Atheist In A Foxhole

[Wyman]

David Rönnegard asks how a committed atheist confronted with death might find consolation.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/At ... _A_Foxhole

They find consolation in the fact that they have in no way bent nor bowed to the lies.

Right, and that is a completely negative, derivative meaning of life. You get meaning out of disputing the orthodoxies of other people, but you have no credo of your own. Your identity does not consist of 'I am Systematic and I am ..... ' but 'I am Systematic and I am not religious/ I am not one of the herd.'

[Wyman]

I find IC's reasoning exactly right. I'll never understand atheists devoid of angst/despair. I.e. happy atheists. ...

Who said this makes one happy?

There must be two kinds of people - those who find a world without meaning 'just fine' and those who despair. The latter group then divides between religious folks and, for lack of a better term, philosophers.

Disagree, as in the former are those of a philosophical bent who dealt with Nihilism's challenge. To top it off I'd probably despair if the world was as the religious and these 'latter' philosophers wish it to be as that is one with no freedom at all.

I didn't say anyone claimed that atheism makes one happy. If happiness stems from beliefs, I have trouble seeing how atheism does not prohibit people from being happy. Of course, happiness may stem from something else.

I have dealt with nihilism's challenge as well, but I see it as resignation more than a positive victory. And I have yet to see any good arguments otherwise. What I meant by 'philosophers' as I defined it above (perhaps wrongly) was people who are not resigned, but still curious as to those issues (moral/ethical). People curious as to scientific issues are scientists; although amateur scientists often call themselves philosophers, which is fine. Definitions don't matter as long as we are consistent.

As for freedom - yes, that's the issue. But I don't 'wish' the world was devoid of freedom, I just haven't seen any good arguments to convince me otherwise. I quoted Tolstoy once on another thread - 'If we concede that human life can be governed by reason, the possibility of life is destroyed.' Dostoevsky also grappled with this issue throughout all of his novels - both eventually turned to faith after a great amount of searching and despair.

So I completely agree with Immanuel Cant even though I don't believe in God.

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

"sincerity"

I do believe you insulted me...

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie,

"sincerity"

I do believe you insulted me...

Not at all. "Sincerity" is a universal virtue...

Even in cranky old codgers.

[Immanuel Can]

David Rönnegard asks how a committed atheist confronted with death might find consolation.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/At ... _A_Foxhole

They find consolation in the fact that they have in no way bent nor bowed to the lies.

Right, and that is a completely negative, derivative meaning of life. You get meaning out of disputing the orthodoxies of other people, but you have no credo of your own. Your identity does not consist of 'I am Systematic and I am ..... ' but 'I am Systematic and I am not religious/ I am not one of the herd.'

What excellent words you choose! "Negative." "Derivative." It is surely both.

Negative: it has nothing positive to offer. It affirms nothing, can assert no value, and can posit no meaning. It can only refuse all consolations, deny all hope and revel in nihilistic emptiness. It's pure negation.

Otherwise, it's...

Derivative: That happens if it borrows some sort of value from another system. When it does this, it never acknowledges that it has taken something to which it has no rational title. For example, it can affirm "authenticity," or "honesty" or "sytematicness," or "non-herdiness," or some other positive value it has to borrow from some creed.

But we have already established that Atheism is really the denial of all creeds, and supplies no content of its own beyond that negation. So from whence our valuing of "truth," "authenticity" or "escaping the herd"? So Atheism is obliged to supply phony "positives" to keep its subscribers from realizing they're believing in nothing and subscribing to a doctrine that leads them nowhere.

Marx said "Religion is the opiate of the masses." He did not consider that Atheism could be a far more potent opiate; for what could be a more powerful soporific than the refusal to believe in any positive values at all, and contenting oneself with only the negation of everyone else's creed? It's an invitation to empty self-congratulation, a celebration of one's non-achievement of that which others have at least attempted -- the positing of some meaning for life.

[Systematic]

David Rönnegard asks how a committed atheist confronted with death might find consolation.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/At ... _A_Foxhole

They find consolation in the fact that they have in no way bent nor bowed to the lies.

Right, and that is a completely negative, derivative meaning of life. You get meaning out of disputing the orthodoxies of other people, but you have no credo of your own. Your identity does not consist of 'I am Systematic and I am ..... ' but 'I am Systematic and I am not religious/ I am not one of the herd.'

I will not dispute you except on one point: I am neither a humanist nor an atheist. I was merely trying to understand the consolation. I derive no joy from poring over the Bible just to find inconsistencies. Rather, I just focus on thinking as rationally as I can.

[Immanuel Can]

I am neither a humanist nor an atheist. I was merely trying to understand the consolation. I derive no joy from poring over the Bible just to find inconsistencies. Rather, I just focus on thinking as rationally as I can.

Yes, I'm trying to understand it too.

I cannot grasp what "consolation" can come from the non-belief in any values at all. For as earlier commenters have said, that is what Atheism entails: nothing but the statement, "There is no God." And from that statement, of course, you can also draw "There is no afterlife," "There is no Creator," "There is no objective purpose or meaning," "There is no right or wrong," and "There is no value except contingent, temporary, personal advantage; and this slim advantage itself is soon to be doomed by death." You die, you're forgotten, and the one fine day your family, your friends, your descendants, your dreams, your contributions, your plans, your values and your aspirations are all consumed, as the universe goes into eternal heat death.

