How do agnostics live? (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, July 12, 2008, 22:47 (5759 days ago) @ Mark

I don't want to duplicate George's responses (with which once more I am largely in agreement), so I'll confine myself to those areas he has not covered. - In my posting of 28 June, to which you have just replied, I wrote: "The fact that the world is not ideal is not the fault of religion, and it's not the fault of atheism or agnosticism. It's the fault of human nature as God and/or evolution made it." You now ask: "Would you agree with me that while there are differences in ethics between people, humanity's greater problem is that even when we know what is right we are inclined to do what is wrong? The flaw is in our nature more than in our rules." Clearly you agree with me, and so I agree with you. However, you then go on: - "Christianity is based on hope of the renewal of humanity for which help is needed from beyond ourselves. Atheism seems relatively optimistic about humanity. It is all very well to state the fine rules which dhw refers to, but naïve to think that's all we need." - I'm not sure what you mean by "renewal" here. If you're referring to an afterlife, then of course we need God, and if you're referring to improving life on earth ... a kind of climb towards ethical happiness ... I agree that most of us need some kind of help from beyond ourselves. I have no problem with the suggestion that religion may provide it, but other human beings may also provide it. Atheism has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism about humanity ... atheism is merely a disbelief in God. And as for the fine rules, no-one ever said we only needed the rules in order to be good! You agreed with me and so I agree with you that human nature is the problem, and so far in human history no code, religious or non-religious, has yet managed to overcome its flaws. - "The Church at its best is a hospital for sinners. Do atheists have hospitals?" It's a nice image, though you're right to stress "at its best". As an agnostic, I wish I could also enjoy the benefits of the treatment. But the fact that atheists and agnostics cannot gain the same spiritual comfort does not mean that they have no code of morality! Your idea of the typical atheist seems to be based on a character in a 19th-century Russian novel, who himself reflects Dostoyevsky's (in my view erroneous) belief that if God did not exist, everything would be permissible. This is an extreme case ... which usually makes for the best literature ... but it is no more typical of atheists than Robert Mugabe is of Christians or Osama bin Laden of Muslims. You have asked how agnostics/atheists live, but you seem to be convinced that we are all potential Raskolnikovs! The atheists that I know are non-murderous human beings leading non-murderous social lives and enjoying non-murderous human relationships. They simply don't believe in God. No doubt the way in which you "try to follow what you believe are God's laws" is admirable, and I'm sure you disapprove as much as I do of religious fundamentalists who say the same. I have no quarrel with your ideals. I only object to your apparent denigration of the notion that agnostics/atheists can also try to follow equally ethical precepts. - Your cryptic comment about an "eternal perspective" came in response to my question about why you do good. The fact that we can't predict all the consequences of our actions does not answer my question. I'm sure you don't withhold your help from people because you can't foresee the future. The question is crucial if you are to understand "how agnostics live". If you do not get personal satisfaction from helping people and from their reactions to your help, then I can only conclude with George that you are trying to deny your humanity. If you do get personal satisfaction, then you should be able to understand how and why agnostics and atheists can do the same good deeds without having recourse to God. Love is not a Christian invention! - You say I have "evaded" the killer virus and trolley scenarios. Since the information you have given me is totally inadequate, and therefore other options are open, I will say no in both cases. On the other hand, I have asked you several times to explain why you are prepared to condemn six billion of God's children to death in order to spare yourself the agony of torturing and killing one of them. Your only reply so far has been: "Any offence against my neighbour is directly an offence against God", as if the six billion were not your neighbours. Evasion on your part? Incidentally, Christians themselves cannot agree on how to cope with such moral conundrums, so I don't know why you think the decision somehow reflects a difference between Christians and agnostics/atheists.