Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
QFT, and this may be why more people aren't atheists, they are too afraid to accept that there is no cognizant guiding force in their life, the world, or the universe. Jesus take the wheel? Heck, NOBODY is at the wheel. There isn't even a wheel.
This is one reason why I believe religion is an aspect of psychology and culture. I would say so in the thread about why atheists participate in the R&S forums, but I really do not want to get involved in that conversation! I barely have time to post even this.
I have often likened life to a steamroller, inexorably advancing where it will, and I have long ago learned not to jump up and down waving my arms in front of it trying to make it stop or change course. I would always get run over. I found it more productive to just jump on board and try to enjoy the ride. And I have said just what you did -- there is no one at the controls and indeed no controls. Just a place where you can sit, nothing more.
The refrain from theists is always "there MUST be something more". They see this realization as a terrible one, bereft of (there's that word again) hope and intolerable, when in fact it is just a humbling realization about your own smallness and limitations. It is not so awful once you get over your sense of entitlement to "something more". In fact it's rather freeing. But you have to quit fighting it and I think many people's life force is fully dedicated to that fight. Idealism dies hard.
The refrain from theists is always "there MUST be something more". They see this realization as a terrible one, bereft of (there's that word again) hope and intolerable, when in fact it is just a humbling realization about your own smallness and limitations.
Yes. And even at a scale larger than the individual, this realization pulls the rug out from under the notion of the centrality of human life in the world/universe and the idea that Homo sapiens is the point of creation (or evolution!). So, in a way, the theists are right: there IS "something more" out there than humanity, but it's just not what they... hope it is.
The Greeks were wary of this thing called hope. They saw it as a passive and dangerous emotion for the naive and gullible. You aren't supposed to wait for a solution to your problems; you're supposed to have courage and the will to act.
Aristotle said virtuous action requires hope, but you shouldn't practice hope without action.
The ancients saw hope “mostly as an attitude to reality that [was] based on insufficient insight into what is true or good.” Seneca saw hope and fear "bound up with one another… like a prisoner and the escort he is handcuffed to.”
I see Americans increasingly using hope as a way to avoid adapting to present realities. Christianity contributes to this problem by making hope a central feature of thinking. Just believe -- don't base it on anything but what you want / need to be true. You don't need to act; you can send thoughts and prayers. Prefer passive hope over decisive action, politeness over confrontation, acceptance over questioning, and perhaps above all, conformity over needed disruption or change. After all, god is in control and knows what's best and has your back -- if you're sufficiently "good" -- this absolves you of directly confronting or wrestling with issues.
I wonder sometimes what the world would look like if people weren't so conditioned to "go along to get along" at all costs. Look at what Greta Thunberg has accomplished for example, since her mid-teens -- this little wisp is an implacable force of nature. Not unkind, but not caring really what people think of her either. She has a moral imperative and she acts on it. This is contrary to the kum-by-yah religious sentiments that seeks agreement and compromise and deference before anything else.
Maybe I am misunderstanding religious thinking on this score, but I don't think I'm misunderstanding it in terms of the fundamentalism I was raised within at least. I confess that I have had to work against a strong bias toward being conflict averse as a result.
Is atheism necessarily an antidote to passivity rooted in hope? Not with certainty, but I think it removes the learned helplessness and magical thinking of religion, and that can only be a good thing.
Thoughts?
I'm very much in the camp of don't wait for a solution to your problems but act. It's practically my life's mantra. Life's too short. If you are unhappy, do something to change it.
You can still have hope as well though. I don't think that's necessarily something we can help.
Hope is generally a positive thing, right up until the thing you were hoping for comes to fruition, or your hopes are dashed. That's why you should always have a plan B in place.
Not sure exactly how much hope is in proportion to how atheistic or theistic a person is. But as you know I've never been a theist so it's hard for me to judge. Honestly I never connected them.
Are theists more hopeful?
That sort of implies that atheists are less full of hope or even hopeless. Not sure if that's the case. It's certainly an assumption I've heard theists make that if you are an atheist you have no purpose but imo nothing could be further from the truth.
Maybe I connect hope somewhat with ambition. You have to have things to aim for and a plan. But if the plan doesn't come off, change direction and head in a new one.
Not sure if any of that makes any sense in relation to what you were asking.
I would say that aspirations / ambitions and plans are separate from the passive sort of hope in things like divine favor or divine intervention or manifest destiny that I am suggesting is not a good thing.
I imagine the religious rejoinder would be that it is selfish and arrogant to aspire to things that you're not told god wants you to aspire to, or to have motivations other than pleasing god. This assumes that it isn't possible for humans to pursue anything noble or good on their own. Which fits with the doctrine of the total depravity of man.
It also assumes that the will of god can actually be unambiguously determined, rather than merely asserted or interpreted.
The totality of this thread suggests to me that we have some semantic ambiguity around the world "hope" and what it means to different people. For my purposes though I was just talking about waiting for something hoped for and not taking appropriate action to actually bring it about. The old saying "god helps those who help themselves" probably was meant to serve as an antdote to overly passive forms of hope based on god's promises or what one believes "should" happen based on idealism.
As I said from the beginning, not all forms of religion have as much of a problem with this issue. It tends to be quite true in my experience on the authoritarian / fundamentalist / evangelical side of things. It also exists outside of religion, in some forms of political discourse for example, or in conspiracy theories. Perhaps it is less a religious thing than a question of idealism, which just happens to flourish in some forms of religion, IDK.
I would say that aspirations / ambitions and plans are separate from the passive sort of hope in things like divine favor or divine intervention or manifest destiny that I am suggesting is not a good thing.
