A number of people debating the existence god make the following rationalization:
If god exists then I have purpose in my life. I know where I come from, and I know where I'm going. Morality exists, and there is a greater plan at work. On the other hand, if god doesn't exist I am nothing, I will be nothing, and rules and laws are arbitrary. Life is a meaningless, worthless, existence.
Here is how I see it.
If there is no god then that's just the way things are. It shouldn't stop you from finding meaning in life. If you were able to experience meaning when you believed in god then you have the capacity to experience meaning. Period. You don't change physiologically when you deny or doubt god. You just need to find new paths to create a sense of purpose. Similarly, if god doesn't exist then morality is of a human source. If it had some value until now why should a moral code stop being of value just because you changed your mind? The Magna Carta isn't contingent on your belief. It works despite your opinion.
To some degree Modern Orthodoxy recognizes the relativity of morality. There are certain laws and ideas that have been picked up through the ages that MO recognizes as having value, and that we should keep. On the other hand, MO also thinks there are other laws that perhaps don't apply today and that we should review them. If you accept that Judaism has been reinterpreted by man since the event at Sinai then what difference does it make if we redefine morality today? At the time of revelation killing Amalek was the moral thing to do, but today many say that even if you know that someone is an Amalekite it isn't moral to kill them! If morality is relative within religion who cares if it is relative outside of it?
When you believe you are in service of an all-powerful, almighty being of course you feel important. How can you not? But if you think about it, the service we do for god isn't something he needs. It's like being the guy who fetches god's morning paper. Sure, you work for an important boss, but he doesn't really need you.
I find that building a sense of purpose and discovering what values I believe in is more meaningful to me than simply adopting an ancient list of changed laws.
32 comments:
The problem is that if the basis of denying belief in G-d is that you deny what you cannot "see" with your five senses then morality and meaning are illusions as well. That's the dilemma. By contrast if you do recognize that morality and meaning and love and hate etc. though beyond the reach of science are real then G-d cannot be immediately dismissed either.
RG,
Are you saying that because I believe in the concept of "ideas", which are intangible, then I have to believe in god, who is also intangible? That's quite a stretch.
For an atheist, there is no morality, however it is practical and wise to conform to the morals and ethics of the surrounding culture. If there is no surrounding culture (for example, you are the head of an atheist state) then do whatever you want. (This is why all atheistic governments have poor human rights records.)
For an atheist, there can be no cosmic, eternal meaning and purpose in life. Rather, life's purpose is to make yourself comfortable and to do interesting and enjoyable things. That might be raising children, saving the starving, watching football or going to topless bars - to each his own.
This outlook is more depressing than the traditional religious outlook, however it can be bearable. Many atheists cope with the aid or alcohol and/or other substances.
"Are you saying that because I believe in the concept of "ideas", which are intangible, then I have to believe in god, who is also intangible?"
If you believe there is no G-d and the world was created through evolution, that may justify the physical creations, but not the emotions that humans (or animals) feel.
I hava a hard time believing that emotions such as love, fear etc., which to me is what make a human being, can evolve so consistent between the various forms of life.
"Finding meaning and purpose" is code for "not wanting to die."
Losing God generally means losing any literal conception of immortality (an afterlife). That is what's scary.
"Lubab No More said...
RG,
Are you saying that because I believe in the concept of "ideas", which are intangible, then I have to believe in god, who is also intangible? That's quite a stretch."
No. What it means is that if as is the usual basis of modern atheism the rejection of belief in G-d is based on rejection (arbitrily really I feel) of anything intangible then if you accept the existence of the intangible, G-d becomes a possibility to be examined again.
"I hava a hard time believing that emotions such as love, fear etc., which to me is what make a human being, can evolve so consistent between the various forms of life."
A recent study has shown vast differences between people and animals minds. Certain things cannot be bridged by an intermediate state.
"If there is no surrounding culture (for example, you are the head of an atheist state) then do whatever you want. (This is why all atheistic governments have poor human rights records.)"
The only morality becomes whatever rules and force are imposed by those in authority in government, business, and the military. You can have a rudimentary social compact that says why should I attack anyone over the other. That's not an objective morality but it's a social compact. In other words if morality has no real existence what you can create is morality based on force but that has no real reality outside of ourselves. Even cultural norms by themselves become descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's interesting that a few decades ago when atheism was less ruled by scientists this problem was not as widely known. Since the great pushing for atheism today is from scientists engaged in a struggle with theists this problem has been more noted. Dawkins for instance saying that a cow has less more responsibility than a person is an example of an atheist scientist grappling with the no scientifically objective morality problem. For the record I don’t ever blame cows :-)
"Losing God generally means losing any literal conception of immortality (an afterlife). That is what's scary."
