I see nothing wrong in atheists doing this. If they want to spend their money that way, they have the right to. I can see their ads fueling discussion, which for me is always a good thing.
I will say this, and it may just be me. Were I a strong atheist (viz., one who believed they could make a rational case against the existence of God, as opposed to a "weak atheist," who just believes there is no God but cannot speak reasonably about their unbelief), I would not waste my time promoting my atheism. This is because I would be inclined to embrace an existentialist view of atheism, and find life to be fundamentally absurd. Hence, to spend money on proclaiming the ultimate absurdity of life would strike me as but another absurdity. If "life's a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," surely atheistic bus-signs signify the same.
15 comments:
The Brights Net is not an atheist organization.
TBN is an international organization of individuals who have a naturalistic worldview. TBN has many registered atheists but also has many individuals who are not atheists. For example there are many humanists, freethinkers, secularists, etc.
TBN is a civic action group, and is not an anti-religious group. In fact TBN has registered many individuals who self-identify using a religious title, such as Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.
Accurate information regarding The Brights Net can be found at http://www.the-brights.net/
Paul Geisert, Ph.D
Associate Director for Constituency Services
Thank you, Paul, for your clarifying comment.
I checked out your website.
I'll admit to some confusion re. something. It's this.
- Your definition of "bright" is: a person whose worldview is naturalistic.
- A "bright" has a worldview "free of supernatural and mystical elements."
- "The Brights' umbrella is large, very large. Brights can be agnostics..." Here I wonder: how so? If one has a naturalistic worldview then one is not agnostic regarding anything supernatural. A Bright acknowledges there are no supernatural realities. Therefore: no God exists. It's not clear to me how an agnostic could qualify as a Bright by your group's definition. So I don't see the "Bright unbrella" as quite so large.
- I don't think atheism logically entails naturalism, but I do think that naturalism entails atheism (viz., nonbelief in the God of theism).
May I ask - have you read Naturalism, by Stu Goetz and Charles Taliaferro? For me it provides an example of the intrinsic problems a naturalistic worldview has.
Thanks again,
John Piippo, Ph.D
John, you wrote: 'I would be inclined to embrace an existentialist view of atheism, and find life to be fundamentally absurd. Hence, to spend money on proclaiming the ultimate absurdity of life would strike me as but another absurdity. If "life's a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," surely atheistic bus-signs signify the same.'
This is a common response from people who have not fully understood or embraced the realities of life, aka atheism. It's a view from the outside, rather than the inside. I obviously can't speak for all atheists, but I think that my attitude is fairly typical, viz:
Yes, life seen objectively is pointless and absurd. Each of us is an individual dot of consciousness on a grain of sand in an incomprehensible vast universe and in the middle of what maybe an infinite timestream. A century from now most of us will be forgotten and a million years hence the human race will be extinct.
But as individuals we don't live objectively. As individuals, each of us is conscious and alive now in this moment of time. We each have physical, emotional and intellectual sensations that bring us all the positive and negative experiences that comprise Life. That means that for each of us individually, Life is not absurd. Consciously or unconsciously, we want our lives to be as intellectually, emotionally and physically rewarding as possible.
Some of us, of course, are better at achieving those goals than others. And most of us who think about it recognise that we can only achieve these goals within a human-centred ethical framework. (The problem with religious ethics, apart from the appeal to a non-existent supernatural god, is that they are usually arbitrary and unethical, creating pointless rules - "do not eat pork" - and privileging the adult, married male over the rest of the human race.)
In short, while life in general is absurd, the Life each of us lives is far from absurd. And that is why we as atheists advertise ourselves and encourage others to come to the same conclusion. Life is too short and precious to waste on the absurdities of superstition and illusion.
I'm glad to say that our words are not falling on deaf ears. As the Pew Research Center and other bodies are discovering, more and more Americans are describing themselves as non-religious. There's a long way to go before the US reaches the peace and tranquillity of one of the world's most atheistic nations - Japan - but I'm confident that in time reason will eventually overcome ignorance and superstition.
Regards,
Martin Foreman
www.godwouldbeanatheist.com
(Facebook: The-Atheist-God/441761675272)
PS, John, I'm curious to know why you feel the need to put Ph.D after your name. What impact do you hope or think those letters will have on others?
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
Hello Vincent - I have read this news release.
