BigMac said:Recently came across this interesting opinion article by Dinesh d'Sousa, mainly about Peter Singer, writen just after the two had debated eachother in Australia. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0132.htm
Deviating from the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, Singer takes on Nietzsche's position and acknowledges that there is a danger in living in a total atheistic society, that Christian values are part of the West and that atheism, unless there is a 'transvaluation of values', will indeed lead to nihilism. In his mind, Christian values represent the core of Western morality, though he thinks that the notion of anthropocentrism must be dropped and replaced with that of a natural darwinian order, which is animal life on par with human.
I think he comes as a Christian atheist. To that he adds his philosophy off animal rights and constructs his moral code. Point: He's an atheist, though understands the importance of Christianity in our society. Question: can we live morally on a fully secular world? Individually, yes. As a community, I'm not that sure. At least for now, I think we're not ready.
Back to Nietzsche. You as atheists, I taking a similar approach, we may not fall in the abyss. But I think we can acknowledge that nihilism is inherent to atheism, i'ts then up to each person to avoid it. Dangerous nevertheless as it is not controlable. Mainly to the individual i'd say. I think that once you consciously reach the state of existencial nihilism, the only line separating you from suicide is the fear of death, and, quite ironically, nihilism itself. So again, I'm not sure we're ready for atheism. I'm certain of one thing, though. If we are, in the future, to live in a full atheistic society, it must be society to meet atheism, not the other way round. So while I think that religion is not harmful to the individual, I say atheism is dangerous. This should not be the base from one's judgement, mainly because not always the truth is good nor what's right is pleasent, and for some it would be pure intellectual dishonesty to act according to this. The point is, to me, that anti-theism is wrong. Atheism is good, for now. But I fear that future generations, if brought up in such environment, won't take long to find some disconnection between being an atheist and adhering to certain values, and eventually fall in the nothing. Is it bad? I'd say yes. But perhaps it's the inevitable future that awaits us. Either way, it seems certain. It looks contraditory as I deny the existence of God myself, but certainly won't campaign against religion. At least not argue that it is harmful. Not anymore.
It's a though position this. Would like to know what's it that other atheists think.
Very thoughtful post. As one who believes in a creative intelligence, capable of providing guidance on issues of morality and interaction with my fellow man, I appreciate the dialogue you present. What I see is that in my shunning of any organized religion, I am susceptible to a similar devolution of principles or morals as describe. With no organization or community of thought, I can attach morality to any action, attitude, or practice. I can do this on a continuum, and progress in either direction, though I am progressing to fewer and fewer attachments of morality to human action. The danger in that is very similar in that I can also detach morality in any way that I choose.
I certainly don't have an answer to the riddle of all of this. I do however believe that the rigid constraints of organized religious thought are not particularly beneficial to me or mankind. I am a floater right now, but am finding that meditation and prayer bring me into harmony with more people, and I spend less time forcefully extracting energy from others. I'm certainly not perfect at that, but progress is progress.
Thanks for the post. I appreciate the ideas that are developing because of it.