My views on morality and the cosmos.

[Meldread]

Let me state right up front, I consider myself an atheist or at the very least an agnostic. I spent many years educating myself about religion, especially Christianity - the faith of my family - and I attempted to become spiritual. It failed.

Despite my every effort, the more I educated myself, the more I felt myself repelled away from religion. I could not suspend my disbelief enough to allow myself to embrace some invisible being that supposedly was benevolent.

This led me to two possible conclusions. Either there was no supreme being or power, or if there was a supreme being or power it is completely alien to anything that I could ever hope to understand as a mere human. As a result, there was nothing that I could do for it, and it didn't seem to offer me anything that I couldn't obtain on my own. The simplest answer to my question: there is no God.

This knowledge does not bother me in the least. It declares that I have free will. That I - and everyone else - are responsible for our own actions.

Yet, the more I thought about it I had to wonder if we really had free will. Are we any more "free" than any other animal? Our personalities, all that we consider ourselves to be, is little more than electrical impulses within the meat of our bodies. As animals we're limited in endless ways by our very nature.

Which would you consider to be more "free" a normal individual or someone who has a debilitating case of paranoid schizophrenia. In the end, what's the difference between that person and yourself? They appear crippled by their limitations, but in the end are you really any different? Is it not merely a matter of degree?

I require myself to view the world as it really is - not as I wish it to be, and this is what I see...

I see a universe that is an uncaring place that would just as soon snuff out all life with a gamma ray burst from a nearby dying star as preserve it. Mother nature doesn't play favorites or care if you die. The cosmos is a harsh, uncaring, unforgiving, and unloving place where your life - a mere accident of nature - means nothing. It's a place where all things will eventually die as a result of the laws of thermodynamics - heat death is inevitable. You are destined to be forgotten, and your actions account for nothing save the momentary bliss you provide for yourself in your short insignificant life. The Earth and everything humanity built is destined to be destroyed, first by the ravages of time, and then by the Sun as it enters its Red Giant phase. That's what reality looks like once it's stripped away from its idealism and fanciful superstitions.

If there is a higher power, why would it care about the Earth? If it created the cosmos, it's filled with more planets than there are grains of sand on every beach in the entire world. Does a gardener worry about the death of a single flower?

In my view there is no good or evil - it is a fiction of human creation. Whether we kill each other or nature finds some way to do us in on its own, it doesn't matter - we're all heading to the same destination - it's just a matter of how you arrive.

Some might dismiss these views as highly cynical, but no one can prove them wrong - not because they can't prove a negative, but because logic is on my side.

I understand why people would willfully choose to suspend their disbelief and stubbornly cling to religion. The truth is a harsh mistress - cold and unforgiving.

Yet, I cannot help but feel somewhat liberated by the knowledge that I've accepted it. Yes, my view is cynical, but I don't despise idealism. I find that idealism provides a momentary (if fleeting) ray of light in an otherwise bleak universe. I see a bit of myself in the idealist - I strive to be a "good" person (at least in how I would define it), even as I accept and embrace the truth. I strive to be "good" not for some eternal reward in an afterlife, or because I think it will make a difference in the long run, but because I choose it with what little free will I do possess, and because I think it is better than the alternative.

If life is meaningless and the cosmos harsh, why should we actively make it any worse than it already has to be? Why should we not, as human beings, strive to better our lives and the lives of others? What little enjoyment and comfort that can be taken from that is better than the harsher alternative.

Whats more, while we may face biological limitations, we are not like the other animals. We have methods of overcoming those limitations through science and technology. Should we not embrace them? What if we someday discovered a way to grant ourselves theoretical immortality? Should it not be taken? What if we could overcome our physical and mental limitations, taking our evolution away from nature and placing it firmly in our hands? Should it not be taken?

Some slither of hope remains within me that such things might be possible - that humanity might escape its fate through technology and science. This is what helps me from becoming apathetic and uncaring. The knowledge that it might be possible, even if unlikely, we should still push forward as a species and as individuals. After all, even if we fail - what do we have to lose?