I don't know if I ever had a serious belief in a literal afterlife. I had this weird idea that the neshamah was pure and pre-existed me, was living inside of me which kept me alive, but was waiting to get back to the spirit world upon my death where my whole life wouldn't be much more than a slight imprint on its purity. So it was the neshamah that survived, but it wasn't really me, as such.
In some timeless period between the loss of my earthly identity and the acceptance of my soul to either Gehinom (temporary) or Olam Habah would be a judging period where I'd come before God and he would, in a very fatherly way, either commend me for a life well lived or disapprovingly say how he was disappointed and I could have done better. (Kinda similar to my own father's countenance, naturally.)
As a child, I think I looked at the eschatological views of Judaism in the same way I considered the future world of 3001: The Final Odyssey. Not disbelieving per se, but looking forward all the same.
Anyway, that was a little off-topic, but the point about morality and God is that right and wrong are not things that can be proven or conventionally rationally investigated. They do depend on values that you probably take for granted, but which are actually accepted on faith - unless they are believed to be purely subjective and therefore as meaningful as a favored ice cream flavor. Thus atheists get into a pickle when they try to defend accepting their moral values "just because" when they would hardly accept such reasoning for questions of theology.
Anonymous,
> I hava a hard time believing that emotions such as love, fear etc., which to me is what make a human being, can evolve so consistent between the various forms of life.
Human emotion certainly appears more complex than the reaction of animals. However, there are certain emotions that both humans and animals share to some degree. Take the basic fight-or-flight response to fear for example.
Skeptodox,
I think you may be right that for some people "Finding meaning and purpose" is code for "not wanting to die." But, I think religion also gives people a reason to live. I also agree that death is scary but I prefer embracing that reality to deluding myself. I find the finality of death raises the importance of life.
Rabban Gamliel,
> morality becomes whatever rules and force are imposed by those in authority in government, business, and the military.
I would throw in "society" too. Humans are predisposed to peer pressure.
> You can have a rudimentary social compact that says why should I attack anyone over the other. That's not an objective morality but it's a social compact.
One of the points of my post was that Orthodox Judaism has modified its morals to fit the societal norm, making it no different from any other social compact.
Orthoprax,
> right and wrong... depend on values that you probably take for granted, but which are actually accepted on faith - unless they are believed to be purely subjective and therefore as meaningful as a favored ice cream flavor.
Right and wrong are subjective. In peacetime killing is considered wrong, but when we go to war suddenly killing is right. This is yet another example of where religion approaches morality subjectively.
However, I disagree that subjective values have no worth. I think that if a significant majority of humanity agrees to a specific moral (or social compact) then that law has more value. Perhaps that agreement indicates that the law connects with something fundamental about human nature. For example: "Don't kill other people" is a pretty universal law and it reflects our individual desire to live. Morality is subjective. This is true even within religion. What I'm saying is, just because morality is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
"I would throw in "society" too. Humans are predisposed to peer pressure."
They sure are but that's not used as an example of theoretical underpinnings of obligation. The point is either moralitty is in some sense really existing outside of ourselves eventhough it is species/cultural dependent, or by contrast morality is an illusion and all you mean is "force" on society. Peer pressure works many times more forcefully sure.
"One of the points of my post was that Orthodox Judaism has modified its morals to fit the societal norm, making it no different from any other social compact."
Societies vary and it is amazingly subjective when in an effort to make morality scientific it is claimed that values that just happen to be Western evolved by Evolution to become ingrained in us. How did it not affect so much and only became ingrained in Western culture and by now universal culture only since the West took over the world. That is definitely too much. Morality poses a problem in its content to Evolutionary theory because survival of the fittest doesn't need to be extended to deep little mussar lessons. Finally even if morality has a whole full bodied code that could extend to those wonderful mussar lessons the problem is why should people be told they must obey it if it is only hardwiring? If we don't have free will it's not really morality and if we do have freewill unless we are really obligated in some metaphysical sense why should we obey our hardwiring? It seems to me the only thing hardwired is the idea of morality as otherwise how would we know it. The details are influenced by our condition as humans though. We need a society so we have rules but societies fill in the blanks.
"However, I disagree that subjective values have no worth. I think that if a significant majority of humanity agrees to a specific moral (or social compact) then that law has more value."
But value is an intangible something. Unless it reflects a real reality it is an illusion.
LNM,
"Right and wrong are subjective. In peacetime killing is considered wrong, but when we go to war suddenly killing is right."
