So swap your confirmation for your dancing shoes, because there never was no God

Slick’s Room, Thursday 30th June, 20:31

Evening all. I just watched Solomon Kane (good film) and it has put me in a theological mood this evening, so I humbly present this latest burnt offering of bloggy goodness for your edutainment.

During my degree course- I believe, looking back, it was second year- I was asked to write a critique of a book- the bibliographical details escape me at this point, so you’ll just have to accept any kind of wild accusations I make about the source material from now on. The author was a Christian Apologist- let us call him, for the sake of convenience and me not digging through old essays, Smith- and he was writing against people like Dawkins and other atheist polemicists who argue for atheism as the most logical worldview. Now you can imagine where my sympathies lay- with the author’s opponents- so I set about writing what was, to my mind, a devastating critique of his entire work.  Smith’s central argument was that there are two types of atheism: firstly, there is what he termed “tragic” atheism, as exhibited by authors like Camus and Voltaire who, accepting the reality of a godless universe, were led by this conclusion to a kind of existential despair at the uncaring nature of reality, the only response to which was to soldier bravely on into the teeth of oblivion, acknowledging all of our lives to be essentially devoid of value and purpose but persevering nonetheless.

The second type of atheism, exhibited by people like Dawkins  he termed “happy” atheism, the kind of worldview which accepts that there is no God, but does not see this state of affairs as any kind of impediment to their being value in the universe- the kind of atheism which says that, since this life is all we have, it is in fact of immeasurable value, and we should make the most of it while we can rather than sulking about how nothing really matters viewed from the perspective of the universe- I’m looking at you, Camus. Stop sulking. Smith goes on to deliver his opinion that, were atheism correct, only “tragic” atheism is really honest with itself- he accuses “happy atheists” of basically deluding themselves into a sense of false cheer, and not facing up to the depressing reality of a godless universe. It all boils down to a form of the “but if there is no God, how can you be happy?” argument occasionally deployed by theists, the catch of course being that the question only makes sense if you are already locked into a theistic worldview- i.e., one in which all value and happiness stem from God. If, like me and many others, you are not locked into such a system, the question is easy to answer- “I am happy. Why should I be otherwise?”.

For Smith, the alternatives are a depressing, godless universe, facile self-delusion or, of course, embracing Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour. I think it’s fair to describe me as being, in Smith’s terminology, a “happy” atheist- indeed, I’ve written before about what a liberating feeling it is to exist in a godless universe (this one). And indeed, when I wrote the essay in question, I responded by basically flat-out refuting Smith’s assertion that happy atheism is a form of self-delusion- like I say, that is really only an accurate conclusion if you are already blinkered by theism.

However, recently I’ve been considering that I might have been a little hasty in dismissing Smith’s claims, and so I have embraced Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

Lol, just kidding, can you imagine? Still, something about the whole thing has been bothering me lately, and I think I now have a better handle on what it is. I’ve come around to the view that, in fact, Smith was mistaken in making such a harsh dichotomy between “tragic” and “happy” atheism in the first place. I actually think that the two can coexist, to a degree, in the same worldview- it is possible to both find meaning and value in a life lived without God and, at the same time, acknowledge the concerns of authors like Camus who found their own atheism existentially depressing. You see, it’s all a matter of perspective.

From my perspective as a subjective being, Slick, the non-existence of God has absolutely no impact on the value of my life- I still laugh, love, eat, sleep, cry (well, not that, you know, because I’m a bloke, but you get the idea) and live, and the fact that once I’m dead nothing of myself will remain doesn’t negatively affect me at all- in fact, I feel it makes everything I do all the more worthwhile because right here and right now only comes once, and I like to think I am making the most of it, in my own small way. However, if we zoom our mental eye out and view me, Slick, from the perspective of the universe, then everything I do is totally insignificant because it affects, comparatively speaking, nothing, and I might as well crawl into a hole and die. This is the kind of perspective Camus took, and this is the kind of view a lot of theists take- only they throw in God as a magical safety net who cares about you personally and therefore makes the whole thing worthwhile. Viewed from this long-distance perspective, Theism and Atheism are much the same, give or take a single big friendly wizard waving a magical wand of “Cure existential despair”

But of course you seem insignificant compared to the universe! Haven’t you read Douglas Adams? The problem is in judging something as small as ourselves against something as big as… well, everything- in the first place. If you ever find yourself wondering- “hey, in the grand scheme of things, do I really matter?’ just ask yourself which is more important- the “grand scheme of things” or the world we actually inhabit, where love, a laugh between friends or a tasty meal aren’t insignificant, but are the very things that bring meaning to the universe. In fact, if you assume for a moment that humans alone are sentient beings, then our perspective is the only perspective that matters- there is no such thing, as Nagel says, as the “view from nowhere”.

All of that being said however, I actually think it is a good thing that we are at least capable of entertaining this notion of “ourselves as viewed by the wider universe”. I find the yawing chasm of purposelessness and futility actually makes the meaning we do carve out of the senseless universe all the more valuable- in fact I would say that to find purpose and meaning without regard to hokey religions and ancient superstitions is both more challenging and, ultimately, more rewarding than simply packing it in at “it’s in God’s hands now”

And in fact, even here there are strong parallels between the atheist and the theist: while the atheist experiences a tension between fear of his ultimate inadequacy and futility in the face of the universe, and joy that he can forge his own value and purpose because he is ultimately free, the theist experiences a tension between fear of inadequacy and unworthiness in the eyes of God- for, if God is greater than the universe, then he is unimaginably greater than any individual (which I guess is where Jesus comes in, but that’s a whole different circus and I am already rambling) and contentment in the knowledge that there is a meaning and a purpose assigned to them by their cosmic father figure.

