In the latest issue of the New York Review, Cathleen Schine reviews Levels of Life, a new book by Julian Barnes. It’s described as a three-part meditation on grief, following the death of Barnes’s wife Pat Kavanagh.
One of the things that is of no solace to Barnes (and there are many) is religion. He writes:
When we killed–or exiled–God, we also killed ourselves…. No God, no afterlife, no us. We were right to kill Him, of course, this long-standing imaginary friend of ours. And we weren’t going to get an afterlife anyway. But we sawed off the branch we were sitting on. And the view from there, from that height–even if it was only an illusion of a view–wasn’t so bad.
I can’t disagree. Atheists often proclaim the death of God in positively gleeful terms, but it’s important to recognize what was lost–a purpose in living, a natural place in the universe. The loss is not irretrievable; there is nothing that stops us from creating our own meaning even if there’s no supernatural overseer to hand one to us. But it’s a daunting task, one to which we haven’t really faced up.
I think the real secret to being okay with there being no God is really not believing in Him to begin with. When I first heard about God as a child, I put it up there with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Then growing up I never really felt bad about it except for the one time it had really hit me that He does not exist.
To me a life of eternity seemed like it would be fairly dull. It would get to the point to where you have already done everything there is to do. What would you do then? Then how is this life significant if it is only a glimpse of what your totally life will be like? I always thought there being no life after death would make my life mean that much more, and it would be that more significant from it being relatively short.
Then one day if and when you do see direct evidence of the supernatural, it will be a life changing experience. Although, it is not easy to see such evidence as being undeniable. Then only a few people in this world have seen evidence of it that is undeniable.
I feel like I have the opposite problem. Wondering how I will be able to truly always behave for the rest of eternity. Then what if they don’t even have computers in Heaven being a lack of material existence? Then am I destined one day to rot in Hell?
I feel like this will fall upon deaf ears, but then I don’t know of any argument that wouldn’t being an atheist most of my life. Even if Charles Darwin had seen a ghost, I don’t think he would have been able to recant his theories. May God have mercy on your souls.
My answer is:
Our life has deep and cosmic meaning: our observations say that possibly for the time being we are the only life form in our Universe. More exactly – in the small part of the Universe accessible for our observations. The only complex life form – Universe’s matter attempt to get aware of itself. This creates grand significance and responsibility for us: we are the only bearers of conscious matter and we are responsible for preserving and further development of this life form. We are the only form who can and will (must) transfer biological Homo sapiens to another more appropriate and more stable silicon or carbon environment.
This is great and holy challenge, possibility and responsibility. No bigger one is possible. If we will manage to pass the contemporary societies problems bottleneck, we, humans, will live forever. We will spread ourselves in a Universe and we will start manage the cosmological processes – create appropriate conditions for conscious matter limitless survival, create other universes. In short, Universe will get conscious and alive.
If we will manage to pass contemporary society problems we will be empowered to say that we have passed the humanities’ Rubicon.
Lawrence Krauss’ recent book, Atom, offers up eternity for all by the conjunction of atoms from stars of yesterday into each of us to the continuation/scatteration of our parts, back into atomic form, when our star finally goes nova and sends us into the cosmos for eternity (that may or may not become something else). This concept gives me a much greater sense of being part of something/everything – the universe itself – than any religion might offer. (Not to mention how better I feel and look at 72, having been formed by parts billions of years old.)
Can a Christian (or Muslim or or any devout monotheist etc.) find solace in the insights and grandeur of the worldview of particle physics and cosmology?
Can an atheist-or-agnostic-physicist find solace in the spectacular power of representation of the human soul in the vision of Dante’s Cosmos? (Taking a notable example of “Christian” writing; substitute Paradise Lost if you like.)
Would such a person be wiser for such a finding?
Short answer: Yes, Yes, and Yes.
(Long answer to follow.)
Long Answer:
I like Feynman’s use of the word “predecide” when he’s explaining in an interview that the world will turn out to be what it is no matter what we want. He says the point (when asked about what the “final” theory of physics will look like) is that we can’t “predecide”, we have to just study and measure and think and see what it is. And there may not even be a “final” theory at all. We may be peeling an infinite onion. Seems to me this has broader implications than just the scientific method. The point is to stay open and alive to experience and to our capacity for understanding.
This is directed at those who aggressively dismiss either the religious or the scientific (nonreligious, atheist) perspective. It’s a big world with a long history we’ve most likely just barely plumbed. If I predecide in one respect I’m liable to miss out on the amazing vision presented in, say, Dante, in the other respect, in the awesome insights of, say, Feynman (using his name to designate the worldview built from particle physics and cosmology). And both can be wonderful solace for grief.
I guess what I’m saying is that the true is not just in the “now” (i.e. our best guess at what the world is) but in any number of beautiful things, some of which have come to serve as sources for doctrines of belief, some remaining as marvelous works of art or current or past theories of the world.
Now it seems I’ve come from Feynman to Blake: Religion as “Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.”
