To Give Hope
Perhaps the most compelling argument to be made as a reason to Believe, even knowing that Faith is irrational, is the Hope and Inspiration that Faith can provide. I finished Part Three of this series (see also Part One and Part Two) with an excerpt from one of my plays in which a character states, “it’s Faith that gives Life meaning and Hope.” For this character, Marie, it is true that her Faith is what gives her life meaning and Hope. For billions of people in the world it is Faith that gives their lives meaning and Hope. There is no doubt that many minds are put at ease by Faith. Even Faith in a bastardized religion provides Hope. Even Faith in a nonsense religion gives Hope. Even Faith in a non-existent God gives Hope. And that Hope is but a mirage, a delusion. It is a state of intoxication and anesthesia. It is truly no better than being drunk or high on some other drug. If what one seeks is simply to escape reality, religious Faith can provide that. Yet, even this shallow Hope is not exclusive to Faith. Shallow Hope, escapism, is achieved in the use of drugs, TV, Action Movies, Pop Music, Video Games, meaningless sex. The list is nearly endless. Escape is not in and of itself a bad thing. At times, distraction is a key to sanity. If you stare too long into that bottomless pit, Death, you are likely to lose your mind. The seeming reality, that eventually everything will be gone and all life is objectively without meaning or purpose, is frightening. It could lead some to drink. Again, a character in The Sandbar addresses this fear:
RAY
I’ve been thinking. I’ve been thinking about how people live. Like how do we get through the day. I mean, how do ya get through the day when you know that at the end the day– or at the end of some day– well, you’re just gonna be dead. And some day! Some day, all of us are gonna be dead. And it’s not gonna matter what you did in life. Life, by itself, is utterly meaningless, and it doesn’t matter if you kill a million people or drink a million beers, you’re still gonna die. All things die. Good, bad, great, small. It doesn’t matter. It just ends. All we’re doing is marking time, every one of us. And that’s what got me to thinking. Death doesn’t just underline life. It’s not a– it’s not a– it’s not a word in a book. It’s every letter in every word in every stroke of every pen and every strike of every key since the book was first being wrote… What you gotta do is, ya gotta find something that you’re good at. And do it. Ya know? Do it all the time. Keep yourself distracted. They say, “no man ever quit drinking who sat around thinking about it all day.” And I say, “no man quit dying who–” No. Wait. That doesn’t make sense…
As you may have guessed, Ray is the resident drunk at the bar. But what Ray says, in his drunken, pathetic way, is true (lowercase “t”). Distraction really does seem to be a key to happiness. As they say, ignorance is bliss. This happiness, though, is hollow. Building a complex value system that takes into account the fact that one’s death is ultimately no more meaningful than that of an ant, is a life long journey. Religion is not this value system. Religion, in today’s societies, arises from the laziness of people to strike out on their own and truly discover what is and what is not of value, as determined by one’s self and not one’s hand-me-down Faith. Once one has created a value system for himself, he will find ways to create substantive Hope and meaning, no matter how subjective. It is important to remember that even religious Faith is subjective and belief in something that does not exist does not create objective meaning. Dead is dead, no matter what you did or believed or knew when you were alive. If you need a platitude to ease your weary mind, think of the words of Epicures, “Death is nothing to the living and nothing to the dead either, for when you are alive Death is not with you and when you are dead you no longer exist.” I can’t fully wrap my head around not existing. It wouldn’t be like sleep, since when you sleep you dream, but it could well resemble being rendered unconscious for surgery. One second you are being told to count backward from 10 and the next second you are awaking to discover that your tonsils have been removed. The time in between, to the one render unconscious, did not exist. Of course some people think that consciousness is over-rated, and I agree that their consciousness is over-rated. Yet, it may be easier for one to accept his own death, than the death of a loved one.