Lovely.

Now, in all that, do you see any light? If you ever "understand the consolation," as you say, then please hasten to explain. The Atheist world will have great cause for rejoicing, since it would seem it thinks it is presently dying in the dark.

But in my experience, it does not face that. Instead, it routinely takes false consolation. It tells itself things it "knows" to be lies. For on the one hand, it claims that the universe is big accident headed to nowhere; and then on the other hand, it's proponents talk of "leaving a legacy," or of "being authentic" or "making the world a better place," as if these things had some sort of objective reality with the Atheistic conception of the universe.

Now, seeing that, then, can you wonder that Theists remain unimpressed by the posture of "hard-nosed rationality" that Atheists put on, when the Atheists themselves act so inconsistently? Yet if rationality has value, do we not suppose it has value for everyone? Do not Atheists owe themselves to believe consistently, rationally, in keeping with the ontological premise of Atheism itself, and not to steal false hope from others, or don't they? If they don't, what's "rational" about their Atheism?

[Wyman]

I will not dispute you except on one point: I am neither a humanist nor an atheist. I was merely trying to understand the consolation. I derive no joy from poring over the Bible just to find inconsistencies. Rather, I just focus on thinking as rationally as I can.

Sorry, I shouldn't have focused on 'you' when you clearly said 'they.'

[Arising_uk]

I didn't say anyone claimed that atheism makes one happy. ...

"I'll never understand atheists devoid of angst/despair. I.e. happy atheists."?

If happiness stems from beliefs, I have trouble seeing how atheism does not prohibit people from being happy. ...

Because there is more than just religious belief.

Of course, happiness may stem from something else.

You think only religious belief can make one happy?

I have dealt with nihilism's challenge as well, but I see it as resignation more than a positive victory. ...

I think this means that you are still stuck in nihilism as, for myself, the positive victory comes from the freedom of choice nihilism offers, but then again we'd have to clarify which nihilism we're talking about.

And I have yet to see any good arguments otherwise. What I meant by 'philosophers' as I defined it above (perhaps wrongly) was people who are not resigned, but still curious as to those issues (moral/ethical).

Why do you think the atheist is not?

As for freedom - yes, that's the issue. But I don't 'wish' the world was devoid of freedom, I just haven't seen any good arguments to convince me otherwise. ...

So we agree, a world with a 'God' is unfree?

I quoted Tolstoy once on another thread - 'If we concede that human life can be governed by reason, the possibility of life is destroyed.' Dostoevsky also grappled with this issue throughout all of his novels - both eventually turned to faith after a great amount of searching and despair.

Those Russians eh! Stoic doom and gloom is their favourite pastime.

So I completely agree with Immanuel Cant even though I don't believe in God.

I think IC makes straw atheists to decry. Could be wrong tho' as I think him American and they are full of angry ex-theists and atheists living with the more bonkers of the godbotherers.

[Arising_uk]

I cannot grasp what "consolation" can come from the non-belief in any values at all. ...

Whoa! There. Where does it say the Atheist has no belief in any values?

For as earlier commenters have said, that is what Atheism entails: nothing but the statement, "There is no God." And from that statement, of course, you can also draw "There is no afterlife," "There is no Creator," ...

True.

"There is no objective purpose or meaning,"

False, as you are conflating objective with external, we can have the objective goal of making this world a more comfortable place for those who agree that this would be a better thing fo reach of us.

"There is no right or wrong,"

Not so, there is no external being telling you what is right or wrong, you have to decide for yourself and it will be tested by others.

and "There is no value except contingent, temporary, personal advantage; and this slim advantage itself is soon to be doomed by death." You die, you're forgotten, and the one fine day your family, your friends, your descendants, your dreams, your contributions, your plans, your values and your aspirations are all consumed, as the universe goes into eternal heat death.

Well apparently cosmologists may be changing their minds about this and it look like the big-crunch and bounce may be back on the cards so Nietzsche and the Hindus and reincarnationists may win the game. But let's say they don't, then as an atheist you do it for your living family and friends and you have descendants so they can do it for theirs, your dreams are for now, as are your contributions, plans and values, not for some posited 'afterlife' not the threat of punishment or reward by some 'God'.

Lovely.

You want it all?

Now, in all that, do you see any light? If you ever "understand the consolation," as you say, then please hasten to explain.

Freedom from a tyrannical parent.

The Atheist world will have great cause for rejoicing, since it would seem it thinks it is presently dying in the dark.

That's because, in the main, you are talking to ex-theists, a very bitter and angry bunch, not atheists. I think we are living in the light.

But in my experience, it does not face that. Instead, it routinely takes false consolation. It tells itself things it "knows" to be lies. For on the one hand, it claims that the universe is big accident headed to nowhere; and then on the other hand, it's proponents talk of "leaving a legacy," or of "being authentic" or "making the world a better place," as if these things had some sort of objective reality with the Atheistic conception of the universe.

