I keep seeing op ed.s about Humanists not standing for anything and the atheist world view. The reactions from Humanists and atheists don't always address the most common underlying misconceptions of the articles, that Humanist = atheist, and that atheism is supposed to contain a code of morality. Both are false.
I think theists have a hard time with this one because they think of atheism as a religion - complete with fully prescribed beliefs on metaphysics and morality. WRONG! There is only one factor that is shared by all atheists - they don't believe in gods. Some atheists go further to deny all supernatural things. Some don't. You can be a religious atheist. Buddhism is an atheistic religion - complete with rituals, metaphysical beliefs and moral proclamations, but without the assertation of the existence of any gods. (Why dont articles about the morality of atheists ever address this huge subset, I wonder.) Saying, "atheists believe in nothing" is like saying "plumbers believe in nothing." Atheists can only be categorized on one belief. The rest depends the individual.
You don't have to be an atheist to be a Humanist. Read the American Humanist Association's Humanist Manifesto. It doesn't mention gods at all. Unlike the religious, Humanists don't see their creed as infallible or unchanging. The AHA has revised its manifesto twice since the first was composed in 1933. Currently, the AHA's beliefs include: knowledge is gained through evidence and reason, serving others can give one purpose, and ethics are developed from human experience. Contrary to what certain op ed.s might claim, Humanist values are not centered on nihilism or hedonism, or even atheism. It's about humans trying to find happiness and meaning while remaining grounded in evidence-based, rationally determined beliefs.
To Recap: atheism != Humanism, atheism != a complete world view. If you want to know what Humanists stand for, try visiting a Humanism website.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Humanism and Atheism
Purpose in Existence (Part II)
If we were created for a purpose by a sentient being, would that purpose make our lives more fulfilling? I suppose that would depend on the being and the purpose for which we were created.
When I was younger, I had a vague belief that God, the omnipotent, benevolent, disembodied being that existed everywhere but resided in some other dimension, had a Big Plan. God created humans and everything else as part of the Big Plan, and we all had a part to play. To fulfill our parts, all we had to do was to have faith that we were in the right place at the right time, and to go about our lives morally in ways that made us happy. And when we died, we'd be able to talk with other higher beings about what the Plan was and what we had done for it. In retrospect, even though these beliefs now seem absurd, the idea of working for someone infinitely wiser than I, to accomplish some infinitely great goal, would still make me feel better about my life. (It would make more sense if God was infinitely wise and good, but not omnipotent. Omnipotence is inherently contradictory, and an omnipotent being wouldn't need my help to accomplish any Plan, no matter how Big.)
Suppose I wasn't created by a higher being, but I was brought to life with a purpose. Suppose my parents chose to have me because they wanted someone to take care of them when they were older. Um, yeah. Sorry, I'm not interested in the hospitality/health care industry, so personally taking care of them is not a purpose that I'd be happy about. In fact, being brought to life to fulfill any specific goal of my parents - or any fellow human - that would seem rather presumptuous of them. For a person to think they could dictate someone else's life's purpose would require such arrogance that I would only expect it among fascists and egotists. I certainly wouldn't take satisfaction from knowing that someone else had a purpose for me.
I've addressed the extremes of the spectrum, but how about something in the middle. Suppose humanity had been created by a highly moral and intelligent race in order to accomplish... something. For me, it would seem utterly arrogant for a species to create another sentient species just to help it complete a task. I doubt the members of the created species would take much fulfillment from their designated task, and what happens once that task is completed? Furthermore, where to the creator species get their purpose? If they have no given purpose, then, ultimately, fulfilling the purpose they have us would also lack meaning in the larger context.
That's what it's all about - context. As far as we can tell, there was no sentient cause for the Big Bang. The universe is not here for a purpose. I'm here because of the universe, but there's no purpose behind my existence. What can my Earthly goals mean in the larger context of the purposeless universe? Can they matter? In the context of the universe, does anything matter? Next post: subjective purpose - whatever that is.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Purpose in Existence (Part I)
I'm breaking this article up into at least three parts. Part II will address hypothetical given meanings, and Part III will concern subjective, individual purposes. Please keep that in mind when commenting, i.e. don't complain that I didn't address individual purposes here since they'll be in Part III.
Part I: Objective Meaning
What is the meaning of life?
Short answer: there is none.
In order to properly address this question, we have to understand what we mean by "meaning" and "life." By "life" I mean the existence of sentient beings like humans in general, and my own existence in particular. When we try to attach a meaning to life, we really mean, why do we exist? But this isn't a "why" as in, "what are the events that caused our existence?" We are typically more interested in a purpose behind our existence. But for there to be a purpose, there must be intent, and for there to be intent, there must be a sentient being to have that intent. I don't believe a sentient being purposely created the universe or life or humans. Therefore, I don't believe there is a purpose.
My definitions of "meaning" and "life" in this article are non-negotiable. If you want to discuss other meanings of the meaning of life, post it on your own blog.
My answer - that there is no meaning - relies on sentient beings not having a sentient creator. Is that a reasonable assumption? I would say yes. I don't believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for their existence. Same goes for gods. I may not be able to prove that gods and unicorns don't exist, but that doesn't mean I should believe in them or even be completely agnostic toward them. I have already discussed the existence of gods here. If anyone wishes to further any of those discussions, email me and I'll open a new thread for it. (Blogger comment notifications don't work for me, so if you comment on an old post, I will probably never see it.) I'd prefer to limit this one to the title question.
