Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
I'm starting this thread to discuss a topic that arose in the thread "Is atheism absurd?" I mentioned that I had abandoned atheism and Secular Humanism. I want to explain why. This was a sad decision for me but it was something I felt that I must do. Here's why:
As a Secular Humanist, I believed that this universe was probably the only reality that existed. There were no divine beings, no "souls", no "spirits", no "afterlife", no ultimate meaning or purpose to life. Purpose and meaning were subjective and depended on the individual. When I first became a Secular Humanist, I was actually overwhelmed with joy. It was the first time I felt confident in my life. I felt I was deserving of respect, deserving of rights, and deserving of dignity. I could live an honest life with no phantoms of divine wrath or the threat of hellfire for something like "thought-crimes". I must admit with some blush as I type this; I was also looking forward to sex. Being a Secular Humanist meant that I could have all the sex I wanted to and there was no divine being who was punishing for having lustful thoughts, imagining undressing a woman, or enjoying seeing a woman in a bikini or just plain nude. No divine being was going to judge for me having sex, either. I could have purely casual, no-strings-attached sex with a lady, just because she was beautiful, and there would be no divine retribution for it!
I credit Richard Carrier with helping me. I had been having a private correspondence with him through e-mail and the more I read his writings and, eventually, his book Sense and Goodness Without God, the more I liked Secular Humanism. I read other books such as Paul Kurtz' book In Defense of Secular Humanism. I was pleased to find a worldview that cherished science, reason, democracy, and inalienable human rights. No god was needed.
The more and more I read about Secular Humanism, though, the more troubled I became. I was an atheist and a philosophical naturalist. I believed that it was likely that this phyiscal world was all that existed, all that ever existed, and that that was ever likely to exist. Everything had a natural explanation from the Big Bang, to the origin of life, to the origin of human consciousness. I felt satisfied that no god existed, no "celestial dictatorship" as Christopher Hitchens is sometimes fond of putting it.
The problem came with the question of why. If we live in a physical world with no divine beings, no souls, no spirits, no afterlife, no cosmic purpose, and this physical world is likely eternal, then we, as human beings were ultimatey just a collection of cells. We are the sum of our cells and whatever emerges from our cells. Whatever our cells do individually and collectively makes up who we are. It was that simple. I read about different theories of morality and meaning. Richard Carrier proposed "Goal Theory" as a theory of morality. Michael Martin proposed his "Observor Theory". The late ecoanarchist thinker, Murray Bookchin, proposed "Social Ecology".
It was reading Bookchin's book The Philosophy of Social Ecology that I began to find Secular Humanism to be unsatisfying. Bookchin proposed an ecological theory of ethics and while I liked his "Social Ecology", I couldn't convert. Bookchin didn't answer the questions I kept hoping he'd answer. He didn't answer questions like, "Why bother to be moral?", "What does it matter if we are moral or not?", "Why bother to even live?", and "What is the point of living?" I read other books and I grew increasingly dissatisified. Carrier's theory didn't satisify me. I read from Kai Nielsen's books Ethics Without God and Why Be Moral? I was so haunted by these questions that I even contacted the author David Eller and told him of my concerns.
I ordered a copy of his book Natural Atheism. He personally autographed it and sent it to me. So I contacted him and explained what was bothering me and I invited his input. He graciously gave me a copy chapter of his next book (this book has since been published). I skimmed to the point where he was to answer my questions. His chapter disappointed me greatly. I didn't e-mail him to argue the point or complain about how disappointed I was. But I continued reading. I read Michael Martin's book on atheism and morality. Finally, almost halfway through a course in the philosophy of religion at SFSU, I came to conclude that I couldn't continue to call myself an atheist anymore.
I believed that if a god of love and goodness existed, then that god is guilty of criminal negligence. But to judge this divine being, there would have to be an objective morality. There would have to be objective moral values as well as a theory explaining where these values come from, why they are important, and why they matter to begin with. I came to conclude that the problem of evil was actually a paradox. This philosophy class was about the problem of evil. To condemn or judge requires a moral standard. I realized that in order to judge a divine being and condemn that divine being for criminal negligence, an objective morality must exist. But if it really does exist, then it must come from outside of human beings.
It must come from a source that transcends human beings and subjective human experience. If not, then why do we care about morality? Why do we care about meaning? Why do we even bother to care what is right or wrong? Yet we do treat morality objectively. If we didn't, we couldn't condemn evil people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot for crimes against humanity. It is only because we treat morality as if it is objective, can we have a legal system that punishes murderers and sexual predators.