But they do, the objective reality of living others and one's descendants. Whereas the godbotherer lives for the dream of eternal servitude based upon adherence to the whims of a tyrannical patriarch.

Now, seeing that, then, can you wonder that Theists remain unimpressed by the posture of "hard-nosed rationality" that Atheists put on, when the Atheists themselves act so inconsistently? Yet if rationality has value, do we not suppose it has value for everyone? Do not Atheists owe themselves to believe consistently, rationally, in keeping with the ontological premise of Atheism itself, and not to steal false hope from others, or don't they? If they don't, what's "rational" about their Atheism?

Upon the whole I think those atheists you describe are in America where they have to face the more lunatic of the christian godbotherers or they are talking to ex-theists who are bitter about their indoctrination but cannot free themselves from it as its implanted before reason arises. Me I think nothing about 'God' or religion until the theist raises 'it' as a fact or tells me what the atheist believes.

[Arising_uk]

Marx said "Religion is the opiate of the masses." ...

Not quite, he said 'opium' and 'people' and others had said pretty much the same thing.

He did not consider that Atheism could be a far more potent opiate; for what could be a more powerful soporific than the refusal to believe in any positive values at all, ...

You conflate atheism with nihilism in your straw men.

and contenting oneself with only the negation of everyone else's creed?

All I say is I don't believe in your 'God' when you tell me 'it' exists, otherwise, unless thrust upon me, I'm content to let others believe whatever creed they wish. So I take it you are happy with IS going its way?

It's an invitation to empty self-congratulation, a celebration of one's non-achievement of that which others have at least attempted -- the positing of some meaning for life.

You conflate atheism with nihilism in an attempt to discredit. The atheist posits many meanings for life, just not that some 'God' tells you so. Funnily enough so does a nihilist once they've got over the thought that there is no external supplier of such things.

Since you brought-up Marx lets put that oft used misquote into context(wiki is handy sometimes);

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

[Vor]

Much has been made in the past few years about the trend, of leaving the churches, which is not so much a mass exodus but slowly, bit by bit. At a more general level, the recognition that religion’s usefulness or even benefit has run its course, is precisely what Nietzsche referred to as the death of God.

In fact God has left the building for many and one could say because of a lack of authenticity, it's very message is garbled and untrue. People's former belief has become obsolete and they are replacing God with something else. "We don't need a God centred religion, we need a Man centred religion". Man Replaces God With Himself.

Seems reasonable.

[Dalek Prime]

"We don't need a God centred religion, we need a Man centred religion". Man Replaces God With Himself.

Seems reasonable.

No it doesn't. Man sucks just as much as his God did. I refuse to worship either.

[Dubious]

At a more general level, the recognition that religion’s usefulness or even benefit has run its course, is precisely what Nietzsche referred to as the death of God.
....
People's former belief has become obsolete and they are replacing God with something else. "We don't need a God centred religion, we need a Man centred religion". Man Replaces God With Himself.

We're kind of screwing ourselves out of our historic alibies and coverups aren't we? We're now forced to say WE did it instead of GOD told us to do it. It's the picture of Dorian Gray in reverse.

[Systematic]

I am neither a humanist nor an atheist. I was merely trying to understand the consolation. I derive no joy from poring over the Bible just to find inconsistencies. Rather, I just focus on thinking as rationally as I can.

Yes, I'm trying to understand it too.

I cannot grasp what "consolation" can come from the non-belief in any values at all. For as earlier commenters have said, that is what Atheism entails: nothing but the statement, "There is no God." And from that statement, of course, you can also draw "There is no afterlife," "There is no Creator," "There is no objective purpose or meaning," "There is no right or wrong," and "There is no value except contingent, temporary, personal advantage; and this slim advantage itself is soon to be doomed by death." You die, you're forgotten, and the one fine day your family, your friends, your descendants, your dreams, your contributions, your plans, your values and your aspirations are all consumed, as the universe goes into eternal heat death.

Lovely.

Now, in all that, do you see any light? If you ever "understand the consolation," as you say, then please hasten to explain. The Atheist world will have great cause for rejoicing, since it would seem it thinks it is presently dying in the dark.

But in my experience, it does not face that. Instead, it routinely takes false consolation. It tells itself things it "knows" to be lies. For on the one hand, it claims that the universe is big accident headed to nowhere; and then on the other hand, it's proponents talk of "leaving a legacy," or of "being authentic" or "making the world a better place," as if these things had some sort of objective reality with the Atheistic conception of the universe.

Now, seeing that, then, can you wonder that Theists remain unimpressed by the posture of "hard-nosed rationality" that Atheists put on, when the Atheists themselves act so inconsistently? Yet if rationality has value, do we not suppose it has value for everyone? Do not Atheists owe themselves to believe consistently, rationally, in keeping with the ontological premise of Atheism itself, and not to steal false hope from others, or don't they? If they don't, what's "rational" about their Atheism?

I believe that Atheists must either break with hard science at some point, or they must only allow themselves the consolation that hard science offers. If an afterlife could be proven in a measurable way, then I'm sure that they would believe in it.