I'm curious to know whether other people here share this view of the world, or if it is just too harsh of a view for the majority of people. I'm also willing to answer questions regarding why certain things (such as murder) is "wrong" in my world view when I don't believe in either good or evil; or otherwise debate my world view with anyone who is interested in doing such.

[woo me with science]

1. I used to feel that way about technology and science

until I realized who is controlling it now.

Part of that was the rude realization that I will never have a personal jetpack or flying car. That was the death of a dream.

But, seriously, what you write feels very familiar to me in some ways. IMO, it is harder to be idealistic than in the past, because science and technology are so tightly controlled (and their purse strings controlled) by people who do not necessarily have our best interests at heart.

Thanks for the short break from TSA frustration to consider something larger.

[panader0]

2. In 1968 when I was contmplating such things

I ended up putting the periodic table of the elements poster on my dorm wall. It made more sense.

[spin]

3. I am one of those odd people who believe ...

that an alien civilization altered the DNA of primates to make humans.

The legends of "Gods" refer mainly to our species and its early contact with these aliens.

[BlueJazz]

4. I agree with what you say. For me, the difference between good and evil is:

Good: Bringing joy to living things.
Evil: Pain (of any kind) to living things....(except for Dentists) :)

[Meldread]

5. My issue with your interpretation.

My issue with your interpretation is that it's possible to bring joy and happiness to living things while simultaneously causing pain to others. Sometimes as a direct result of bringing forth that joy. You could argue then that such joy should be denied because it causes pain to others, but then is that denial not in turn causing pain to the individual you've deprived of joy?

When I said there was no good or evil; I meant in absolutist terms. In other words, while most people may say forgiveness is "good" there are very clear instances where forgiveness is harmful - by your definition causing more pain than joy. For example, a Serial Killer who has confessed their crimes and the desire to become a productive member of society. If you believe forgiveness is "good" then its incumbent upon you to forgive him for his crimes. Even if he raped and murdered your entire family. A failure to do so would be to deny forgiveness which - if it is "good" - would make such an action "evil." Assuming you did forgive and had the power to let him free, what happens if he killed someone else? Your forgiveness has caused more pain in the world.

My view is simple: I look at the situation logically. Whether or not he has my forgiveness is irrelevant. I understand that most Serial Killers act out of impulse and desire, that it is something psychological - like a drug. Thus, I know that if he is ever released, while there is a small chance he may keep his word and never kill again (effectively denying himself the pleasure of taking life), there is perhaps an even greater chance that he'll fail and kill again. In the end, even if his repentance is sincere, it is irrelevant. For the good of others he must either be executed or imprisoned for the rest of his life, or at least until we discover a method to free him of his affliction (which would in turn make him safe for society again).

[BlueJazz]

6. I understand what you're saying.

I'm just not sure how to interpret it. The scenario for joy (for the murderer) would seem to pale compared to the joy of society..by having him/her locked up.
But of course if you did that then judgement would start to enter the picture and where do you draw the line?
I'm not always sure.

[Meldread]

7. I understand.

I once held a view similar to your own, but when realizing the flaws I pointed out above, I declared: "Well it's relative to the situation and circumstances."

Yet, if good and evil are relative to the situation and circumstances do they even exist at all? The conclusion that I had to draw was no - good and evil do not exist as we like to think of them.

My view has shifted to thinking - instead of pursuing what is good / right and avoiding what is evil / wrong - we should instead pursue what is logical. The problem with that is that logic can sometimes lead you to difficult conclusions that conflict with a deeply ingrained sense of right and wrong (which is largely determined by upbringing and culture). Even so, in the bulk of the cases if you set your logic toward doing what is best for everyone in the long term, along with what is practical and acceptable by the majority, it's unlikely that you run into too many such problems. The problems only begin to arise again when the majority begin to view "darker things" as acceptable, and those "darker things" are also practical and for the best of everyone in the long term.

Of course, if you don't believe in good and evil, the majority views your actions as acceptable, and the actions would not only benefit everyone in the long term but also are practical - would they not then be considered the "good" action by the majority? As well, the cultural hangups you'd experience today, would likely disappear as they had for the majority of others.

