Ep. 81: The Switch

[Christoff]

Hi guys,

OK, I finally caught up on this long, yet very interesting, post.

Being raised in the Dutch Reformed Church here in South Africa (ie Calvinistic, conservative and mostly very judgemental) and after shedding my belief system at age 24 (I'm 36 now), I've had this exact discussion countless times with countless religious people down here.

What always struck me in their "defences for their faith" was their "reasoning" that, without faith, they would all become hedonistic and immoral. Without fail, they then question my reasons/motivations for living a good, moral life, since most of them confess that I'm a "better advertisement for morality" than most of them!

The point I'm trying to get to is that it seems as if most religious people (the ones I bump into down here, at least), have a misguided idea of WHEREIN THEIR OWN HAPPINESS LIES. They all place the source of their happiness in their religious faith. I think they're fooling themselves (more specifically, I think they're brain-washed to make them think that). Yes, your associations with your religious community can add to your sense of happiness, belonging and fulfillment, but it's NOT the only source of these things.

Everything we do every day can add or subtract to/from our overall happiness.

And that's what makes atheists just as happy and fulfilled as any other person on this planet.

One thing I have observed over the years, though (and I found myself doing exactly this when I was still religious), is that religious people (for instance my religious friends) tend to participate in hedonistic/immoral behaviour more often than non-religious people. It's literally like witnessing behaviour during Mardi Gras! Over-indulge in "bad" behaviour, feel bad about it tomorrow, repent, feel better again.

I can identify two sources for this kind of behaviour:

1 - Being oppressed continuously (even only in your mind) can cause people to break out of their mental prisons. The fact that your religious faith prohibits you from doing certain "questionable things", makes you WANT to do them even more. Even though you wouldn't really want to do them, or feel any better after doing them, just the fact that they're off-limits pushes you towards them (like a child being told NOT to touch something - you can bet your last dollar that the child WILL then touch that thing!)

2 - The fact that you have a "get out of jail free" card up your sleeve. Us atheists can't ask a higher being for forgiveness when we did something bad. We have to ask OURSELVES for forgiveness (and we all know how much more difficult self-forgiveness is). This has the effect of making us pause and think BEFORE we engage in questionable behaviour.

Well, this is how I personally experience (and understand) this issue. And I can confirm that I've been living a more moral life the past 12 years as an atheist, as the 24 years preceeding my de-conversion.

What do you guys think?

PS: Scott & Emery, thanks for an awesome show and forum. Finding open-minded people to engage in this kind of discource down here in mostly-fundamental Christian South Africa is very difficult and being able to converse with all of you is extremely liberating.

C

[ScottBarger]

Christoff,

Welcome to the forum! Thanks for the post. I suppose I would need to ask you what you mean when you use the word "moral." If you mean "that which brings me the most (or highest) happiness), then I agree. If you mean "that which ought to be done" the conversation would need to explore this sense of "oughtness" and where it comes from.

Anyway, good post.

[Emery]

Christoff,the conversation would need to explore this sense of "oughtness" and where it comes from.

et tu, Scott? (going all Tony English on me).

[Emery]

The issue for me is who determines happiness and why, as an atheist, would you not devote your life to finding as much happiness as you can.

But I do. That's the whole purpose of life. Why else would you do something? Remember, happiness includes finding the less miserable of two miserable options, for one is happier if one is less miserable.

Take sacrifice for example:

There may come a time when to be less miserable requires you to sacrifice yourself for another. Sure, sacrificing yourself may not fit the general definition of happiness, but when compared to the soul crushing guilt of not sacrificing (ex: why didn't I jump in front of that bus to save my child?), the search for happiness would lead us to make that sacrifice.

Does that make sense?

[mitchellmckain]

The issue for me is who determines happiness and why, as an atheist, would you not devote your life to finding as much happiness as you can.

But I do. That's the whole purpose of life. Why else would you do something? Remember, happiness includes finding the less miserable of two miserable options, for one is happier if one is less miserable.