Tackling the death of a loved one is no easy task. We mourn the passing of those we love, because we miss them. We should be very clear about this, because it is through clarity that we will find a means of coping. We are not mourning for the dead. This is a fairly common misconception that arises from the guilt we feel in admitting the truth: we mourn for ourselves. Our suffering is selfish and there is nothing inherently wrong with selfishness. And there is great news! The news is not that you will see your loved one in the afterlife. It is healthy to accept that that is not the case. The great news is that you can remember the one’s who have passed and you can honor the ones who have passed. It surprises me that this is not more well understood. We make great efforts to honor and remember those who have lost their lives in battle, as we should, but these honors and remembrances do not have to be limited to the military. You do see other examples of secular remembrances for “Great People” like George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., etc., but there is no reason that “Average People” like you and me cannot receive the same honor at the familial, rather than national, level. This act of remembrance shows how the family valued the deceased. It seems a pity, though, that people should have to die in order to receive such honors and in fact they do not have to die first. “Living Funerals” are another great way to honor your loved ones, an even better way because the person gets to be there in a conscious state! Living funerals allow the grievers to express their sorrow to the person they will miss. It also allows people to celebrate the life of the one they love. If you saw the movie, Tuesdays With Morrie, you have seen what a Living Funeral can look like. And please don’t misunderstand me. I do not think that Living Funerals and honoring the dead is at all the exclusive providence of secularism. Many religions also honor the dead. Some religions celebrate the dead. Unfortunately, some religions celebrate Death. I am not interested in celebrating Death, only Life, which is made ever more important by Death.
I also think that people should feel free to steal ideas from religion. If you discover a religious ceremony that you think is a terrific celebration of life, but you’re an atheist, steal it! There is no reason that we atheists should reject something because it was invented by a religion. That kind of reactionary value system is a slave system (in the Nietzschean sense). Our values are not created in reaction to something we dislike or disagree with. Our values are an affirmation of Life! We need to celebrate how truly lucky we are to be alive and we need to celebrate how truly lucky our loved ones are for being alive. Religious Faith does not give Life value. In fact, religious Faith devalues Life by making it everlasting when it is anything but. The atheist understands that the fragility, improbability and transient nature of Life is what makes it valuable and important. Far from being nihilistic, atheism affirms Life’s importance… Or perhaps it just paves the way. After all, atheism does not have a set value system.
What about inspiration? Some of the more sophisticated theists will point out that Martin Luther King Jr. was directly inspired by his theism. No doubt this was a great thing, but it is not necessary to be Faithful in order to be inspired. Most Secular Humanists are inspired to do good because it makes them feel good to do good. Most Secular Humanists want to relieve suffering and therefore are inspired to take action when they perceive suffering in the world. Religion can actually act as a buffer between one and the world, between one and the suffering of others. If doing good is as simple as tossing your loose change in the church collection, it is very easy to be buffered from actually understanding others’ suffering and “experiencing” it first hand. I put experience in quotes because it is not possible to literally experience another’s perception of the world, but you can at least get involved and see it first hand. I did this when I went to New Orleans in January 2006. I saw the 9th Ward first hand and I understood the devastation. I can’t fully understand what it must have been like to be there when the levee broke, but seeing the aftermath first hand was a visceral experience that no photos and videos can duplicate. I went with my college, as a student. There were many church groups that were there as well and there is no reason to downplay their efforts. In fact, we stayed at a church and I felt no qualms about this. No theists tried to impose their views on me and I did not impose my views on theists. This was not a time to debate God; it was a time to get work done and help people. I understand that churches also send groups to other nations to “help out.” They do a lot of good and a lot of bad along the way. While they “teach people to fish” they also indoctrinate them to the Lord. It is yet another instance of collateral damage left by the Faith Bomb. No such collateral damage occurs when a secular group helps out, because the goal is simply to “teach people to fish,” not to build a secular church. Again, you can have inspiration without Faith. You can provide community service without Faith. You can have “goodness” without Faith. And I don’t know about anyone else, but I would rather be helped by someone who just feels good helping than to be helped by one who hopes it will get him on the express train to paradise.
And finally, what about the sense of community that religion brings? I place this under the Hope category because, broadly speaking, that is why it is there. When we feel that we belong to a community, we feel a sense of security, hope and love. In all my years of Catholic school, not once did I feel that sense of community. I suppose I felt it somewhat when I was a Camp Counselor for a YMCA camp back in Western New York, but not enough to make me stay on after two years, even though I was being “groomed” for a larger role. The one place that I can say with absolute certainty that I felt I “belonged” was at Purchase College. I arrived there in my mid-twenties and stayed on after graduation because I was involved in the Community. I felt I belonged because there was a real sense of mission. There was a new president who was a mover and shaker and there were a great many staff members who truly cared. The students were fairly unique, though many conformed to “non-conformity”and the arts were held on high. Purchase was not and is not a perfect community. There was institutional apathy from some of the tenured faculty and permanent staff, but that was greatly out-matched by the concerned and passionate faculty and staff, especially the new hires. This sense of Community was wholly non-theistic, even though some of the staff was very devout. The community was mostly accepting, though a strong argument could be made that it needed to more thoroughly consider Conservative perspectives. I hope that I will eventually find this sense of larger Community again elsewhere, but for now I have the Community of my family and that is all I need.