[BlueJazz]

8. But do we always know what is best for everyone in the long run?

I suppose some things are fairly absolute....If religion never happened I believe that would have been good for the populace but
there again, it does make some people happy (and most of the sane people miserable. :)

I guess what I'm saying is: To be logical it seems you would have to know all the facts and interpret them. Seems like I have a hard enough time just figuring out whether to give money to charity. (if no one gave to charity, maybe we all would give to charity by government means so that people didn't need charity.)
Maybe I'm not being clear enough because I'm not so sure myself.

[struggle4progress]

9. You get some choice about the cosmos you live in. You don't get absolute choice:

you just get some choice

Don't like the cosmos? Nudge it a bit

[dimbear]

10. Is there such a thing as evil? I think so.

It's easier to look a little lower down in nature to see this. We're just one kind of animal, a very complicated and devious one, but there are many other group-living animals, and the canids are a wonderful example in which you occasionally run into a killing mania. Canids which kill just for the pleasure of killing rather than to eat.

Now that's evil. Undisguised.

[GliderGuider]

11. I've been remaking my perspective on things lately as well.

Each of us has a choice of seeing the universe as a place of abundance or scarcity, harshness or nurturing, meaning or meaninglessness. None of these perspectives can be "proved wrong" because they are personal interpretations. They depend almost entirely on our own psychology rather than "facts". I'm not talking here about the belief in gods or other such foibles. I'm talking about whether we feel safe or threatened in life generally. This foundational sense of our relationship with the world around us permeates our entire outlook. In terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs it is whether our most basic need for security is met, in Hindu metaphor it is whether we are connected or disconnected from the universe at the level of the root chakra.

I came from a strong atheist family background, and was educated in the modern scientific view that the universe is stochastic and uncaring. In that worldview the fact of my existence is mere chance, the world owes me nothing, gives me nothing beyond what I can wrest from it, and potential for extinction lurks around every corner. As the decades wound on I found this to be a tiring and unwholesome viewpoint, and began to suspect that there was another way to look at things that might be more psychologically profitable for me.

I've recently solidified a Taoist view of reality. In it, the world simply is, in all its dualistic glory. However, underlying that dualism with its appearance of a universe full of separate and distinct objects and qualities is a deeper layer of essential existence. On that level there is no good and no evil, no "me and you". Rather, the good and evil or the separate entities of me and you that I perceive are all "true" manifestations that arise from an underlying undifferentiated pure existence. It's a little complicated to explain without sounding a bit woo, but one way of illustrating it is to say that both Gandhi and Stalin are simply two sides of the same coin. Neither needs to be shunned or glorified over the other, they are simply parts of existence. The questions of "right and wrong" or "good and evil" fall away, as they are all merely products of our inner state, personal judgments that we project upon the world.

Along with this has come the understanding that the universe is at the same time threatening, nurturing and indifferent. These judgments are simply my perceptions, and may change from moment to moment depending on what I experience and how I react. I have found that I prefer to see the universe as nurturing, because it's pleasant and permits me easy opportunities for expansion. However, the perceptions of threat and indifference are equally valid and can be used for personal growth as well, provided I don't try to push them away through rejection or denial. It's more difficult to sit with thoughts and feelings we have been taught to interpret as unpleasant, but the rewards are much greater. When I do this the totality of my experience becomes my classroom, not just the "good bits".

This new position has, paradoxically, made it easier to see the universe as a nurturing place. Because I am no longer invested in a single point of view, I find I am more able to see positive qualities where before I saw only the negative. I feel more engaged with people, ideas and the world around me because it has become a psychologically richer place. I still call myself an atheist, though I have realized that there are now some animist qualities in my outlook. Altogether, I find everything to be full of win these days :-)

[Jim__]

12. "... if it is just too harsh of a view for the majority of people."

I consider your view confused rather than harsh. First you talk about free will:

This knowledge does not bother me in the least. It declares that I have free will. That I - and everyone else - are responsible for our own actions.

Yet, the more I thought about it I had to wonder if we really had free will. Are we any more "free" than any other animal? Our personalities, all that we consider ourselves to be, is little more than electrical impulses within the meat of our bodies. As animals we're limited in endless ways by our very nature.

