RLK's argument always confuses people because how he presents it makes it seem like Pascal's Wager (because he compares different alternatives and says that one--the theistic one--is rationally preferable to the others), but the force of the argument is very different. Trying to criticize it as if he were doing the Wager ends up just confusing the issue.

You can see this because some crucial aspects of the Wager are missing. There is no comparison of utility, there is no claim that theism has an infinite value, and so on.

Instead, RLK's argument is much closer to the argument from nihilism. He starts from the assumption that if materialistic atheism is true, then nothing you do has any real meaning, which he views as a pretty direct implication of the materialistic worldview. He then argues that if nothing you do has any real meaning, then no action or belief is more or less rational (he says "logical," but I think he means rational) than any other. Thus, believing in god or not believing in god would be equally rational (or irrational) under this assumption.

However, if there is a god, then some of the things we do would have real meaning. If some of the things we do or are have real meaning, then some of our actions and beliefs will be rationally grounded (as they will be directed towards achieving that meaning). Thus, if any of our beliefs or actions are rational (in more than a coin flipping sense), they are so only on the assumption that god exists (more exactly, that god exists or one of the alternative assumptions which would allow for the existence of real meaning in the world is true).

So, it is not rational to believe that materialistic atheism is true, because either it is false, or if it is true, then rationality has no meaning. Thus, if we are rational we should accept some version of theism or some non-materialistic atheism.

Appreciate the vote of support, but give me a few more months and I'll have put my foot in my mouth enough times that you'll realize you've been overly optimistic about my maturity level.

(i.e. wait for my post count to become at least 1/10th of the standard here.)

Or we could just disregard the assumption and assume all materialist atheism says about meaning is that it is
a) material
b) not from god

...then we wouldn't need his argument, and it would all be more rational because we believe in meaning.


Anyways, who is this intended for? Do we have resident materialist/physicalist atheists?

Ye, I dont see it. To me, there IS a comparison of utility. He keeps saying "no way to improve your choices and thus your situation after death" sounds, like an EV calculation to me. And at the end, he does a cost/benefit analysis. In that thread he even admits that it is similar to pascals wager.

This. As someone who does not believe in an afterlife (but still a deist of sorts), I take full solace in the fact that I know with 100% certainty that my existence is meaningful because of the impact of the actions I take, and information that I pass along during my lifetime.

Information can never die. That is the only thing that is eternal (IMO). Even Steven Hawkins had to concede that information would survive in a black hole. We affect those around us with the information we put out into the world, it is absorbed by them, and passed on to subsequent generations. In this sense, since some people put out a greater amount of information and take more meaningful actions during their lifetime, their lives have more significance. Therefore we can directly control the significance of our existence.

Think of us as brain cells. Millions of brain cells die every second and new ones are created, but they are all contributing to a collective intelligence that lives on for a greater duration that the individual cells. Therefore the individual cells have a purpose, in fact a profound one. Without the individual cells, there is no collective intelligence.

We humans have a lot of trouble grasping this concept. We view ourselves as individuals rather that a collective intelligence. Fire ants on the other hand understand this concept very well. They live their lives doing whatever is necessary for the good of the colony - the collective intelligence. When a flood endangers the colony, individual fire ants will sacrifice their own safety without any thought (the ones on the bottom of the raft) to form a raft:



I think we can learn a lot from the fire ants...

I personally make the assumption that everyone other than myself is not a robot, and their experience is the same as mine. Therefore when I die, things will still exist in their minds (the same as it exists in my mind), therefore the universe still exists. I think this fits in well with the above if you truly start to view yourself as part of a collective intelligence rather than an individual. And as far as the last sentence, I would say that this reality (the only reality that actually exists for you) is not the ultimate reality. That is like a cell thinking that their cellular reality is the ultimate reality.

Religion significantly contributes to this state of affairs. Imagine what we could do if stopped arguing and killing each other over whose version of an invisible friend for grownups is the real one. That behaviour is one of my most strongly felt dislikes of religion, how much it holds us back.

Conversely, 'Them and us' has stood us in good stead for a long time, to the point that it's deeply ingrained behavior. From an international level where religion versus religion is concerned, right down to neighbour versus neighbour on the same street, it's what we do. Religion might be just another expression of that, maybe we'll never lose it.

