Ep. 81: The Switch

[Emery]

It's finally happened. Emery converted, and Scott de-converted. For an hour. Scott becomes slightly less devoted to his marriage and starving children in China, and Emery becomes obsessed with hell. What do you guys think?

[ScottBarger]

Well, I thought that your given the predominant evangelical view of hell (that we have the ability to share the gospel with people, and if they believe what we are saying, God won't torture them forever and ever amen) your obsession with saving people from hell was justified.

I think that I am about to be chastised for allowing God to be a motivator for my marital fidelity.

I also maintain that an hour isn't enough time to fully debauch myself the way all true atheists ought.

[Emery]

Agreed. Scott, if you like, I give you license to remain an atheist until the next podcast so as to have an opportunity to sample more of the forbidden fruits of atheism, the first of which is to stay home Sundays and save 10%.

[NH Baritone]

Gee whiz, Scott. You could be taken to task not only for your dependence on faith for your adherence to your marriage vows. There's also your minuscule world view and your prominent anxiety regarding changing jobs in what was essentially a thought experiment.

Honestly, if you need faith in order to remain faithful, global, & employable, it's no wonder you cling to it so fiercely.

[Emery]

...minuscule world view

Gee whiz NH, couldn't you have been a little more charitable and at least used "small" or "limited?"

[ScottBarger]

Just being honest. IMHO, eliminating the divine from reality makes everything a matter of what works for me. Life then becomes a matter of bring happiness to people I care about. Without a higher morality, then there is no grounds for you to call my world view "minuscule." Besides, if a "bigger" world view doesn't work for me (ie. bring me happiness) why should I waste time developing one? I should simply do that which brings the greatest amount of happiness to myself and the people I love. Why would I EVER sacrifice the time I have with them to go on some sort of globetrotting exercise in futility?

[marcuspnw]

I think it is probably best for both of you to stay as you were before this episode. Opposite hour may be fun but I worry about the mess the two of you could get into if you continued like this for a week!

[mitchellmckain]

What if I were an atheist rather than a Christian?

I have always found suppositions regarding who we are to be somewhat meaningless. What would I be like if I were someone else? What would I be like if I were born in another country? What would I be like if I wasn't this but that instead? I find this kind of thinking somewhat incomprehensible. If I am not who I am then we are talking about someone else and it would be pointless for me to comment in that case. At the very minimum I think I would need to rephrase the question as something like... what would such and such a belief entail. Perhaps the real question is what role in my life does a belief in God play, for I think that people would want to ask what activities, values and feelings depend on this belief in God? But I would think it too much to assume that this necessarily means that atheist would not motivate these in another way.

In any case, the most important role I see God playing in my life is the assurance that life is worthwhile. Besides that, God plays a role in how I think and thus in how I percieve the world and my life. The role that the gospel message plays in my life is an anti-religious or anti-legalist role, rejecting the efforts of all the various religions in telling me what I should do or believe in order to be ok. I put my fate in the hands of God and live by faith, doing what I think is right as best as I can determine. Regarding feelings of guilt, I have to say that my sense of right and wrong was never really connected with a belief in God and I arrived at my understanding of right and wrong quite apart from this. Even in this regard the feelings evoked by failing to live up to my idea of right an wrong is usually regret and rarely guilt.

As a Christian the only hell I believe in is the one which we create for ourselves by our own choices about what to value. When we pursue things that ultimately have no meaning or value then it is inevitable that we end up with an existence that is devoid of that which makes an existence worthwhile. So, far from being just a different neighborhood, it is existence without life or hope -- a terrible fate indeed. But what I don't believe is this other premise that where you go depends on whether you believe the right things.

So with regards the the kind of hell that Emery talks about, I guess I am an atheist, for I see it as intellectual blackmail that makes God comparable to a gunman who tries to get his way with threats. If there were such a gunman god and hell then my response would be the same as Sisyphys in Albert Camus' essay "The myth of Sisyphus", content with eternal suffering because defying such an evil tyrant is the right thing to do. I am not going to kill any children because some gunman says he will make them suffer, nor I am I going to spend every second trying to convince everyone to do what the gunman says so that they avoid that fate also. So unlike Scott I cannot say that I agree with argument of Emery in that regard at all.

So it should be pretty clear that of the three option proposed by Scott: fatalist, hypocrite or misunderstanding. I am definitely going with option 3, and I think Scott is quite right to argue that the lack of emphasis on this in the teachings of Jesus makes it clear that the intellectual blackmail version of hell is definitely a misunderstanding. If Emery wants "an opposing statute" then I would point out that the recurrent theme in the teachings of both Jesus and the apostle Paul is in opposition to the kind of legalism that must be behind such a view of hell. I think there is indeed a promise of hell for those who decide that they do not care about anyone but themselves, ready to step on and abuse other for their own gain. That is the childish mentality to which such "do or die" threats might be applicable -- kind of like yelling at kids that you are going to kill them if you catch them playing with matches again. But if you are thinking about what is the right thing to do, then you should understand that caving to manipulative threats is not one of them.

