On the Human Quest for Cosmic Purpose and Rationale

On anothe blog, a fellow atheist hs written a piece oce the human quest for external purpose. Many humans, that is, quest for a purpose in life that is extenal and not of their own making ("I am part of god's plan, etc.)

The author of the article correctly notes that as the universe does not itself have desires and is not cognizant, the world has no ultimate purpose (and even if a god created us for or with a purpose, that is not mean we are bound by that purpose or that it is a purpose that would satisfy us.

Early in the article, though, he asks a very non-rhetorical question that I think should and can be answered:

I do not know where this want for an external purpose comes from. Perhaps it is some left-over brain program from our childhood where we are inclined to prefer the values of our parents. Perhaps it is something that is taught from one generation to the next without stopping to consider the wisdom (or foolishness) of doing so.

Fyfe cannot identify with the search for an external, larger, purpose to life, or the emptiness many can feel when they do not find one. While I can relate - I have no need to find a 'bigger' purpose - I can certainly relate to those who do and think I can give some explanations here. And a search for a 'bigger' purpose has little to do with motivations that Fyfe proposes.

Why do we search for grand purpose in life rather than being satisfied with human-made purposes? First, I believe that we do this because many lives that contain hardship are assuaged by the belief that "there has to be more than just this." Slavery is a good example of this. The slave, who was/is forced to toil for many hours a day under brutal condition, and who had no control over his/her life, may take comfort in the idea that he/she is part of something larger and better than his/her own day-to-day. Saying that the slave's own life is the purpose of his/her life does not do becuase he/she feels their life to be intrinsically purposeless.

But what about those who are better off? Why do folk with relatively happy (or at least very tolerable) lives feel the need to search for a larger purpose? I have known many who've done this - who go into a particular profesion, for instance, because they feel they are "serving the greater good," or the like. Even if they are creating this purpose for themselves (which often they have), they are comforted by the fact that they are serving a purpose larger than themselves, and would be unsatisfied with the suggestion that they have created, rather than been given, a purpoose for their lives.

In these cases, having a purpose imposed on one (or the feeling of it) makes the purpose feel more real and legitimate. It does not feel self-serving, but other-serving. Teh best analogy I can think of is the satisfaction of scoring well on a test of someone else's creation versus scoring well on a test that one whore oneself. The latter does not cause satisfaction because the task was too easy, as one simply gave the answers to questions one created. The real satisfaction lies in beating the challenge of performing well under conditions not of one's own making.

In the same way, creating one's own purpose to live up to is less satisfying, because less challenging, than fulfilling a life purpose created by onesself.

Another reason why serving a "larger" purpose is seen as more fulfilling than serving one's own individually made purpose is because when serving others, one can feel like they are making a difference in the worldd, rather than just in themselves. This is seen by the familiar film and book plot/theme of the shallow business person (or other type of egoist) that lives like solely for themselves but unexpectedly finds joy in helping others (which was, generally at first, against his will). [films like "Family Man" or "Two Weeks Notice" are more popular examples.]

I have never really felt the need to seek after an externally imposed, and larger, purpose. But I have felt the need to help others rather than pursue solely what is in my own personal interest. I did this when I became a teacher rather than went into a PhD program. I wanted to do the latter, but did the former because I wanted to do something at once hard, helpful, and effectual. All I can say is that this choice, while certainly the tougher path, felt more "solid" than the self-serving goal of PhD because it involved helping others by making a sacrifice. While I was not searching for a higher purpose, I can attest to the psychological pull that serving social (and in some sense, larger) purposes can have over serving individually made (and smaller, by radius) purposes.

Michael Novak, Religion, and "Blicks"

I recently finished Michael Novak's book "No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers." One of the questions Novak seeks to answer in this very cordial book is, "Why do atheists and religionists scream past eachother? Why are arguments that are so convincing to the one never convincing to the other?"

I've often wondered this myself. I am quite read and "up on" the publications made by both the "new atheists" like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and the religious interlocutors like Chris Hedges and David Berlinski. In so being, I have noticed two things: (a) each side, whether deliberately or not, caricatures the other by misunderstanding the other's point of view; and (b) each side rehashes the same arguments that seem so convincing to them, but are never adequate to convince their opponents.

