Read on to explore the social consequences of godlessness, and whether atheism is for the best, as new atheists like to spin the matter and to sell their message.
Atheism & theism both have their pros & cons, as you made clear. The question is which is least disastrous in terms of social cohesion & personal happiness? The problem, as I see it, is that that question itself is open to personal interpretation & so is subjective. What's worse: worrying that you might go to Hell or knowing you won't go to Heaven (or Hell)? Miguel Unamuno wrote that he'd rather burn in Hell forever than simply cease to exist. That may be a minority view, but keep in mind that most Christians are actually pretty sure that they're going to Heaven. The atheist may be relieved that Hell isn't a real possibility, but that's cold comfort for the theist who hopes to live forever in paradise with their loved ones (assuming their loved ones are also theists). In the end every individual will judge their own beliefs as best -- for them.
As for social cohesion I'd say that the two worldviews are on equal ground. People can bond over many things, including common beliefs; the content of those beliefs doesn't seem to matter in this context. Theism may encourage prosocial behavior & discourage antisocial behavior (depending on how you define these terms), but only to a minor degree. If Hell were really such a persuasive deterrent, theocracies wouldn't need to execute criminals -- which they have done & continue to do to this day.
Those are all good points. It would indeed be hard to get a straight answer out of a religious or a nonreligious person on this question of the benefits of our deepest beliefs, since of course we're all subject to the confirmation bias and to putting ourselves in the best light. My point, though, was that the old atheists are gloomier and less self-serving in that respect since they acknowledge the catastrophe of God's "death."
There's a new Netflix show that explores this question of whether the belief in hell terrifies us or makes us happier, called "Hellbound." I'll be writing about it soon.
I too find new atheism off-putting. Their optimism seems unjustfied in light of the unvarnished facts atheists profess to embrace. Not that theism is any more justified since its own premises are no less gloomy than atheism's. For that matter, it's difficult for me to imagine what a coherent form of optimism would look like.
The optimism always struck me as a sales job. They were selling atheism to the wider public to make atheism seem less scary and subversive, which is understandable and also natural. The philosophical truth tends to go underground.
One of the best things Jesus said, which likely came from Cynical or Stoic philosophy is that you shouldn't cast pearls before swine. You can speak the truth plainly in the open, but only those fit to hear it will absorb it. The rest will ignore it or explain it away to maintain their lower level of understanding. We filter out what we're not willing or ready to hear.
I don't think that we should be afraid. Do you? Personally, my reaction to the universe is one of sheer awe. I see a lot of pain, but I also see unfathomable beauty and sacrifice. I've seen people rise from the ashes to begin their lives anew even after being in horrible situations. Just last year, I saw a friend of mine recover from a horrible acid attack and regain his hope towards life. Surprisingly enough, he has found that he has been able to find interest in his pursuits (he's an artist) in a reinvigorated manner even after all that happened. The only thing to fear is fear itself, for it can cripple us, corrupt our minds to a point where annihilation starts to seem like a lovely dream. But unbeknownst to us, it is most people's worst nightmare. Its
It's not what we shall have, bur what we would lose.
I've honestly started to feel that there is a certain barrier to reason. After a certain point, all that remains are base intuitions that drive individuals towards whatever conclusion they are predisposed towards. If you have a proclivity towards seeking the holes in reality, your entire moral framework would start to revolve around "harms" and "harmless". It's this undergirding of reality inexorable decay that seems to be the main cause of destructive pessimism. I disagree with Arthur Schopenhauer regarding the positives of life being a mere absence of the negatives. It's quite evident to me that all the alleged deprivations seem to arise from previous states of satisfaction, which means that harms are no more real than benefits.
Btw, I remember reading a comment Existential goof had left a few years ago on reddit regarding absurdism. He essentially said that absurdism is optimistic nonsense since there's no point in rebelling against something that won't respond to you. Is the rebellion really about a response? Or it it about inner transformation?
Those comments are reasonable. There's certainly a confirmation bias and numerous other basic fallacies, heuristics, and intuitions that are prone to colouring our perceptions and conceptions.
A mindless world certainly couldn't appreciate the rebel's efforts directly, but the rebellion could still be honourable. We'd appreciate the effort, and in a sense the world would appreciate it through the rebels' eyes.
