God. I've read a multitude of philosophers' and theologians' ideas on the subject, and I believe I'm coming to the conclusion that morality neither confirms nor denies the existence of God - it is a concept that stands on its own. I have yet to see if I can support that.
Anyway. When mulling matters of spiritual significance - particularly the existence of God - the more I pull away from my Christian roots, the more I ask myself a question: "What am I freeing myself to?"
I am well aware of what I am freeing myself from - dogmatic fundamentalist Christianity, which I am increasingly convinced cannot be entirely reasonable. The harder question is what I am becoming: something without a label. To say atheist is to speak too soon - while my arguments may lean in that direction, I am not there yet. To say non-Christian theist is to speak with too much authority. While as an engineer, I am drawn to the seeming telos (purpose) exhibited in the universe, I also see order arising from purely natural processes. I am sans conclusion.
This limbo dramatically affects one of the fundamental elements of meaning in life: self-definition. Who am I? Losing the label of Christian, all I can call myself now is human. While such a perception engenders all the self-determinant freedom that humanists promise, I can't help but feel empty when once I defined myself as so much more - a Child of God who would be rewarded in Heaven. Atheism hardly has a concept to replace that.
Nonetheless, intellectual honesty demands that we divorce our search for truth from any fantasy we have attached to the result of our quest. The theist, therefore, must justify that the conclusion of God's existence is not motivated by the desire for an afterlife and supernatural reward. If this heavenly result is an a priori desire attached to the thesis rather than an a posteriori claim after having already proved God, the theist must question the validity of their quest for truth: was their conclusion informed by desire and longing or by reason?
Similarly, the agnostic or atheist that seeks to claim logic as the root of their beliefs must also search themselves to determine if their hope for a reality without God did not motivate their conclusion against him. Defining the Christian, Islamic, or Judaic God as non-existent necessarily forces us to restructure traditional morality according to a paradigm of reality that affords an immense amount more personal freedom and self-definition. If this desire is an a priori motivation for the atheist, he must, with the same rigor required of the theist above, determine if his conclusion was based on desire or reason.
As human beings, the question "Which came first, desire or reason?" will plague our every philosophical and moral endeavor. For those that fall on either side of any debate, however, intellectual honesty requires that after the self-examination is complete, the most reasonable conclusion is accepted.
Such introspection leads me to honesty, but not to meaning or self-definition. I am no closer to answering what I am freeing myself to.
Such introspection leads me to honesty, but not to meaning or self-definition. I am no closer to answering what I am freeing myself to.
Labels:
Christianity,
God,
Meaning in Life
9 comments:
I enjoyed your thoughts, Z. I unforunately am quite sleep deprived and a bit distracted by the load of work demanding to be done, so any comments I make now may either be short or general. Also, please forgive my spelling.
I respect that you have asked yourself "What are you freeing yourself to?" I believe that most people (theists and atheists) believe in what they believe simply because it is the opposite of the other. It is difficult to find a well-balanced person. It seems that as soon as a person has a doubt about the existence of God they are tempted to dramatically swing to the other side...and vice-versa. so, I esteem you at least trying to think through it.
Along those lines, I noticed that you specifically stated that you are moving away from "dogmatic fundamentalist Christianity." As I mentioned with extremes, perhaps a possible solution is not the complete opposite extreme of one extreme but rather a more "balanced" belief. I'm not completely sure what you mean by "fundamentalist" (Calvinist?) but from what I've gathered from your history and entries I would say that I do not belong to "dogmatic fundamentalist Christianity." I have found that Christians in that group can be just as closed minded as anybody. And the same is true of those who are "dogmatic fundamentalist athiests."
I also comend your comment about not confusing desire with reason. Just a side note, however, could not desire be used in a reasonable argument? For example, "where did this desire for an after life come from?" "If there is no God or afterlife and we are completely physical and evolved beings, why do we desire and why has nearly all of man kind believed in an after-life?" "If we are born with this desire, and every other desire we are born with has an object to satisfy that desire, what about our desire for something 'more' than this life (heaven, god, etc.)?"
I also appreciated you being honest enough to admit that even agnostics and atheists also confuse desire with logic.
And let me [ppartially agree with you that the Moral Argument is not a fully conclusive argument. I do believe that it does suggest more towards "something" beyond the completely physical but other arguments are much stronger than this alone.
Hope school and family is going well.
Well, Pablo P, I only spotted one typo—but that could just mean I’m as tired as you!
Regarding your comment, are you suggesting that (almost?) every desire has an object to satisfy it, or simply wandering what life would be like if that were the case? It’s not an idea I’ve encountered before. I think I have desires which could well be unsatisfiable, such as the desire to travel through time. I would really like a time machine but because of the inherent possibility of paradoxes, I doubt that any such machine could exist. It also seems to me that the existence of a desire does not imply the existence of an object for satisfying it. However, a part of me hopes that I am wrong about this! What do you think?