[NH Baritone]

Just being honest. IMHO, eliminating the divine from reality makes everything a matter of what works for me. Life then becomes a matter of bring happiness to people I care about. Without a higher morality, then there is no grounds for you to call my world view "minuscule." Besides, if a "bigger" world view doesn't work for me (ie. bring me happiness) why should I waste time developing one? I should simply do that which brings the greatest amount of happiness to myself and the people I love. Why would I EVER sacrifice the time I have with them to go on some sort of globetrotting exercise in futility?

Futility?

Other than nature itself, the only thing that has ever changed the world is human activity.

Why else do you think that members of Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, Rotary International, UNICEF, the American Civil Liberties Union, etc., devote so much of their time, talents, & treasure to bringing about such change? These are non-religious organizations and are supported by both non-believers and believers because they believe not in a divine finger stirring the human soup, but rather in human beings taking charge of stirring it ourselves.

Are you blind to the global interconnections that bind us all? Haven't 2 world wars, the arms race, and 9-11 taught you that what happens on the other side of the world effects you and your children?

Yes, Scott, if your belief in God is the only thing that allows you to notice that you live not only in a neighborhood but also on a planet, then you have a minuscule world view.

[ScottBarger]

Futility?

<atheist>Yes.</atheist>

Other than nature itself, the only thing that has ever changed the world is human activity.

<atheist>So? The only future I wish to positively affect is that of myself and those I love. If you could prove to me empirically that I actually could make a difference with some of these problems half way around the world, and that making a difference would increase my happiness, then I would consider it. But you can't, so I won't.

Why else do you think that members of Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, Rotary International, UNICEF, the American Civil Liberties Union, etc., devote so much of their time, talents, & treasure to bringing about such change?

<atheist>I don't know, maybe because it makes them happy. If they need to do that kind of thing to make themselves happy, that's great. I don't.</atheist>

These are non-religious organizations and are supported by both non-believers and believers because they believe not in a divine finger stirring the human soup, but rather in human beings taking charge of stirring it ourselves.

<atheist> Whatever they need to do to wring as much enjoyment outta life as they can, is fine with me, as long as they don't tread on my happiness.</atheist>

Are you blind to the global interconnections that bind us all? Haven't 2 world wars, the arms race, and 9-11 taught you that what happens on the other side of the world effects you and your children?

<atheist>No, I am not blind to these problems at all. They have shown me that life is short and you better enjoy it while you have it. If you can PROVE to me that I could actually do anything to make a difference in these issues and that making a difference would increase my happiness, then I will sign right up.</atheist>

Yes, Scott, if your belief in God is the only thing that allows you to notice that you live not only in a neighborhood but also on a planet, then you have a minuscule world view.

It is not, but even if it were, does it matter? Do you really think that a persons reasons for trying to make a difference is what gives them global perspective? I don't.

[ScottBarger]

Good post Mitch.

[NH Baritone]

Scott, I need some clarification:

• Do you consider atheism at its core to be hedonistic?
  
• Do you consider atheists uncharitable or to have no reason to be charitable?
  
• When you consider the atheists you know, how well they fit into the caricature you have created for this podcast?
  
• In the ways that they do NOT fit into that caricature, how do you explain the poor fit?

[ScottBarger]

Scott, I need some clarification:

• Do you consider atheism at its core to be hedonistic?
  
• Do you consider atheists uncharitable or to have no reason to be charitable?
  
• When you consider the atheists you know, how well they fit into the caricature you have created for this podcast?
  
• In the ways that they do NOT fit into that caricature, how do you explain the poor fit?

NH, Good questions.

1) I am not sure what atheism is at it's core, I would say maybe some version of materialism. I DO think that some brand of hedonism is a logical result of atheism. I don't mean full blown selfish pleasure regardless of consequences, but more of a "happiness in life is really the only reasonable virtue." I think that if this life is the only thing we have, then finding happiness and contentment in this life is the highest virtue and pursuit of personal happiness is very reasonable.

2) Not at all, I think atheists can be VERY charitable, and they have very good reason to be charitable....it makes them happy. It may not make everyone happy..it doesn't always make ME happy...so as an atheist I may not ALWAYS be charitable. But I could derive a lot of pleasure out of being charitable towards other people, especially people I love.

