Posted on 06/09/2005 3:29:19 PM PDT by mft112345
Richard Robinson attempts the impossible, trying to hopeful about pessimism and despair. After concluding that God and the immortal soul are nonexistent, Robinson claims man can still create meaning by pursuing truth and beauty and virtue, most importantly courage and brotherly love.
In an Atheist's Values He writes: "The human situation is this.
Each one of us dies. He ceases to pulse or breathe or move or think. He decays and loses his identity. His mind or soul or spirit ends with the ending of his body, because it is entirely dependent on his body.
The human species too will die one day, like all species of life. One day there will be no more men. This is not quite so probable as that each individual man will die; but it is overwhelmingly probable all the same. It seems very unlikely that we could keep the race going for ever by hopping from planet to planet as each in turn cooled down. Only in times of extraordinary prosperity like the present could we ever travel to another planet at all.
We are permanently insecure. We are permanently in danger of loss, damage, misery, and death.
Our insecurity is due partly to our ignorance. There is a vast amount that we do not know, and some of it is very relevant to our survival and happiness. It is not just one important thing that we do not know. If it were, we might hope to discover that one important thing and live secure ever after. That one important thing would then deserve to be called 'the secret of the universe'. But there is no one secret of the universe. On the contrary, there are inexhaustibly many things about the universe that we need to know but do not know. There is no possibility of 'making sense of the universe', if that means discovering one truth about it which explains everything else about it and also explains itself. Our ignorance grows progressively less, at least during periods of enormous prosperity like the present time; but it cannot disappear, and must always leave us liable to unforeseen disasters.
The main cause of our insecurity is the limitedness of our power. What happens to us depends largely on forces we cannot always control. This will remain so throughout the life of our species, although our power will probably greatly increase.
There is no god to make up for the limitations of our power, to rescue us whenever the forces affecting us get beyond our control, or provide us hereafter with an incorruptible haven of absolute security. We have no superhuman father who is perfectly competent and benevolent as we perhaps once supposed our actual father to be.
What attitude ought we to take up, in view of this situation?
It would be senseless to be rebellious, since there is no god to rebel against. It would be wrong to let disappointment or terror or apathy or folly overcome us. It would be wrong to be sad or sarcastic or cynical or indignant...
Cheerfulness is part of courage, and courage is an essential part of the right attitude. Let us not tell ourselves a comforting tale of a father in heaven because we are afraid to be alone, but bravely and cheerfully face whatever appears to be the truth.
The theist sometimes rebukes the pleasure-seeker by saying: 'We were not put here to enjoy ourselves; man has a sterner and nobler purpose than that.' The atheist's conception of man is, however, still sterner and nobler than that of the theist. According to the theist we were put here by an all-powerful and all-benevolent god who will give us eternal victory and happiness if we only obey him. According to the atheist our situation is far sterner than that. There is no one to look after us but ourselves, and we shall certainly be defeated.
As our situation is far sterner than the theist dares to think, so our possible attitude towards it is far nobler than he conceives. When we contemplate the friendless position of man in the universe, as it is right sometimes to do, our attitude should be the tragic poet's affirmation of man's ideals of behaviour. Our dignity, and our finest occupation, is to assert and maintain our own selfchosen goods as long as we can, those great goods of beauty and truth and virtue. And among the virtues it is proper to mention in this connexion above all the virtues of courage and love. There is no person in this universe to love us except ourselves; therefore let us love one another. The human race is alone; but individual men need not be alone, because we have each other. We are brothers without a father; let us all the more for that behave brotherly to each other. The finest achievement for humanity is to recognize our predicament, including our insecurity and our coming extinction, and to maintain our cheerfulness and love and decency in spite of it, to prosecute our ideals in spite of it. We have good things to contemplate and high things to do. Let us do them.
We need to create and spread symbols and procedures that will confirm our intentions without involving us in intellectual dishonesty. This need is urgent today. For we have as yet no strong ceremonies to confirm our resolves except religious ceremonies, and most of us cannot join in religious ceremonies with a good conscience. When the Titanic went down, people sang 'Nearer, my God, to thee'. When the Gloucesters were in prison in North Korea they strengthened themselves with religious ceremonies. At present we know no other way to strengthen ourselves in our most testing and tragic times. Yet this way has become dishonest. That is why it is urgent for us to create new ceremonies, through which to find strength without falsehood in these terrible situations. It is not enough to formulate honest and high ideals. We must also create the ceremonies and the atmosphere that will hold them before us at all times. I have no conception how to do this; but I believe it will be done if we try."
If Richard Robinson is right,
why should anyone bother with the hassle? Beauty, virtue, and truth can't be more than subjective delusions in a universe where only matter exists. (Is justice a gas, liquid or solid?)
How would Robinson's vaguely defined "symbols" and "ceremonies" give us comfort after we accepted his conclusion that human individuals are temporary objects that lack any absolute meaning or cosmic purpose for existence?
What kind of ceremony does he have in mind? Suppose you paraded down the highway telling people to take comfort because they're freak accidents with no lasting value. Would this, as Robinson claims, really make you "nobler" than those who have a brighter view of their fellow man? How is it possible to deny the value of man's existence without being "sad or sarcastic or cynical or indignant?"
While Robinson and other atheists and agnostics minimize the importance of man's place in the universe, they still struggle to come to grips with the mystery and awe of God's creation.
