The relation of atheism to fatalism

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket and others!

Hopefully I can begin to touch on some of this, but I see this going a long way before it ends. I only have a few minutes...

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Juan, thanks for your response. I look forward to more detail, though it already has me thinking.

I've been looking pretty hard at some rather interesting materials over the last week or so. Lots of neat stuff about paintings on cave walls and skulls laid out "just so" on alters, dating back pretty far into the neolithic and paleolithic eras. At least 30 thousand years, and that's the conservative, establishment figures. Religion has been with humanity at least that long (probably much, much longer).

Which I find quite curious, why hunter-gatherers locked in the depths of an ice age struggling to kill their next meal find the time and make the effort to seek for "god." Logically, it is a frivolous waste of precious time and precious energy if there is nothing to it, if there is nothing to be gained. Random superstition is an inadequate answer, the pursuit of "god" is commonplace in every culture from antiquity, there are no ancient atheist cultures. Or at least, so it seems from the artifacts found. And if it is an hallucination (or some other like "mental" problem), then it is again uniformly distributed and comprises a very real part of our genetic make-up. Ergo, we are all insane, genetically, if the pervasiveness of the search for "god" is hallucinogenic or superstitious. (which begs the reference to the soapbox stander who cries out "the world is crazy! I'm the only sane one left!)

The search for "god" is far too complex an issue to be arrived at spuriously, and at a time in human development when frivolous effort was a luxury ill afforded. In short, there is too much circumstantial evidence to indicate a pervasive search for "god," at a time when frivolous and fraudulent effort was not practical and likely not well tolerated.

Originally Posted by Blizzardry

why does fatalism have to be slashed with despair? Couldn't somebody be happy and perfectly content to leave the universe in it's own hands to unfold as it will?

I suppose they could, now that the thought has been brought to my attention. I'm not certain I agree yet, but I can understand the premise.

We know a movie is a written script, and a book is already planned out and the ending will never change, but you can still be surprised if it's the first time it's read.

Perhaps. Of course, the story of a life is written as it unfolds, and the "writer" has control over the story. Well, most of it, anyway.

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Yes. 'Despair' was used in the thread I mentioned. I wasn't trying to imply that fatalism in necessarily desperate.

I am most likely the one who used a word such as this to imply the futility of leading a life with no hope, nothing really to live for or look forward to. Perhaps that is my ignorance, perhaps not. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by JosephM

It seems to me the logical consequence of atheism is not believing in God. That's about it. Life goes on either way. Some people arrive at despair regardless of their declared belief. One cannot know God anyway except he/she is awakened to reality. Its not exactly something you can force on people. Just some thoughts to consider.

Perhaps, but a "logical" consequence of not believing in a "god" is that there is only the societal motivator for morality (e.g.: latent religious indoctrination). Once one realizes that, and withdraws from the societal motivator because it *is* linked to latent religious indoctrination, there is no more throttle to sustain a moral sway. Keep in mind I am referring to morality in a modern, civilized sense of the term. Logic would realize that self, and / or immediate circle (mate, possibly children only to a point), are what to value, defend and support. Could care less if others get theirs, gonna make sure "I" got enough (or more). Logic, in the absence of morality, tends to justify all of the base attributes of humanity. That's my basic point, and the reasoning behind the "despair" (or whatever it was) comment.

This too, is not explained well enough to my satisfaction, and in an effort to hurry I apologize if anything written seems insensitive. That is not the spirit or intent behind it. It is merely my personal observations.

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Perhaps, but a "logical" consequence of not believing in a "god" is that there is only the societal motivator for morality (e.g.: latent religious indoctrination). Once one realizes that, and withdraws from the societal motivator because it *is* linked to latent religious indoctrination, there is no more throttle to sustain a moral sway. Keep in mind I am referring to morality in a modern, civilized sense of the term. Logic would realize that self, and / or immediate circle (mate, possibly children only to a point), are what to value, defend and support. Could care less if others get theirs, gonna make sure "I" got enough (or more). Logic, in the absence of morality, tends to justify all of the base attributes of humanity. That's my basic point, and the reasoning behind the "despair" (or whatever it was) comment.

I used to think that way too, that atheists could not justify their own morality. I now tend to think that we have a sense of morality in-built, that is beyond cultural or social indoctrination.
I think it is our natural capacity (and need) to care and to some extent love others, that establishes a 'natural' sense of morality. I think this is the way that religious and cultural morality arose in the first place.
One may object by looking at primitive cultures where all sorts of abominations occurred like human sacrifices, but I think to a great extent it is the relative cultural reference that distorts and changes what is acceptable and what isn't. If we look at our modern world, isn't it still perfectly acceptable to kill in a war in the name of god and country?