Blessings,
John
Hi Martin - thank you for writing. Here's a few thoughts.
1. That "the realities of life" are best understood on atheism is precisely the issue. Since I do not believe that to be the case, I do not see myself as being on "the outside" when it comes to "reality."
2. Of course I am in some ways "on the outside" when it comes to atheism since I am not an atheist. But as a philosopher for the past forty years I have been immersed in the literature of atheism as well as being around many philosophical atheists. To this day this includes some of my philosophy students who profess atheism. I don't think it's fair to use the outside-inside thing in a discussion like this. It would mean you and I are hermetically sealed in our worldviews and could not dialogue at all, a good deal of which includes trying to understand one another.
3. Speaking philosophically again, I am certain you are aware of, e.g., French atheistic existentialism, running from Sartre and Camus to Derrida et. al. A lot of that kind of atheism strikes me as descriptive, not prescriptive. Indeed, a whole lot of it refuses to talk about "reality" as if it's something we can get at. This is atheistic rejection of metaphysical claims. As I have read and dialogued over the years with atheism I am just saying that, were I an atheist, I would greatly incline towards the French existentialist variety. That would be my personal, intellectual taste. On such a view I might find "prescriptive atheism" absurd. But that doesn't mean it would bother me. After all, on atheism there's no teleology, hence there's nothing to be bothered about.
3. I simply do not understand your statement "As individuals we don't live objectively."
4. I have no doubt there are a number of atheists who want to live lives that are intellectually, emotionally, and physically rewarding. That is a confessional statement. But on atheistic existentialism (my preferred brand of atheism, since not all atheisms are the same) this is, at times, troubling. I believe I would be one of the troubled ones. That's also a confession.
4. You don't really think there is a great spiritual "peace and tranquillity" in Japan, do you? My son and daughter live and work there. Humbly I say - you need a reality check on that one.
Currently, and personally, I find too many intractable philosophical problems with the atheistic worldview. I not only have no problem with atheists expressing their worldviews, I applaud it. As a philosophy teacher I can tell you it makes life far more interesting.
Take care,
John
Hi, John,
(My response is too long for one post - dividing it into two.)
Yr points 1 & 2: I was saying that people without an atheistic point of view (who are "outside"), often conclude that life for atheists is absurd and pointless. Atheists who consider the matter (who are "inside") often come to the conclusion I gave. If you don't like the outside / inside distinction, we can drop it.
Yr point 1: by "the realities of life" I mean those aspects of the physical world that are demonstrably accurate. I don't want to go into a long discussion about "reality" because such discussions are usually no more than intellectual games irrelevant in daily life. I was referring obliquely to the fact that there is no proof / evidence / reason / whatever-word-you-want-to-use of the existence of a supernatural being. (Of course, I don't expect you to accept that point - I'm just clarifying what I meant by "reality.")
Yr point 3. It is my turn to fail to understand you. Atheism can only be descriptive - it is a statement confirming that something is absent. What do you mean by prescriptive atheism?
Still on point 3: your take on atheism is irrelevant (as is Camus', Sartre's etc, and my own). What you are describing is not atheism, but your (putative) reaction to acceptance of atheism. You are confusing your response with the thing you are responding to - like saying that the height of Mount Everest is positive or negative or sad or happy. It's none of these things. Atheism is a statement - there is no God. How you react to it - as a believer or as a rationalist - is a factor of your personality and intellect and is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of the statement. (Perhaps I am beginning to understand your use of the phrase "prescriptive atheism"...
Yr 2nd point 3: By the phrase "As individuals we don't live objectively" I meant that humans are incapable of (a) fully understanding the situation we find ourselves in [we are limited by our senses and the wiring of our neurons] and (b) of having a emotion-free response to that situation. Throw out the phrase if you like. All I was saying was: (a) life is absurd, but (b) most individual human beings do not find their lives absurd.
continued . . .
... continued
Yr point 4 is covered by my response to the above. But I would add the following. If God exists, he does so irrespective of my attitude to him. Similarly, if you were an atheist, your attitude towards the non-existence of God would be irrelevant to anyone other than yourself - unless you start harming others in the name of atheism.