Atheism & theism both have their pros & cons, as you made clear. The question is which is least disastrous in terms of social cohesion & personal happiness? The problem, as I see it, is that that question itself is open to personal interpretation & so is subjective. What's worse: worrying that you might go to Hell or knowing you won't go to Heaven (or Hell)? Miguel Unamuno wrote that he'd rather burn in Hell forever than simply cease to exist. That may be a minority view, but keep in mind that most Christians are actually pretty sure that they're going to Heaven. The atheist may be relieved that Hell isn't a real possibility, but that's cold comfort for the theist who hopes to live forever in paradise with their loved ones (assuming their loved ones are also theists). In the end every individual will judge their own beliefs as best -- for them.
ReplyDeleteAs for social cohesion I'd say that the two worldviews are on equal ground. People can bond over many things, including common beliefs; the content of those beliefs doesn't seem to matter in this context. Theism may encourage prosocial behavior & discourage antisocial behavior (depending on how you define these terms), but only to a minor degree. If Hell were really such a persuasive deterrent, theocracies wouldn't need to execute criminals -- which they have done & continue to do to this day.
Those are all good points. It would indeed be hard to get a straight answer out of a religious or a nonreligious person on this question of the benefits of our deepest beliefs, since of course we're all subject to the confirmation bias and to putting ourselves in the best light. My point, though, was that the old atheists are gloomier and less self-serving in that respect since they acknowledge the catastrophe of God's "death."
DeleteThere's a new Netflix show that explores this question of whether the belief in hell terrifies us or makes us happier, called "Hellbound." I'll be writing about it soon.
I too find new atheism off-putting. Their optimism seems unjustfied in light of the unvarnished facts atheists profess to embrace. Not that theism is any more justified since its own premises are no less gloomy than atheism's. For that matter, it's difficult for me to imagine what a coherent form of optimism would look like.
DeleteThe optimism always struck me as a sales job. They were selling atheism to the wider public to make atheism seem less scary and subversive, which is understandable and also natural. The philosophical truth tends to go underground.
DeleteOne of the best things Jesus said, which likely came from Cynical or Stoic philosophy is that you shouldn't cast pearls before swine. You can speak the truth plainly in the open, but only those fit to hear it will absorb it. The rest will ignore it or explain it away to maintain their lower level of understanding. We filter out what we're not willing or ready to hear.
Any thoughts on this eloquent blog post by a pessimistic antinatalism-leaning blog post?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.metaphysicalexile.com/2021/10/be-very-afraid.html?m=1
I don't think that we should be afraid. Do you? Personally, my reaction to the universe is one of sheer awe. I see a lot of pain, but I also see unfathomable beauty and sacrifice. I've seen people rise from the ashes to begin their lives anew even after being in horrible situations. Just last year, I saw a friend of mine recover from a horrible acid attack and regain his hope towards life. Surprisingly enough, he has found that he has been able to find interest in his pursuits (he's an artist) in a reinvigorated manner even after all that happened. The only thing to fear is fear itself, for it can cripple us, corrupt our minds to a point where annihilation starts to seem like a lovely dream. But unbeknownst to us, it is most people's worst nightmare. Its
It's not what we shall have, bur what we would lose.
I've honestly started to feel that there is a certain barrier to reason. After a certain point, all that remains are base intuitions that drive individuals towards whatever conclusion they are predisposed towards. If you have a proclivity towards seeking the holes in reality, your entire moral framework would start to revolve around "harms" and "harmless". It's this undergirding of reality inexorable decay that seems to be the main cause of destructive pessimism. I disagree with Arthur Schopenhauer regarding the positives of life being a mere absence of the negatives. It's quite evident to me that all the alleged deprivations seem to arise from previous states of satisfaction, which means that harms are no more real than benefits.
Btw, I remember reading a comment Existential goof had left a few years ago on reddit regarding absurdism. He essentially said that absurdism is optimistic nonsense since there's no point in rebelling against something that won't respond to you. Is the rebellion really about a response? Or it it about inner transformation?
Those comments are reasonable. There's certainly a confirmation bias and numerous other basic fallacies, heuristics, and intuitions that are prone to colouring our perceptions and conceptions.
DeleteA mindless world certainly couldn't appreciate the rebel's efforts directly, but the rebellion could still be honourable. We'd appreciate the effort, and in a sense the world would appreciate it through the rebels' eyes.
"through the rebel's eyes"
DeleteWould this be due to the ultimate oneness of everything? Perhaps this is my Hindu pantheistic bias creeping through :p