In the classic Pascal's Wager, you show that believing in God has a higher aggregate expected utility over not believing in God because of the infinite utility outcome of believing in God if God actually exists. It is generally assumed that it follows from this argument that you should then try to believe in God as it is rational to do whatever will maximize utility. It is this assumption that RLK is challenging (It is not actually crucial to his argument that believing in God have a higher aggregate utility over not believing in God, although he probably accepts this claim.). He is arguing that you can only justify the assumption that it is rational to maximize utility (or any other rule of rationality) if you assume that materialistic atheism is false.

His reasoning for this is that he thinks it is directly implied by atheistic materialism that everything we do is meaningless (since they all have the same endpoint? I'm not as sure of his argument here) and that any account of rational action depends on positing some goal or purpose, and hence meaning, to our actions.

Would trying to be the best person I can be count as a purpose or goal and therefore be a meaningful action without there being religion involved?

I'll comment solely on Christianity, as I don't have nearly as extensive knowledge on other religions. I have never heard a Christian teacher state (or imply) that the concept of the individual is more important than that of the collective. Never. I don't know where you are getting that misunderstanding from. There are myriad verses/passages throughout both OT and NT which command that the individual's needs/desires are inferior to that of the community, whether the church community or the community in general. Your neighbor is always more important. When Paul talks of the church body, it is a lesson in doing your individual duty for the good of the collective.

My guess, based on your posting history, is that you are trying to derail this thread towards one of your prime objectives: the conspiracy theory that religion is out to inhibit the human species. I appreciate that theory, and feel it deserves its own thread. But it's getting tiring seeing you regurgitate it at every opportunity (or non-opportunity) in each thread.

I might come over a little Hitchens here, but implicit in the idea that atheism is depressing compared to religion is that I actually accept that religion being true would be preferable.

Even were I to accept that atheism is a depressing philosophy, I don't buy into the Judeo-Christian God as this idol worthy of respect and love. We all know the cliched examples I can drag out of the OT, so I'd rather not go through them, but I do think they're fairly valid here.

You can make up whatever purpose or goal you want, and they will be equally valid. Because you value "being the best person you can be", it will be of value to you. But its only meaningful to you ( and to others who hold the same values as you I guess), nothing about your point of view is inherently meaningful.

I'm assuming that this is for the OP?

I never try to derail threads, in fact I try quite hard not to since I received an infraction for doing that. I read a post, I reply with what came to mind. Jon_midas made a post about us all working together and the first thing that came to my mind was how divisive religion is. I consider that on topic, and relevant, and it's not a conspiracy theory. Just turn the TV on and I'm sure you won't have to wait long for some news concerning religiously inspired violence somewhere.

Given that the thread is about Atheists having depressing lives, and the manner in which religion divides us is something I find quite depressing, I think I'm fine here. In fact it may be a little explored aspect of Atheism and depression as caused by the existence of religion.

I edited out your personal attack, much better that way than responding to it. Far far too much of that on this forum.

No, it was in response to your response. The original idea was that we humans are bad at treating the needs of the collective over the needs of the individual. Your response was to blame that on religion causing conflict. Which I found difficult to connect, because in my experience (Christian), religion teaches that the needs of the collective are always superior to the needs of the individual. And then I gave several examples from Biblical teachings supporting this claim. Also, in my experience, it's not simply the teachings that support this. It's also the actions of the religious. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any Christian brothers or sisters who seek conflict or promote the superiority of the individual over the collective. Heck, of all my Buddhist and Muslim friends, I can't think of any that do that either. So, based on my limited experience, I disagree with your notion that religion is to blame for the lack of individual sacrifice to further the needs of the species.

Perhaps this is a potential source of our disagreement. I don't usually trust the news channels, as they are unabashedly seeking viewership. And time and again, case studies have shown that bad news sells better than good news. Is there an amazing amount of conflict in the Middle East? Yes. Is there as much as the mainstream media is reporting? I doubt it. I've had the pleasure of befriending several Muslims, whether in person or online, who are from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran... and they all seem quite level-headed when it comes to religious discussions. I'm sure there is a fair share of crazies in Islam, as well as Christianity, Judaism, etc..., but I think it's unwise to use mainstream media as a primary source of reality in this case.

Again, in my experience, religion doesn't divide. Maybe, maybe back in the time of the Crusades. But in the 21st century? Hardly. I'd say division comes more from a limited pool of resources and a survival-of-the-fittest struggle for said resources. Religion is oft used to sway the masses into the greedy desires of corrupt leadership, but I see that happening less and less often. The purity of the religion does not promote division.

