Okay, I don’t mean that you can’t believe in God. But that “What now?” seems to be the sticking point many have with the idea a Universe without a Supreme Being. Could it be that some theists merely aren’t up to the challenge of that question? Do you really think there can be no Purpose without a god?
I don’t mean for this to be condescending, but I can’t think of any way to phrase it that sounds any better. This is a rhetorical question to a degree, but any exploration of the issue would be very welcome.
In the practice of evolving the social sciences, the first logical step would be acceptance and toleration for atheists. In the sixties we had a big jump in the evolution of the social sciences with the Civil Rights Movement. In the last decade or so, homosexuality has no longer become a taboo within the social norm. The next step now, after having faced “racial” and “sexual orientation” differences, is “belief.” As this video adequately puts it, an atheist faces social obstacles in the United States, albeit only a fraction of a fraction of what black people faced before the late sixties. Atheists tend to be law-abiding citizens that contribute to society in a positive way.
Having said that, I can focus on your points Phaedrus…
A valid point… it’s just like… okay, so the United States has another movement and accepts atheists in society, now what? Would that lead to an overhaul in the currency and the American Pledge of Allegiance? That might be stepping it a bit far… but someday it might happen. So yeah, what now, right? Well, as I’m not atheist, I can’t really answer as one would, but I do have an idea. Nietzsche. Humanity would lay down the foundations of what would be the path of the future Overman; the groundwork from which would spring a belief in the divine and awesome power of the human spirit that wills its own purpose! One’s own purpose should and must be determined by their Will to Power!
In any case, it would take several centuries (maybe much more) to remove and change the system of indoctrination that our youth today is being programmed to flow with. The mass dilapidation of individual thought and the preservation of the herd mentality; the essence of sheepdom. It rules today, but one must ask… will it truly ever go away?
I have to say the ‘what now’ is part of what keeps me from considering atheism most strongly. What I mean is, it’s so very easy to criticize a position (any position, not just theism), that the skeptic arguing that God doesn’t exist doesn’t do anything for me anymore. If the skeptic is also putting something there in place of God- whether it be metaphysically, socially, or ethically, then I can look at the new thing they’ve proposed/discovered, and see if it can withstand criticism better than theism can. So far, those answers seem to be in short supply, though.
Because that's the only way atheism can be examined. I've said this in another thread recently, so to some I'll be repeating myself- but if the skeptic wants to discuss with me, and they refuse to move past pure atheism, then all they can do is attack my position, and all I can do is defend it. At the end of the day, it goes on forever until I make a mistake or they get bored. If they aren't putting something up on the chopping block that can be criticised in turn, they atheism is just an argument in "Let's see how thoroughly this position can be confronted. " Can theism be attacked on many levels? Yes. So can any belief about anything. That, by itself, isn't interesting. For theism to be roundly defeated, one would have to not only show that there are good arguments disputing it, but also show that there is some other entity/process/law/whatever that can take the place of God in the relevant way, that is not as subject to criticism (or moreso) as theism.
That’s just it. Atheism does not believe in a belief which is so popular, that it requires a classifying of the non-believers(for the believers). That’s atheism. As a matter of fact, atheist don’t refer to themselves as atheist. Only theists refer to atheists as atheists. You put it brilliantly when you said that the term “atheist” does not denote or cannote anything.
For argument’s sake between a theist and a theist, I guess what theist can argue against is science, history, physics?
“No purpose” or the conceptualization of the Universe without a god isn’t nearly as daunting as it looks at first glance. There is a certain liberation there, a freedom and responsibility. That is, instead of being just one more rando in God’s big plan, you approach the universe with a blank slate.
You make the excess of lack of purpose in this regard.
Why does “meaning” or “purpose” (whatever those ambiguous words are supposed to mean in this context) necessitate a God? I don’t think they do. I believe in a sort of ultimate purpose, that is true, and it is also true that I believe in God. However, it is perfectly possible (or so it seems to me) that I could believe in an ultimate purpose without believing in a God.
Many religious have strong thoughts in favor of the conceptual existence of God.