Community is an idea that should not be downplayed. It is important to feel a sense of belonging, a sense of not being alone, even if in the end (in the words of Joseph Conrad) “we live as we dream, alone.” Community can give a sense of identity and a sense of roots. It can give meaning a purpose to one’s life. For instance, one may feel such a strong sense of Community that they are driven to “give back” and volunteer their services for the sake of others and I think that that is a truly noble drive. It is from Community that Culture arises. The food we eat, the music we listen to, the clothes we wear, the the movies we see, all of the works we both create and experience are artifacts of Community and artifacts of our lives. These artifacts, often in the form of Art, are the closest we can get to immortality. Art can inspire and enrich our lives. Art can provide meaning. And, above all, Art is the only means we have created thus far that can actually transmit the perceptions of one being to another. Surely this is not a literal transmission. I am not so foolish as to believe that reading the “Red Badge of Courage” is the same as having fought in the Civil War, but it is the closest I can get to such an experience. No doubt, Art is not pure. Art does not not give us Objective Truth. But it is supreme at providing Emotional Truth. Art can debate ideas, it can shake us from apathy, it can inspire, it can bring a Community together and it can tear a Community apart. Art can reveal and it can disguise. It can provide insight and escape. Art is a truly magnificent replacement for religious Faith in terms of Hope, Community and Inspiration.
But I’m showing hand, I will write a post Art that soon enough…
If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to my RSS feed below!
5 users commented in " No Faith? No Problem. (Part Four: To Give Hope) "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackDo it and you’ll end religious… True, but these who knows what sabbath for, take the desired rest, and give rights for the others… You had your free time of the week, good job, that’s why it is.
Well butter my biscuit, but color me confused by the above comment.
but, moving right along….
“Philosophers Susan Neiman and Julian Baggini (among others) assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience. Baggini argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics, claiming that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary to evaluate the morality of the imperatives themselves—to be able to discern, for example, that “thou shalt steal” is immoral even if one’s religion instructs it—and that atheists, therefore, have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations.”
The Epistle of Carl to Jeff:
Hey Jeff;
Glad to know the acting is going well for you. Pursue the writing, of all the plays I saw at Purchase yours had the most toughtful potential and talent. Wish you the best with your Grad school decision.
From the joking subject heading of the email you’ve probably guessed that I’m going to discuss religion with you, in particular some of my thoughts on your website, atheism, faith and practice. Not going to proletyize or pray for you, and hope not to take up too much of your time with banal arguements or things you’ve heard before. just wanted to share some thoughts and ideas with you.
Great website, Jeff as always I disagree with certain assessments you make (apparently I’m a disagreeable person as a few people have pointed out, its like a natural reflex) but as always admire your ability to not take things at face value and be critical. That being said I think you miss the point on a few things.
FUNDAMENTAL ATHEIST
Ok Jeff the quickest way I can summarize my discontent with your criticism of this term is something I once said to you, “If you’re going to give me a hellfire and brimstone sermon, I would prefer it if you beleived in Hellfire and brimstone. You are correct that it is not an exact term, as an exact term it has no meaning, However the term is a critique of method. Just as fundamentalist religous people can go bat shit crazy in defining and pushing their ideals on people,the approach by certain atheist can also be similar. If your approach can be summed up as “If you don’t believe what I believe you’re a rationless idiot/going to hell/get reincarnated as dogshit/drowned in the spaghetti’s Monster never ending sauce, you’re going to be viewed as rabid.
DO YOU LOVE YOUR MOM ?
YES ?
PROVE IT
What you thought was a very non sequittir comment I believe (even though I don’t even think the person who uttered it realized what he was saying and implying) is an acute criticism of the Material measure. The point wasn’t that he didn’t love his mom but that Love like the concept/belief in God is an intangible thing.
