Sunday, July 16, 2006
MARX, MUHAMMED, JESUS and ME
The correspondence keeps rolling in. Here's one from a fellow who describes himself as "a devout follower of Jesus Christ:"
The challenge of a pure atheism to me personally is that, within my thought, it devolves into a nihilism straight away. All of Western Liberalism seems intellectual sandcastles. In a purely chemical world, why not let the Darwinism reign supreme? We can build Utilitarian arguments, but to have any _meaning_, the sounds of the trees of our lives falling in the forest require an audience, do they not? What _ultimate_ difference does it make if we commit atrocities or acts of kindness? We never exceed one heartbeat from our demise, irrespective of our opinions of what follows. In an aethistic mode, questions of "good vs. evil" amount to differences which make no difference. So, I'll admit that the question of God is a binary one, but I reject the 'no' route as unmeaningful, and would welcome a healthy rebuttal, sir.
Let me begin by saying that I owe no ill will to moderate Christians who recognize a firm separation of church and state. As I've said to a couple of my good friends who count themselves as devout Christians, since 911 I've realized just how mild and inoffensive modern Christianity is. 400 years ago, Christians ripped Europe apart over a schism in their religion. But those days are gone, and I readily acknowledge that I am very grateful for it.
But to reply (very briefly) to this comment: I am an atheist, and I am not a nihilist: I have a very strong sense of right and wrong and concluded quite some time ago that a robust moral philosophy can be derived from a natural view of the universe; no Big Daddy required to lay down the rules.
My correspondent writes: "to have any _meaning_, the sounds of the trees of our lives falling in the forest require an audience, do they not?" To me, this is the moral equivalent of the flawed "first cause" argument in metaphysics. There, the "uncaused cause" just begs the question: "Who caused god?" To the moral equivalent of that argument, I ask: "Who gives god's life meaning?" The fact that many if not most religious people would find this question blasphemous is beside the point. If god looking on (and caring for humanity) gives our lives meaning, why can't we look on (and care), thus giving our lives meaning?
With all due respect to the many religious people who have written to me, I can't at this time rehearse the entire history of Western philosophy here in my blog. As I say, I have no quarrel with moderate Christians. Instead, I ask whether any of them would try, as the jihadis do, to impose their beliefs on others by force and, having done so, rule the world as a theocracy? Except for a very small rabid fringe of fundamentalist Christians of the Pat Robertson ilk, Christianity has by and large followed the teaching of its gentle and good founder, and are more than willing to render up to Caeser what is Caeser's. Where Jesus was a kind, poor man who (except for that one little snit with the moneychangers) never let a cross word or violent action mar his message, Muhammed was the violent leader of a group that engaged in warfare. I urge my Christians friends to read the history and see what we're dealing with here.
GB, THHotA
posted by Greg 7:48 PM
|
|