I didn't know how to resolve this paradox. In fact, for our last paper in this philosophy class, our instructor asked us to tell if our thoughts had changed or remained the same after this class. I wrote that my thoughts had, indeed, changed and I explained the paradox as I thought of it. My instructor liked my paper and I got an A in this class. I wrote in my paper that I could no longer call myself an atheist until I knew where objective morality came from, why it mattered, and what made it objective. Otherwise, the argument from evil, whether logical or evidential, lost all of its force. The paradox had to be resolved some how.
I quit going to SFSU after a very nasty bout of depression which almost cost me my life. That was over a year ago (from the time that this post is being typed). I haven't been back to SFSU and I don't plan on returning. But the questions that tormented me haven't been resolved. After abandoning Secular Humanism, I renewed my quest for answers. It was at the time that I abandoned Secular Humanism, I became interested in religious Humanism. I started reading into Unitarian Universalism. I really liked what I read and every time I read into this liberal religion, I grew a greater liking for it.
I went back and read some of the atheist literature that I found disappointing. I read, again, from Richard Carrier's book. I read some online essays from a website calling "Ebon Musings". I started to research the problem of evil for a book that I wanted to write on the subject. I read a paper by Raymond D Bradley, titled "The Free-Will Defense Refuted and the Existence of God Disproved". It was a fascinating paper. I read Bradley's other writings. I read a paper about a proof of atheism by him. I then came to a new conclusion. I came to conclude that for an atheist or Secular Humanist, there probably wasn't any objective morality. The way for an atheist to resolve the paradox proposed by the problem of evil was to adopt a position of moral nihilism.
It was when I came to conclude this that I had joined this forum and I decided to discuss this problem as a thread. I mentioned abandoning Secular Humanism/atheism in another thread and so I decided to start this one. Now people should know my reasoning. So here is the problem as I see it:
If this universe is all that there is and there is nothing supernatural, nothing divine, nothing "spiritual" or whatever word we may use to describe the so-called "supernatural" or "paranormal" realm, then this physical reality is all that there is. We human beings are a collection of cells. But that's all we are. So, if we are a collection of cells, then why should we be moral? Why should we attach meaning to our lives where no meaning has existed before? What does it matter whether we are moral or not? Why bother? Life has no objective meaning or purpose and our existence is merely incidental. We weren't put here for a plan, or so Secular Humanists believe, so why even bother? What is the point? Why should we care?
As a Secular Humanist, I believed that this universe was probably the only reality that existed. There were no divine beings, no "souls", no "spirits", no "afterlife", no ultimate meaning or purpose to life. Purpose and meaning were subjective and depended on the individual. When I first became a Secular Humanist, I was actually overwhelmed with joy. It was the first time I felt confident in my life. I felt I was deserving of respect, deserving of rights, and deserving of dignity. I could live an honest life with no phantoms of divine wrath or the threat of hellfire for something like "thought-crimes". I must admit with some blush as I type this; I was also looking forward to sex. Being a Secular Humanist meant that I could have all the sex I wanted to and there was no divine being who was punishing for having lustful thoughts, imagining undressing a woman, or enjoying seeing a woman in a bikini or just plain nude. No divine being was going to judge for me having sex, either. I could have purely casual, no-strings-attached sex with a lady, just because she was beautiful, and there would be no divine retribution for it!
I credit Richard Carrier with helping me. I had been having a private correspondence with him through e-mail and the more I read his writings and, eventually, his book Sense and Goodness Without God, the more I liked Secular Humanism. I read other books such as Paul Kurtz' book In Defense of Secular Humanism. I was pleased to find a worldview that cherished science, reason, democracy, and inalienable human rights. No god was needed.
The more and more I read about Secular Humanism, though, the more troubled I became. I was an atheist and a philosophical naturalist. I believed that it was likely that this phyiscal world was all that existed, all that ever existed, and that that was ever likely to exist. Everything had a natural explanation from the Big Bang, to the origin of life, to the origin of human consciousness. I felt satisfied that no god existed, no "celestial dictatorship" as Christopher Hitchens is sometimes fond of putting it.
The problem came with the question of why. If we live in a physical world with no divine beings, no souls, no spirits, no afterlife, no cosmic purpose, and this physical world is likely eternal, then we, as human beings were ultimatey just a collection of cells. We are the sum of our cells and whatever emerges from our cells. Whatever our cells do individually and collectively makes up who we are. It was that simple. I read about different theories of morality and meaning. Richard Carrier proposed "Goal Theory" as a theory of morality. Michael Martin proposed his "Observor Theory". The late ecoanarchist thinker, Murray Bookchin, proposed "Social Ecology".