Slick

P.S I know I steal a lot of Frank Turner lyrics for my blog titles, but if you haven’t heard the one i’ve stolen today’s from (Glory Hallelujah) listen to it now. If your life philosphy is identical to mine you will love it!

 

You can’t always get what you want

Slick’s room, Friday the 3rd of June, 11:41

Good evening everyone. Tonight’s blog will be a return to my dialectic roots. I am going to talk about how women are silly and should all like me more.

So a survey was published recently. The aim of the survey was to test how women react to three different groups of men- men who, they are told, are interested in them, men who they are told are definitely not interested in them, and men about whom they where given no information either way. They were then asked how interested they were in the different groups of men (all other variables being equal) I believe the format of the survey was a kind of pseudo-speed dating thing in which the researchers manipulated the results to test for the desired variables.

Now who can guess what they found? If the women thought that a man was not interested in her, then she lost interest in him. Hear hear I say- very sensible reaction. But can you guess which group rated most highly with the female test subjects? If you answered “the ones who they knew nothing about one way or another” congratulations, you win the prize. It turns out that the second biggest turn off for a woman is confessing that you like them (the first biggest being to tell them that you actively dislike them)…

Now, frankly, I am not surprised by these results- in fact, I think it’s wonderful that the universe occasionally reaches out and confirms my chauvinistic preconceptions like this. This presumption of mystery, and therefore an inclination to hide one’s true feelings at all times, is one of the core principles of playing the game (https://slick111.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/the-winner-takes-it-all/) , but I think it bears a little discussion, if only because it is, if you think about it, completely insane.

If, like Paris of Troy, I was asked to choose between three beautiful women, one of whom told me icily to piss off, one of whom shook my hand and said “nice to meet you” and the third of whom said “wow, you’re gorgeous! Let’s go somewhere more private so I can admire you from a better angle”, you can bet your life savings on the fact that I wouldn’t waste any time chatting up the first two. And this, to me, is the glaringly obvious choice- to even consider another path boggles my mind. And perhaps some of you are saying “no Slick, you are assuming women are shallow like you and only care about looks and sex blah blah blah” then you are incorrect- the whole point of the survey was that it was testing women’s reactions based purely on the men’s attitudes, not on other factors like intelligence, personality, chemistry etc. it’s not like they were asked to choose between a friendly stranger, an unfriendly stranger, and a man they have loved from afar but never been sure if the feeling was reciprocal- the whole point is that is the uncertainty that is attractive! Does anyone else see how crazy that is?

Ok, perhaps I am over-reacting. I am, after all, a fairly cautious, non-committal person, who has learnt to his own great cost that you can never really tell if another person cares about you as much as you care about them, or even as much as they claim to care about you. But even given that, the choice on offer seems like a no brainer- it is analogous to someone offering you a choice between nothing, 20 pounds, and a box with “20 pounds?” Written on it. Only Peter Griffin could fail to solve this dilemma correctly!

In essence, this result is a manifestation of the “thrill of the hunt” principle- the very challenge of the situation is what makes it compelling- and I suppose I can see how that works, at least to an extent (as I heard a guy on youtube put it when talking about women and their disdain for men who openly admit to liking them “which is more satisfying completing Halo on easy. Or completing it on Legendary?” However, if the thrill of the hunt is so compelling, why does all of our food come from farms? Agriculture has surely been seen as an improvement on the hunter-gatherer system, rather than a less enjoyable alternative.

Hmm, on reflection I actually think I am starting to understand why the whole mystery/thrill of the hunt thing is a bigger deal for women than it is for me/men (I assume I’m not alone on this one?). Women in general have an easier time getting dates/boyfriends/male attention than vice versa- fact of life. So, while a woman might not know that a particular man finds her attractive, she generally knows that there are men around who do find her attractive. This means she can pursue the more challenging target without the background fear of rejection. Men, on the other hand, in this increasingly strained metaphor, are more like subsistence hunters- man cannot live on bread alone, and so on- so they are much more likely to approach/pursue someone who they already know is definitely interested, like lions picking off a wounded gazelle… Ok, this analogy has totally run away with me now, but hopefully you see what I’m getting at. I suppose I’d also add at this point that “players”- men who are used to attracting women easily- might be more inclined to adopt the sport-hunting approach and seek out women are less obviously interested, or even a little aloof.

As you might have read between the lines from this and other blogs, the reason I have difficulty accepting the whole “women don’t like guys who obviously like them”  principle is simple: I like women. I don’t, as a rule, hide it very well. In the aforementioned survey, I would doubtless be in the group who said “I am interested in you”. Now, I like to hope I can flirt wittily with the best of them, but, when it comes down to it, hard-to-get is just not in my make up, and it saddens me that the universe seems intent on holding that against me.  Especially as I believe it makes it simpler for everyone when I simply whip my intentions out for everyone to see.

There is  some hope for me yet- the last woman I (was? Am? Let’s go with “have been”- the past particple is nicely ambiguous, which is apparently what women are after) involved with actually sent me a text saying, to paraphrase slightly “it’s on”, which is how I knew that it was on and that I should make a further move. I find this kind of boldness refreshing, though sadly rare.  So, until there is a dramatic sea-change in male-female interaction, I suppose I shall simply have to suck it up and start learning to prevaricate and pretend disinterest. In the words of Oscar Wilde, that infamous skirt-chaser, “whenever I meet a beautiful woman I have to start pretending I have no desire to make love to her” (it was probably Oscar Wilde)

Love (or maybe not? Who knows? I am mysterious now)

Slick

P.S I’m pretty sure the survey which sparked this entire tirade was in the Melbourne Metro, or possibly the Age, but with a little half-hearted research I cannot relocate it. Still, let’s assume it exists and I’m not just whistling into the wind eh?