Carl Sagan said, Earth "circles a humdrum star in the obscure outskirts of an ordinary galaxy which contains some 400 billion other stars, which is one of about a 100 billion other galaxies that make up the universe and according to some current views, a universe that is one among an immense number, perhaps an infinite number of other universes." For Sagan, the vigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge, individual freedom and world peace gives life meaning without the need for belief in an immortal soul or benevolent diety.
Einstein, who is said to have believed in an impersonal god, said: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Remember, though, how Robinson explained that hopes in scienfic progress fare little better because "the human species too will die one day, like all species of life. One day there will be no more men."
What's the point of learning about the universe if this knowledge won't save humanity? What's the point of living without hope in an eternal friendship with God?
William James writes: "The fact that we can die, that we can be ill at all, is what perplexes us; the fact that we now for a moment live and are well is irrelevant to that perplexity. We need a life not correlated with death, a health not liable to illness, a kind of good that will not perish, a good in fact that flies beyond the Goods of nature."
James also writes: "For naturalism, fed on recent cosmological speculations, mankind is in a position similar to that of a set of people living on a frozen lake, surrounded by cliffs over which there is no escape, yet knowing that little by little the ice is melting, and the inevitable day drawing near when the last film of it will disappear, and to be drowned ignominiously will be the human creature’s portion. The merrier the skating, the warmer and more sparkling the sun by day, and the ruddier the bonfires at night, the more poignant the sadness with which one must take in the meaning of the total situation.”
True happiness exists, but there are many dead ends on the way: We can take pride in denying that human life has any real purpose or value. We can deny God, decide that comfort is the highest good, or worship scientific research without ethical restraint.
True happiness, on the other hand, requires us to acknowledge the physical and spiritual nature of man, along with the awe and mystery of the Creator and creation. Like the musical notes on the scale and the amazing relationship between numbers, love and truth and justice and hope do not consist of protons, neutrons, electrons or public opinion. These things come from an all powerful God who created us for eternal joy in his friendship.
" Each one of us dies. He ceases to pulse or breathe or move or think. He decays and loses his identity. His mind or soul or spirit ends with the ending of his body, because it is entirely dependent on his body."
As a Christian, if I'm wrong and he is right, I have lost nothing.I merely cease to exist. If I am right and he is wrong, then I have gained immortality and heaven forever. If I'm right and Robinson is wrong;then he and other atheists are going to that very hot place.
(Our dignity, and our finest occupation, is to assert and maintain our own selfchosen goods as long as we can, those great goods of beauty and truth and virtue. And among the virtues it is proper to mention in this connexion above all the virtues of courage and love. There is no person in this universe to love us except ourselves; therefore let us love one another.)
The problem here is that the Atheist uses words like good, courage, love, and beauty- without attaching a meaning to them. Now in the Bible these virtues are objectively defined. But if I were an atheist I could say, "My next door neighbors wife is beautiful, and I love her, and it would be good for me to steal her away." This would also take courage, so I could do something despicable (rob another man of his family) and still live out his worldview without breaking the law.
Yet most men feel sick in their stomach when they think about having their families taken away. Even Atheists...
Now, of course, just as with us professing Christians, atheists with objective moral standards often fall short of their ideals in actual practice. They do things that are illogical and inconsistent with their beliefs.
Furthermore, not all atheists are alike. There is a big difference between an objectivist atheist and a Marxist atheist, and the many other variations of atheism. Also, it should be noted that some secularists who claim to be atheists are not atheists at all as they have superstitious beliefs that inanimate objects like guns, SUVs and Mcburgers are evil and inanimate objects like condoms are good. Those are not atheists. Those are mixed up confused people to pity.
Also, it should be noted that my salvation is not dependent on my good deeds, nor on my pride that I have done so many good deeds. That is not what makes me a Christian.
I would not disagree that there are atheists who are nice, moral people. But what is their reference point? Why is something good? Because government says? No, for if I was an atheist living in Russia in 1950 the good thing to do if I heard there was a Bible study next door would be to turn them in to the KGB to be arrested and sent to the Gulag. However, today in Russia the "good" would be to take them over a plate of cookies. So in 55 years "good" would radically change. Why then? Because society says it is good for my fellow man? But what about when what is good for my fellow man is not the best thing for me? For an atheist, wouldn't the preservation of the self be the most important thing? Therefore saving a drowning man at the expense of ones own safety would not be brave and virtuous, but foolish. Why then, because I define what is moral and good? This is where we are at today.
Yes, Bible believers are sinners, but they are a team with a rulebook. Society changes. I change. Therefore unless I have an objective standard OUTSIDE myself, I can bend morality to suit my selfish desires.
So if I have missed the mark with these three (governement, society, self) please tell me where another point of reference would be.
Or let's make it real simple.
2 Atheists live next door to each other. They have each made up a pretty decent moral code for themselves. Then one day, one man seduces the other's wife and steals her away.
The first man says, "What you did is wrong based on my morality."
The second man says, "Based on mine, it is okay."
Are they both right, or both wrong?
The law cannot help them. Society cannot help them.
Since each man has his own code, neither can truly use words like "wrong." They must in effect say "wrong to me."
Now with the Bible, event though we all fall short- we have commandments like "do not commit adultary" and "do not covet your neighbors wife" to guide us.
But th post-modern man, like a cosmonaut that has lost his tether rope to his ship, floats aimlessly through the galaxy... eah man proclaiming his own personal standard, that which suits him best...
Very well said. Well said indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.