Existentialism

[Istvan66]

Hello folks! I wanted to know whether anyone else here came to atheism through the Existentialists. It might seem like a distinction without a difference, but I see a lot of differences between my viewpoint and the one espoused by an atheist who quotes Hitchens and touts the value of reason and science. The Existentialists, after all, were reacting against the Enlightenment project that atheist nabobs like Steve Pinker celebrate. Standing in the rubble of WWII, the Existentialists realized that rationality, technological progress and modern society's dedication to abstract reasoning and scientific precision led to exploitation, totalitarianism and slaughter.

The conventional online atheist seems to believe that religion is the source of all evil in the world and that reason is our greatest tool for creating fair and just societies. The Existentialists understood that reason is embedded in the cultural context and social order the same way as institutionalized religion; they're both useful but they can both end up legitimizing those in power. The central fact about the human condition is its irrationality and resistance to systematization.

The conventional atheist also sees science and abstract knowledge as constituting the truth about the universe. The Existentialists asserted that science studies the realm of the It, merely the natural background of our lives and choices. How we disclose and interpret Being and create meaning, isn't a scientific matter.

Art and literature were important to the Existentialists since they articulated the spontaneous, primal and irrational experience that scientific inquiry and modernity's discourse couldn't address or accommodate. To the atheist, science explains everything about human endeavor and art is just a pleasant but pointless distraction from reality.

Did I get it right? Is anyone else here closer to an Existentialist than a New Atheist?

[Alan V]

Hello folks! I wanted to know whether anyone else here came to atheism through the Existentialists. It might seem like a distinction without a difference, but I see a lot of differences between my viewpoint and the one espoused by an atheist who quotes Hitchens and touts the value of reason and science. The Existentialists, after all, were reacting against the Enlightenment project that atheist nabobs like Steve Pinker celebrate. Standing in the rubble of WWII, the Existentialists realized that rationality, technological progress and modern society's dedication to abstract reasoning and scientific precision led to exploitation, totalitarianism and slaughter.

Considering your last sentence, I will take what you wrote as your opinions about New Atheists rather than the opinions of relatively new atheists like me.  That being the case, I will contrast what I think with what you have written.

To start, it strikes me as an odd claim that rationality itself led to any kind of irrationality or dishonesty.

The conventional online atheist seems to believe that religion is the source of all evil in the world and that reason is our greatest tool for creating fair and just societies. The Existentialists understood that reason is embedded in the cultural context and social order the same way as institutionalized religion; they're both useful but they can both end up legitimizing those in power. The central fact about the human condition is its irrationality and resistance to systematization.

I see religion as rooted in human irrationality, and as only a part of the problem.  However, religion has been the special focus of the New Atheists not only because it harbors so many irrational assumptions, but because those assumptions are often so biased against atheists.

The conventional atheist also sees science and abstract knowledge as constituting the truth about the universe. The Existentialists asserted that science studies the realm of the It, merely the natural background of our lives and choices. How we disclose and interpret Being and create meaning, isn't a scientific matter.

We humans are in a worse position than I think you imagine here.  Science and scholarship may be our only reliable avenues to understanding the universe, but whether they will prove comprehensive enough or not is still an open question.

As for how we create meaning, that seems rather straightforward.  Meanings are objective to our situations but relative to our interests.  For instance, I need to eat but like Mexican food.

Art and literature were important to the Existentialists since they articulated the spontaneous, primal and irrational experience that scientific inquiry and modernity's discourse couldn't address or accommodate. To the atheist, science explains everything about human endeavor and art is just a pleasant but pointless distraction from reality.

You will find in our discussions a lot of interest in the arts.  People have complex minds which feed on diverse stimuli.

Did I get it right? Is anyone else here closer to an Existentialist than a New Atheist?

So no, I don't think you got it right.  Perhaps you could tell us more about your own existential perspectives instead of trying to guess mine.

[Dānu]

Atheists come in all stripes. You're bundling things into atheism that don't need to be there. And from what I know of existentialism, it didn't discount science, it was just more concerned with finding meaning in human existence. I don't even think you need to be atheist for that. If I'm remembering correctly, Victor Frankl was considered an existentialist.

[Istvan66]

To start, it strikes me as an odd claim that rationality itself led to any kind of irrationality or dishonesty.

It led to the totalitarian frenzy for precision and control. War in the 20th century was conducted in a most logical, quantitative manner that took into account very precise cost-benefit analyses before, in a particular instance, vaporizing tens of thousands of people. That's when it becomes obvious that being rational is different from being reasonable.

I see religion as rooted in human irrationality, and as only a part of the problem.  However, religion has been the special focus of the New Atheists not only because it harbors so many irrational assumptions, but because those assumptions are often so biased against atheists.