In attempt to explain this, Novak explicates an interesting concept, borrowed from philosopher RM Hare, but fleshed out by Novak himself: the concept of the blick.

In short, a blick is a worldview replete with necessary presuppositions. In Novak's words:

"A blick is part of an intellectual habit, the part that shapes one's pattern of judgment concerning what is real or not real, true or false, credible or lacking in credibility... A blick is a way of viewing reality that is not usually overturned by one or more pieces of countervailing evidence." (Kindle Edition, loc. 2267)

A blick is not only a set of propositions, but the groundrules each of us uses to decide what is to count as a valid proposition, and the type of phenomena which can be seen as evidentiary. A blick is not only, then, the view that god exists, but the belief that emotion and intuition be allowed as satisfactory undergirdling reason for the claim. On the flipside, a blick is more than the view that there is no evidence for god, but includes that atheist's 'groundrule' that only what may be observed can be existentially real.

To make it even more direct, my fiancee is earning her masters in Professional Writing with a specialization in rhetoric. One rhetorical theory she was explaining to me - I don't recall its title - suggests that when one is seeking to argue to another, one needs to make sure that one is using the type of argument that the OTHER would find convincing. It does little good to argue that something is experimentally corroborable to a postmodernist with zero trust in science. It would also do little good to argue the morality of x because of its fit within a capitalistic framework to a socialist.

This is very close to the idea that, to be persuasive, one must attempt to argue within the matrix of the other person's blick, or else - as evidenced by the current debate between theists and atheists - you will talk right past eachother.

To my eyes, this makes much sense. Why do all of the books by 'new atheists' and their opponents seem to make the same arguments over and over again that are convincing to those making the arguments but never to their opponents? Becuase the arguments, more often than not, hinge on assumptions - presuppositions - that one side holds which the other side does not. God cannot be real because its existence cannot be verified? This will hold little sway to a religionist that imagine's god to be outside of space and time. Our strong intuition about the 'perfect fit' between us and the universe is excellent evidence that there must be a god? This will not do against the atheist that already dismisses intuition as evidence for an existential claim.

Interestingly, the rhetorician Stanley Fish has written on his blog about this very phenomenon. In an article called "Atheism and Evidence" he writes:

"What is and is not seen will vary with the faith within which observers look... Those who have not found the arguments of natural selection persuasive will not see what Dawkins and his colleagues see, not because they are blind and obstinate, but because as members of a different faith community – and remember, science requires faith too before it can have reasons – the evidence that seems so conclusive to the rational naturalists will point elsewhere." (paragraph 11)

The message that I, an atheist, take from all of this is, "Like it or not, we are all presuppositionalists." The biggest 'heat' that Fish took about this article was from atheists suggesting that there is no faith necessary to believe in science and/or atheism. Even as an atheist and believer in science, I beg to differ.

In order to be a believer in science you have to have several "faiths" (all of which, though, can be justified by their pragmatic efficacy). First, I have to believe that the scientific method is a reliable one for capturing the truth of things (even if I acknowledge that science is tentative, I have to believe that it's attempts are better than guesses.) I also have to believe in the integrity of the scientists and the enterprise; as many of the experiments done and results gotten are technically beyond my ken, I have to, contra some extreme theists, believe that the participants are not simply part of a grand conspiracy and can be trusted as truthful and ojective.

Lastly, in order to be an atheist that claims scientific grounds for my belief, I have to hold to the rule that that which is not testable cannot be claimed as an existant. In less philosophical terms, I have to hold that "God exists," is a testable claim that only pans out when god is detected via the senses, or that "God exists" is NOT a testable claim, in which case, it is beyond talking about.

This is my blick. And this explains why I find it infuriating to talk with the theist, as the theist doubtless finds it infuriating to talk with me. I cannot begin to enter into their mindset as I am sure they cannot begin to enter into mine. Our blicks are simply so deep and deeply rooted that oscillation between the two is difficult. (Generally converts "think themselves out of" one blick and enter into another, but this type of conversion is rare.)

The idea of the blick has helped me articulate a feeling I have always had about the difference between atheists and theists; we simply see the world and interpret experience differently. The theist regards their strong intuition of design, purpose, and goodness as evidence for God (where the atheist regards intuition as insufficient). The atheist regards the scientific evidence as making the "god hypothesis" unnecessary and absent-looking (while the theist rejects the use of sceintific reasoning as exhaustive of all there is). Either way, the two will seemingly never agree because they disagree on groundrules.