The problem with human beings is the duality of love and selfishness, the fact than we can hurt others does not impede that we can be hurt too. So the wise understood the problem and came up with laws and morals to control human destructiveness and emphasize wherever possible the constructive qualities. Otherwise you cannot build and order any society.

We intuitively know what is right and what isn't, nobody points a finger at a soldier that killed in war, yet how many soldiers end up severely traumatised and psychologically handicapped for life? this illustrates that if we harm others we may end up harming ourselves, this is the ultimate source of morality imo.
By protecting others we protect ourselves, why? because we are able to love.

[Paladin]

I would hazard a guess, that when it is all said and done it really depends on what part of the elephant you have a grasp of. As Jaiket has opened the possibilty of agnosticism over atheism ( a position I find more readily defendable in a logical sense) we have at least the lofty position of the beginners mind working for us.
Even if all the orthodox ideas of God, the Universe and Everything are eschewed are we not still left with, as Suzuki always said "Things as it is?"
My point is that we can resolve all the gaps in our diverse philosophies and patch things together enough to be believable and still not have it all together.
For example, if an atheist holds to a model of human beings being connected in a neural network or collective unconscious then ethics would come naturally because we wouldn't want to do harm to the species in any way. This wouldn't equate the necessity for a God at all,even seen from the perspective of the scientific or mechanistic view of Man-as-Machine.
This would explain Cai's view of the "in-built" morals.
Ultimately we are probably made of the same substance that the rest of the universe is made of, and therefore share in the same qualities as it is, it is these qualities that are the area of contention for many of us.
Call it God, or merely Suchness and we can disagree, but does our contention negate what merely "is" ?

Peace

Mark

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Caimanson

I now tend to think that we have a sense of morality in-built, that is beyond cultural or social indoctrination.

I am almost certain in my belief that a significant part of what we call morals are genetic based.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Caimanson!

Apologies for the delay in responding. The last few days have been a bit hectic to say the least.

Originally Posted by Caimanson

I used to think that way too, that atheists could not justify their own morality. I now tend to think that we have a sense of morality in-built, that is beyond cultural or social indoctrination.
I think it is our natural capacity (and need) to care and to some extent love others, that establishes a 'natural' sense of morality. I think this is the way that religious and cultural morality arose in the first place.

We did look into this in the lengthy thread on morality in evolution. I do not disagree with you, but I do see a *huge* difference between "natural" morality and "learned" morality. For instance, in nature it is quite moral to kill one's offspring. I hardly think that is a moral thing in civilized society. There is also the issue of "us and them" at a natural level, the pack / herd / tribe does not necessarily extend moral courtesy to others of the same species if they are "outsiders." (In much the same way, I would think, that "we" foster the sense that the enemy is an "other" during wartime propaganda.) In other words, a "foreign" ape, for example, is quite likely to be ripped to shreds by a tribe of similar apes.

One may object by looking at primitive cultures where all sorts of abominations occurred like human sacrifices, but I think to a great extent it is the relative cultural reference that distorts and changes what is acceptable and what isn't.

I have no objections from an intellectual / philosophical pov. I understand this.

If we look at our modern world, isn't it still perfectly acceptable to kill in a war in the name of god and country?

I'm not certain how to draw this conclusion from the preceeding premise though...would you expand on this thought?

The problem with human beings is the duality of love and selfishness, the fact than we can hurt others does not impede that we can be hurt too. So the wise understood the problem and came up with laws and morals to control human destructiveness and emphasize wherever possible the constructive qualities. Otherwise you cannot build and order any society.

I like the observation about the "duality of love and selfishness" concept. I'm not sure I follow how "the wise" would understand and utilize to the benefit of society...it almost implies an outside / alien influence (hand of G-d, as it were). How does it fit with the understanding of the development of cultural anthrolopogy and prehistoric religious development?

We intuitively know what is right and what isn't, nobody points a finger at a soldier that killed in war, yet how many soldiers end up severely traumatised and psychologically handicapped for life? this illustrates that if we harm others we may end up harming ourselves, this is the ultimate source of morality imo.

In an intellectual manner, those that are (still) capable might self-reflect. Certainly in a day and age such as ours, where "peace" is the preferable norm. I am wondering how accurate this would be in a different scenario, one more closely aligned with nature, in which death is a very real part of everyday life? In such a case, again using the battle hardened soldier since it was brought up, there is no time for reflecting...there is only time for action and reaction. Time spent reflecting is to leave oneself open to threat of danger.