3) Pretty well. I mean, some people have naturally positive outlooks on life, others do not. So the pursuit of happiness in their lives can come off as more positive than negative, depending on their personality. I think I naturally tend to be a bit skeptical and negative, so that probably motivated a bit of my "atheist caricature"

4) Different personalities and different ways of finding personal happiness.

[mitchellmckain]

Do you consider atheism at its core to be hedonistic?

I am not sure what atheism is at it's core, I would say maybe some version of materialism. I DO think that some brand of hedonism is a logical result of atheism. I don't mean full blown selfish pleasure regardless of consequences, but more of a "happiness in life is really the only reasonable virtue." I think that if this life is the only thing we have, then finding happiness and contentment in this life is the highest virtue and pursuit of personal happiness is very reasonable.

How about happiness in life is the ultimate reason for virtue? The way you say it sounds like atheists cannot find other virtues like honesty and courage, and I really doubt that. But does the Christian really do much more than extend this to an afterlife to say that, ultimate happiness in our existence is the ultimate reason for virtue? This does not equate to selfishness, by the way, because we can discover that a virtue of unselfishness and living an other-centered life is an important part of the path to ultimate happiness.

Does Scott uphold the argument from morality or tend to think that morality in some way depends on a belief in God? If so then that is something on which we certainly differ, because I think that there is a reason behind what is good and moral that ultimately trace back to considerations of logical consistency and the nature of own being. There are certainly differences in morality when ones life is other-centered rather than wholly focused on oneself, but an other-centered life does not have to be about God. It can be about another person(s) or even certain types of ideals or endeavors and I am pretty sure that an atheist can even sacrifice their own life for such things.

I guess that I do not see the connection that Scott is making between atheism and hedonism. If there is a difference, that I would argue, it is that the happiness one can achieve in devotion to something is limited by the nature of the thing one devotes oneself to. There is so much more interaction and fulfillment to be found in a child compared to cat and there is much more interaction and fulfillment to be found in a cat compared to a inanimate object. Thus the Christian believes that the greatest object of devotion is God and that the richest existence and greatest happiness is found in a relationship with Him.

[Redpower]

Great show! I appreciate the effort from both sides.

I do have a few questions for Scott though:

1) logic = if god wants people in heaven, then murder Christians. Why doesn't this logic apply to your (actual) beliefs? A response to this may be: God forbids murder "Thou shalt not kill"!! But that's bullshit... God killed and ORDERED people (Moses for instance) to murder people for things like working on the sabbath... Also, as a Christian, you are already forgiven for murder (as Jesus died for that sin) so not murdering Christians would/should be considered evil. As you've both already articulated: Why have children (as a Christian)? They might become atheists and in turn be tortured eternally. And risking it would be irresponsible and malicious to say the least...


2) (A major correction) Scott said in the podcast "Billions and billions and billions of years in hell", when it's actually "eternity" an infinite difference from "billions". Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but I think Billions upon billions is roughly "zero" compared to infinite or "eternity". And I think that does change the rationalization a little bit... At least (if what you said is true) after the "billions" of years that soul wouldn't be tortured anymore... In the case of eternity, it never ends... Literally an infinite difference.

3) As Emery pointed out to you Scott, why do you have the authority to disregard and/or re-write and/or re-interpret what the scripture says about hell?? It says in the bible that any sort of re-writing of the bible is blasphemous... How dare you!?

Scott - I think you're a good hearted man that's determined to die a Christian (or at least dying with that title), and perhaps it isn't even for your sake anymore... Maybe it's for your family, career, or for other (less intellectual) people that you think may become dangerous or destructive without this false sense of Jesus or the Holy Spirit or whatever... Which I suppose is noble of you. I feel bad judging you that way, but after all of this time I can't take enough credit away from your podcasts/forum writings to think you are still a Christian (or ever were one)... You understand the objections too well and admittedly have no lucid answers to them. You must be in such a state of conflict within yourself... Embrace the Truth (for Scott) = Seinfeld/Beer/Lies to family and friends. Which I'm sure tempts him. Or, continue with the lie and live as lovingly and ethically as you can while influencing as many people as you can to become Christians for a variety of reasons (and good ones in your mind) and promote damage control and try to marginalize the racism/bigotry/exclusivity/"damage" Christianity does cause.

Emery - Nice angle, and I feel the same way. I wouldn't feel obligated to act as if I appreciated the "system" that "God" has put in place even if I did believe it to be true. I would rebel and if I spent eternity in hell because of that, so be it. I can't goto heaven, regardless of my "faith".

It sure is a fascinating thing to ponder...

Anyway, thanks Scott and Emery for another great show.

I've been listening to this show for years, and I'm very pleased that it is still going on.