Religious Case for Gay Marriage - A critical response

Last week, Newsweek sported a cover story to do with “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.” I wanted to like this story. As a libertarian, I am appalled that the State feels that one of its proper duties is to sanction and encourage one type of partnership among consenting adults while obstructing others strictly because of a moral objection. (“Gay marriage is icky!!”) And as a non-believer, “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” does nothing to convince me that its utterers are capable of spelling, let alone, explaining their statement.

But anyone wanting to convince the unconvinced that the Bible does not frown on homosexuality will face a problem; the Bible DOES frown on homosexuality… in several difference passages. [http://www.carm.org/questions/homosexuality.htm] This tiny fact makes the read very awkward: like someone trying to convince me that the “Eat Whatever You Want” diet works, I want to agree with it, but my brain won’t let me.

The author’s case can be summed up like this: while the Bible may seem to condemn homosexual marriage, it should not be taken literally. It’s anti-homosexual message owes more towards the customs of the PEOPLE that wrote it, than any real truth. To use the author’s own words: “A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.”

To an atheist like myself, such a tact was predictable. In fact, I remember thinking to myself before reading the article that I hope the author would not pull the old, “The Bible doesn’t mean what it says,” line. Well, she did. What about the Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality as an “abomination?” it is “is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery” and not homosexuality (as it says). What of the Book of Common Prayer’s mention of marriage as between “the man and the woman?” “Common practices change.”

The author "bolsters" her case by pointing out that in the Bible, "the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found." True enough! Polygamy was all over the Old Testament. Jesus was (despite rough speculation to the contrary) willfully non-married. And beyond that, "[t]he Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. " Thus, anyone who argues that scripture condems homosexuality are taking the Bible at its word, and (as evidenced by the above moral missteps in the Bible) doing that would be taking a human-produced document as Divine Law.

Now, I am not fan of the Biblical literalist Ken Ham, but I remember something he said once that might help us here. On the PBS series " Evolution, Ham was asked why he fights so hard to prove the Creation story of the Bible contra evolution and modern physics. His answer: if the Bible gets it wrong on the origin of the universe, species, and humans, then is there any reason to believe that it gets it right about morality? (Of course, Ham and I have VERY different answers to this rhetorical question!)

His point is my point in reverse: if we believe our Newseek author, the Bible got it wrong about slavery, punishment for adultery, and homosexuality. Is there ANY reason, then, to suppose that the Bible got it right about any other moral pronouncements, let alone metaphysical statements? (If so, it must be explained how we know what sections are correct when we know that other sections are wrong.)

So, if the author is correct and the Bible is a human-made document created by human minds to give voice to their version of how things should morally be, then why should I not just get my morals from Aesop's Fables? By telling us that the Bible's moral proclomations are made by humans, rather than God, then why do we have any reason to suppose that it is correct in any moral capacity?

All of this is deeply strange because we constantly hear people claiming that the Bible is a moral guide and/or authority. When pastors give sermons that wax about the teachings of Jesus, we are told that Jesus - the authority - is telling us how we should live (rather than that a guy who lived many thousands of years ago is offering his debatable opinions). The author herself suggests that, "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future." Read: while we should realize that the Bible has gotten quite a few ethical proclomations dead-nuts wrong, we need to realize that the Bible has much to offer us in moral wisdom. But, how can we say that the Bible gets a lot wrong ethically while claiming that the Bible can lead us towards "univeral truths" in ethics? The author does not say.

I have an idea on that, though. I believe that the very fact that we can say, "The Bible got it wrong here," MEANS that our sense of morality is indepenent of what is said in the Bible. The author is correct in suggesting that "we struggle towards a more just future," but is wrong to suggst that we do, or should, read the Bible in our quest. Instead of reading the Bible to help us progress morally, what we more likely do is progress morally and then read the Bible and cherry-pick those quotes that can "justify" our new moral positions. (A great instance of this is that during the Civil War, both the abolitionists and the pro-slavery forces quoted the Bible and held that theirs was the Biblically-endorsed position. In reality, no one got their moral views on slavery from the Bible; rather, they only used the Bible to justify their already-held opinions.)