How does that imply that morality is subjective? Different conditions change the moral worth of different actions. The meaning of an act changes with context.
A 60 Watt bulb can look extremely bright in an otherwise dark room, while out on a sunny day it's dull in comparison. Thus "brightness" is not an absolute measure, but there is an objectively valid comparison based on context. Any rational person with full power of his senses will agree with you that the bulb is very bright in an otherwise dark room.
"However, I disagree that subjective values have no worth. I think that if a significant majority of humanity agrees to a specific moral (or social compact) then that law has more value."
So slavery was ok once upon a time?
Here's the rub - if morality is subjective and depends on majority opinion - then could Hitler really be a good guy? He definitely had his fans. Still does, in fact.
Can the majority literally never do wrong? (Cf. Ex. 23:2)
"Morality is subjective. This is true even within religion. What I'm saying is, just because morality is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't have value."
Ok, but it also has no moral force behind it. By what right do you suppose you can tell other people to not do what they're doing if you think it's immoral? You subjectively feel that it's wrong and have lots of friends who'll back you up?
> So slavery was ok once upon a time? Here's the rub - if morality is subjective and depends on majority opinion - then could Hitler really be a good guy? He definitely had his fans. Still does, in fact.
Slavery and Hitler are two examples that support my point.
Most of humanity went to war to stop Hitler because they disagreed with him. I'm not arguing that it was OK in Germany, I'm suggesting that ideas that resonate with significant majority of all humanity have value.
Slavery was never OK. When it was supported it was generally endorsed by a small, ruling minority. Historically, groups of slaves desire to escape their chains, only the few masters who control them support the policy.
> Can the majority literally never do wrong? (Cf. Ex. 23:2)
Of course the majority can do wrong. I'm not arguing for absolute morality. I don't think such a thing exists. I'm also not arguing for morality by committee. I'm arguing that subjective morality can have value. Further, I'm saying that if most people agree with a particular idea then that idea has more importance. Unlike religion I am not saying that certain ideas are right in all times and in all places.
> Ok, but it also has no moral force behind it. By what right do you suppose you can tell other people to not do what they're doing if you think it's immoral?
Western governments do this all the time. For the most part, their record is pretty good on human rights. On the other hand, theocracies, which base their laws on religious morality, tend to abuse their citizens.
"Most of humanity went to war to stop Hitler because they disagreed with him."
But based on what then? You may have nice sounding ideas on what sort of government and working conditions to have to have but it would have no reality as independent morality outside of law, military might and business practices etc. Also I learned amazingly in history class that Hitler was not at all doomed to lose the war. He could have easily won. What then? A world that agrees with him?
"Western governments do this all the time. For the most part, their record is pretty good on human rights. On the other hand, theocracies, which base their laws on religious morality, tend to abuse their citizens."
Western only because they have democracy. Ideological nondemocratic ones like also Communist Atheist ones are abusers. The more ideological the society the more abusive it can be on average.
"Of course the majority can do wrong. I'm not arguing for absolute morality. I don't think such a thing exists."
Too bad. Of course it is subjective in the sense that we can't all agree or have all societies all agree. But I choose to believe even at the cost of a leap of faith in objective morality. If you do good but don’t really believe there is such a thing in any detail it is shaky morally. But you're belief in something being of more value also involves believing in an intangible. What gives? I thought you only believe in what science supposedly and factually tells?
Rabban Gamliel,
> Hitler was not at all doomed to lose the war. He could have easily won. What then? A world that agrees with him?
If he had won the war that wouldn't mean he had changed everyone's mind. If a fascist is in power it doesn't mean everyone under their control agrees with them.
> Western only because they have democracy. Ideological nondemocratic ones like also Communist Atheist ones are abusers. The more ideological the society the more abusive it can be on average.
This is exactly my point. When people apply a pre-set ideology the results are disastrous. Conversely, when you have the majority setting the standard the resulting laws tend to be more just.
> But you're belief in something being of more value also involves believing in an intangible. What gives? I thought you only believe in what science supposedly and factually tells?
I believe in things that are intangible, like ideas, but I leave the door open to reject them if they don't hold up. This is highly unscientific. But I go in acknowledging that fact. I recognize that just because I believe in an idea that doesn't make it true. By this logic I could also believe in god. But I could also reject him if he doesn't hold up. This subjective standard is unworthy of the question "is there a god?" it's too arbitrary. Life is an ever changing equation. There is no one set of rules that will work at all times and in all scenarios.
You almost had it right about me and science. I believe that science can tell us what things that are consistent, or factual.
"Lubab No More said...
