Atheism and happiness

[hackenslash]

The problem is that the word 'spiritual' has baggage that I reject utterly. Other than that baggage, I have no objection, but that baggage is not inconsiderable.

[Chandler M Bing]

The problem is that the word 'spiritual' has baggage that I reject utterly. Other than that baggage, I have no objection, but that baggage is not inconsiderable.

Fair enough. But you can see that it's not a great leap to go from what you have in mind to the baggage that has come to be associated with those concepts. It's in poetry, literature, songs, and everyday speech. Humans will, I'm pretty sure, always be predisposed to making that short jump.

[Inevitable Droid]

That's what I meant. That you recognise that there are things that transcend the material. You used words like love, life, experience. Ultimately everything is an experience.

Ultimately everything is chemistry.  Experience, and purpose as well, arise out of brain chemistry, which arose out of DNA, prenatal development, postnatal development, digestion, respiration, data input, data processing, and data storage - all chemistry.  I can speak of a song's beauty, and often do, but why is it beautiful for me?  Chemistry!  I can speak of a movie's power, and often do, but why is it powerful for me?  Chemistry!  We can respond to that in one of two ways.  We can say beauty and power are being denigrated by their association with chemistry, or we can say chemistry is being elevated by its association with beauty and power.  I pick the latter.  Grand is chemistry and triumphant!  Mighty is chemistry and sublime!  For behold!  It has made symphonies and tragedies, and sent Olympian chaiots out beyond the clouds to reach and come to rest on Diana's round and silver abode.

[Chandler M Bing]

That's what I meant. That you recognise that there are things that transcend the material. You used words like love, life, experience. Ultimately everything is an experience.

Ultimately everything is chemistry.  Experience, and purpose as well, arise out of brain chemistry, which arose out of DNA, prenatal development, postnatal development, digestion, respiration, data input, data processing, and data storage - all chemistry.  I can speak of a song's beauty, and often do, but why is it beautiful for me?  Chemistry!  I can speak of a movie's power, and often do, but why is it powerful for me?  Chemistry!  We can respond to that in one of two ways.  We can say beauty and power are being denigrated by their association with chemistry, or we can say chemistry is being elevated by its association with beauty and power.  I pick the latter.  Grand is chemistry and triumphant!  Mighty is chemistry and sublime!  For behold!  It has made symphonies and tragedies, and sent Olympian chaiots out beyond the clouds to reach and come to rest on Diana's round and silver abode.

Do you gnow that for sure?

[Inevitable Droid]

Do you gnow that for sure?

To the extent I know anything for sure, yes.  Knowledge about natural causality derives from logical empiricism.  Empiricism identifies no action or reaction of mine that isn't a bodily phenomenon, and nothing going on inside my body except chemistry, thus logic demands that all of my bodily phenomena, which constitute all of my actions and reactions, derive from chemistry.

[Chandler M Bing]

Do you gnow that for sure?

To the extent I know anything for sure, yes.  Knowledge about natural causality derives from logical empiricism.  Empiricism identifies no action or reaction of mine that isn't a bodily phenomenon, and nothing going on inside my body except chemistry, thus logic demands that all of my bodily phenomena, which constitute all of my actions and reactions, derive from chemistry.

That's an interesting set of ground rules you have there. Interesting because it both explains what it is meant to be able to explain, and limits you to only that which can be explained by them. It also explains why you're an atheist. It's like if you only know english, and can therefore understand everything ever said or written in english, but anything in any other language can be said to not mean anything or even exist, because, well, it isn't in english. It's circular reasoning by the looks of it, but at least it has it's uses.

[hackenslash]

Ah, the old 'empiricism is circular' canard.

The problem there is that circular reasoning is a deductive fallacy, and only applies to deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is not subject to that charge.

[Inevitable Droid]

Interesting because it both explains what it is meant to be able to explain, and limits you to only that which can be explained by them.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  I'm actually quite proud of that.  Refusing to treat gibberish as if it were intelligible is a great way to keep the brain free of rubbish.  

It also explains why you're an atheist.

It absolutely does.  I emphatically agree.

It's like if you only know english, and can therefore understand everything ever said or written in english, but anything in any other language can be said to not mean anything or even exist, because, well, it isn't in english.

No.  It's more like, if somebody said to me, "I just said something to you without using language.  Did you catch it?  Here, I'll say it again!  Did you catch it?"

Logical empiricism for assessing empirical phenomena, and logic alone for assessing non-empirical phenomena, aren't two languages among many.  They're the only languages.  