Lastly, the author points out that Jesus's overriding message was that of acceptance and inclusion. "The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage."

I think this is simplistic. While it is commonplace today to suggest that Jesus's love is unconditional, it does not take much to see through this. Jesus's love WAS conditional; conditional on acceptance of him as the son of God. And I have heard many a anti-homosexual Christian argue, Jesus may be accepting towards those who love him, but one could not be gay and love Jesus at the same time (as these folks believe that loving Jesus means repenting for sin, and repenting for sin means renouncing one's gayness). I disagree with these folks passionately, but it is hard to see the flaw in their logic.

To close, it seems to me that the Newsweek author is pushing the same "pick and choose" Christianity that most Christians today practice. (It would be awfully hard not to, considering the idiocy of the alternative of literalism). The problem is that she will not do much convincing with this,. Biblical literalists have heard the "Bible is a document written by fallible humans" before, and they don't seem to be buying it. The only people, then, who will be receptive to her arguments are those who are likely ALREADY non-literalists who do not need convincing.

Interesting Talk With a Pastor

Last night, my fiancee and I went to a Christmas party with members of her church. I had a most interesting conversation with the Pastor, who ws at the Christmas party. Before I share, let me give those who don't know, some background info.

I am an atheist; my fiancee is a liberal Lutheran. She sings in the church band, and I volunteer my drumming services for the band. Thus, I am an atheist who goes to church every week. I have gotten to know the church members quite well and they know me quite well. I don't make my atheism a secret but always remain respectul and careful not to needlessly offend anyone.

I have had many a conversations with the Pastor of the church, a very nice woman in her late twenties. Since we both love reading in theology and religion, our conversation was very pleasant but, unlike many other conversations we've had, this one got uncommonly deep.

The conversation started with her describing how she met her now-husband and me describing how I met my now-fiancee. The issue of religion came up, as she was curious to know how we handle the diifference in our beliefs. I responded by explaining that my fiancee and I are both very tolerant and mindful that different people will believe different things, and that neither of us have any desire to convert the other.

This got the pastor and I talking about atheism and Christianity. In particular, she expressed curiosity about my simulteneous atheism and fascination with religion. I love reading in religion and cannot fathom how one could be an atheist at all without knowing about religions (in order to be an atheist, you have to know enough about religions to reject them.) To me, religion is a human-invented belief system that cleverly "answers" all of life's major questions; how can one NOT be fascinated by such a sytem. How did we get here? Answered. What is life's purpose? Answered. Why does everything look so designed? Answered.

So how can I be, she wondered, an atheist who regards religion as having answered these questions? Quite simply by holding that religion's answers are too easy, I responded. "God did it," is an answer only insomuch as "Someone did it," is an answer to the question of how the airplane was invented. I can't help but feel that religion makes up its answers (without, of course, knowing that the answers were invented).

And here was a point of strange agreement between the Lutheran Pastor and myself: the human tendency is very much to AVOID being put in a position where one has to answer with "I don't know." To her Christian eyes, this is seen by all the people who claim knowledge of God that they couldn't possibly have. ("Why did Jesus have to die on the cross? It would be pompous to say that we can know God's motivations.") To my atheist eyes, the same thing is evident in the Christian's appeal to God as a substitution to the dreaded "We don't really know the answer."

This is why, I think, most people are not atheists. It is the more strenuous and sometimes unsatisfying option because there are many things that we do not know the answers to. To say that the Big Bang is the reason why we are here is only to push the "But what created..." question back one step. And if we answer the question of what created the big bang, we have only succeeded in pushing the question back ANOTHER step, ad infinitum. To be an atheist - at least one who takes science seriously - is to be forced to admit that there will ALWAYS be many unanswered questions. And I think that part of the reason for religion's popularity is the unwillingness of many people to handle not knowing (much less ADMITTING their lack of knowledge).

The conversation ended very interestingly, with her admitting that my presence in church has, at least occasionally, made her think about her sermons differently. (I wonder how Kevin would respond to this? I wonder if this would anger him?). Of course, I told her that this should not be a concern, as I am a 'guest' in the church, and her responsibility is to speak to members. (She objected, pointing out that the very nature of being an 'evangelical' is to evangelize., but understood my point.)

