Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » MikeH » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
MikeH's Journal
Posted by MikeH in Religion/Theology
Fri May 27th 2011, 12:54 AM
I have some problems with what you say here:

Life has no inherent meaning, value, or purpose. Just atoms in motion. We are tormented by disease, birth defects, starvation, disfigurements, and each other. We can barely communicate anything because we assume so much.

Why not try to make life a little better? Health care, education, clean water and air, shelter, and a little tolerance will increase happiness and pleasure. Happiness and pleasure are their own rewards, so why not pursue them?

I feel I need to respond particularly because you state what you say not even as just your personal opinion but very positively and dogmatically, as something that everybody should accept as being true.

I have as much problem with what you say as I have with the positive assertions of a fundamentalist Christian that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant “Word of God”, and among other things that a person can be “saved” and be assured of eternal life in heaven by “accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”, and only by doing so, and only in this life, because that is what the Bible says (and too bad for those who miss their chance in this life, for whatever reason, or for those who adhere to religions other than Christianity).

For instance if what you say is really true, then I don’t see what grounds one has for criticizing Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness or ethical egoism, or anybody who adheres to or practices her philosophy.

Why not try to make life a little better? Health care, education, clean water and air, shelter, and a little tolerance will increase happiness and pleasure. Happiness and pleasure are their own rewards, so why not pursue them?

I would imagine that most people, most of the time, would get some satisfaction (and happiness and pleasure as well) from trying to make life a little better for themselves and others, and from doing what they can to see that people might have the good things that you mention. However, a con artist or swindler or sociopath might find his or her happiness and pleasure in getting things for him/herself at the expense of others, if he or she can get away with it and avoid being caught. (And if one actually is caught then that might just be accepted as being part of the game.)

That is almost certainly true of very many if not most of the top 0.1%, who probably derive much happiness and pleasure from being able to enjoy things that the rest of us will never be able to enjoy, and it probably adds to rather than takes away from their happiness and pleasure that they are able to enjoy what they enjoy by screwing the rest of us.

“Happiness and pleasure are their own rewards.” So if one is able to derive happiness and pleasure at the expense of others, and get away with it, then why not (if life has no inherent meaning, value, or purpose, and if this present life is all there is)?

For myself I do not see any reason that I should have to spoil my happiness and pleasure by worrying and agonizing about how many daunting and overwhelming and seemingly intractable problems, such as for instance global warming, or the inordinate power and influence of the top 0.1%, are going to affect people after I am dead and gone, particularly given that I am 60 years old and do not have any of my own children or grandchildren, if there is no meaning in life and this life is all there is. Or why I (or anybody else) should continue to do what is “good” and “right” and “unselfish” not only when it is easy or popular or when I can see the good results of doing so, but also when it is difficult or unpopular or not to my immediate or foreseeable personal advantage or benefit? Why should I bother with doing so if there is no inherent meaning, value, or purpose in life? If that is the case then perhaps I might rather pursue my own happiness and pleasure above all else and live by Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness (after all this life is all I have) as much as I can (and as much as I feel confident I would be able to get away with, which admittedly for me is not very much).


Because of the problems I have with what you say, which would seem to be the ultimate logical conclusion of being an atheist and of believing for certain that this present life is all there is, I find that I myself cannot finally be an atheist, and I cannot finally accept as a certainty that this life is all there is and that there is no life after this present life.

Admittedly I have never had any personal experience nor encountered any evidence which has confirmed for me the reality either of God or of a life after this present life, nor of anything that might be considered “supernatural” or “paranormal”. And I did try Christianity at one time in my life, and found it to not have been of any help to me in enabling me to better deal with any real world source of personal pain, frustration, or unhappiness in my life. And I definitely have problems with regarding the Bible as being the “Word of God”, or as being any kind of absolute (or even not absolute) authority; many of the problems with the Bible are much discussed in this forum. At its very best I regard the Bible as exhibiting human fallibility and human prejudice just like anything else that has ever been written, and as being no more the “Word of God”, and no more “infallible” or “inerrant”, than any other book on the planet.

For me questions regarding the reality either of God or of a life after this present life are very much open questions, about which I feel it best to accept that (at least for the present) I do not have “the answers”. I would consider myself to be closest to being a Deist, and just on the believing side of agnostic. Deists believe in the reality of a supreme being who they regard as having created the universe, but among other things do not accept any alleged revelation from God, such as the Bible or the Koran, as actually being such.

I consider it to be very possible that the near-death experiences which we hear about just might be a manifestation of a life after this present life. This is true even though I myself am not in the position to make any definite statement as to what such experiences would actually indicate, as I myself have never had such an experience (and I don’t think it would be wise to wish for one!), and I do not know of anybody I know personally having had such an experience.

Much as I wish I could have the certainties that the Christian faith (and other “revealed” religions as well) claim to offer regarding the reality of God (and of life after this present life), I feel that the honest thing for me is to accept the lack of certainty about these things. However I also very definitely have problems accepting what would seem to be the logical conclusions of atheism, and particularly the lack of any meaning in life, as certainties.