Such “believing” is not the same as relating.
For those with strong thoughts in favor of the conceptual existence of God, the “stray particle” entry of little conflicting thoughts that God doesn’t exist can’t possibly last very long in their mind.
Thus it’s a bit irrational to expect them to not have a “sticking point” with the “what now?” question, as how could they possibly wonder “what now?” when such implies "(what now) that God doesn’t exist … ", and “God doesn’t exist” is a fleeting thought that cannot survive in their mind when faced with the dominant strong thought that God does indeed exist?
You are basically asking them to, from their mindset, think for awhile about a very contrary and mentally stability-threatening matter.
It makes sense that they would have a “sticking point” with that.
This is a transferable concept, like when based ontologists ask epistemologists to relenquish for a moment their stand-alone epistemology in favor of recreating their epistemology after first deriving an ontological foundational base on which to build their house of epistemology – the result is likely to theaten the mental stability of the stand-alone “house of cards in the air” epistemologist. …
Atheists don’t have a problem with “the idea” that there is no God.
Agnostics don’t really have a problem musing over “the idea” that there is no God.
Theists, obviously, are supposed to have a problem with “the idea” that there is no God.
Panentheists simply ask “why do you wish to indulge in the fantasy that God does not exist?”.
Neither the theist or the stand-alone epistemologist is “up to the challenge” of such-natured questions, and for the same reason: accepting the notion for even a moment threatens their paradigm; it rocks their world, and not in a “good” way, from their perspective.
It’s like asking someone who loves oranges or lobster or potato chips to imagine a world without them. What a horrible thought! Who wants to play that game?!
However, your “up to the challenge” phrase is most definitely condescending to them. Your implication is that “there’s something wrong with them” that they can’t think for a moment like an atheist or an agnostic would.
Whether there is something “wrong” with them because of their contriteness to comply with your “request” is not something that can be decided based on mere form – such can only be determined substantively and with respect to reality.
Indeed, the irony here is that, all mentalisms aside, theirs and your “question’s”, they are the one’s more closer to being in touch with reality with respect to the subject of the question: God.
They may indeed think that.
So, setting aside your strawman, don’t you think life would be purposeless without some sort of “intrinsic” directions, regardless of who or what the creator is?
Or, more foundationally, is purpose even required in order for one as a being to really thrive?
Theists, atheists, agnostics – all are one thing.
But the reality of God is quite another.
Panentheism is the manifestation of God the universe of which we all are a part, complete with immanent and transcendent spiritual manifestation at, not only our mesocosmic level, but the microcosmic as well as God’s macrocosmic personal level as well.
Purpose can thus be explored, perhaps, without bringing God into the picture or only by bringing God into the picture.
It depends on whether we are isolating to determine locally manifested properties, like those of human beings, or if we are wanting to consider the relationship of human beings to the whole being of God.
Ultimately, though, does it make any sense not to eventually look at the whole picture if a complete understanding is our goal?
It seems such consideration would serve a more “useful” purpose.
What is the purpose of a univese with God?
As Detrop suggested, perhaps teleology has replaced religion. Instead of God, we now have a goal - or must create one.
Nietzsche says in this (the passage becomes increasingy relevant in threads on this forum)
In other words - only now that God is dead does the universe mean anything to the creative one - now he can justify his existence.
‘Finding a purpose’ is sometimes presented as a need - One can also consider the freedom to define the purpose of the world according to one’s own will a privilege.
Nietzsche’s evolved idea of the superman and the creator of a superman-culture is the artist-tyrant, described in the Will to Power section IV, which deals with the purpose of man without God. This ‘sculptor of man’ ‘imprints his will on milennia as on wax’.
[quote=“Sagesound”]
[
A valid point… it’s just like… okay, so the United States has another movement and accepts atheists in society, now what? Would that lead to an overhaul in the currency and the American Pledge of Allegiance? That might be stepping it a bit far… but someday it might happen. So yeah, what now, right? Well, as I’m not atheist, I can’t really answer as one would, but I do have an idea. Nietzsche. Humanity would lay down the foundations of what would be the path of the future Overman; the groundwork from which would spring a belief in the divine and awesome power of the human spirit that wills its own purpose! One’s own purpose should and must be determined by their Will to Power!