In the spirit of honesty, I told her of the one recurring message in her (and her colleage's) sermons that "gets at me." We often hear in sermons the idea of the "nonbeliever who has turned away from god," or of "those who fail to acknoweldge your presence." As a life-long atheist, I wanted to point out to her that the common idea that the atheist as one who refuses to recognize the obviousness of God, or one who turns away from a God they refuse to admit is there, is wrong. In my experience, atheists are ones who simply do not believe there is a God to turn away from. Much like a disbeliever in unicorns, a disbeliever in God is simply a person who does not see any good evidence to believe in a deity that sounds very made up.

After hearing this, she acknowledged my point, but pointed out that "the nonbeliever who has turned away from God" is generally meant to apply to the type of "believer" who doesn't believe, so much as follows certain traditions by rote without the Passion - the believer who goes to church when it is convenient and only follows God when it is easy or in their immediate interest to do so.

We ended this way: both of us have a healthy respect for the other. In this pastor, I see a woman who holds her beliefs with passion tempered by a healthy ackowledgement that others can believe differently. She has made a life where she can share her beliefs and passion with others, and obviosuly is very happy in this endeavor. I think she respects me for much the same reason; I am passionate but respectful in my beliefs whle still taking tremendous joy in the plurality that comes from different people being free to make up their own minds.

If only every conversation could be as enriching, enjoyable, and fruitful as the one between a Lutheran pastor and an atheist.

Joseph Confronts Mary About Pregnancy

"Mary, I've been meaning to ask you something." (I must maintain my cool. I must maintain my cool.)

"Yeah, honey. Anything."

"Well, you've been looking rather...."

"Yes?"

"Rather...pregnant. I didn't want to say anything, because I don't want to offend. But, the signs are unmistakable. Between your increasing appetite, your strange moods, and your increase in girth, I have begun wondering..."

(Oh dear! What do I do? What do I do?)

"I mean, I trust you, Mary. I really do. But lately I have gotten the feeling that there is this strange vibe between you and the neighbor, Ezekiel. I have seen the way you look at him, and after that last carpentry job, two of my colleagues were gossiping and... So, what's the deal."

(Oh, dear. He knows! He knows!! He has figured out that I am pregnant and that I am not the virgin he thinks I am. I have to lie. Act calm.)

"Joseph... I have, um, something to tell you. It's just hard to get the words out, so give me a second." (What do I do? What do I say?")

"Okay. As long as you tell me what is going on. Take your time, baby."

"I know it is not going to sound good, so I will just... I will just out with it. I AM pregnant, Joseph."

"WHAT? I knew I shouldn't have trusted you. And just think; I stood up for you. I told everyone that you were a good Jewish woman, despite the rumors. I should have known better."

"No. Joseph. I swear. It is not what you think. It is not what you think at all."

"What do you mean, Mary? How could it not be what I think? You are freakin' pregnant with some other man's child!"

(I got it! I know what to say! Thank you, God.)

"Joseph, listen. It is not Ezekiel's kid. It is, uh, God's kid! It's cool. It's God's kid! And you...(gulp)... thought it was Ezekiel's kid! Ha ha! What a thought."

"For real?"

"Yes. Yes. It is God's kid. God impregnated me in my sleep. He chose me to bear his only son! Ezekiel had NOTHING to do with it. It's all God!"

"What? That is great. That is the coolest. And just think; I thought that you were having an affair with Ezekiel. I thought that all of my friends, including those who claimed to eye-witness you holding Ezekiel's hand and kissing his face, were telling the truth. Wait 'till I tell them that they were wrong. Wait 'till I tell him that your baby is God's child, and not his."

"Yeah. They must have been mistaken. Maybe they just saw Ezekiel with a woman that just looked a lot - an awful lot - like me. I am sure that they did not see me with Ezekiel, especially at the party last week. That was definitely NOT me with Ezekiel. No sir. That must have been some other woman they saw."

"What? How did you know about the party? Are you trying to fool me?"

"No. The only baby I am carrying is God's; not Ezekiel's. We can test the baby's DNA if you don't believe me."

"DNA testing isn't around yet, Mary."

"Oh, you are right. You will just have to trust me, then." (Whew! I am glad he bought it.)