Which would you consider to be more "free" a normal individual or someone who has a debilitating case of paranoid schizophrenia. In the end, what's the difference between that person and yourself? They appear crippled by their limitations, but in the end are you really any different? Is it not merely a matter of degree?

And you seem to think that we don't have it. Then you talk about your decisions:

Whats more, while we may face biological limitations, we are not like the other animals. We have methods of overcoming those limitations through science and technology. Should we not embrace them? What if we someday discovered a way to grant ourselves theoretical immortality? Should it not be taken? What if we could overcome our physical and mental limitations, taking our evolution away from nature and placing it firmly in our hands? Should it not be taken?

Some slither of hope remains within me that such things might be possible - that humanity might escape its fate through technology and science. This is what helps me from becoming apathetic and uncaring. The knowledge that it might be possible, even if unlikely, we should still push forward as a species and as individuals. After all, even if we fail - what do we have to lose?

If we don't have free will, you cannot choose whether or not to be apathetic and caring. You have no decisions to make. The question of free will is difficult, but I don't know of anyone who lives their life as if we don't have it. Your writing indicates that you actually believe we do; or, you haven't really thought it through.

Camus struggled with these issues in the book, The Myth of Sisyphus. He begins by asking whether or not suicide is the only rational act. His decision is based on his look at a non-caring universe and what it means for humanity. Based on what you've written and comparing it to Camus' thoughts, he seems to have thought it through more thoroughly. He ends up with an optimistic view of life. A brief excerpt from the end of the essay of the same name:

One does not discover the absurd without being tempted to write a manual of happiness. "What!---by such narrow ways--?" There is but one world, however. Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd. Discovery. It happens as well that the felling of the absurd springs from happiness. "I conclude that all is well," says Edipus, and that remark is sacred. It echoes in the wild and limited universe of man. It teaches that all is not, has not been, exhausted. It drives out of this world a god who had come into it with dissatisfaction and a preference for futile suffering. It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men.

All Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is a thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols. In the universe suddenly restored to its silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his efforts will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is, but one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable. For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

[Meldread]

13. I'm afraid I wasn't clear.

If we don't have free will, you cannot choose whether or not to be apathetic and caring. You have no decisions to make. The question of free will is difficult, but I don't know of anyone who lives their life as if we don't have it. Your writing indicates that you actually believe we do; or, you haven't really thought it through.

I approached free will from the absolutist standpoint: Either you have complete and absolute freedom (in the most literal sense possible) or you do not. My conclusion is that while we have limited free will our freedom is limited by both our circumstances and our nature. Thus, can we really be said to be free (again in the most literal sense)? Our reality doesn't present us with freedom so much as choices. We're free to select from that menu of choices, but are still limited from choosing things beyond that menu.

I conclude then, as humans, we have an advantage over the other species. We have both the ability and the power to imagine a world different from our own - a world free from limitations. As a result, I believe it is the best and most worthy goal - the only goal in the long term that will matter - to push, advocate, and help humanity find a way to overcome our limitations and escape our currently seemingly inescapable fate. That inescapable fate being mass extinction. Even if we discover our fate to be truly inescapable, I think it is better to have tried and failed than have chosen the path of apathetic acceptance. In the short term, even if we're all never likely to live long enough to see the fruits of human endeavor there is still the momentary bliss and joy we can extract from our short lives, and that alone makes life worth living rather than embracing complete nihilism.

I haven't read the book The Myth of Sisyphus, but I'm going to go read the essay now. Based upon the excerpt we may have come to similar conclusions. Thank you for the link.

[Meldread]

14. I want to thank you.

I had never heard of Albert Camus before you pointed him out to me. I've read the essay, and began digging further into his philosophy. It would seem that he and I are in strong agreement about so many things. I am extremely happy to have discovered him, thanks to you. I'm currently researching Absurdism to expand my understanding. Thank you again.

[Jim__]

15. No need to thank me. But, Camus is certainly worth reading. - n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

16. after it is all said and done,

you still have to butter the biscuit.