Yr 2nd point 4. Compared to the US, where I have lived and travelled extensively, there is certainly peace and tranquillity in Japan, where I have travelled less. I wasn't relying on my own observations however, but on scholarly research undertaken a few years ago comparing murder and teenage pregnancy rates in several countries with beliefs in God. Japan scores low on the first two and high on the third; the US is the reverse. European countries also have a correlation between lack of belief and lower murder / teenage pregnancy rates. If you're really interested, I'll hunt up the reference for you.
I'm interested to hear that you have "many" intractable problems with atheism and I'm curious to hear what they are. I only have two problems with religion – (a) that there is neither evidence nor irrefutable philosophical argument to support the thesis; (b) that while there are many believers whose faith brings them and their neighbours benefits, all too often on this fragile planet, religion has become a rationale for ignorance, bigotry and violence.
Finally, before continuing this discussion, get we get back to your original point? You implied that it was absurd of atheists to post signs on buses. I demonstrated it was reasonable for atheists to do so. Does the silence in your response mean that while you might consider the whole idea absurd, you accept that encouraging atheism is a rational, non-absurd act by atheists who do not share your views?
Regards,
Martin
Hi Martin – thank you for writing back. You are very gracious to do so. I’ve probably written too much here. I won’t blame you if you don’t respond to it all, since I think we both could spend much of our lives responding to the deep questions we are both asking of one another.
1. You say “There is no proof/evidence/reason/whatever-word-you-want-to-use of a supernatural being.” You are correct in saying that I do not accept that point. More about that below.
2. You brought the subject of “reality” up when you wrote: “This is a common response from people who have not fully understood or embraced the realities of life, aka atheism.” You seem to claim that my response is that of someone who has not embraced the “realities of life.” Then, after I ask just what you mean by “reality,” you dismiss discussions about “reality” by writing that they “are usually no more than intellectual games irrelevant in daily life.” What’s going on here?
Your initial claim is a very strong one; I ask about it; then you dismiss it. But if it’s just an “intellectual game” that is “irrelevant in daily life” (viz., discussion about the meaning of “reality”), then it’s odd for you to claim that atheists understand and embrace the realities of life and then dismiss explanatory discussion as being irrelevant. As I initially said, that is precisely the issue; viz., that of competing noetic frameworks. It’s really not irrelevant, as I suspect you also believe. Philosophers discuss such things all the time. We think they are important, as I feel you do also.
3. By “descriptive atheism” I mean atheistic writings that describe what their atheism is like, or what it is like to be an atheist. Such as, e.g. (for the most part), Julian Barnes’ new book. I find a lot of French existentialist atheism to be descriptive like, e.g., Sartre’s Nausea.
4. I don’t see the analogy you make using ‘Mt Everest.’ In my original post I claimed to find it odd that an atheist would spend their time putting atheistic signs on buses. “Putting signs on buses” is not “atheism.” I do understand that. If so, then there are many more atheists than we both realize. It’s the response that I find odd based on the noetic framework of atheism. I am claiming there have been and yet are existentialist atheists who would also find it odd.
(end Part I...)
(Part II...)
5. I agree with you that it is probably the case that “most individual human beings do not find their lives absurd.” But most are religious, and therefore think teleologically. If they are atheists and do not find their lives absurd, then I suggest they are like the village atheists that Nietzsche’s “madman” spoke to, who did not understand that their embrace of atheism meant they have left the “village” of Christian theism and now sail alone on a sea with an “infinite horizon.” As we know, Nietzsche struggled with nihilism. As he should, on atheism. Personally, he’s one of my favorite atheists. I tell my philosophy students of my respect for Nietzsche, who follows the logic of atheism very well, and brilliantly so.
6. On Japan – the suicide rate is among the world’s highest; Japan is an honor-shame culture that is brutal on all who do not measure up. Again, you wrote: “There's a long way to go before the US reaches the peace and tranquility of one of the world's most atheistic nations – Japan.” My son, who lives and works there, finds your claim false. He writes me that “suicide is culturally acceptable to save face in Japan.” That’s the honor-shame culture. It creates a people who have a deep unrest within themselves.
7. Martin – your “two problems” with religion are: “(a) that there is neither evidence nor irrefutable philosophical argument to support the thesis; (b) that while there are many believers whose faith brings them and their neighbours benefits, all too often on this fragile planet, religion has become a rationale for ignorance, bigotry and violence.”
