Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

[Emery]

Scott is off this week saving souls in Indiana. We're glad to welcome Wonders for Oyarsa back to the show, to discuss the one thing he finds unacceptable about atheism, and Emery reciprocates. As always we meander to other topics including porn and marriage, which is unsurprising given the fact that this show has had male-only guests for almost 60 consecutive episodes. Scott promises to help tip the balance in a future episode, and not by doing the show in drag. For now please join Emery and Wonders in another episode of two guys musing on religion and other things.

[NH Baritone]

He has long relegated me to his "ignore" list, so Wonders will probably not read this, at least directly.

Wonders portrays his primary reason for believing in God as his inability to abide external purposelessness. This is primarily an argument from anguish, one that I believe Kierkegaard would recognize. But it makes a piss-poor justification for evangelism or promoting Christian ethics outside of the congregation. Just because Wonders requires a purposeful universe neither makes it true nor makes the rest of us equally distraught about the idea that we build our own purpose.

Later he placed the interconnectedness of all things at the core in his ethical approach. I think this is most succinctly summarized in the gospel of Matthew, which inserts Jesus as the hub of the wheel for such interconnectedness: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' " The only reason that things are interconnected is because you are doing things to Jesus/God. But Buddhist dharma declares that interconnectedness (along with impermanence) defines reality itself, without any deference to a deity. And it did so with greater elegance half a millennium before Jesus was even born.

Finally, Wonders' parade of neuroses made him appear a vitally tortured soul. (And ironically, this confirmed some of my earlier impressions of his approach to Christianity). If I weren't watchful about slipping into condescension, because Wonders has previously loathed it, it would have been easy to pity him, both for his self-generated guilt/pain and that imposed by church dogma. He probably said too much. Pastors are granted the privilege of confidentiality; Wonders may have benefited from taking advantage of it.

[mitchellmckain]

Ah yes the unforgivable sin of "this world", daring to show weakness.

[evileye]

So... AWE brought him to God?

Why wasn't it there to begin with?

As a person who is atheist (not AN atheist), I experience awe all the time. There is beauty in even the most mundane things.

Just yesterday I watched with awe, a wasp sting a grasshopper, but not kill it. It dragged it into its sandy burrow, and then I had to go look up why.

I found that it was a female, and was going to lay its eggs in the live prey so that after her eggs hatched they could eat their way out.

Yep.... Beautiful nature. I wonder what God would think about that.

[Angela]

Wonders, I appreciate your articulation of what I think is an extremely common and deeply felt motivation for Christians to hold onto their belief even when it doesn't seem rational: the feeling that life would not have meaning without it. I know that the fear of meaninglessness was a major motivation for me to fight the doubts and "lack of faith" that frequently plagued me as a Christian. Eventually rationality and doubts won out, for like you commented on the show, "there was only so much I could do to believe what doesn't seem true."

The thing is, just because I don't know that there is an "ultimate purpose" behind the universe, doesn't mean there isn't one. I mean, I think there probably isn't, but my belief or unbelief doesn't change the facts. So the universe is either purposeful or not, and in the big scheme of things it doesn't matter a whole lot what I think about it.

And, this may be counterintuitive to most Christians, but, believe it or not, it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of difference in my experience of my life, either, not knowing whether or not the universe has some ultimate purpose. The things that make my life meaningful to me (e.g. some of those things Wonders mentions--love, beauty, goodness) don't change just because I don't know how or if they all fit together into a meaningful whole, or don't have a belief in or name for an Ultimate Being who encompasses them all.

So, there's two things you could mean when you say life wouldn't have purpose or meaning without belief in God.

1. LIFE (existence, the universe) would not have a purpose without a God behind it who made it for a reason and knows where it's all headed.
OR
2. You can't see any meaning or purpose to YOUR LIFE without believing in God.