It was reading Bookchin's book The Philosophy of Social Ecology that I began to find Secular Humanism to be unsatisfying. Bookchin proposed an ecological theory of ethics and while I liked his "Social Ecology", I couldn't convert. Bookchin didn't answer the questions I kept hoping he'd answer. He didn't answer questions like, "Why bother to be moral?", "What does it matter if we are moral or not?", "Why bother to even live?", and "What is the point of living?" I read other books and I grew increasingly dissatisified. Carrier's theory didn't satisify me. I read from Kai Nielsen's books Ethics Without God and Why Be Moral? I was so haunted by these questions that I even contacted the author David Eller and told him of my concerns.
I ordered a copy of his book Natural Atheism. He personally autographed it and sent it to me. So I contacted him and explained what was bothering me and I invited his input. He graciously gave me a copy chapter of his next book (this book has since been published). I skimmed to the point where he was to answer my questions. His chapter disappointed me greatly. I didn't e-mail him to argue the point or complain about how disappointed I was. But I continued reading. I read Michael Martin's book on atheism and morality. Finally, almost halfway through a course in the philosophy of religion at SFSU, I came to conclude that I couldn't continue to call myself an atheist anymore.
I believed that if a god of love and goodness existed, then that god is guilty of criminal negligence. But to judge this divine being, there would have to be an objective morality. There would have to be objective moral values as well as a theory explaining where these values come from, why they are important, and why they matter to begin with. I came to conclude that the problem of evil was actually a paradox. This philosophy class was about the problem of evil. To condemn or judge requires a moral standard. I realized that in order to judge a divine being and condemn that divine being for criminal negligence, an objective morality must exist. But if it really does exist, then it must come from outside of human beings.
It must come from a source that transcends human beings and subjective human experience. If not, then why do we care about morality? Why do we care about meaning? Why do we even bother to care what is right or wrong? Yet we do treat morality objectively. If we didn't, we couldn't condemn evil people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot for crimes against humanity. It is only because we treat morality as if it is objective, can we have a legal system that punishes murderers and sexual predators.
I didn't know how to resolve this paradox. In fact, for our last paper in this philosophy class, our instructor asked us to tell if our thoughts had changed or remained the same after this class. I wrote that my thoughts had, indeed, changed and I explained the paradox as I thought of it. My instructor liked my paper and I got an A in this class. I wrote in my paper that I could no longer call myself an atheist until I knew where objective morality came from, why it mattered, and what made it objective. Otherwise, the argument from evil, whether logical or evidential, lost all of its force. The paradox had to be resolved some how.
I quit going to SFSU after a very nasty bout of depression which almost cost me my life. That was over a year ago (from the time that this post is being typed). I haven't been back to SFSU and I don't plan on returning. But the questions that tormented me haven't been resolved. After abandoning Secular Humanism, I renewed my quest for answers. It was at the time that I abandoned Secular Humanism, I became interested in religious Humanism. I started reading into Unitarian Universalism. I really liked what I read and every time I read into this liberal religion, I grew a greater liking for it.
I went back and read some of the atheist literature that I found disappointing. I read, again, from Richard Carrier's book. I read some online essays from a website calling "Ebon Musings". I started to research the problem of evil for a book that I wanted to write on the subject. I read a paper by Raymond D Bradley, titled "The Free-Will Defense Refuted and the Existence of God Disproved". It was a fascinating paper. I read Bradley's other writings. I read a paper about a proof of atheism by him. I then came to a new conclusion. I came to conclude that for an atheist or Secular Humanist, there probably wasn't any objective morality. The way for an atheist to resolve the paradox proposed by the problem of evil was to adopt a position of moral nihilism.
It was when I came to conclude this that I had joined this forum and I decided to discuss this problem as a thread. I mentioned abandoning Secular Humanism/atheism in another thread and so I decided to start this one. Now people should know my reasoning. So here is the problem as I see it:
If this universe is all that there is and there is nothing supernatural, nothing divine, nothing "spiritual" or whatever word we may use to describe the so-called "supernatural" or "paranormal" realm, then this physical reality is all that there is. We human beings are a collection of cells. But that's all we are. So, if we are a collection of cells, then why should we be moral? Why should we attach meaning to our lives where no meaning has existed before? What does it matter whether we are moral or not? Why bother? Life has no objective meaning or purpose and our existence is merely incidental. We weren't put here for a plan, or so Secular Humanists believe, so why even bother? What is the point? Why should we care?