To carry this into a neolithic or paleolithic setting, one might not have time for reflection. Life would seem to me to be consumed in action and reaction. When one wasn't foraging for plants, stalking the next game animal or chipping stones into arrow or spearheads, one was dodging arrows slung by competing tribes or escaping from other predators (lions, tigers and bears, OH MY!). The amount of time that could be devoted to "leisure" must have been very limited, and the entire concept of leisure would have entailed far different things than we imagine anyway (no tv, radio, movies, ball games, books, etc). Likely what leisure time was available was spent star gazing and story telling. Out of star gazing and story telling somehow developed a need to paint on cave walls for more than mere decoration, and to carve figurines for more than mere idle time wasters and knick-knacks. In short, somebody realized the concept of sympathetic magic, and that it *works (ed)*.

As a Christian I obviously find the concept of magic to be somewhat unappealing, yet I cannot deny that prayer is an appeal for a spiritual intervention no different than painting a hopeful scene of a hunt as an appeal for a successful hunt by sympathetic magic.

By protecting others we protect ourselves, why? because we are able to love.

Ah, but what difference, if any, between animal love, and civilized human love? By "love" here I presume you mean something like the mother-child bond, or perhaps "brotherly" love, what might be better termed "compassion." I sense you do not mean sex.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Paladin!

Ah, the philosopher at work!

Originally Posted by Paladin

I would hazard a guess, that when it is all said and done it really depends on what part of the elephant you have a grasp of.

I like this.

As Jaiket has opened the possibilty of agnosticism over atheism ( a position I find more readily defendable in a logical sense) we have at least the lofty position of the beginners mind working for us.

Indeed.

Even if all the orthodox ideas of God, the Universe and Everything are eschewed are we not still left with, as Suzuki always said "Things as it is?"

I am not familiar with this by Suzuki, yet I have pondered the same and have come to call what is "the IS." Which, by my understanding, is the objective reality behind all subjective observations and philosophical musings of reality.

My point is that we can resolve all the gaps in our diverse philosophies and patch things together enough to be believable and still not have it all together.

I agree. I think it was Thomas who recently pointed out how an argument can be logical, and still not be true because it is based on a faulty premise.

For example, if an atheist holds to a model of human beings being connected in a neural network or collective unconscious then ethics would come naturally because we wouldn't want to do harm to the species in any way. This wouldn't equate the necessity for a God at all,even seen from the perspective of the scientific or mechanistic view of Man-as-Machine.
This would explain Cai's view of the "in-built" morals.

Ah, Jung so soon? Would we include achetypal symbolism too? Yet, the "in-built" morals and archetypal symbols, with their shared meanings, had to come from somewhere. Perhaps it is beyond our ability to establish "where" exactly, but they did have a beginning.

Ultimately we are probably made of the same substance that the rest of the universe is made of, and therefore share in the same qualities as it is, it is these qualities that are the area of contention for many of us.
Call it God, or merely Suchness and we can disagree, but does our contention negate what merely "is" ?

I find it amazing how close you and I are in this. I sense "G-d" in a Christian sense, because that is the sense I am familiar with. Had I been born Buddhist, would I sense "G-d" in some other manner, or not sense "G-d" at all?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

Originally Posted by Jaiket

I am almost certain in my belief that a significant part of what we call morals are genetic based.

I don't think they've found a morality gene yet. Although what you are alluding to seems to fall more in the realm, if I understand correctly, of "epigenetics."

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

We did look into this in the lengthy thread on morality in evolution. I do not disagree with you, but I do see a *huge* difference between "natural" morality and "learned" morality. For instance, in nature it is quite moral to kill one's offspring. I hardly think that is a moral thing in civilized society.

By natural you mean animal in general or do you include "natural" humans as well?
Gosh, just thought of the 'civilised' baby disposal by the Spartans.

There is also the issue of "us and them" at a natural level, the pack / herd / tribe does not necessarily extend moral courtesy to others of the same species if they are "outsiders." (In much the same way, I would think, that "we" foster the sense that the enemy is an "other" during wartime propaganda.) In other words, a "foreign" ape, for example, is quite likely to be ripped to shreds by a tribe of similar apes.

Agree completely, but hey I never suggested that human morality was the same as a mystical or enlightened love!


I like the observation about the "duality of love and selfishness" concept. I'm not sure I follow how "the wise" would understand and utilize to the benefit of society...it almost implies an outside / alien influence (hand of G-d, as it were). How does it fit with the understanding of the development of cultural anthrolopogy and prehistoric religious development?