For (1), the universe either has a purpose or it does not. You won't change that by believing that it does, or does not. Why not think about it rationally, then, without allowing your preferences to influence your conclusions. What's the point in putting effort into believing what doesn't seem true? Believing won't make it so.

And for (2), well, Nietzsche wrote about something called "necessary fictions," arguing that there are some lies we can't live without. Maybe God is one of those. But the fact that there are quite a few atheists finding meaning in their lives suggests that maybe God isn't so necessary after all.

My life post-Christianity (over 10 years of it now) is at least as meaningful as it was before. In some ways it is more meaningful, because I am free to find or make meaning wherever I can, whether or not it fits inside the Christian worldview.

And Wonders, I also appreciate your courage in sharing your personal struggles on the show. After all, if we can't be honest with each other here, what's the point?

[Rian]

Ah yes the unforgivable sin of "this world", daring to show weakness.

And if you're confident, you're arrogant and close-minded ...

What was it that Chesterton said about any stick?

ALright, I'll bite - how is Scott tipping the balance? Is his wife coming on the show?

[Emery]

No, but he's talking about rustlin up one of them thar female members of his congregation for a show...

[wondersforoyarsa]

The question of meaning is an interesting one - it seems to go along the same lines as the question of morality. I talk about the search for meaning in the world, and the atheists/agnostics respond with the concept of making your own meaning. And here we seem to simply be using once again the same word to mean two vastly different things. Let me be clear: I'm not interested in creating my own reality, my own sense of good, or my own meaning - for then their very subordinance to me would make them less than what I am seeking. I want to encounter something real.

[mitchellmckain]

Ok... Now I have listened to my second podcast. (And this time it was with the Windows Media Player from the main URL page. So all that stuff I was told about having to download ITunes was really uneccessary.)

I am wondering where the first question came from: "What is the problem you have with atheism?"

I know that my immediate answer would have been, "What problem?" I think I would have started the show where it seems to end up half way through the show in a recognition that atheism is the right answer for some people in the context of their particular experience and current understanding of religion.


I was very interested to hear wondersforoyarsa's revelation taking Him from thinking about God as explanation for things to something quite different, because being a scientist from the start, I rather quickly came to the conclusion that if religion was of any value at all then it was not about explanation. In fact, the more I think about this on reflection the more ludicrous the idea seems to me. Where in the Bible or in real life does God explain much of anything about the world? If God explains anything in the Bible it all has to do with our relationship with Him. My summary of the OT tends to be that God is saying "I set before you life and death, therefore choose life." It isn't really an explanation but simply confronting us with a choice.


I was quite amused when wondersforoyarsa pointed out the contradiction between Emery's assertion that evil was neccessary and then Emery's challenge to explain why the Christian God does nothing about it. Emery is forced to retreat to suggesting that God should not have promised a rose garden. LOL I sure wonder when God did that? It happens to be a difference in the points of view of wondersforoyarsa and myself that I see far less promised that he apparently does. I don't recall how wondersforoyarsa answered this but emery replies with the popular challenge to explain what difference the existence of this God makes.

Well I don't believe it makes any difference in regards to what is objectively observable so I suppose you can say that emery and the other atheists on the forum are quite safe from me in their faith. LOL But I think the difference is rather obvious. The difference is that reality cannot be confined to what objectively observable. The existence of the God that wonders and I believe in means that the contents of the Bible is not just a bunch of meaningless fiction. It means that there is something to accomplish in this life that has great significance.

As enjoyable as that was however, the truth is that both wondersforoyarsa and myself both deny that evil is ultimately necessary for good but we differ in regards to what that evil is. I do not believe that physical death is one of the consequences of the fall of man, but that the only thing that is really wrong with the world at all is found in the human spirit as manifested in human thought and behavior. But regardless there remains the question why doesn't God interfere? But I think our reply is that God does interfere, so I guess the real question being asked is why doesn't God interfere more? Why doesn't God prevent the occurence of evil altogether?