Take sacrifice for example:

There may come a time when to be less miserable requires you to sacrifice yourself for another. Sure, sacrificing yourself may not fit the general definition of happiness, but when compared to the soul crushing guilt of not sacrificing (ex: why didn't I jump in front of that bus to save my child?), the search for happiness would lead us to make that sacrifice.

Does that make sense?

Absolutely! Of course it does.

In fact I would say that this is the difference between a child's view of the world and an adult's. The child might do whatever he thinks his parent approves of (even if it is shooting people with a sniper rifle from the top of a building), but an adult has do things according to an understanding of what makes a better (i.e. happier) life for himself.

This is a difference between divine relativism (that morally vacucous idea of ethics that is implied by the moral argument for the existence of God) and a belief that what is good is good for a reason (and thus that God commands us to do things because they are right and good rather than things being right or good only because God commands them).

[NH Baritone]

Scott,

I think you're determination that atheists are motivated only by pleasure is intensely short-sighted. (I frequently seem to accuse you of grossly limited perspective. I wonder who that says more about: you or me.)

On its own, seeking pleasure is not problematic, and I would wager that both atheists and theists find it attractive.

However, since we all grow up in families & communities, both atheists & Christians are aware that those around us (both near and far) also suffer, and that pain is our eventual fate, too.

Those with sufficient empathy (atheist or theist) feel pain when they know others are in pain. And we work to bring relief from agony. In other words, when we help others, we ease both their suffering and our own. And I suppose we subconsciously hope others will do the same for us when time makes it necessary.

[ScottBarger]

Christoff,the conversation would need to explore this sense of "oughtness" and where it comes from.

et tu, Scott? (going all Tony English on me).

Haha! TREASONOUS. No. I am still not all that sold on the whole moral argument for God thingamajig. I just think that the pursuit of happiness may AT TIMES conflict with a sense of "oughtness." That would make an interesting discussion, you know, is it possible to have an "ought" or a duty that is entirely independent from the pursuit of happiness, and if so, does it make sense for an atheist to fulfill that duty?

[ScottBarger]

Scott,

I think you're determination that atheists are motivated only by pleasure is intensely short-sighted. (I frequently seem to accuse you of grossly limited perspective. I wonder who that says more about: you or me.)

On its own, seeking pleasure is not problematic, and I would wager that both atheists and theists find it attractive.

However, since we all grow up in families & communities, both atheists & Christians are aware that those around us (both near and far) also suffer, and that pain is our eventual fate, too.

Those with sufficient empathy (atheist or theist) feel pain when they know others are in pain. And we work to bring relief from agony. In other words, when we help others, we ease both their suffering and our own. And I suppose we subconsciously hope others will do the same for us when time makes it necessary.

NH,

Well, not "motivated by pleasure" in a eat-drink-and-be-merry-for-tomorrow-we-die type of hedonism way. But in a "in light of the brevity of life and finality of death, the only real virtue in life is to pursue the greatest happiness" way. For some of the more thoughtful, global, big picture people, the greater happiness may be in creating a more just, verdant, and peaceful world for my children to raise their children.

For some people it may be smaller, more self centric, like, I work 50 hours a week at a job I hate, so that over the weekend I can sit on my boat and drink beer, because that's when I am the happiest. On my boat. Drinking beer. There can be an argument about which course will actually bring about the greater happiness to each person (and I guess I am using the term "greater" with both quality and quantity in mind) but there can be no real appeal to anything outside the individual experience.

Again, for me, these thoughts are really not fleshed out a great deal, so feel free to correct me where I am mistaken.

[mitchellmckain]

Well, not "motivated by pleasure" in a eat-drink-and-be-merry-for-tomorrow-we-die type of hedonism way. But in a "in light of the brevity of life and finality of death, the only real virtue in life is to pursue the greatest happiness" way. For some of the more thoughtful, global, big picture people, the greater happiness may be in creating a more just, verdant, and peaceful world for my children to raise their children.