If your friend told us that he loved his mom because of what she did for him as a child, the fact that he calls her on mothers day or that her presence cases certain measurable chemical reactions in his body, it also means that if she did the same thing for me as a child,If I called her on mothers day and I could artifically stimulate the chemical reaction to her presence that I would love her in the exact same way.
Of course it wouldn’t be true, namely because certain conditions need to be met like my intention in calling her would be different from his, and the fact that the chemical reaction to her must not be artifical in order for it to be true love.
God by its nature is unfortunately untestable. You would need to setup a lab outside of infinity in order to do this, thus faith. I will concede that this can be the ultimate charlatan trick, anything as untestable as God may or may not be true.
From a material measure point of view god is untestable (not beleiving in him from this point of view are just), so the claims for the measure of his existence must be tested. But also from this point of view reality depends on what of it you can percieve. For example if I was color blind and you tried to tell me what color was I and you would be at a lost. you could approximate it to me (which is ultimately what all “religous proof” are ) aka this shade of gray means this etc etc but ultimately it wouldn’t change the fact that my limited perception doesn’t change the fact that color exist, only my ability to percieve it (I will concede the logic in this can judo flip the other way around and say a perception limited by various factors (faith, knowledge, etc) doesn’t mean something exist, but the flip works both ways)
Of course this all depends upon how literally anyone read’s any holy scripture since even in the 5th century AD St Augustine said not all of the bible should be taken literally. God is capable of surviving the metaphysical test unfortunately he is untestable from a materialist measure. (interesting point is when it comes to jesus some of the claims of his miracles can actually be seen as natural phenomenon, their is a weather condition that can make it look like you’re walking on water, a stress induced medical condition that makes it look like you’re sweating blood of course this begs the question wether Jesus actually performed these miracles or was just a good stage magician)
BLIND FAITH
Ok, a definition that comes up a lot is that of blind unwavering faith in a supernatural being. This always puzzled me cause at least in both th Baghavad Gita and the Torah/Christian Bible/Koranic tradition, none of the characters exhibit this. Jesus’s word on the cross were “My god, my god why have you forsaken me?” Abraham has serious doubts about God’s order to kill his son. When God tells Jonah that he wants him to go become a prophet on his behalf,Jonah’s reaction can best be summarized as “Fuck that Bullshit I’m out !!”
Faith has never been portrayed as blind belief. Instead its the systemNot sure where you stand on this issue, but this definition of faith has always puzzled me. the most immediate definition of faith I can think of correlation is Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink Reflex” aka educated instinct)
rationality or the need for it is not neccesarily absent from the believers life, nor do I think religion promotes lack of knowledge. If that was the case Solomon’s wisdom wouldn’t be celebrated or Maimondes (famous Jewish Intellectual) critique of the story of Job wouldn’t conclude that Job needed to use rationality in appraising God instead of being a blind follower:
“According to Maimonides, the correct view of providence lies with Elihu, who teaches Job that one must examine his/her religion (Job 33). This view corresponds with the notion that “the only worthy religion in the world is an examined religion.” A habit religion, such as that originally practiced by Job, is never enough. One has to look deep into the meaning of religion in order to fully appreciate it and make it a genuine part of one’s life. Elihu believed in the concepts of divine providence, rewards to individuals, as well as punishments. He believed, according to Maimonides, that one has to practice religion in a rational way. The more one investigates religion, the more he/she will be rewarded or find it rewarding. In the beginning, Job was an unexamining, pious man, not a philosopher, and he didn’t have providence. He was unwise, simply grateful for what he had. God, according to Elihu, did not single out Job for punishment, but rather abandoned him and let him be dealt with by natural, unfriendly forces.”
A lot of theistic people do the blind faith thing, this that is no lie and should be criticized for being unthinking,but being unthinking and dogmatic about faith or any other facet of life isn’t inherently a religous thing. Which brings me to my last point (thank you for your patience, I had no idea I had this much to say I’m sure if I’ve been imprecise or insincere you will let me know.)
I wanted to discuss more but have already written too much and sorry for taking up too much of your time. Go out live life enjoy yourself, reply to me when you can.
[...] He originally emailed me on Facebook, then I asked him to post it in a comment section (which is here) and now I have copied it to here. My response follows his letter. In my response I link to posts [...]
Here is my reply to Carl’s letter.
Leave A Reply