My answer is that this is because the possibility of evil is inherent in life itself and the only way to carry out such intervention completely would be to suppress life altogether. So we already claim that God does make some more limited interventions, I think what we are really down to is why doesn't God makes an intervention so that the atheists can plainly see that God exists. Well my answer is that God always does that which is in our best interest and I believe that an intervention of that sort is not in our best interest. Such an intervention would still amount to a suppression of life that is substantial enough to arrest our development. I think it is not only evident that atheists have played a postive role in human history but that for many people the change to the atheist point of view has had a postive and valuable impact on there lives and development. I think there is a fundamental reason for this that is directly connected to the fall of Adam and Eve and thus mankinds whole need for redemption.

Emery suggests that a God who doesn't intervene more must not be morally involved - that God doesn't care, but I think this is no different from similar comments of child who says the this of a parent because the parent doesn't give him what he wants. As wondersforoyarsa explains the fact is that God is very much involved on the cross, showing to us that no one suffers more than He does because He very much does care. The cross shows us that there is nothing that God will not do to His own cost in order to help us. But God does not do as we would do because He is constrained by His own power and knowledge. He knows better than to give us what we wants just as the parent knows better than to give the child whatever he wants. I guess one of the earliest realizations on my own long journey to becoming a Christian was the about the powerlessness of power. It is a truth that arises in several science fiction stories such as Dune -- that power is ultimately useless for the most important things in life.

So Emery asks, what difference does the cross make? Everything. It enables us to understand God. It enables us to restore the relationship with God that was lost. It thus fixes the one thing that went wrong with the world. But as is well known in medicine, fixing the cause of an illness is only the first step, because all the damage done by the illness also has to be dealth with. Thus Christians speak of there being two parts to salvation: justification and sanctification -- because healing requires both the cure and the recovery.


Emery asks why would God create us if we are to become like Him and why not just leave us as we are? The answer is found in the same reason that any parent has children and then helps them to grow up into adults. Emery's argument does not work for so many reasons. We are not static inanimate objects. We are alive and so change and growth is the nature of our being. And a child growing up does not become a duplicate of his parent, any more that we become duplicates of God. I do not know of any Christians (which would not count the LDS) that believe that we will become like God in such a sense as Emery suggests. The possibilities are not represented by a line segment so that we either go to one end or the other, the possibilities is more like an infinite plain where God represents the horizon, so that becoming like God is the realization of endless diversity. Just compare creation with destruction and it is clear that it is destruction that leads to the singular end of nothingness while it is in creation that we find limitless possibilites.

[humanguy]

I took notes as I listened to this, and I'd like to address the points I noted.
Wonders said early on in the discussion that while he was in college he saw people hanging around, singing songs and having a good time enjoying themselves. Sounds fine to me, but he didn't like that very much. Well, why not, Wonders? Isn't that what people do in church? But in this case he just didn't like it. He felt that something was wrong with that.
One day during the autumn he noticed the trees and how beautiful they were. He thought to himself, "There is no reason for this. No reason for this beauty and no reason for me to be here experiencing it." He asked himself, "Why should there even be a universe?"
(The funny thing about this is that this is exactly the same thing that many atheists experience, but in their case they're perfectly happy, if not completly ecstatic, to come to the conclusion that there doesn't have to be any reason.)
In Wonder's case, though, this experience led him to the belief that God must be behind it all.
He talks about how life is "broken." This leads him to talk about his fixation on pornography, on sex. Probably the less said about this the better, but I always have to ask what's wrong with sex being just a fun thing that consenting adults engage in?
He says that at one point in his life, if I'm reading my notes correctly, he asked God this question: "Who am I?" He didn't, however, tell us how God answered that question.
Now this, to me, is one of the supreme insults to humanity that Christianity and probably all religions are guilty of. Who am I? It's up to me to find out, it's up to me, and no one else, to define my humanity, to define my life. Wonders spoke of artistic expression and intimated that it meant nothing without God. Please excuse my language, but bullshit. Art is the bold statement mande by one person that he's here. "Here I am, this came from my mind and was it made manifest through my own efforts. It is uniquely mine and it would not exist unless I had created it."
(And no, I am not at all a fan of Ayn Rand.)
Wonders thinks that life is broken. Life is not broken. Human beings are not broken. There is no need for a reason for the universe. It is, it exists, we are humanity that creates, copulates, loves and hates, commits atrocities, solves problems and strives to be better, always better. We're a hell of an interesting species.
There is no good and there is no evil. There's only us. In fact, there's only me. I can't go to anyone or anything else to get a map of my life and the universe, and the idea that any human being would require that is, well, anti-human.
Wonders seemed to be a little unprepared, I thought. Underneath all the hemming and hawing and multiple digressions there was really just the same old "I believe and that's how it is."
Emery, now I don't know him, but he missed a lot of openings Wonders provided, openings that an army could have marched through. Hey, Emery, let's talk, what do you say?
After it was over I was left with one question. "How do I get on one of these podcasts?" Now that would be a good show!