What I mean is that gradually, the rulers and leaders of those primitive societies realised that it was convenient to have these laws and morals. Partly out of awareness and partly out of pragmatism, for the preservation of the group and perhaps to increase their power and control.
And I don't think it is any different today for small or big groups of any kind.
Just my opinion.

Of course there is also room for those early religious people that through their spiritual experiences had "revelation" of what is good. Those people probably had more time to stand back and reflect than the average ruler.

That is the interesting thing for me, what kind of morals are we talking about, the selfless unconditional love of the mystic, or the more down to earth sense of what is good?

[libertylover76]

I'm ready to be persuaded that my life is one of fatalism and despair if someone can actually provide proof.

I have never been convinced by the arguments for the idea of determinism in individual human behavior, so fatalism is out. I have more than enough hope and joy in my life to counteract the moments of despair.

And while it's a historical fact that most people have exhibited behavior that can rightly be called religious, the aditional historical fact of "fundamentalist" atheists, who completely reject any claim of supernatural beings and still live lives of meaning and joy, also cannot be ignored by anyone of integrity.

Now what?

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

I have met few atheists who have examined their beliefs and arrived at anything short of life-affirming positivity. 'Without purposes and immortality, there is no reason not to live a happy, full life, to pursue our dreams and to treat others well'.

What then would have people believe that this is a valid assesment?

If the atheist takes the view that life is an end-in-itself, then the reason to live a happy, full life, to pursue dreams, and all that, is precisely to accomplish this goal. Life is both the means and the reward.

I am an atheist, and I do not despair. While I do not wish to die just yet, I can die knowing that I have had the marvelous experience of being alive. I don't believe my past existence is erased by my death any more than it is erased by each new conscious moment -- it will have happened, and that is enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I don't think they've found a morality gene yet. Although what you are alluding to seems to fall more in the realm, if I understand correctly, of "epigenetics."

I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found. Genes that program/influence human minds to percieve cheating, killing tribe members, etc as 'bad' may have been selected for, in the same sense that genes that encourage staying put while predators abound would be selected against. Something relatively simple like that strikes me as likely.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

What then would have people believe that this is a valid assesment?

Just a note to clarify. The 'this' I referred to is 'this' below:

Originally Posted by Jaiket

A couple of posters in another thread mentioned that fatalism/despair is the logical consequence of atheism.

In case anyone misunderstood and read the question differently.

[juantoo3]

Ah, Liberty,

Perhaps you are not a drive by after all...of course it remains to be seen, considering previous tactics.

Originally Posted by libertylover76

I'm ready to be persuaded that my life is one of fatalism and despair if someone can actually provide proof.

Somehow I doubt proof would convince you, by your previous example. That of baiting for an answer, and then ignoring that answer after it is given. Can't say you didn't see it, I caught you reading it myself. You know, the reply in the "Word of G-d" thread (and follow on in the Aristotle / Aquinas thread)...for which I am still awaiting a response. Such carefree abuse of the manners of debate make it uninteresting to continue... Perhaps if you would indulge a person by actually responding to their hard, probing questions, there might be some inducement to continue. Otherwise, what sense in a one-sided discussion?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Caimanson!

Originally Posted by Caimanson

By natural you mean animal in general or do you include "natural" humans as well?
Gosh, just thought of the 'civilised' baby disposal by the Spartans.

Good question, and one that would serve us well as we continue. Generally, I do think in terms of "animal morality" when I use the term *natural* in this context. As for Sparta...see how we cannot make absolute statements regarding morality? But then, this is no small wonder, it is a struggle in anthropology as a whole...one deals with generalities in the face of many exceptions. But the entire premise of taking morality back into a *natural / animal* model was to see if there was merit to some religious teachings that promote the merit in *nature.* It is very difficult when in a modern moral context, to try to understand a natural moral model because it seems so alien and counter-intuitive.

I never suggested that human morality was the same as a mystical or enlightened love!

Nor did I. I do think love plays a crucial role, but it is quite distinct from morality. I just haven't figured out the relationship between love and morality, let alone logic. I add logic here in reference to earlier comment, and because logic is counter-intuitive to love on frequent occasion.

What I mean is that gradually, the rulers and leaders of those primitive societies realised that it was convenient to have these laws and morals. Partly out of awareness and partly out of pragmatism, for the preservation of the group and perhaps to increase their power and control.
And I don't think it is any different today for small or big groups of any kind.
Just my opinion.

Well, we have the dawn of history; the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia and the wide-spread adoption of the agrarian lifestyle in combination with some of the earliest walled fortifications, the learning of war as an art, the development of the wheel and working of metals, and the first written languages (cuneiform). And it was from this basis that the first written codified moral laws were written: the Code of Hammurabi.