On (a) – “irrefutable” arguments cannot be given for any empirical or existence claim. So, the lack of one to argue for God’s existence is non-applicable. Likewise, sheer logical arguments cannot be given against God’s existence, as most atheists acknowledge, esp. after J.L. Mackie’s failed logical argument against God and its refutation by Alvin Plantinga. But there are probableistic, evidential arguments for the existence of God, such as: 1) the fine-tuning argument (Alister McGrath, Robin Collins); 2) the kalam cosmological argument (William Lane Craig); 3) the argument from consciousness for the existence of God (J.P. Moreland); 4) the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus (N.T. Wright, et. al).
On (b) – yes, religion has been used to perpetrate violence. As has atheism. The 20th-century saw mass human destruction perpetrated by atheistic regimes.
(Part III, with my apology...)
8. In response to your last point – I said that were I an atheist it would be of the French existentialist variety, or maybe a Nietzsche or a Kafka. Putting atheistic signs on buses would make as much sense to me as carrying boulders up a mountain only to see them roll down again (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus). There are atheists like Camus, it appears, who would feel that way. But, for me, if an atheist wants to do that, I have no issue with them. I just find it odd, on atheism.
Here’s something I think: I think a rational case can be made for the non-existence of God. Atheistic philosopher William Rowe serves as a good example. But Rowe agrees that a rational case can also be made for theism. One then adjudicates between two arguments, both of which possess rationality. But here, for me, enters J.P. Moreland’s argument from consciousness for the existence of God, Victor Reppert’s various forms of the argument from the existence of reason for God’s existence, and Alvin Plantinga’s reasoning that the noetic framework of atheistic naturalism cannot account for our trusting in reason in the first place, since on evolutionary naturalism issues of truth do not apply (as do issues of survivability).
Note: within the respective noetic frameworks actions are seen as consistent or inconsistent. See Nietzsche’s “madman” again, who found his atheist contemporaries inconsistent in their adherence to moral values that find their foundation in Christian theism. It’s precisely this kind of thinking that makes me stand in wonder at an atheist who puts an atheist sign on a bus. Of course they have a legal right to do it. I have no problem with that at all. I just wonder, on atheism, why bother? But that’s me, and the possible atheistic existentialist inside of me.
In my last paragraph lie some of the intractable problems of atheism, as I and others see it; viz., the inability of the noetic framework of atheism to account for reason, consciousness, free will, and our trust in reason. There’s a lot of very good literature out now discussing such things. Like the “hard problem” of first-person subjective consciousness (Pinker, et. al.).
Martin – if you have waded through all of this so far you are a better person than I. If and when you come to Detroit let’s have coffee together.
Blessings!
John
The problem with these discussions is that they get wider and wider and bring in too many topics to fully discuss. I'll acknowledge (without necessarily agreeing with) your points but try to restrict discussion to the following:
a) I was specifically saying (or trying to say) that most people who are atheists do not consider their own lives absurd, for reasons I gave in my original post. You seem to think that most atheists consider - or should consider - their lives absurd. I am not sure if you fully understand or agree with that point.
b) I was disappointed to see a PhD repeat the lie that atheism has been used to perpetrate violence. Religious leaders from Mohammed onwards have killed in the name of religion. Atheist leaders from Stalin onwards have killed to maintain their own power. No-one, I repeat no-one, has sought power and killed to maintain or impose atheism. Please acknowledge that point or provide evidence, which has so far escaped the world's historians, that any regime has killed in order to impose atheism on its people.
c) "Intellectual games". I used that phrase deliberately. Philosophy is intellectually challenging and fun, but beyond a certain level it is irrelevant. What is important in life is physical and emotional welfare. Those of us who are lucky enough to have homes, food and income can play discuss whether we are a butterfly dreaming of a man or vice versa, whether we can prove anything beyond our own existence and so on. But none of that is as important as health or happiness. God's existence or the nature of reality have no impact at all on when I get up in the morning or what I do each day.
d) But when I have the luxury of leisure, I do like to consider the nature of reality and nothing - including your arguments in 7(a) - has convinced me. In my own, unintelligent, poorly argued way, I have come across and responded to most, or all of these arguments on http://www.godwouldbeanatheist.com/instant.htm. Have a look and laugh.
e) My final comment would be: let's assume I'm wrong and that everything you write about human reality is true. That consciousness requires an explanation beyond neurons. That the universe is too fine-tuned to have come into existence on its own (baloney, but never mind). And so on. God exists. But in that case all you have done is pushed back the problem one layer. You now have to explain the existence of God. Those who refuse to do so are hypocritical, because they demand an explanation for the universe but refuse to give one for God. And if God has an explanation, there must be a level beyond God that also requires explaining and so on. In short, I will accept the possibility of God if you put forward a hypothesis for the origin of God. And please don't tell me that the explanation is "I AM"; that would be the biggest philosophical cop-out.
