In some ways, this philosophy is quite attractive. By removing moral absolutes, I have no higher standard to live up to. I am free to do whatever I want, whenever I want. This is appealing, because as humans, we really don’t like anyone telling us how to live our lives.
Yet when we dig deeper, naturalism is wholly difficult to stomach. If this life is all there is, I have no reason not to trample all over you or anyone else in order to get what I want. If life is about my pleasure and my survival, I can justify any of my actions. This has interesting ramifications for the justice system, not to mention interpersonal relations.
The rubber really hits the road when death comes knocking. On Friday I attended a funeral. She was 93, and as she lay in a wooden box at the front of the church and her loved ones mourned, the hollow words that “we’re just fish bait” would sound almost offensive. They offer no hope at all. At death, we want to believe there is something more. We want to believe we will see our loved ones again.
Of course, you can’t simply believe in life after death because you simply want to believe it. Words of hope must be grounded in truth. The words of Jesus, the only person to experience death and return to life, bring great comfort and hope in death.
“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die”.
Rest in peace, Nain. See you soon.
This post is tagged
4 Comments
It is a shame you missed last week’s session on nihilism Tiger. As the logical end point naturalism it really is a “beautifully ugly” worldview. I’ll send you the notes if you’d like.
I’m really sorry I missed last week. I’d appreciate you sending me the notes Steve. Any philosophy websites worth checking out?
What you need to realise is that god and religion is an invention of man- constructed to reflect a need in society. Initially morals were synthesised from the IDEA of a god, and the consequences involved in defying him/her/it. There is no divine law, there is only the fear of retribution from your peers in the phenomenal world, disguised as religious guilt. In other words, even an explicit absence of god does not mean that we cannot institute an entirely non-religious values system. Murder, theft and anti-social behaviour are not condusive to a cohesive society. AT base, they have nothing to do with the afterlife, and everything to do with the survival of a species which thrives in groups, and suffers alone.
Hi Josh, thanks for your comments. I’m a little unsure how you come to your conclusions though. Perhaps you could explain a bit more your reasons for concluding that:
- god is an invention of man,
- morals were synthesised from the idea of god, and
- a religious moral values system can exist outside of god.
You also raised an interesting point about morals, I think (if I have understood you correctly) explaining that murder is not appropriate behaviour, not because it is immoral, but because it does not help society.
If this is the case, and in the absence of absolute morals, why shouldn’t you or I do whatever we please – why should I feel any obligation to society?
Incoming Links
Leave a Reply