Well this is what I would see as the difference -- a good that is restricted to physical life or a good that connects an existence afterwards. This is not a huge obvious difference if our eternal life is in any sort of extension of our life here, and that is something that people affirm because they do not think this life is irrelevant to the life afterwards. So I think that we have to conclude that the difference is a pretty subtle one. Does it make a difference what we do when no one is looking and it has no impact on life in this world? Well the Christian would say yes it can make a difference because it can still affect our life afterwards.

For some people it may be smaller, more self centric, like, I work 50 hours a week at a job I hate, so that over the weekend I can sit on my boat and drink beer, because that's when I am the happiest. On my boat. Drinking beer. There can be an argument about which course will actually bring about the greater happiness to each person (and I guess I am using the term "greater" with both quality and quantity in mind) but there can be no real appeal to anything outside the individual experience.

How can it ever possibly appeal to anything outside the individual experience? That is the unfiltered data. The objective or common experience is a subset and an abstraction constructed from this. The use of logic and information communicated by other people, including the bible and theology, are part of the individual experience. How could it not be? Everything ultimately comes through that individual experience but whether it ultimately originates somewhere else is something that can never be objectively established.

You seem to be saying that if you don't believe in anything beyond the physical then what one knows and values cannot come from anything beyond ones experience of the physical. But this is not even true. That is like saying that if you don't believe there is oxygen in the air then you cannot get the benefit of the oxygen in the air. Which is not true. But we can say, that without the knowledge of oxygen, then you cannot use this knowledge to help you in certain situations where that knowledge might prove useful. Accordingly, once you acknowledge that a belief in God doesn't necessarily mean that God cannot help you, I guess what we can say is that if you don't believe in God then you cannot use the knowledge of God's existence to help you in some of the ways that Christians do.

The only problem is that the atheist quite frequently asks for objective evidence of such a case and the Christian cannot provide it. Furthermore, as I think I have said elsewhere, we should be cautious in assuming that the atheist cannot find other ways of doing some of the same things. For example, to me the existence of God represents an assurance that life is worth living, but whereas I put my faith in God, the atheist can simply put his faith in the belief by itself that life is worth living. The fact that I see these two things as being essentially equivalent does not mean that the atheist will.

[humanguy]

Furthermore, as I think I have said elsewhere, we should be cautious in assuming that the atheist cannot find other ways of doing some of the same things. For example, to me the existence of God represents an assurance that life is worth living, but whereas I put my faith in God, the atheist can simply put his faith in the belief by itself that life is worth living. The fact that I see these two things as being essentially equivalent does not mean that the atheist will.

But the fact that I perceive life to be worth living without needing, in fact with complete and total rejection of any and all imposed reasons for such being the case will always mean to Christians that I am wrong. Always and forever.

In other words the fact that I perceive life to be well worth living for my reasons and mine alone, to live for my own sake, will never sit well with those who need the existence of God to make life worth living, wouldn't you agree?

[Pseudonym]

I just think that the pursuit of happiness may AT TIMES conflict with a sense of "oughtness."

Here's one possibility that I came up with a few months ago.

Suppose you're a public official who has to make a tough decision. The details are unimportant, perhaps something to do with city planning. You sit down, rationally consider the possibilities, and decide that, all things considered, the best option is X.

Later that afternoon, one of those affected offers you a brown paper envelope filled with cash, if only you'll do X. Suppose that you can be certain that if you take the money, you'll never be found out. Suppose furthermore you don't need the money, but know of a charity that really does, and they will be extremely grateful to have an anonymous donation of an envelope full of cash. Also suppose that you're retiring soon, and this is the last tough decision you'll ever have to make in this job.

You "ought" not take the money. It is a bribe, after all.