I’d love some purpose to break the apathy of pointless existence. Illusionary one would do just fine as long as it is believable, something god story never was for me as it fails even the most basic consistency checks.
I can’t disagree. Atheists often proclaim the death of SANTA in positively gleeful terms, but it’s important to recognize what was lost–a mystical/magical aspect to Christmas, and special holiday cheer. The loss is not irretrievable; there is nothing that stops us from creating our own meaning and sense of awe with Christmas even if there’s no supernatural overseer to hand presents to us. But it’s a daunting task, one to which we haven’t really faced up.
/faceplam
Hi Sean,
What do you think of free will? Do you think it is just an illusion?
I once was on a scientific forum and I was surprised to see that quite a lot of scientists in fact believe in free will, including physicists even though most of them are not religious. I have also heard once Lee Smolin say that he believed in free will.
The fact that free will really exists or not can have important implications on how people view life in general.
Utmost sympathies to Julian Barnes. It’s very sad to lose a loved one. Life is sweet, but it always ends, and it always ends in tears.
But what’s all this no God no afterlife pointless existence business? That’s not how it is. I was playing poker with God the other night. Jesus and the Devil had folded and gone to rustle up some sandwiches.
“I tell you man,” God said in his big deep voice as he cracked a Bud with his big white teeth. He was wearing his usual white smock to match his big white beard and his big white hair. “There’s a whole lot of nonsense spoken about religion”. He spat the cap and shot me a look.
“Such as?” I said, arranging my cards and trying not to look at my aces.
“Such as”, the big guy swigged. “There can be a God even if there ain’t no heaven”.
“What do you mean there isn’t any heaven?”
“Yup”, God grinned. “There ain’t no heaven”. He laid his four Aces on the table and swept the pot. I could only sigh at my pair of twos as God gave me a wink: “But there is a Hell. Ho Ho Ho!”
Maybe we’re just taking the training wheels off?
1) This is a matter of temperament. If someone wants to insist “glass half full,” you can insist that it is really half empty, but your statements won’t have the weight of evidence that your scientific pronouncements are expected to have.
2) If you recognize wishful thinking as a legitimate source of “purpose,” then you have to commend the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh for their sense of purpose. Or be accused of inconsistency.
Ah, but many a pathology is woefully consistent. Hobgoblin of little minds and all that…. I’ll take nuanced inconsistency in pursuit of wisdom over foolish consistency.
I became an atheist at age nine (I remember the day..). I felt a great liberation, and that feeling has stayed with me. Still… there are times I wish to give thanks, as I’ve been fortunate in life. Were I a believer I would say “thanks to God…”, but as it is, I have to say “thanks to ….[finishes lamely, unless I think my interlocutor will get it, in which case it might be ‘the Flying Spaghetti Monster’]”.
Perhaps — as P Gibbs suggests — I should thank my dogs (we have three), but would that make me a Polytheist?
What one gains in Atheism is the wonder of a “preposterous universe”. (though I don’t understand the equations!)
Well in this world we’re free to agree or disagree and to believe as we wish, which is a good thing. If God of the Bible is dead in your hearts and minds, then what do you replace Him with? I guess with anything you so choose, maybe work, maybe a woman, oops, nay, well perhaps recreation, the universe, science, education, family, friends and some say a dog? So you can choose whatever, if you need something to believe in, or in nothing at all if you don’t. I’m not here to change anyone’s mind, it’s almost impossible, so choose wisely. Everybody should have something or someone to lean on to get through difficult times.
Right AI, that’s the real magic that many atheists don’t seem to appreciate: Fooling yourself and others into caring about life in a preposterous universe. I’ve taken a few stabs at this myself, with mixed results. For example this and this (it’s probably best if I don’t mention this or this).
If the alternative to fooling yourself is the sort of nihilistic despair and self-extinction that we see among the most educated, postmodern crowd, then to me it’s clear that it’s time for a vital new myth, new magic and new magicians to take the stage.
1) I don’t understand why atheists are considered people who killed or proclaimed “God is dead.” We are simply people who don’t believe in God. Or at least, we don’t believe in the various incarnations of God that man has devised. As much as every religious person’s beliefs and experiences are personal and distinct from everyone else’s, even within their own faith, so to are the beliefs and experiences of atheists. Some atheists consider the universe and the nature of reality to be as much of a “religious” experience as any God-like one. Some atheists are more in the existentialists camp and find that man is God (or as my religion professor preferred, God is man). I really also take exception to this notion that atheists proclaim the death of God “gleefully.” Most atheists I know, including myself, do not talk about the death of God. We don’t think God ever existed so there is no need to talk about its death. And we certainly wouldn’t do so gleefully. First, most of us are sensitive to the beliefs of others and second, I have no idea what would be gleeful or thrilling about the death or non-existence of God. On the other hand, I would say that personally, there is a sort of bleak, barren excitement when I ponder the implications of a no-God universe/reality. Which brings me to …
2) This notion of a Godless existence being an existence without purpose is personally confounding. For me, the fact that there is no God to bestow purpose is liberating, challenging and exciting. My experience of reality without God is one of even greater mystery and wonderment. Without a hand of God directing or orchestrating reality, our existence becomes mindbendingly up for grabs. The “why” of life becomes an even greater mystery. A puzzle problem that may never be completely solved. As Hawking wrote, our purpose might not ultimately be about finding the answers to our questions, but about finding out what the right questions are.