[Angela]

The question of meaning is an interesting one - it seems to go along the same lines as the question of morality. I talk about the search for meaning in the world, and the atheists/agnostics respond with the concept of making your own meaning. And here we seem to simply be using once again the same word to mean two vastly different things. Let me be clear: I'm not interested in creating my own reality, my own sense of good, or my own meaning - for then their very subordinance to me would make them less than what I am seeking. I want to encounter something real.

I don't think our definitions of meaning (or morality) are so different, Wonders. I mentioned both making and finding meaning. People do both. And would you not agree that we all (or the vast majority of us) "want to encounter something real"? Moreover, that we can't help but encounter it? Realness is all around us. That beautiful autumn day you encountered was real. The God you infer behind it may or may not be. I too find meaning in the enjoyment of a beautiful day. I find the beauty of nature inherently meaningful, no god required.

Reality as you experience it is "subordinate" to you. There's simply no way around that. It is part of the human condition that our understanding of everything, including morality and the meaning of life, comes through our limited consciousness. Just because you call something God doesn't make your experience of it any less subjective.

I think you (and many Christians) are mistaken in thinking that belief in God solves any of these problems:

Why are we here?
Because God created us.
OK, but why is God here?

How do we know what is right and wrong?
God alone determines right and wrong.
OK, but how do we know God's idea of right and wrong is the correct one?

What is the meaning of life?
To love and serve God.
OK, but where is the meaning in that?

For the Christian, it all eventually comes down to this: God just IS. For the atheist, Life just IS. Both of us look at God/Life with awe and wonder, and find meaning and purpose in the experience of God/Life.

[Angela]

. . .. .emery replies with the popular challenge to explain what difference the existence of this God makes.

Well I don't believe it makes any difference in regards to what is objectively observable so I suppose you can say that emery and the other atheists on the forum are quite safe from me in their faith. LOL But I think the difference is rather obvious. The difference is that reality cannot be confined to what objectively observable. The existence of the God that wonders and I believe in means that the contents of the Bible is not just a bunch of meaningless fiction. It means that there is something to accomplish in this life that has great significance.

Well, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an objective observation, since all of our observations are made using our finite and subjective senses. But certainly we all agree that "reality cannot be confined to what is observable." Otherwise reality would have changed a great deal as our abilities to observe have improved. Does anyone want to argue that viruses didn't exist before the microscope? (That might be kind of fun. ) And then there is the realm of ideas and concepts, which aren't directly observable, although one can observe their effects. (Perhaps God fits in this category.) As to the Bible, I'd say it is something more complicated than "a bunch of meaningless fiction," whether God exists or not. And, whether or not God exists, a great many people throughout history have accomplished things in life that they believed had great significance. So, no, Mitch, it isn't yet obvious. What difference does the existence of your God make?

