The Point Of Everything
In an interesting online discussion (in the comments section of this post) about the origin and evolution of life I posted a response to an argument questioning my religious belief in a divine creation with this closing paragraph:
In the end it doesn’t really matter that we disagree on this. If I die and my conciousness ceases to exist than I guess you were right and I was wrong. Congratulations. If not…well then…cool for both of us! I don’t have a pure knowledge of which its going to be but I know what I would rather believe.
When I first wrote that I thought I was being rather clever….now I realize I was just being glib. Maybe it does matter that men disagree on this topic. If people disagree on the whole point of our existence is it any wonder that they would profoundly disagree on what principles of societal organization and economy are best for mankind?
I wonder if this idea might play some role in the fact that people who are more religious are usually more supportive of the idea of smaller government allowing for more individual choice (at least on economic and political principles) while those who are either agnostic or atheistic tend more towards government planning and regulation. Of course there is some overlap in both groups on political ideology and I’m generalizing to a great degree but there does seem to be a disconnect in many cases between the way these two groups think on more than spiritual issues.
The more obvious political differences between these two groups are on moral and cultural issues such as abortion and the increasingly common rejection of many traditional ideas regarding sexuality. This disagreement seems to be different than the disagreements on political and economic issues. It is directly based on the beliefs of those who are religious vs. those who think these cultural mores are merely a social construction.
Disagreement between those who believe in God and those who don’t on political/economic issues seems to be more indirect. Here are some caricatures I’ve been running through my head on the past few hours.
Those who believe in God are usually not as concerned about global environmental catastrophe because they believe God made the earth for man. Man has a responsibility to take care of it but shouldn’t be made to live like animals just to keep from hurting the environment….God wouldn’t make such a fragile earth for his children. Besides…the earth is going to end eventually anyway. This is a part of nearly every religious dogma. The world ends and God saves his favored followers. Because these are their core beliefs they often loudly argue against what they consider silly concerns from the worrywart environmentalists. They don’t want to sacrifice any of the luxuries they are accustomed to in order to be more environmentally friendly and don’t see why they should.
Those who think life lasts approximately 75 years then you’re gone forever have a different perspective. They think we need to preserve the earth for as long as possible in as natural a state as possible so we can prolong our species. They often even end up devoting an almost religious fervor to their advocating for the protection of the environment because EVERYTHING depends on us keeping the earth livable for as long as possible.
I’m not saying either side is right or wrong (or even that either side really exists…my caricature of both sides could be deeply flawed). I’m just saying that it makes sense that believers and unbelievers will often have a very different view on many issues that goes back to their whole understanding of what the point of everything is.
Now my head hurts. There is a reason I didn’t want to be a sociologist. I’m going to play computer games. More later. Maybe.
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You’re exactly right: it does matter that there is great disagreement on this topic. For exactly the reasons you mentioned. Our actions as a society, which may have profound consequences, depend on these beliefs. Your characterizations are, of course, simplistic but your point about the way that our environment is affected by these belief systems is well taken. Let me try to better present the secular perspective. That is, the perspective of “those who think life lasts approximately 75 years then you’re gone forever”. Secularists care about the future of their children and grandchildren. I know it’s alarming, but secularists do care about children. We are apoplectic at the suggestion that child abuse and pediatric cancer are a part of a plan designed by an intelligent being. The more humanistic of we atheists even care about the welfare of the entire human family. We recognize the majesty of human life. We are moved by the complexity and fragility of the human brain. We appreciate the stunning diversity of all life on Earth. We marvel at the intricacy of the inner workings of the cell. And we desperately hope that these things are sustainable because their destruction seems loathsome and nefarious.
Comment by john — December 18, 2004 @ 3:58 pm
Nice conclusion.
I wasn’t in that class, Jeremy. But I remember hearing about it, and seeing similar instances myself, and yearning to leave the closemindedness of that environment.
I also remember poor ‘EJ’ getting pretty peeved at some students for not being quiet in class and just letting him teach…
My nephew says that he’s still there, along with Mowery, teaching science to know-it-all teenagers.
Comment by Cody — December 20, 2004 @ 2:58 pm