What theists will propose as languages in this context are such things as faith, intuition, and emotion.  Faith is believing something because you want to.  It represents desire invading and usurping control of one's epistemology.  Intuition is a potent tool for generating hypotheses, but those hypotheses must then be tested via logical empiricism or logic alone, depending on the subject matter.  Emotion is a source of information about oneself and only oneself.

It's circular reasoning by the looks of it, but at least it has it's uses.

I'll let hackenslash argue the logical fallacy question, since he already set up his shot at goal.

[Wilson]

What is our goal in life?

Mostly, to be happy during our lifetimes as much as possible, and to make those we love happy.  Human beings are drawn toward happiness.  Evolution made us want to feel that emotion as much as possible.  Physical pleasure, quiet satisfactions, feelings of safety and security, contentment.  We don't like feeling depressed, sad, anxious, fearful.  Atheists and godders alike.  All the other goals - creating beauty, raising a family, leaving something of ourselves behind, helping others, whatever - are so that we and those we love can be happy.  

We of the atheist and agnostic persuasion are condemned to deal with reality.  We know we're going to die.  We know that nobody is watching us from heaven.  We know that it doesn't do any good to pray.  Many of us wish those things weren't true, that God was watching over us, that eternal life was achievable - but we know that the odds are so incredibly against it that that we would lose our self-respect if we allowed ourselves to believe in fairy tales just because we were afraid.

In the final analysis, I'm not sure that religious people are any happier than nonbelievers.  Maybe they are, a little - but without question a lot of atheists are happy and a lot of believers aren't, so it sure isn't a guarantee.  It seems to me that at least at the time of dying, on average, atheists and agnostics seem calmer and better able to face the end than religious people, because at that point those who have been believers all their lives must face the reality that an afterlife, when you finally get down to it, looks a little unlikely - and even if it exists, did you make the cut?  Magic is more believable if you don't think about it too much, and as you approach the end of life, you have to think about it.  Atheists, having dealt with the truth for a while - that this life is all we have - are better equipped to let go with dignity and calm.

[Chandler M Bing]

Interesting because it both explains what it is meant to be able to explain, and limits you to only that which can be explained by them.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  I'm actually quite proud of that.  Refusing to treat gibberish as if it were intelligible is a great way to keep the brain free of rubbish.  

It also explains why you're an atheist.

It absolutely does.  I emphatically agree.

It's like if you only know english, and can therefore understand everything ever said or written in english, but anything in any other language can be said to not mean anything or even exist, because, well, it isn't in english.

No.  It's more like, if somebody said to me, "I just said something to you without using language.  Did you catch it?  Here, I'll say it again!  Did you catch it?"

Logical empiricism for assessing empirical phenomena, and logic alone for assessing non-empirical phenomena, aren't two languages among many.  They're the only languages.  

What theists will propose as languages in this context are such things as faith, intuition, and emotion.  Faith is believing something because you want to.  It represents desire invading and usurping control of one's epistemology.  Intuition is a potent tool for generating hypotheses, but those hypotheses must then be tested via logical empiricism or logic alone, depending on the subject matter.  Emotion is a source of information about oneself and only oneself.

It's circular reasoning by the looks of it, but at least it has it's uses.

I'll let hackenslash argue the logical fallacy question, since he already set up his shot at goal.

You're merely demonstrating what I said. Anything outside your world view is nonsense, as judged by.....(totally unbiased of course).....your worldview. You're in a room with no windows and you claim there's nothing outside. How would you know, you have no windows.

[Inevitable Droid]

You're merely demonstrating what I said. Anything outside your world view is nonsense, as judged by.....(totally unbiased of course).....your worldview. You're in a room with no windows and you claim there's nothing outside. How would you know, you have no windows.

Two questions.  First, do you agree or disagree, and to what extent and why, with the following from my previous post: Faith is believing something because you want to. It represents desire invading and usurping control of one's epistemology. Intuition is a potent tool for generating hypotheses, but those hypotheses must then be tested via logical empiricism or logic alone, depending on the subject matter. Emotion is a source of information about oneself and only oneself.

Second, consider the world view of the Mayans, as described in their sacred book, The Popol Vuh - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popol_vuh

Do you accept or reject the Mayan world view, and to what extent and why?

[Davin]

Yikes... I'm getting a lot of responses that atheism has nothing to do with your happiness.  It's a big internet, gang, why not join a forum that's more aligned with topics that will impact your happiness?

I post on several forums.