[tirtlegrrl]

humanguy wrote: Wonders spoke of artistic expression and intimated that it meant nothing without God. Please excuse my language, but bullshit. Art is the bold statement mande by one person that he's here. "Here I am, this came from my mind and was it made manifest through my own efforts. It is uniquely mine and it would not exist unless I had created it."

We may view art in this way now, but it hasn't always been considered primarily a vehicle for self-expression. Take music, for example--I'm a classical musician. The idea of the artist as tortured soul, striving to express his own views in new and completely unique ways--that's a Romantic view of the artist and didn't really show up until around the beginning of the 19th century. In that same era artists and composers were viewed with religious awe--as "high priests" of Art. Before that musicians were servants of the court and church and wrote what their patrons wanted to hear. Most people strove to write music in the current style that sounded pleasing--they weren't interested in breaking the mold and "expressing themselves". There can, of course, be found exceptions, and they're usually the ones we study because it's more interesting and it's change that drives history, but overall it's true that artists were not all expected to be particularly unique or controversial. At least in the 16 and 1700's, composers greatly admired perfection of form and counterpoint. "Expression" was expression of a specific feeling attached to a key or style of music--it's "affect"--and music wasn't really written to convey specific feelings of a specific composer from a specific experience.

As for "meaning" in music--well, some pieces of music were written for a specific purpose, and of course in church music the purpose was to provide a suitable vehicle for the text that inclined the heart toward worship. There have been huge squabbles in the church, all sectors, including Catholic and Protestant, over how music should sound and how complex and/or dissonant it could be allowed to sound.

We know that Bach inscribed "soli deo gloria" on his finished manuscripts, and many other pious composers viewed themselves as serving God directly as well as their patrons or the church. Even the arch-Romantic Beethoven believed that he was fulfilling a higher calling (although not an explicitly Christian one) in struggling to compose while deaf. Later composers tended to view music as a worthy end in itself. Then you also have the Transcendentalists and I haven't studied them enough to know how they viewed art or music. I do actually have to practice my own instrument sometime.
The issue of music as viewed by philosophers and the church is very complex.

I personally view art as something that humans produce by dint of who we are; it's something that gives us pleasure, challenges our creative and fine motor skills, and allows us to express ourselves in forms unbound by the limitations of words. Art is something that we produce. We also cook meals, build houses, and excrete poop. I don't see that these other activities are indicative of a transcendent purpose for human beings, and the same goes for art. Art is also a subjective concept; anything can be art if we choose to view it that way, although others may disagree with our classification. (poop can be used for art!)

End rambling lecture. -TG

[mitchellmckain]

I think you (and many Christians) are mistaken in thinking that belief in God solves any of these problems:

I do not believe that God is an explanatory tool like electrons and gravity. Certainly by the standards of science God has no explanatory power at all.

Why are we here?
Because God created us.

The creation of life is not a deterministic process for it is the nature of living things that they participate in the process of their own creation. So if God created us that would make God a neccessary component of our causality but not a sufficient one.

OK, but why is God here?

The chains of causality in this world are not deterministic because there are in fact many things which do not have a cause - no hidden variables to determine the outcome of these events. However whether deterministic or not, a chain of causality either has a beginning or it does not. If it does have a beginning (and all the chains of causality we know of seem to have a beginning to the best of our understanding), it seems pretty clear that we are not such a beginning. We are clearly the type of existence that have causes - contingent upon other events. Christians believe that God is the ultimate the beginning of the chains of causality in general and is one of those types of existence that do not have a cause.

But of course we have no proof for this so you are free to believe otherwise.

How do we know what is right and wrong?
God alone determines right and wrong.

I do not believe this. Right and wrong are also a consequence of the necessities of logical consistency quite apart from the decisions of God.

OK, but how do we know God's idea of right and wrong is the correct one?