But the point is that human existence is characterized by absurdity and irrationality. The things that are valuable and meaningful to us aren't things we reason our way to appreciating. We usually just rationalize our choices long after the fact.

Science and scholarship may be our only reliable avenues to understanding the universe, but whether they will prove comprehensive enough or not is still an open question.

Certainly we need formalized scientific inquiry if we want to understand things like faraway black holes or ancient glaciation events. But that sort of abstract, indirect knowledge of the universe has no bearing on what we consider important, meaningful or ethical in our lives.

As for how we create meaning, that seems rather straightforward.  Meanings are objective to our situations but relative to our interests.  For instance, I need to eat but like Mexican food.

I was really talking about something a little less quotidian than a burrito. The value of human endeavor, when measured against the vastness of the physical universe, is insignificant. But in our lives, our families, and our societies, what we do is of the utmost importance.

[Istvan66]

Atheists come in all stripes.  You're bundling things into atheism that don't need to be there.  And from what I know of existentialism, it didn't discount science, it was just more concerned with finding meaning in human existence.  I don't even think you need to be atheist for that.  If I'm remembering correctly, Victor Frankl was considered an existentialist.

You're right, the existentialists realized that science was useful and fascinating. However, they didn't feel that things like evolution or genetics could tell us what human existence means. And lots of atheists would probably say that what we are is wholly in our DNA or our brain chemistry. 

Viktor Frankl, indeed, was a major existentialist thinker. His first-hand account of how Auschwitz represented the ravages of modernity is an important corrective to the cheerleading for science and Enlightenment rationality that's common in the atheist blogosphere.

[Thingymebob]

Hello

[Dom]

Why does life have to have a meaning? And what exactly do you mean by New Atheist?

[abaris]

Why does life have to have a meaning? And what exactly do you mean by New Atheist?

Far as I know, the term is used for the ones treating atheism like some kind of church. Something dogmatic.

As for existentialism, I never gave it any thought. It comes from Marxism, I believe, and while I'm not totally opposed to Marxism, my atheism doesn't have any reason, other than not believing in gods.

[Thingymebob]

All the best philosophers are in the pub at 11.30 on a Friday night.

[skyking]

Hello and welcome. I will first make the observation that you seem to need to place people in certain boxes.
In my experience atheism is simply an answer to a question about God or gods. It really has nothing to do with whether I appreciate art or literature, or see science as the be all and end all.
I know of no one who defines himself as simply an atheist.

[Alan V]

To start, it strikes me as an odd claim that rationality itself led to any kind of irrationality or dishonesty.

It led to the totalitarian frenzy for precision and control. War in the 20th century was conducted in a most logical, quantitative manner that took into account very precise cost-benefit analyses before, in a particular instance, vaporizing tens of thousands of people. That's when it becomes obvious that being rational is different from being reasonable.

While there is no question that rationality and irrationality, when mixed, lead to bad results, rationality in itself has its own value regardless.

By stipulating a difference between rational and reasonable, you are more clearly describing your own conceptions.  However, I still disagree that the distinction is accurate because it seems loaded to me, based on your doctrinal concerns.  Many doctrinal approaches load terminology to express themselves.

But the point is that human existence is characterized by absurdity and irrationality. The things that are valuable and meaningful to us aren't things we reason our way to appreciating. We usually just rationalize our choices long after the fact.

I don't agree.  From my perspective, you need another category.  Human concerns are not divided between just the rational and irrational.  There is also the arational, which describes most human concerns.  They are basic to our nature, so they are all about our surviving and thriving.  

Science and scholarship may be our only reliable avenues to understanding the universe, but whether they will prove comprehensive enough or not is still an open question.

Certainly we need formalized scientific inquiry if we want to understand things like faraway black holes or ancient glaciation events. But that sort of abstract, indirect knowledge of the universe has no bearing on what we consider important, meaningful or ethical in our lives.

My own particular interest is consciousness studies.  That clearly requires both science and scholarship, and it equally clearly is very basic to human concerns.  If you don't understand human psychology, you will have a very hard time defining what is important, meaningful, or ethical for humans. For instance, you might conclude that people should only get 5 hours of sleep to devote more time to waking, regardless of the real sleep needs of, and variations between, individuals.

As for how we create meaning, that seems rather straightforward.  Meanings are objective to our situations but relative to our interests.  For instance, I need to eat but like Mexican food.

I was really talking about something a little less quotidian than a burrito. The value of human endeavor, when measured against the vastness of the physical universe, is insignificant. But in our lives, our families, and our societies, what we do is of the utmost importance.

