Atheism: the new killer?
Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'
A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it.
[read more]
* * *
I can kind of see both sides to the story. On one hand, this quite demonstrates the meaninglessness of atheism and God-rejection. A world without God offers little comfort, the religious will be quick to say, and leads naturally to despair and hopelessness.
On the other hand, it could well be argued that the poor boy was headed this way already. Suicide is rarely an impulsive action; often much thought and planning preceeds the attempt/event. The boy was obviously struggling with far more than what we could see, and probably found himself being tugged in too many directions.
Besides, atheists would say, for many, a world without God is rather liberating! Far from being hopeless, you find yourself free from the ridiculous shackles of religion, and free to live how you want and how you think you should. Notice also (I imagine they would say) that the boy found himself convinced by Dawkins' book. Even if a world without God offers less comfort, it doesn't mean it's not the truth.
Fair enough.
My personal opinion? I agree with both sides. I'll explain what I mean by that, because on the surface they appear anything but complementary.
I agree with the atheists who say that the boy would probably on the path towards suicide anyway. I don't think we know enough to pinpoint the specific triggers. I also agree that life without God can appear liberating, free from the shackles of man-made man-controlling religion. And I definitely agree with the fact that the most comforting worldview is not necessarily the right one.
In other words I don't think we can say for sure that atheism was what pushed the poor boy over the limit.
But I don't think atheism did (or could have done) anything to protect him.
What does atheism have to offer to someone looking for meaning, purpose or goodness in his or her life? Without God, the aim of life is simply to live it. It's as profound and as shallow as that. Some might add that you should live it in a way that makes you happy, or that you think is right. Live for your family. Live for your friends. Live to make a difference in this world. Live to experience. Live to enjoy. Live for what's good - the hedonistic cry.
But what is good? How do I know whether something I'm doing is good? Perhaps if it makes me happy. But is being happy good? Well, let's take the biological angle. Since we all evolved to survive, then whatever I do that promotes my survival must be good! Afterall, that's my evolutionary purpose.
But is surviving good? Just because it may have been what we evolved to do doesn't mean it's good, or right, or meaningful, or purposeful. Without God, "good" can mean anything you want, but it can't mean any one thing. "Good" is simply a social construct. There is absolutely no anchor or foundation for what "good" means, if you believe that God is simply a delusion.
With God, however, everything is different. (At issue here is not whether God exists, but rather what the implications are if He exists.) If God told us what was good and bad, then there would be a clear and objective definition of good and bad that transcends mere opinion and social interactions. Good would always be good. Bad would always be bad.
I'll borrow an analogy from mathematics. Say you had to plot a graph. Imagine if you had to do so without any reference point; for example, the origin (0,0). It's not that the origin has not been specified and you can place it wherever you want; it's that the concept of the origin doesn't even exist. You can still try plotting your graph and making meaning out of it, but at the end of the day, all your inferences are at best guesses.
With God, the graph has an origin. The playing field has boundaries. The ship has an anchor. The universe has laws. And life has meaning, because good and bad do exist and there actually is a right way to live.
Of course, that also means that there is a definite wrong way to live. But we don't test the truthfulness of a claim based on how comforting it is to us, do we? :p
* * *
The article is a chilling reminder that life without God, at its very heart, is empty. It sure seems liberating - you make your own rules, do what you want, live for enjoyment - but when pressed for answers and for truth, it falls utterly short. If goodness can mean anything, then goodness means nothing.
I believe that there is a God who has told us (through the Bible and through Jesus) what is good and bad, and what is the right way to live. Far from being restricting, this completely frees you to live life the way you were made to - we can't even imagine anything better. Maybe it's time for us to stop thinking we know what's right for us. Let's start listening to our maker.
3 comments:
"A world without God offers little comfort, the religious will be quick to say, and leads naturally to despair and hopelessness."
I think the problem was that this guy's parents had brought him up to have all his eggs in one basket. If you make someone believe strongly that God is the only purpose in life, then you leave them with nothing to fall back on when they realise there is no God.
It's true that "atheism" offers nothing in place of "god" belief, but this is only because "atheism" isn't a philosophy. It is a conclusion reached through one philosophy or another and, as others have noted, everyone is an "atheist" toward whatever deity or deities they do NOT worship. One can most certainly be a "theist" and an "atheist" at the same time relative to whatever set or sets of beliefs one is referring to.
At any rate, for that which is living, there are certainly objective truths one must recognize IF one wishes to continue living. If one does NOT wish to go one living or if one is rather apathetic to the whole situation, then objective truth is either a different set than the first OR one finds it difficult to nail down anything resembling concretes. All of this to say, reality or nature or "all that exists" - which includes the self - is objectively true regardless of one's goals and values. One first has to be alive and then one must answer one question - Do you wish to go on living? If the answer is yes, objective reality determines what one must do to achieve that goal. If the answer is no, objective reality determines what actions - or inactions - are necessary to achieve that goal. If one refuses to answer or changes the answer from moment to moment, it is then that objective reality gives the appearance of having no concrete properties. This is only because one isn't consistent in one's conclusions or isn't coming to any conclusions at all regarding "Do I wish to continue living?"
There is indeed a clear way to determine what is "the good" and what is "the bad" through objective truth without the need of a deity. One cannot change objective truth, however, one CAN or is free to disregard the consequences of one's refusal to do what is necessary to remain living. Do one thing and survive, do another and put your survival in jeopardy.
Objective truth isn't a choice, however, how one responds to it IS sometimes a matter of choice. Consequences are objective, i.e., do "this" and "that" will happen every time, however, whether a thing is "good" or "bad" is a matter of individual human viewpoint.
After all, "good" and "bad" are human language to represent human concepts in a very human debate. As we like to say, one man's dump is another man's castle. "Good" and "bad" are relative within a very objective context.
I think it's important to point out that Richard Dawkins is a psychopath and even most sane atheists find him absolutely unbearable. I'm an atheist, but I'd probably sooner off myself than try to read an entire Dawkins book. Maybe that's what happened.
Post a Comment