Discuss (3 comments)
Profile Information
MikeH
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
1123 posts
Member since 2002
San Diego, California, USA
Male
Learning from Hitler and his childhood
What point is there for us today in learning about Hitler and his history? For me, the main point is this: our knowledge will serve as a warning against our blindness and encourage us to give it up once and for all and to struggle against collective repression. This is what I do consistently in all my books in order to help people understand the psychodynamics of the mistreatment of children and its immeasurable danger for society, as demonstrated by Hitler's case. My explanations are by no means intended to suggest pity for a man as merciless as Hitler.

it was in large part owing to Hitler and his history that I became aware of the dangers of our traditional morality. We are exhorted to honor our parents and never question them no matter what they have done. Yet when I realize that millions of human beings had to die so that Adolf Hitler could keep his repression of childhood trauma intact, that millions were subjected to humiliation in concentration camps so that he never had to recognize how he had once been humiliated, then I believe that one can't point out these connections often enough in order to shed light on this unconscious production of evil. How should young people be expected to recognize and reject inhumanity and crime if these continue to be disguised instead of being pointed out as plainly as possible? Only when young people are permitted to know exactly what happened and how it could happen, only if they don't allow anything to stifle their curiosity and are not afraid of the truth, can they free themselves from the burden placed upon them by their forebears' blindness.

Alice Miller
Adolf Hitler: How Could a Monster Succeed in Blinding a Nation?

See also
For Your Own Good: Preface to the American Edition

For Your Own Good: Adolf Hitler's Childhood: From Hidden to Manifest Horror
The "Final Solution", Adaptation to Society's Norms, Morality and Duty, and Childhood Feelings
People with any sensitivity cannot be turned into mass murderers overnight. But the men and women who carried out "the final solution" did not let their feelings stand in their way for the simple reason that they had been raised from infancy not to have any feelings of their own but to experience their parents' wishes as their own. These were people who, as children, had been proud of being tough and not crying, of carrying out all their duties "gladly," of not being afraid--that is, at bottom, of not having an inner life at all.

...

This perfect adaptation to society's norms--in other words, to what is called "healthy normality"--carries with it the danger that such a person can be used for practically any purpose. It is not a loss of autonomy that occurs here, because this autonomy never existed, but a switching of values, which in themselves are of no importance anyway for the person in question as long as his whole value system is dominated by the principle of obedience. He has never gone beyond the stage of idealizing his parents with their demands for unquestioning obedience; this idealization can easily be transferred to a Führer or to an ideology. Since authoritarian parents are always right, there is no need for their children to rack their brains in each case to determine whether what is demanded of them is right or not. And how is this to be judged? Where are the standards supposed to come from if someone has always been told what was right and what was wrong and if he never had an opportunity to become familiar with his own feelings and if, beyond that, attempts at criticism were unacceptable to the parents and thus were too threatening for the child? If an adult has not developed a mind of his own, then he will find himself at the mercy of the authorities for better or worse, just as an infant finds itself at the mercy of its parents. Saying no to those more powerful will always seem too threatening to him.

...

Morality and performance of duty are artificial measures that become necessary when something essential is lacking. The more successfully a person was denied access to his or her feelings in childhood, the larger the arsenal of intellectual weapons and the supply of moral prostheses has to be, because morality and a sense of duty are not sources of strength or fruitful soil for genuine affection. Blood does not flow in artificial limbs; they are for sale and can serve many masters. What was considered good yesterday can--depending on the decree of government of party--be considered evil and corrupt today, and vice versa. But those who have spontaneous feelings can only be themselves. They have no other choice if they want to remain true to themselves. Rejection, ostracism, loss of love, and name calling will not fail to affect them; they will suffer as a result and will dread them, but once they have found their authentic self they will not want to lose it. And when they sense that something is being demanded of them to which their whole being says no, they cannot do it. They simply cannot.

Alice Miller
For Your Own Good: The Central Mechanism of "Poisonous Pedagogy"
Other tyrants and their childhood
In the lives of all the tyrants I examined, I found without exception paranoid trains of thought bound up with their biographies in early childhood and the repression of the experiences they had been through. Mao had been regularly whipped by his father and later sent 30 million people to their deaths, but he hardly ever admitted the full extent of the rage he must have felt toward his own father, a very severe teacher who had tried through beatings to "make a man" out of his son. Stalin caused millions to suffer and die because even at the height of his power his actions were determined by unconscious infantile fear of powerlessness. Apparently his father, a poor cobbler from Georgia, attempted to drown his frustration with liquor and whipped his son almost every day. His mother displayed psychotic traits, was completely incapable of defending her son and was usually away from home either praying in church or running the priest's household. Stalin idealized his parents right up to the end of his life and was constantly haunted by the fear of dangers that had long since ceased to exist but were still present in his deranged mind. The same might be true of many other tyrants. The groups of people they singled out for persecution and the rationalization mechanisms they employed were different in each case, but the fundamental reason behind it was probably identical. They often drew on ideologies to disguise the truth and their own paranoia. And the masses chimed in enthusiastically because they were unaware of the real motives, including those operative in their own biographies. The infantile revenge fantasies of individuals would be of no account if society did not regularly show such naive alacrity in helping to make them come true.

Alice Miller
The Political Consequences of Child Abuse
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
The Usual Suspects
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.