No, I didn't explain my self clearly, I was giving that as one example of humanity failing to work together, the first that sprang to mind probably because this is the RGT forum, I wasn't saying that it's the primary and sole cause for conflict or our failure to work together, just that is beyond doubt a cause of conflict. If anything, I regard it more as a symptom of a greater problem.

I barely even watch the news, but that's a whole other thread's worth of discussion and I have good reasons for it, ones that we may even share, I simply used it as a way to demonstrate the level of current religious tension and divisions extant in the world. A discussion about why the mainstream media (and whoever is using them to influence opinion) might benefit from exaggerating religious tensions might also be outside of the scope of this thread.

I don't really know how you can say that religion doesn't divide. I see evidence to the contrary everywhere I look. Even Christians can't agree on how to worship their god. What do you think of current religious tensions? (Between Islam and Christianity.)

Buddhism/Hinduism in in Sri Lanka, Islam/Hinduism in India/Pakistan, Copts/Muslims in Egypt, Christians/Native beliefs in Kenya, Christians/Sunni/Shiite in Lebanon, Catholic/Protestant in Ireland....

...blaming it all on politics is misguided. Most revealed religion tells a tale of being chosen, of being morally superior and of knowing better. This platform of lacking relative perspective is a perfect catalyst for strife.

Gaaaawddd... I leave for nearly a year and return and it's like a soap opera.... the same crap being spewd.

The entire front page is full of the exact same stuff that was here a year ago...
Atheist saying "Christians always say ________" As if they spend a lot of time talking with Christians and Christians saying "Atheist always ______" ... as if...bla bla bla.

I see bunny and a few of the long timers are still here.

Where's the Australian skateboarder that has such a crush on me?

Anyhows...on topic.... just live your life and stop giving a crap what other people think about how you do it. You're not a philosopher.... if you really spend any time worrying about how others rate your belief or non-belief... well, then you just don't get it.

You forgot those people popping in from time to time to say "What's the point in this forum? All you guys ever do is say the same old stuff!" :wry:

That's why you were always one of my favorites Bunny! lol

It's cute that you have no interest in philosophy or theology, but I don't think anybody wants to hear about it.

Winner! I like this new guy !

That would make me happy, but I'm an atheist.

Haha.

Maybe because he was a skater boy you said see you later boy. He wasn't good enough for yoooooooouuuuuuu

I don't see atheists as generally depressed people. As an atheist, I had good times and bad times, and as a Christian I have good times and bad times. Though I think Christians do have a strong social support system that makes Christianity a better choice. As an atheist, I had my family and friends, of course, but sometimes, that is not enough. Times get tough. For everybody, say. Even mom and dad and your brother. The church is always there.

As a Christian, my toughest times have always been when I did not attend church on the regular. Because-- as a Christian-- you sometimes have to make moral choices that could lead to persecution. That is often when your church steps up to help you out.

For example, after I became a Christian, I was working for an industry where sanitation and like standards were essential. I had to fill out logs daily. But they were being fudged as a matter of course by everyone. I knew if I filled out the logs with accurate information, I would be blowing the whistle. I knew I would be fired or have my hours reduced. I filled out the logs correctly according to standard procedure and the very next day, a co-worker passed along a threat from management. More threats followed. My hours were cut. The logs were already being filled out before I arrived for work. And eventually, I was being written up for trivialities. They were building their case.

Needless to say, an opportunity to move on presented itself, and I took it. But had I been fired, I know they would have gotten me another job by the end of the week. I had seen it before. If things really got tough, the pastor might have slipped a hundo into my hand after service. I've seen that before too.

But really, when you become a Christian and regularly attend a church, you now have this extended family that cannot be overrated, imo. When I attend church regularly, I make better life-decisions. I have mentors, counselors, brothers, sisters. And that is part of it: that the Word of God guides you into making better decisions (for your own sake), and the church supports you in your efforts to make those good decisions.

Basically, my point is that I felt like a boat at sea without God's Word. Now I have a map and a compass. Now I am surrounded by an armada of small boats traveling the same lanes I am. I believe that the ten commandments should be followed, but for our own sake, and not God's. Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

In all, an atheist can follow the Noahide laws and get there too, no doubt. But most of the atheists I knew just weren't, including myself. So I believe that Jesus wants us to believe-- again, for our own sake, too. If that makes any sense.