I imagine the religious rejoinder would be that it is selfish and arrogant to aspire to things that you're not told god wants you to aspire to, or to have motivations other than pleasing god. This assumes that it isn't possible for humans to pursue anything noble or good on their own. Which fits with the doctrine of the total depravity of man.
It also assumes that the will of god can actually be unambiguously determined, rather than merely asserted or interpreted.
The totality of this thread suggests to me that we have some semantic ambiguity around the world "hope" and what it means to different people. For my purposes though I was just talking about waiting for something hoped for and not taking appropriate action to actually bring it about. The old saying "god helps those who help themselves" probably was meant to serve as an antdote to overly passive forms of hope based on god's promises or what one believes "should" happen based on idealism.
As I said from the beginning, not all forms of religion have as much of a problem with this issue. It tends to be quite true in my experience on the authoritarian / fundamentalist / evangelical side of things. It also exists outside of religion, in some forms of political discourse for example, or in conspiracy theories. Perhaps it is less a religious thing than a question of idealism, which just happens to flourish in some forms of religion, IDK.
As an atheist—and consequently someone who doesn't connect "hope" with any kind of higher power—I tend to think of hope as motivating factor. If I feel hopeless, I do not act. If I feel hopeful, which is most of the time, I do. When it is not a motivating factor, it's when the situation I am hopeful for is genuinely out of my hands. "I hope my nephew does well on his SATs."
Correct. It's a motivating factor, nothing more and nothing less. "I hope the economy rebounds when it's time for me to retire." "I hope it doesn't rain on my vacation. "I hope I don't get stuck in traffic after my appointment." "I hope I have a good day at work."
It doesn't always have to be some passive or dangerous mindset.
Granted, having an actual plan can also be far more helpful than just hope. As we all know.
If there is one thing I had to get clear on when I left theism is that life / god / the universe / existence doesn't owe me anything, and since there's no agency animating those things, it's not personal or directed anyway. It is a series of things happening, and I have to learn to flex with it and/or alter the course of events when I occasionally have the ability to do so.
Yes the word doesn't owe us anything. But from a survival standpoint, we humans owe it to eachother to make sure we all have universal basic rights and needs through effective laws, government, expectations, treatment of one another etc. Just because there is no "guiding force" doesn't mean we can't create a harmonious, fulfilling, or mutually beneficial place before we all get buried or cremated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaic
QFT, and this may be why more people aren't atheists, they are too afraid to accept that there is no cognizant guiding force in their life, the world, or the universe. Jesus take the wheel? Heck, NOBODY is at the wheel. There isn't even a wheel.
Disagree, more people aren't atheist because they don't want to believe there is "nothing" after death. Religion is a coping mechanism for death. A guiding force in their life is great too, but the big bonus is the "everlasting eternal life." That's the perfect example of human ego an arrogance.
Yes the word doesn't owe us anything. But from a survival standpoint, we humans owe it to eachother to make sure we all have universal basic rights and needs through effective laws, government, expectations, treatment of one another etc. Just because there is no "guiding force" doesn't mean we can't create a harmonious, fulfilling, or mutually beneficial place before we all get buried or cremated.
I've only partially understood the "requirement" for people to take care of each other. I mean sure there are survival, and quality of life aspects to collaboration, where pulling together can be beneficial, but all too often it also means a few carrying everyone else, which isn't really motivating nor fair to the few. Striking a balance between personal accomplishments and group protections, seems all too often to favor the group over the individual. (I.e. the takers over the makers). IMO the same people that say there is no such thing as unalienable rights (and they are correct), also declare basic universal "rights", which is wholly inconsistent.
Yes the word doesn't owe us anything. But from a survival standpoint, we humans owe it to eachother to make sure we all have universal basic rights and needs through effective laws, government, expectations, treatment of one another etc. Just because there is no "guiding force" doesn't mean we can't create a harmonious, fulfilling, or mutually beneficial place before we all get buried or cremated.
Certainly. The lack of some outside overarching benevolent force being responsible for anything, means "if it is to be, it is up to me" or actually, "we". So yes we should decide what we want / care about as a society and work towards that.
I've only partially understood the "requirement" for people to take care of each other. I mean sure there are survival, and quality of life aspects to collaboration, where pulling together can be beneficial, but all too often it also means a few carrying everyone else, which isn't really motivating nor fair to the few. Striking a balance between personal accomplishments and group protections, seems all too often to favor the group over the individual. (I.e. the takers over the makers). IMO the same people that say there is no such thing as unalienable rights (and they are correct), also declare basic universal "rights", which is wholly inconsistent.
One should not characterize 100% of people who need care or consideration as "takers". That's a black-and-white, zero-sum game approach to things. It's easy to decry how you get taken advantage of by moochers until something happens in your life, such that you yourself become a moocher. But now it's different because it's you!
Let us consider for example what has actually happened (instead of what some people fear will happen) in pilot programs for universal basic income. Give a bunch of people a certain amount of money each week / month / whatever, no strings attached. Do they quit their jobs and sit home and eat bon-bons? No. Do they go out and spend it all on recreational drugs? No. What do they do with this "free money"? They buy better nutrition for their families, pay off debts, things like that. In the rare situation that it buys them leisure time (perhaps they quit a soul-crushing full time job, and work part time), they tend to volunteer to help others.
This business of people being completely depraved children with zero judgment or self control is based on belief in the total depravity of man, and libertarian notions that "my money is my money and no one else's, I have no responsibilities other than to myself and am not my brother's keeper". It results in things such as the spectacle of people who were fortunate and privileged enough to pay off their student loans having sour grapes over student debt forgiveness. Why wouldn't you be delighted people forgiven that crushing burden, especially when the actual situation on the ground is that most of them are drowning in hopeless amounts of debt and can't work their way out of it in any practical sort of way? A great measure of true character is how you regard someone getting a boon that you didn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