Zeteo Eurisko’s post looks trickier to address. Hello “Z”! Maybe you’re not freeing yourself to anything—except, perhaps, to think in new ways about different ideas that you would previously have dismissed as “sinful”?
But then I wonder... Wasn’t your mind free to think about those ideas even before you left Christianity? Else how could you have left it? I reckon that you have at least freed yourself to think broader and deeper without feeling guilty that those thoughts were somehow making you a bad person.
PS: Squish!
Hey Pop, I wasn't intending on starting a whole discussion on desires. But I will make a quick reply to your comment, "are you suggesting that (almost?) every desire has an object to satisfy it". I was not clear enough, so i apologize, but I was not suggesting that every desire has an object to satisfy it. I was speaking of desires that we are born with. This is seen in my comment, "If we are born with this desire, and every other desire we are born with has an object to satisfy that desire, what about our desire for something 'more' than this life (heaven, god, etc.)?"
Indeed, you are right, pop, that a desire for a time machine does not mean that a time machine exists. However, this is not a desire that you are born with. There are two types of desires, those we are born with and those that are fashioned. The question is what desire fits in where.
But I have already said mor ethan I intended.
Taoism. One size fits all, and for good reason. Those ancient Eastern religion/philosophies are fascinating, freeing, thought provoking, and about as close to an understanding of the true nature of god as I've seen.
Z, all, I myself have gone on my own journey to figure out purpose in my own life. Having been inundated with the very argument for purpose as derived from a God-based arguments, and later through ultimate salvation, and finally towards non-purpose, I have come to no single conclusion. I also found that there may be no single truth. I think one should not start by seeking other peoples' purpose. Find purpose, if you must, only in what you know, how you know it, and in whichever way it works towards the goals you have.
The moral argument is an interesting one. I am reminded of what Rene Descartes has written on the matter. He says that the thought of morality, what is right and wrong, must come from something that is morally perfect, and since he is not perfect, he could not have possibly come up with the ideas of morality. This leaves God as the figure of moral perfection from which the ideas must come.
Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, said pretty much the opposite, that morality can be determined through human reason, and is not put in our minds by God. He would say, for instance, that suicide is not morally wrong because God forbids us to do it, but that God forbids us to do it because it is morally wrong.
I believe in God. There had to be a time at one point where something existed that was not created, it just was. The debate is whether this was gases involved in the Big Bang, or God. I, admittedly, know only a little about science, but even physicist, I believe, have yet to discover where the original gases involved in the Big Bang came from. The Law of the Conservation of Matter says that matter can't be created or destroyed, so I feel that something must have been around that is not subject to the laws of science, and that can create matter, but did not have to be created itself. This I call God. How this God created the earth, whether it was through the Big Bang or a method more accurately described by the Bible, I do not profess to know.
As for religious preference, I have chosen Christianity, though I must say I do not consider myself a fundamentalist. I think that if people believe in God, they should seek a relationship with him, and follow the rules that you believe he set up for you. I think it was the Buddha who once said something to the effect of, don't do something because I tell you to, do it because you believe it is right.
There's been many books written on morality without a god. I remember reading quite a good one in college, but that was so many years ago I don't remember the name of the author. Began with the letter z, I think.
I think it's been pretty well established that you can live a morale life without morality being handed down from a deity. Was it Hume or Hobbes who wrote about the social contract. I always get those two confused.
If let's say Jesus appeared to me right now and revealed the truth of his deity, it wouldn't change the way I conduct my life one iota. I think there is something enobling about living a just and moral life, not because you seek an ultimate reward or want to avoid an ultimate punishment, but because living a just and moral life is the right thing to do. It helps enrich the human condition.
Now if it's "meaning" your looking for in your life, can't really help you there. Especially if you're looking for ultimate meaning. If secular atheism isn't going to cut it for you, maybe you should try Jay Ray's implied suggestion and check out some of the Eastern religions. Buddhism is technically an athiestic religion. Personally, I can't get past the whole reincarnation thing.
My observation, you assume that an intellectually honest person can be argued to or away from the existence of God. But that assumption assumes that Christian faith is a state of mind. It is not a state of mind, it is a state of being. This is why, in essence, the choice for or against Christianity, is never an intellectual one. It may very well be intellectually influenced, but at core it will always be a moral choice.
John-Mark - That's an interesting comment. What standard would you suggest using for determining whether choosing Christianity is more or less moral than choosing atheism or agnosticism?
Post a Comment