Why Love?

In order for love to be absolutely meaningful, it seems it must be intrinsic to reality. If one claims a personal God must be believed for love to have meaning, then it does not seem intrinsic to reality. If this is true, love is only arbitrarily meaningful so long as it is believed God exists in a personal way. But if love is only arbitrarily meaningful, it can not be absolutely meaningful.

Do not assume I am claiming God does or does not exist. I am simply pointing out the fact that if love is absolutely meaningful, a personal God need not be believed to give love meaning. This can explain why atheists and non-believers routinely experience genuine love relationships even if a personal God does in fact exist. If a believer expresses puzzlement that an atheist would “love” his wife and children, or anybody else for that matter, what does this imply? That the believer's love is merely arbitrary contingent upon his belief in a personal God. If at some point he abandons belief in God, his love for his wife and children and everybody else would be rendered meaningless because he no longer believes God exists.

Suffice it to say, I don't think this happens upon abandoning belief. Reason being, love is meaningful apart from belief in a personal God. What is strange about this reflection is it seems to support the philosophy that even if a personal God does in fact exist, it would be best for us not to believe in Him because only through our disbelief can we be certain we are experiencing love and other similar ideals in an absolutely and intrinsically meaningful manner.

On the other hand, if one supposes an impersonal God exists, what would the implications of this be with respect to absolute and intrinsic love? Semantically speaking, an impersonal God could be equated to no God at all because if He is impersonal, how is this different than being nonexistent? Therefore, supposing an impersonal God exists would have the same effect as believing no God exists.

So it seems love can only have absolute and intrinsic meaning without belief in a personal God or with belief in, at most, an impersonal One. In this way, love is ostensibly embraced for love's sake, not for God's.

The End Of The Road

What is it about death that frightens people? Is it death or is it the dying? Might our fear simply be grounded in the possibility that we will not experience a quick transition to what I believe will be the only place of celestial peace? This seems rational. In this case, it is the road we fear, not the destination.

But who should actually be afraid of death itself? Religious people, especially the self-righteous type, typically believe in an afterlife comprised of heaven or hell. Of those that are self-righteous, where does one suppose these people assume they are going? Heaven, of course. So why should they be afraid?

What about the less than righteous? Where do these people believe they are going? Either heaven or hell. Of those that believe they are going to hell, should they be afraid? Perhaps, but many of these people seem overtly proud about their belief that they will inherit hell as an eternal rest stop, almost as if they embrace the idea of it. So even if hell exists and is actually the place of torment and gnashing of teeth many believe, why should they be afraid if hell is embraced?

What about atheists? Well, these people in all likelihood believe there is no reason to worry about a state that will never be experienced. If death is the end of consciousness, what is there to fear?

It seems the only people that might have a rational fear of death are those that never allow themselves to be “good enough” and hence believe they will be punished in the "Great Beyond".

The Root Of All Evil

Accepting what is will not necessarily preclude things from getting better anyway. It just means our primary focus is not on changing what is to what should be. An analogy to this is how evolution seems to promote “changes for the better” unconsciously or involuntarily.

I strongly believe because our hyper-driven society is so fixated on achieving goals in themselves that the ultimate moral imperative is lost. What is, or at least should be (I am well aware of my implicit denial of what is) the ultimate moral imperative? To make the world a more pleasant experience for everybody and everything.

If one's primary focus is achieving in itself, decency and sensitivity toward others will often be subverted because it gets in the way of an ultimate goal. I believe if everybody became aware of the destructive nature of their ego, the world would systematically become a much more inviting place!

Evil stems from neither religion nor lack of religion. It stems from unconsciousness to ego! Many non-believers and believers alike have big egos and will therefore sow disharmony and destruction just the same. Conversely, many believers and non-believers alike do not have big egos and will therefore sow harmony and peace just the same.

To the overly prideful atheist or overzealous religious hawk, neither belief nor lack of belief in God systematically leads to evil. Each leads to evil only insofar as how one uses ideology, or lack thereof, to inflate himself above others. For though good will be sown in the world only because of belief, bad will also be sown in the world only because of belief. Conversely, for though bad will be sown in the world only because of disbelief, good will also be sown in the world only because of disbelief.

On The Meaning Of Things

If you believe something like forgiveness is meaningful, why? Because God says it is or because it is meaningful in itself?

If forgiveness is meaningful in itself, a reflection of mine confounds the question of meaning for both the theist and atheist alike. For the theist, do you believe something like forgiveness is only meaningful if God exists and declares it so? In other words, if you abandon belief in God, would you continue to exercise forgiveness assuming, of course, you did before? If not, you are implying, however unconsciously, that forgiveness has no value apart from God (and of course His endorsement of it) meaning it is not meaningful in itself. This disturbs me greatly.

On the other hand, an atheist that believes forgiveness is meaningful in itself must address the question of how something like forgiveness can be intrinsically such? If the universe and life evolved, how could something like forgiveness be intrinsic to reality and hence have meaning in itself? This bewilders me.

I suggest an alternative to these 2 views. It seems the only way to be certain one can experience intrinsic meaning in things like forgiveness is to neither believe nor disbelieve in God. HUH? What does this mean? I have no earthly idea! Perhaps it just means to be unsure? Maybe God does not want us to know? I can think of at least one very pleasant corollary to this: not knowing should compel us to be humble and understanding of others we do not see eye to eye with.

Might not knowing simply advocate agnosticism? Whatever the case, bear with me. By being unsure, one is forgiving not because he believes God would want him to be, rather he is forgiving because he perceives it as meaningful in itself. Or perhaps it is simply in his nature to be forgiving? Could his nature originate with God? Perhaps. But then why is it everybody does not have this “Godly” nature? Does God overlook these “others”? If so, how would this reflect on Him?

In any case, by being unsure, one is forgiving not because he is acquiescing to God's “demands” but rather he sees meaning in forgiveness itself and/or is just naturally so. But he cannot rule out the possibility that God exists because if he does, how would intrinsic meaning in forgiveness (among many other things) exist without God or some such eternal force having attributed meaning to these things apart from all else? Keep in mind this admission that God might exist does not suggest anything beyond this. In other words, it does not attempt to define in any specific way Who or What God might be if He actually exists. Therefore, this type of view acknowledges the possibility that God exists but remains very skeptical and open-minded.

On the other hand, could forgiveness simply be a respected adaptation of human beings for the purpose of cooperating and harmonizing more effectively with our fellow brethren? In this case, it would not seem to have meaning in itself. It would simply be arbitrary to how we evolved and adapted as a means to optimize social interaction.