That there is any right and wrong derives from the fact that actions have consequences. We can either take the word of someone we trust or learn for ourselves, in which case we will learn by suffering the consequences of our actions. It is unfortunate when we insist on learning for ourselves in the cases that the consequences are irreversible.

What is the meaning of life?
To love and serve God.

This answer seems to interpret the question as meaning "What is the purpose of our existence?" Tools are created for a purpose. We are not tools. We are children. We are not means to an end. Children are an end in themselves. Children decide for themselves what the purpose of their existence is and so do we.

OK, but where is the meaning in that?

But that we decide our own purpose for existence does not mean that all choices in that regard are equal. So the question is what is the best choice? I think that is found in the nature of life itself, which is to learn and grow. To learn and grow without limit is what I believe to be the meaning of eternal life, which can only be found in a relationship with an infinite God.

You and everyone else is of course free to believe and choose otherwise.

For the Christian, it all eventually comes down to this: God just IS. For the atheist, Life just IS. Both of us look at God/Life with awe and wonder, and find meaning and purpose in the experience of God/Life.

Quite correct!

Well, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an objective observation, since all of our observations are made using our finite and subjective senses.

True and yet science has a methodology of obtaining these in abstract, by requiring observations be the result of written proceedures that anyone can follow to obtain the same result.

But certainly we all agree that "reality cannot be confined to what is observable." Otherwise reality would have changed a great deal as our abilities to observe have improved. Does anyone want to argue that viruses didn't exist before the microscope? (That might be kind of fun.)

I think we can presume that I meant observable in principle and that the invention of the microscope does not change the nature of reality.

And then there is the realm of ideas and concepts, which aren't directly observable, although one can observe their effects.

Observable ALWAYS means effects. Even vision itself is not seeing the thing itself but interpreting neural signals activated by photons striking the retina, which we presume are all effects of the things we are seeing. Certainly elemenatary particles are only seen by their effects.

Ideas and concepts are either dynamic structures in the information processing of the human mind or they are encoded in some media of human communication. They are as observable as anything else.

(Perhaps God fits in this category.)

Well that is certainly a question of dispute. I have no doubt that most atheists think that God is only an idea or a fictional story book character, but Christians do not believe this.

As to the Bible, I'd say it is something more complicated than "a bunch of meaningless fiction," whether God exists or not. And, whether or not God exists, a great many people throughout history have accomplished things in life that they believed had great significance. So, no, Mitch, it isn't yet obvious. What difference does the existence of your God make?

Uh uh. I am not falling for your moving criteria trick. First you answer what difference does your existence makes and I will answer in the same way, because I certainly assert that the existence of God makes no less difference that the existence anyone else.

[NH Baritone]

I don't think our definitions of meaning (or morality) are so different, Wonders. I mentioned both making and finding meaning. People do both. And would you not agree that we all (or the vast majority of us) "want to encounter something real"? Moreover, that we can't help but encounter it? Realness is all around us. That beautiful autumn day you encountered was real. The God you infer behind it may or may not be. I too find meaning in the enjoyment of a beautiful day. I find the beauty of nature inherently meaningful, no god required.

Reality as you experience it is "subordinate" to you. There's simply no way around that. It is part of the human condition that our understanding of everything, including morality and the meaning of life, comes through our limited consciousness. Just because you call something God doesn't make your experience of it any less subjective.

I think you (and many Christians) are mistaken in thinking that belief in God solves any of these problems:

Why are we here?
Because God created us.
OK, but why is God here?

How do we know what is right and wrong?
God alone determines right and wrong.
OK, but how do we know God's idea of right and wrong is the correct one?

What is the meaning of life?
To love and serve God.
OK, but where is the meaning in that?

For the Christian, it all eventually comes down to this: God just IS. For the atheist, Life just IS. Both of us look at God/Life with awe and wonder, and find meaning and purpose in the experience of God/Life.

Angela, kudos to you. This ranks among the best posts I've read on this board.