This one has a good community of people for discussing various things. When discussing certain things, it's far more useful to discuss with people that are honestly searching for the truth. Over the years I've found that atheist boards have far fewer people unwilling to drop their preconceptions and accept the evidence. Also atheists tend to be more open to free speech, so if free speech is something you prefer, then an atheist forum, and specifically this atheist forum is a very good place. I don't find it very useful to constantly have to ensure that my word choice and syntax are correct, nor to constantly correct other people's misrepresentation of my ideas. This forum in particular allows me to speak more easily with little fear of that.

Which is why I joined and post on this forum.

[Khalliqa]

You're merely demonstrating what I said. Anything outside your world view is nonsense, as judged by.....(totally unbiased of course).....your worldview. You're in a room with no windows and you claim there's nothing outside. How would you know, you have no windows.

IMO such a thing is not a matter of limitation but best possible outcome.. The method of testing a hypothesis utilizing controls and consistency has yielded greater results towards understanding how our world works than faith..    Such a mind tears the material of walls daily, testing them.. retesting them...  retracting and re-establishing theories and truths..  Such a method breaks down and builds up windows and walls ...  The real restriction is the mind that claims to have figured out the purpose and whole of human existence utilizing the tool of faith in oral mythical traditions..  THe latter seems more windowless than the former...

Honest theist question: what is life's goal for an atheist?  Stated differently, what is happiness?

Whatever brings me personal peace..  and whatever yields the greatest and most successful peace for humanity...

[Chandler M Bing]

You're merely demonstrating what I said. Anything outside your world view is nonsense, as judged by.....(totally unbiased of course).....your worldview. You're in a room with no windows and you claim there's nothing outside. How would you know, you have no windows.

Two questions.  First, do you agree or disagree, and to what extent and why, with the following from my previous post: Faith is believing something because you want to. It represents desire invading and usurping control of one's epistemology. Intuition is a potent tool for generating hypotheses, but those hypotheses must then be tested via logical empiricism or logic alone, depending on the subject matter. Emotion is a source of information about oneself and only oneself.

Second, consider the world view of the Mayans, as described in their sacred book, The Popol Vuh - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popol_vuh

Do you accept or reject the Mayan world view, and to what extent and why?

1) It can be those things.
2) I don't have time to read all about the mayans. If you break it down to the basics I'll give you my opinion.

[bandit4god]

What is our goal in life?

Mostly, to be happy during our lifetimes as much as possible, and to make those we love happy.  Human beings are drawn toward happiness.  Evolution made us want to feel that emotion as much as possible.  Physical pleasure, quiet satisfactions, feelings of safety and security, contentment.  We don't like feeling depressed, sad, anxious, fearful.  Atheists and godders alike.  All the other goals - creating beauty, raising a family, leaving something of ourselves behind, helping others, whatever - are so that we and those we love can be happy.  

We of the atheist and agnostic persuasion are condemned to deal with reality.  We know we're going to die.  We know that nobody is watching us from heaven.  We know that it doesn't do any good to pray.  Many of us wish those things weren't true, that God was watching over us, that eternal life was achievable - but we know that the odds are so incredibly against it that that we would lose our self-respect if we allowed ourselves to believe in fairy tales just because we were afraid.

In the final analysis, I'm not sure that religious people are any happier than nonbelievers.  Maybe they are, a little - but without question a lot of atheists are happy and a lot of believers aren't, so it sure isn't a guarantee.  It seems to me that at least at the time of dying, on average, atheists and agnostics seem calmer and better able to face the end than religious people, because at that point those who have been believers all their lives must face the reality that an afterlife, when you finally get down to it, looks a little unlikely - and even if it exists, did you make the cut?  Magic is more believable if you don't think about it too much, and as you approach the end of life, you have to think about it.  Atheists, having dealt with the truth for a while - that this life is all we have - are better equipped to let go with dignity and calm.

Awesome post, Wilson, thanks for the above.  Your third paragraph I found particularly compelling, and so spent much of yesterday reflecting on my two years in Iraq and how folks at differing ends of the atheist-theist spectrum dealt with the prospect of death.

Results were mixed, but patterns were nonetheless clear.  Before a particularly harrowing mission, atheists would be what I can only roughly describe as "grim".  Some took on a grisly sense of humor about it, others were quiet and sullen, and still others immersed themselves in the technical details of the mission and were all business.  The theist, remarkably, demonstrated surprisingly less self-orientation than the atheist.  Going from person to person, they tried to cheer up their fellow soldier and engender some sense of hope and purpose.  The chaplains were the most fun of these to watch--with no proselytizing agenda whatsoever, they just went around to groups of soldiers offering an upbeat joke or a word of encouragement.

You've sparked a new line of discourse around atheism and facing death that probably deserves another topic, Wilson, thanks again!