But from a purely utilitarian perspective, you should probably do it. Those who might "lose" out of the tough decision aren't being hurt any more than they would have had you not taken the money, because the money didn't influence your decision in the slightest, and won't influence any of your future decisions either. The charity gets a bunch of money, so they're happy. Even those who thought they bribed you get to feel momentarily smug. Some people win, and nobody loses.

[ScottBarger]

Pseudo,

As an atheist I would say that you must do what brings the greatest happiness, but the chance of getting caught is a pretty big "unhappy" factor, right? I think so.

[mitchellmckain]

Furthermore, as I think I have said elsewhere, we should be cautious in assuming that the atheist cannot find other ways of doing some of the same things. For example, to me the existence of God represents an assurance that life is worth living, but whereas I put my faith in God, the atheist can simply put his faith in the belief by itself that life is worth living. The fact that I see these two things as being essentially equivalent does not mean that the atheist will.

But the fact that I perceive life to be worth living without needing, in fact with complete and total rejection of any and all imposed reasons for such being the case will always mean to Christians that I am wrong. Always and forever.

No that does not follow. It obviously doesn't follow in my case because of the equivalence I already mentioned (also discussed on my blog). This is something that is not about correct reasons but about whether you can have faith in this when are no reasons. Life has its ups and downs and it is by faith that we can get through the worst that life throws at us. It certainly is not about whether you are any particular person who currently perceives their life as worth living -- that is just comfort and complacency. People's lives are different, with different experiences and different advantages and often their circumstances change. Is life only worth living if you have the right things? Or does it depend on what other people think of you? I have NO doubt at all that some people have no such faith and look at other people and would say that they should just kill themselves because they have no reason to live. But obviously I think they are wrong and this is a matter of faith.

In other words the fact that I perceive life to be well worth living for my reasons and mine alone, to live for my own sake, will never sit well with those who need the existence of God to make life worth living, wouldn't you agree?

No I do not. You are completely wrong in the case of THIS Christian, because THAT, as I see it, is the difference being created as a tool (as a means to an end) and being created as a child (as and end in itself). And so in that sense of being an end in ourselves, unconditionally worthy of love for own sake, we must live for our own sake. That is also a basic aspect of Christianity. But it is only a half truth, because we are social beings, and our greatest happiness does not come from living for ourselves but in how we live for the sake of others, and thus become part of something greater than ourselves. But it is the nature of a child, and indeed ALL living things that they must find their own reasons to live. Life is a phenomenon of self-organization and not a product of design where our purpose comes from a designer.

[Pseudonym]

As an atheist I would say that you must do what brings the greatest happiness, but the chance of getting caught is a pretty big "unhappy" factor, right? I think so.

I added as much suppositions as needed to be sure that you will never get caught. Add as many others as you need to.

Personally, the problem for me would be that even if I could be certain that I would never get caught, I still have to live with myself. This isn't a conflict between atheism and theism, but between utilitarianism and pther formulations of morality, most notably virtue ethics and deontology. Even if the effect (when measured in "happiness") would be all upside and no downside, it's still against the rules to take the money. I signed up for those rules when I took the job as a public official. Moreover, do I want to be the kind of person who would take a bribe? Does that make me a virtuous person?

Utilitarianism only looks at the effects of an action and doesn't look at the motives behind those actions.

[NH Baritone]

Pseudo & Scott,

I don't know if you guys are viewing matters through a perpetual or momentary fog.

The city official's decision doesn't take only the immediate circumstance into account. She must also consider the consequences for how the city will be run in the future. The bribe, if thought effective, will likely be repeated. That's simple operant conditioning.

Any ethical standard you follow doesn't proceed as if time ends right after you reach a decision. ALL reasonable consequences are open to consideration. And in your example, a strong negative consequence of accepting the bribe would be that someone with bucks believes bribes work, and they will probably do it again. That strongly implies further pressure on future decisions not to choose the most professionally determined course, but instead the one that benefits the briber. And the next official may not be so "morally upright" that they only take bribes for decisions they would have made anyway and then donate all bribes to charity.