3) Do we really need God to comfort us when loved ones die? Do we need an afterlife? I suppose it is much easier to believe in an afterlife. But what are we basing this belief on? Death is hard thing to accept. The end of existence is, for want of a better word or phrase, the ultimate bummer. It seems obvious and natural that man would invent an afterlife. I can tell you that this is the one part of being an atheist that no fun at all. But when we look around and investigate the nature of reality, don’t we find that there is a beginning and end to everything? Haven’t scientists attempted to create a model of the universe that is sustaining and perpetual …. only to discover over and over again that no, the universe as we know it, had a beginning and it will have an end? Possibly (probably very likely) there are other universes. Universes that exist concurrently in other planes or branes, universes that may have pre-dated ours and universes that may be created because of events in our own. I really don’t know. But the multiverse theory seems to almost mirror human existence. While there are possibly untold or an infinite number of universes, here on earth there are billions of individual universes in the form of humans.
Because, in the end, that is all the purpose I find I need and all the purpose I believe is truly attainable. The purpose of existence. The purpose of reality. Because when you strip it all down to the bare minimum of what we actually know … what we know is that WE are the creators of reality. Each of us is the center of our universe. All we know, all we experience and learn and feel emotionally … comes to us via our own senses. Each of us alone, interprets and experiences reality. Once we die, the universe ceases to exist.
For me, the very fact that we are here, that we have the ability to think, to invent, create, communicate and reflect on existence and the nature of reality … is so extraordinary that the only purpose I think is necessary is to make the most of it. The purpose of life is to live as completely as possible. The purpose of life is to … ultimately … take advantage of the opportunity as fully as possible.
From Terry Pratchett’s “Hogfather”, Death & Susan are talking:
““All right,” said Susan. “I’m not stupid. You’re saying humans need… fantasies to make life bearable.”
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
“Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—”
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
“So we can believe the big ones?”
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
“They’re not the same at all!”
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME…SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
“Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point—”
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
@Reginald Selkirk, December 10, 2013 at 10:03 am
Hm. I’m going to indulge in two wishful thinking experiments.
Experiment #1) I am indulging in the wishful thinking that you win, be given, find, or in some other way legitimately acquire 1 billion US dollars’ worth of your local currency.
Experiment #2) I am indulging in the wishful thinking that a 25 kilogram rock fall from space at a speed in excess of 7 km/sec and hit you in the head.
I could take either of these wishful thinking experiments, and use them to fuel a sense of purpose (in one case, to accumulate and give to you US$1 billion; in the other, to go up into space, find a suitable rock and put it on a collision course with your head). In your logic, either wishful thinking and purpose would be valid.
I submit that the outcomes determine that one is valid, the other is not.
In my previous post I did not give any details. Here, I will try to explain the context of Hinduism to the question being discussed, at least for people who have open minds. The concept of God (called Brahman) is completely different in Hinduism than that in Judeo-Christian religions. Brahman is pretty much synonymous with laws of nature. It is the ultimate super consciousness. Hinduism has no conflict whatsoever with science. Thus as a retired physics professor, I have best of the both worlds! I can participate in physics blogs and at the same time in temple activity to get comfort, inspiration and help to manage my life. Sorry about people who do not have faith. But after all it is their karma and free will! There is not much other people can do.
Skeptics check out, http://www.blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/
Is it really possible to separate these lovely feelings you get from religion from other feelings you get from religion? Consoling a child for its fear of death goes hand in hand with tormenting it with guilt and shame over masturbation, nudity, homosexuality and the fear that all the woes of your life are God punishing you for your sins, doesn’t it? If you insist these things are somehow separate, where is this done and why isn’t this handy process better publicized?
And no doubt this can be dismissed as cynicism, but what is the evidence that the religious have “really faced up” to the tasks of providing a purpose in life and a natural place in the universe? If it isn’t necessary to critically examine the justification of this claim, why should it ever be necessary to critically examine any claim of religion?
That above link doesn’t work, but go to blogs at Scientific American and look up the blog Bering in Mind, dated 2013 November 2nd.
Since the blog site is shut down, go to the University of Virginia studies of the paranormal.
Okay, I have at least one son-in-law that is an Atheist, one of the nicest guys I have ever met and a great father to my daughter’s children. Wonderful guy and I am not trying to convert him, nor should I. I just want anyone who might be interested to look at all sides.
Buddhists have no god but they don’t complain about not having a purpose in life or a natural place in the universe. Why should it be any different for atheists?