Rabban Gamliel,
> Hitler was not at all doomed to lose the war. He could have easily won. What then? A world that agrees with him?
If he had won the war that wouldn't mean he had changed everyone's mind. If a fascist is in power it doesn't mean everyone under their control agrees with them."
But a lot of people would. Hitler also had a slew of allied countries. In any event you have faith after all. In people.
"> Western only because they have democracy. Ideological nondemocratic ones like also Communist Atheist ones are abusers. The more ideological the society the more abusive it can be on average.
This is exactly my point. When people apply a pre-set ideology the results are disastrous. Conversely, when you have the majority setting the standard the resulting laws tend to be more just."
Not everywhere. Look at the countries where democracy would cause danger because of who the people would pick. Hitler was democratically elected. In today's world I see democracy doesn't make the people. People make the democracy. This is a depressing thought for me.
"> But you're belief in something being of more value also involves believing in an intangible. What gives? I thought you only believe in what science supposedly and factually tells?
I believe in things that are intangible, like ideas, but I leave the door open to reject them if they don't hold up. This is highly unscientific. But I go in acknowledging that fact. I recognize that just because I believe in an idea that doesn't make it true. By this logic I could also believe in god. But I could also reject him if he doesn't hold up. This subjective standard is unworthy of the question "is there a god?" it's too arbitrary. Life is an ever changing equation. There is no one set of rules that will work at all times and in all scenarios."
I'm understanding you better than ever. Thanks. The basis of reality is not arbitrary. Science looks in its sphere for reasons. G-d is not really a being. He is beyond being and nonbeing. he is the ground of all reality. He is what really exists.
"You almost had it right about me and science. I believe that science can tell us what things that are consistent, or factual."
Science doesn't touch all issues. So what do you use to decide if they are factual?
LNM,
"Most of humanity went to war to stop Hitler because they disagreed with him."
Hardly. The reasons nations went into the war had little to do with moral outrage against Germany's treatment of the Jews or other minorities. But this is besides the point.
The point is what if people change their minds? You don't think it's _possible_ that there could be a time when some majority of people think Hitler was a good guy? What then? Does genocide become ok?
"I'm not arguing that it was OK in Germany, I'm suggesting that ideas that resonate with significant majority of all humanity have value."
Racism resonated. Antisemitism resonated. Wars of conquest resonated. Slavery resonated. Religious compulsion certainly resonated.
You are being entirely selective with your identification of resonating values. Today's liberal democracies seem to be closest to the mark of moral ideals that both you and I likely share, but these were hardly ideals that resonated to any serious degree throughout human history.
"Slavery was never OK. When it was supported it was generally endorsed by a small, ruling minority."
I don't think you know your history very well. Granted, the slaves didn't like being enslaved, but slavery in itself was considered a valid form of working people. Note how there were no ancient peoples who took a moral stand against the issue.
"Of course the majority can do wrong. I'm not arguing for absolute morality. I don't think such a thing exists. I'm also not arguing for morality by committee. I'm arguing that subjective morality can have value."
What does that mean? How can the majority do wrong if it is the majority which decides what is right? I get it, it's not morality by committee, but it is morality by referendum.
"Further, I'm saying that if most people agree with a particular idea then that idea has more importance."
"Importance"? "Value"? What do you mean by these words?
"Unlike religion I am not saying that certain ideas are right in all times and in all places."
That's an unfair description of classically Jewish ideas of morality and you know it. The Gemara - and Halacha generally - rarely makes absolutist statements, but is largely based on casuistic comparisons between like-cases where different circumstances prescribe different valuations.
"Western governments do this all the time. For the most part, their record is pretty good on human rights. On the other hand, theocracies, which base their laws on religious morality, tend to abuse their citizens."
Abuse? According to whom? You and your Western buddies say something is abuse while those Eastern folks seem to think that it's perfectly alright. And vice versa! Does it become a numbers game to see who's morally correct? Or is the whole idea of "moral correctness" invalid?
On what moral high-ground do you think you're on that you can tell others that they're doing wrong?
Furthermore, that "Western governments do this all the time" - does that make it right? Have you never disagreed with a Western government? Can a Western state do wrong as long as it holds some majority? How?
Orthoprax,
You're trying to find absolute morality in my assertion that subjective morality can have value. That's not possible. The whole point is that it is subjective. Further, my statement that "if a significant majority of humanity agrees to a specific moral then that law has more value" is not rule for making subjective morality. Think of it as a strong voice that informs the debate. "Has more value" is not that same as "dictates policy". My point was that there may be certain values that resonate across most of humanity, and if they do, then there may be something fundamentally human about them.