Again, I disagree.  Since conscious beings create meaning, you can't accurately claim our endeavors are insignificant relative to the size of the universe.  How big the universe is doesn't figure into how we create meaning except through a misconception about meaning.  Thus a burrito as an example.  If I am hungry, a burrito has a different meaning than when I am not hungry. It's meaning changes relative to a conscious being -- me.

I would still be interested to hear what you think is most positive about existentialism, as long as it isn't framed in a way which knocks other ways of thinking unfairly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Once you embrace the absurdity of life, it becomes easy. It's only when you rage against it that life kicks your ass.

My life has only the meaning that i supply to it. And what if I don't need it to be meaningful? There's a premise that could be examined too. Maybe I don't care what some guy fifty years ago wrote. What then?

[Istvan66]

Why does life have to have a meaning? And what exactly do you mean by New Atheist?

There's no escaping meaning. And just because science can't detect the meaning of Being any more than it can detect the meaning of words is no reason to believe that meaning isn't a human need for many of us.

As abaris wrote above, the New Atheists are the post-9/11 crop of writers like Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris, and their acolytes in the atheist blogosphere.

[Dom]

Why does life have to have a meaning? And what exactly do you mean by New Atheist?

There's no escaping meaning. And just because science can't detect the meaning of Being any more than it can detect the meaning of words is no reason to believe that meaning isn't a human need for many of us.

As abaris wrote above, the New Atheists are the post-9/11 crop of writers like Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris, and their acolytes in the atheist blogosphere.

Why is there no escaping meaning? Life has meaning if you give it one. I see no reason why it has to have one.

So you just mean younger atheists and not people new to atheism or people into weird spiritual stuff?

[abaris]

There's no escaping meaning. And just because science can't detect the meaning of Being any more than it can detect the meaning of words is no reason to believe that meaning isn't a human need for many of us.

As abaris wrote above, the New Atheists are the post-9/11 crop of writers like Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris, and their acolytes in the atheist blogosphere.

But I also wrote, the only reason for me to be an atheist is not believing. My meaning of life isn't tied to that. In fact, atheism doesn't define me, as I repeatedly said on different boards. It's just a tiny, tiny part of what makes or breaks me. And it certainly doesn't define my values.

[Istvan66]

I would still be interested to hear what you think is most positive about existentialism, as long as it isn't framed in a way which knocks other ways of thinking unfairly.

Since you haven't made even the slightest effort to engage with what I'm saying here, I'll return the favor.

[abaris]

Since you haven't made even the slightest effort to engage with what I'm saying here, I'll return the favor.

Being a dick won't get you anywhere.

[Thingymebob]

I'm happy to say that my life is ultimately meaningless. So what?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's no escaping meaning.

Says who?

[Alan V]

I would still be interested to hear what you think is most positive about existentialism, as long as it isn't framed in a way which knocks other ways of thinking unfairly.

Since you haven't made even the slightest effort to engage with what I'm saying here, I'll return the favor.

I have replied at length.

You can't expect to criticize New Atheists such as myself without being challenged in your assumptions.

(I should mention, however, that since I became an atheist after reading Dawkins' The God Delusion over fifteen years ago now, I'm not sure how "new" an atheist I am anymore.)  

[Bucky Ball]

All the best philosophers are in the pub at 11.30 on a Friday night.

I rather like sitting next to Simone de Beauvoir, at the pub.

We all have that which appeals to us.
That doesn't mean other understandings are excluded.
Welcome, Istvan66

There are no "New Atheists". That's nothing but Christian reactionaries' (such as Edward Feser and his pathetic ilk ... who can be refuted in about 5 seconds flat) bullshit.

I didn't "become" an atheist. In some ways I remain a theist, in that I would affirm that we can recognize "the best in us".
After having studying (for years) Comparative Religion and Comparative Mythology, it slowly dawns on one, that no one has "the truth", and those who cay claim to it, are totally deluded.
And those who say their version (myth) *is/are* the truth, as Joseph Campbell said, in trouble.

[julep]

I smell...something. putin apologist? Xian conservative? Doesn’t seem to be actual existentialist, just an opening ploy for evangelism. Otherwise would actually discuss with other posters. Have at it, hoss, I guess.

[julep]

I'm happy to say that my life is ultimately meaningless. So what?

I loathe people. who insist on making the rest of us subscribe to their feels about meaning and such!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm happy to say that my life is ultimately meaningless. So what?

I loathe people. who insist on making the rest of us subscribe to their feels about meaning and such!

The world would be a much better place if we simply learnt to not press our own needs upon others.

[Dānu]

No, Donny, these men are cowards.