Prior to this, during pre-historic time (before writing), we can only guess by various artifacts. So while your points about power, pragmatism and preservation are pretty well founded by *historic" bases, it is conjecture when applied to pre-history. And I think, if we can use shamanic and tribal examples from today as any kind of corollary, that this is a very western view that is foreign to the tribal social structures of pre-history. Not counting, what effect did agriculture have on the human psyche? Grain is *not* a normal diet, evolutionarily speaking, for humans. So it is justifiable to hold the neolithic mind to a different standard than our own.

Having said this, it is still quite curious why the extended and uniform effort to reach towards some Divine element, if no Divine element exists?

Of course there is also room for those early religious people that through their spiritual experiences had "revelation" of what is good. Those people probably had more time to stand back and reflect than the average ruler.

Perhaps. Yet, acknowledgement of "spiritual experiences" almost precludes any real semblence of atheism, does it not? Acknowledgement of spirit almost de facto rules for G-d, does it not?

That is the interesting thing for me, what kind of morals are we talking about, the selfless unconditional love of the mystic, or the more down to earth sense of what is good?

You raise a further distinction I had not earlier considered. How would you distinguish between the two kinds of morality?

Kindest Regards, Eudaimonist!

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

If the atheist takes the view that life is an end-in-itself, then the reason to live a happy, full life, to pursue dreams, and all that, is precisely to accomplish this goal. Life is both the means and the reward.

Very well, and I did respond to this general point already earlier. If you are content with this summation in accord with your heart and mind, more power to ya! I simply find more circumstantial evidence to support my belief that there is something out there, the IS. Whether or not it is the Christian concept of G-d, I often wonder, no doubt to the chagrin of my fellows. I certainly do not view G-d, as bb puts it, as some old grey beard sitting on a cloud hurling thunderbolts at whoever displeases Him. Nor likewise some aged tites in the sky either, hurling whatever temper tantrum at whoever displeases Her. I *do* think that the general Christian depiction of G-d is overly simplistic. I also think that none of the world faiths do much better in this regard, that G-d is simply too big for a human mind to completely fathom. Yet, all of these religions *point to* what IS. And, in my assessment after long years of diligent searching, I have concluded that G-d IS. Can I prove it? No. It is merely the weight of circumstantial evidence bearing on my critical processes.

Originally Posted by Jaiket

I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found. Genes that program/influence human minds to percieve cheating, killing tribe members, etc as 'bad' may have been selected for, in the same sense that genes that encourage staying put while predators abound would be selected against. Something relatively simple like that strikes me as likely.

Perhaps, but I am inclined to go with the genome researchers on matters concerning the genome. People like Francis Collins. Seems I recall Mr. Collins stating emphatically and for the record, that there were no *behavior* genes as such. What I alluded to with epigenetics, which I only recently learned of, is that it is within that realm that behaviors can be shown to affect multiple generations following. Say, for example, alcoholism; one alky in the family can trigger similar behavior for several generations. Perhaps, in a tribal / family way, there is some merit to your point about moral behavior being passed on through some mechanism not unlike epigenetics.

[JosephM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephM
It seems to me the logical consequence of atheism is not believing in God. That's about it. Life goes on either way. Some people arrive at despair regardless of their declared belief. One cannot know God anyway except he/she is awakened to reality. Its not exactly something you can force on people. Just some thoughts to consider.

Originally Posted by jauntoo3

Perhaps, but a "logical" consequence of not believing in a "god" is that there is only the societal motivator for morality (e.g.: latent religious indoctrination). Once one realizes that, and withdraws from the societal motivator because it *is* linked to latent religious indoctrination, there is no more throttle to sustain a moral sway. Keep in mind I am referring to morality in a modern, civilized sense of the term. Logic would realize that self, and / or immediate circle (mate, possibly children only to a point), are what to value, defend and support. Could care less if others get theirs, gonna make sure "I" got enough (or more). Logic, in the absence of morality, tends to justify all of the base attributes of humanity. That's my basic point, and the reasoning behind the "despair" (or whatever it was) comment.

Perhaps your logical cosequence of reasoning is flawed. Since when did a lack of belief in God affect man's reasoning. To value others has much to do with reason and intellect which in some ways inhibits a true search beyond the boundaries of itself for God until it has exhausted itself. Dispair is not the result of not believing in God but rather derived from a view of hopelessness and apathy. Reason and understanding itself can assure one of a meaningful life. In which case wisdom usually dictates ones actions. Accepting a belief in God does not eliminate despair especially if one sees God as condemning. Just a view for you to consider 123.

Love in Christ,
JM