Let's face it....orthodoxy is mostly fluff. Walk the walk & talk the talk and your one of them. I will address you as LNM although your name is is probably in the top 4 Mendy, Yossi, Levi or Sholom Bear,
Do you have a beard & do you wear a kapota?
Jay,
I don't have a beard anymore and I never did wear a kapota. My name probably is one of those 4. Why do you say I "walk the walk & talk the talk"?
HAVING some Lubavitcher roots myself I can name so many who dress in full regalia & walk the walk who do not beleive in any of the dogma. I am also of the generation who grew up ( still growing) in the 60's. In my infrequent excursions to CH I have taken notice of a visible shift in the physical appearance of the young people. An Italian friend when mentioning a Jewish business associate does not neglect to underscore the fact that the indivudual is NON PRACTICING. So in this day & age it's perfectly acceptable and for someone to be Orthodox or Lubavitcher but remain NON PRACTICING. The Ohalei Torah building formally known as the Brooklyn Jewish Center was the most prominent Conservative synagouge in NYC during the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and part of the 80's. I have wondered what the main sanctuary would looklike today on a shabbos taking into account the current spiritual climate in CH. I don't really see the difficulty with living a flexidox lifestyle
BEST REGARDS TO ALL
"My point was that there may be certain values that resonate across most of humanity, and if they do, then there may be something fundamentally human about them."
No there is too much variety. You have a bad method for informing decisions there.
> there is too much variety
That's why if there is agreement you should look into it.
"Lubab No More said...
> there is too much variety
That's why if there is agreement you should look into it."
Lubabnomore the agreements that you so admire only came because the West conquered the World which makes you wonder what if Hitler would Chas ViShalom have won. Ideas don't just magically find resonance among people. You're method has no basis. Further how can one make an informed choice if you argue all is subjective? What is informed?
> Lubabnomore the agreements that you so admire only came because the West conquered the World...
> Ideas don't just magically find resonance among people. You're method has no basis. Further how can one make an informed choice if you argue all is subjective? What is informed?
These ideas persist in the West because they have resonance. In China, where my western values are oppressed, people are fighting to attain them. (Google: china human rights) Certain ideas do have innate resonance.
One particular argument against my position that you haven't suggested is that the idea of god "magically" resonates in most people. It doesn't make god a fact but it does make it worth considering. This is my argument.
That said, you and Orthoprax have brought up some good points and I am going to revise part of my theory. I hope to blog on it in the near future.
“These ideas persist in the West because they have resonance. In China, where my western values are oppressed, people are fighting to attain them. (Google: china human rights) Certain ideas do have innate resonance.”
China is Western in the sense I meant because of Communism. By Western I mean to some degree Europeanized. If they never heard of democracy or were too tied to their traditional way of life they wouldn’t look to the West which is where they are looking. They are not coming up with Western ideals on their own independently.
“One particular argument against my position that you haven't suggested is that the idea of god "magically" resonates in most people. It doesn't make god a fact but it does make it worth considering. This is my argument.”
I thought of it. But it is an exception. An unexplained anomaly and from hoary antiquity. You can’t simply extend such unnatural looking phenomena to everything. One interesting thing though. According to your reasoning shouldn’t the idea of G-d have an influence on you then? Especially in the past all there was was such belief. If it resonates isn’t it worth something? That much is true. Why should something resonate if there is nothing to it at all? What is it it some trick on the human mind? To what end? And with what mechanism?
Whoops Anonymous was me.
LNM,
"You're trying to find absolute morality in my assertion that subjective morality can have value. That's not possible. The whole point is that it is subjective."
I'm just analyzing your given perspective. What follows from it and what contradictions arise through it? The most essential problem is that if morality is purely subjective then it has no authority. You can value it all you like, but it's as meaningful as your favorite ice cream flavor. Just because the superiority of chocolate will resonate with many people doesn't mean that vanilla becomes immoral.
"My point was that there may be certain values that resonate across most of humanity, and if they do, then there may be something fundamentally human about them."
And therefore what? A seemingly fundamental human value is in the lust for power. Humans also love to be comfortable and lazy. And, of course, there's sex. Do you consider these human values to be particularly moral? Or rather it is morality which attenuates these fundamentally human drives.
i read your blog -- i am basically a secular jew who does have ortho and bat tchuvah friends.
I am so incredibly unimpressed with your take on things. If you want to get in to what is wrong with ortho judaism, monotheism, whatever, you have to get more specific.
you seem smart -- tackle something with specifics -- this is the laziest analysis, but par for the course for the blogosphere.
TS
You can do better!
Post a Comment