As someone who is a-theist, I have to agree with Martin. It's lovely to have all these philosophical discussions about whether god exists or not, and it is great intellectual exercise, when one has the time, but on a day to day basis, I take Richard Dawkins' position: on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 = "I think there is a god," and 7 = "I think there is no god", I am a 6, ie "I think that the probability of there being a god is vanishingly small and I live my life as if he doesn't exist".
You may think that my life is absurd and meaningless as a result, but I feel that it is as full of joy, happiness and love as any believer's. I may in the end be proved wrong, but that's ok because being proved wrong can lead closer to the truth. A believer is unlikely to accept any proofs against their position, because they have already made such an investment in the Absolute.
Blue skies,
SongBird
Songbird - "I think that the probability of there being a god is vanishingly small and I live my life as if he doesn't exist".
I ask - why would you make such a philosophical claim if you're not interested in having philosophical discussions.
Also - I said that were "I" an atheist I would be of the Nietzsche-Camus-Sartre-etc. variety. I would never claim that all professing atheists do feel their lives are absurd. Why object to what I said, especially if you are an atheist? After all, who cares? I know were I an atheist I could care less whether or not you felt happy (which is, by the way, different from life being meaningful).
Hi Martin - here's a few responses to your last post.
a) In the college philosophy classes I teach I have and continue to have a number of students who profess to be atheists. I introduce them to classic and contemporary atheistic literature. Some of that literature (atheistic existentialism, e.g.; even Bertrand Russell’s classic statements in his “A Free Man’s Worship,” show that: If God does not exist, then life is absurd. Some of my students begin to consider that. They should, since that is, for some historically significant atheists, a point to be considered.
b) I disagree with the point that is made, by some atheists, that religion and religious people are intrinsically violent. I think one can argue that we have seen, esp. in the 20th century, atheistic crimes of violence ( Stalin (20 million killed), Mao (70 million killed), Castro, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, etc. Dawkins denies that the rejection of God has anything to do with these killings. But one common factor in these movements was the denial of God. And, the forceful attempt to eradicate religion. I have friends who have been persecuted in communist China. I have a friend who was imprisoned on Cuba under Castro. And so on. For me, following Jesus has made me less violent within.
c) You write: “Philosophy is intellectually challenging and fun, but beyond a certain level it is irrelevant.” But you responded to me, and made a few philosophical claims about, e.g., “reality.” To philosophically critique me without allowing me to philosophically respond seems unfair, even autocratic. I checked out your website. It makes a number of philosophical claims. Your section “How to Reason,” e.g. So, I teach logic. I’m interested in “how to reason.” I am now trying to reason with you. I ask: Do you not want me to?
e) Note, Martin, that you have made some big-time philosophical claims in your point that includes your statement, “God exists. But in that case all you have done is pushed back the problem one layer. You now have to explain the existence of God. Those who refuse to do so are hypocritical, because they demand an explanation for the universe but refuse to give one for God. And if God has an explanation, there must be a level beyond God that also requires explaining and so on. In short, I will accept the possibility of God if you put forward a hypothesis for the origin of God. And please don't tell me that the explanation is "I AM"; that would be the biggest philosophical cop-out.”
Let me ask – are you interested in a response? I’ve made a post here. Please note that philosophical atheists do not raise the objection your raise because if is, fundamentally, nonsensical. If God, by definition, did not begin to exist (God’s existence is “necessary”) then the question “what caused God” is nonsensical, like asking one to explain the meaning of “square circle.” Note also that, even if the question “What caused God?” had any logical sense, one could still believe in God; hence, atheism would be defeated. I may not know what causes the sun to shine today, but I see it is shining. Analogically, I may not know what caused God, but I see that God exists. And if one can say that, they are ipso facto no longer an atheist. They’ve become someone who now believes in God, and may them wonder what caused God. But, probably, the question is logically nonsensical (here I avert to “reason” – logic).
Post a Comment