I find this comment highly amusing. Many people including Sage expend a lot of energy on ILP trying to highlight flaws in religion and Christianity in particular.
Yet when asked to expound on the non-religious dream for the future they imagine “a belief in the divine and awesome power of the human spirit which wills it’s own purpose”. LOL. What a sappy nothingness hope for the future! It makes me think of Oprah Winfrey, Pepsi commercials, Whitney’s “the greatest love of all”, and Jacko’s “we are the world”. Can you actually be serious?
Exactly! The creative spirit of the human being is bound to grow out of the mold of the child! The Overman will embrace this liberation with the feeling of having grown up; no longer requiring the metaphorical need of the childish perceptions of metaphysics. Metaphysics becomes a matter of myth as the Overman raises his hand and speaks: I am purpose!
We don’t really have a problem musing over “the idea” that there is a deity either. I find it rather intriguing, that from my standpoint, the next logical step from agnosticism to theism is clearly deism. Yet, as phawkins1988 has pointed out, the existence of a god does not necessarily necessitate a “meaning” or “purpose.” As we could keep the discussion within the confines of deism, would life not seem as equally meaningless as there being no god if god had simply either created the world and left or chose not to involve itself with our affairs? At that example, “meaning” and “purpose” would have little or no substance.
I think you’re confused by what I said Ned… did you think I was being serious? Regardless, I thought you were supposed to be nonjudgemental in your religious belief… It’s nice to see you have a sense of humor though… I was wondering when you’d lighten up.
Well, if it doesn't denote anything, then it can't be an alternative to theism. If the atheist puts forward all these anti-theistic arguments, and I find them convincing, then what's my proper response? To become an atheist because somebody presented arguments against theism I can't refute? Trouble is, since I'm not the Greatest Philosopher Who Ever Lived, somebody out there will be able to present argument against [i]whatever[/i] I believe, that I can't refute. The atheist has to also put something in place of theism, so I can replace one belief with another, stronger one.
The theist has no obligations to argue against these things until some non-theist comes along to say that none of these things cohere with theism. I think it’s obviously that the existence of science, history and physics as fields does not conflict with theism- it must be some particular alleged discoveries within those fields that conflict, if anything. And that’s what I’m talking about- particular things proposed.
Ned
Yep, that’s exactly the kind of sentiment I’m after in my Are you Rational or Not, Bub? thread.
Agnostics are quite flexible conceptually on the matter.
Indeed, in the world of God or no-God choice, agnostics are bi.
That makes rational sense, indeed – correcting God’s unexcused absence one step at a time.
If one doesn’t see God as one’s creator, then true.
Otherwise, one would expect the creator to have included some set of purpose-meaning instilling “operating instructions” somewhere in the created’s packaging.
Pretty much, I suppose.
Or … would life be just as meaningful?
Is this a perspectivist matter?
I suppose, indeed, that if we don’t really experience belonging to a greater “always there” whole - whom we might choose to call “God” – we might experience, in our lack of connectivity, a lacking that could be described as “meaningless” or “purposeless”.
Sure, “God” could be a stand-in for remedying disconnections from people we’ve suffered against our will.
But does it really matter?
Meaningfulness and purposefulness just feels better than the alternatives.
Another simple idea way overcomplicated with all the existential pondering and belief in ones own intellect.
What is the source of knowledge? I’ll bet many here think its books, which should tell you something about how deep most people can think.
Purpose denotes design, design denotes intelligence, it’s that simple.
Look up the definition of Purpose if you cant see that Purpose requires design and you cannot have design without some intelligence. A life and existence with out a source is an illogical and irrational thought with no support.
yes, I really think that god gives mankind light and purpose. What’s the alternative? That we randomly arose from a pile of goo?
There’s a freedom from responsibility. Libertines, by and large are the most perverted depressed people. And atheists tell the agnostics and theists that we should join the ranks?
… 
