By Slugsie, on May 14th, 2009(Via Friendly Atheist)
Randal Rauser analyses why he thinks us atheists have chosen to be such, and predictably gets it very very wrong.
Lets analyse his story paragraph by paragraph shall we?
Let’s just admit it: atheism boasts some significant advantages. For one thing, the atheist does not have to get up early on Sunday mornings and corral the kids in a frantic effort to make the service on time. Rather, he is free to loll around the house, reading the Sunday paper over a cup of smoky French Roast while getting all the latest political gossip on "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation".
Yes, atheism does boast significant advantages, they’re just not the ones you think they are. Whilst I could ‘loll’ around the house on a Sunday morning reading the paper drinking coffee (I don’t do this because I don’t really like coffee that much), or watching silly TV programmes, the fact is that I don’t. I often get up earlier than most Christians, and pursue one of my hobbies.
And there is no requirement to give to the poor. If the Christian kept the hundreds (or thousands) of dollars that she spends every month in tithes, in no time she too could have a new Samsung LED TV sparkling in her living room.Now that’s the good life!
You’re right, there is no requirement, doesn’t stop me from doing it though. Which is the more virtuous act – giving because you have no choice, or giving because you realise of your own volition that it’s the right thing to do? If you think that simply having a Samsung LED TV is what it takes to have a good life, no wonder you’re satisfied with religion.
And while the Christian groans under the weight of the cross she has been directed to take up and carry every day, the atheist is free to go play tennis, ride a bike, or do simply whatever his little heart desires. Not bad at all!
Why is it that Christian deserves a capital letter, but atheist doesn’t huh? No matter. Last I checked Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews etc could all ride bikes and play tennis if they wanted to. However, very few of us are free to do whatever out little hearts desire. There are many constraints placed on us, societal, financial, and moral etc.
But like the "Don’t pay for sixty days" ads for that new Samsung TV, atheism also has a cost that eventually comes due. And you start paying it once you begin to realize that, according to atheism, we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. For the shallow atheist, that "for nothing" promises to liberate (no obligations!). But the thoughtful atheist understands that "for nothing" means that there is no meaning or purpose to life. And the repercussions of that are staggering indeed.
Go on, admit it, you’re actually Ray Comfort aren’t you? No? You sure about that, he also goes on and on about ‘nothing’. Maybe there is no meaning or purpose inherent in life, that just means you need to find your own meaning and define your own purpose. Or are you so brain dead that you can’t think something up for yourself and you need someone else to do it for you? Besides, what is this purpose to life that you claim God gives you? Apparently it’s the measure by which God scores you and decides how you’ll spend eternity. But how does that work, isn’t he omniscient? Doesn’t he already know?
So staggering is the cost that many atheists cannot admit that there is no meaning to life, and so they engage in the futile and self-deceptive attempt to project meaning onto the universe. Consider the case of Timothy Treadwell. A classic eccentric, for a number of years he spent his summers living among the Kodiak bears of Alaska. During his time with the bears Treadwell and his girlfriend Amie filmed hundreds of hours of footage, some of which was incorporated by award-winning German filmmaker Werner Herzog into his fascinating documentary Grizzly Man.
OK, I’ve not seen the film ‘Grizzly Man’ so I can’t comment directly on things discussed in or about the film. However one thing comes quickly to mind. Randal talks about Timothy Treadwell and Werner Herzog. That’s two people. Is it valid in anyway to portray their thoughts, feelings, and desires onto a wider population who might share one single trait in common (apparent disbelief in a god)? Nope, didn’t think so.
As we watch Treadwell’s erratic and obsessive behavior in the film, one is led to wonder what drove him to spend his summers risking his life living with wild bears. I believe that Herzog’s analysis is correct: Treadwell could find no objective meaning in his empty southern California life of beaches and parties. Desperate for spiritual purpose, he journeyed to a romanticized "secret world of the bears" in an attempt to find meaning by relating to nature.
Or maybe Treadwell simply wanted to directly observe some of the amazing and beautiful creatures nature has thrown together. Why does there have to be some deeper spiritual purpose? Why not the simple quest for knowledge? Remember though that I haven’t seen the film, so I may be missing something vital piece of information here.
But Herzog is a thoughtful atheist, and thus he points out that Treadwell’s efforts are futile attempts to project meaning onto the blind indifference of nature. At one point in the film Treadwell is filming a bear about twenty feet away. While the bear stares lazily back at the camera, Herzog comments in a jarring voice-over narration:
Whoah there. It’s not atheists that try to project meaning onto nature. That’s the realm of the theistic. Don’t tar us with your brush.
"what haunts me is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature. To me there is no such thing as the secret world of the bears and this blank stare speaks only of a half-bored interest in food. But for Timothy Treadwell this bear was a friend, a savior."
OK, I know that this is a quote of the films narration, but come on. Of course the bear showed no signs of kinship or understanding. They’re bears. Why would that be so hard to understand?
Herzog’s analysis is unforgiving: there is no meaning or purpose in nature to guide our lives, and certainly no kinship. And to delude ourselves otherwise can only lead to further misery. His analysis is borne out as well. The result of Treadwell’s self-delusion comes hours after that footage when the very bear that was filmed kills and eats both Treadwell and Amie.
Ah, now we see what’s really happening. Using a tragic event in an attempt to bludgeon us into accepting God. Typical theist, and very objectional to any sane person.
And so in Herzog’s view the universe is one big blank stare. All that Treadwell had to look forward to was being food for bears. All we have to look foward to is being food for worms. Nothing we do has any objective value or meaning.
Utter bullshit. What Treadwell had to look forward to was what everyone has to look forward to, a long and hopefully happy life. The fact that his life was ended at the hands (paws?) of a wild creature doesn’t change that. As an atheist I look forward to all the things that this one life I have will show me. I’m not simply putting up with it and trying to make deals in the vague hope that I’ll be granted everlasting bliss. I have one life, therefore I have to make the best of it. ‘Nothing we do has objective value or meaning’? Seriously? So Galileos invention of the modern telescope was pointless? Einsteins development of the Special and General theories of Relativity have had no value? Flemings discovery of Penicillin has been of no use to the world? The parents who raise their children to be good, well rounded human beings have no worth? Wow, just WOW!
Let’s also not forget that according to the theist, the bear killing Treadwell would be the divine will of god. That kind of puts a different spin on things doesn’t it.
Enjoy your Sunday morning…
Thanks, I will. Why, aren’t you?
Possibly related posts:
May 14th, 2009 | 
Tags: 
Category: 
Thank you for this. /signed