Christian Way Of Life Superior?

You can of course invert this. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who think that they live a superior life to their theist neighbors. In fact if you're not a pluralist then you are probably committed to something like you point out. Here is an interesting question for you.

I have a friend A who happens to be atheist. While she doesn't believe any of the God talk, A is attracted to the Christian way of life. She thinks it leads to positive moral development and social cohesion. Let's suppose further that A's life ways are indistinguishable from her Christian neighbors. She even participates in God talk by understanding talk of God as the projection of the best ideas human kind. Does A live an inferior life to her Christian neighbors.

Matthew,
Hmm, I'm not sure if atheists (who are living according to their atheism) are committed to thinking that their way of life is superior. But I think that Christians are committed to thinking that their way of living is superior in the same way that a person who has loving friends will think that his life is better than those who deny the existence of friends.

I think that your friend A would be living an inferior life because I don't think she would actually be interacting with God. Compare: a husband who actually has a wife and has a real relationship with her and interacts with her, and a man who acts like he has a wife but only has an immobile doll at home. This latter man talks to others about his wife, and he talks about how his wife does nice things for him, but he thinks that this talk really comes down to talk of the doll making him feel good when he thinks about the doll or looks at it. I think that the real husband has a superior way of life than the latter man. Similarly, I think that the Christian who lives the Christian way of life lives a superior way of life than A. (Now it may be the case that God would graciously revealing himself to A as she goes through these motions and this talk, but then I don't think that A would be an atheist for long.)

As a final note, just to be clear, you asked whether I think A would have an inferior life actually, but the opening post was about what Christians, insofar as they are committed to their Christianity, are committed to thinking about their way of life. I just want to keep the two issues separate.

if Christianity is true it would be a superior way of life to live the Christian way - but if it is false then I don't know that it would be superior... if it is possible to participate with God in life - and God is all good and such - then I don't see how anyone could dispute that that is the better way of life... if it is not possible to participate in life with God - because he doesn't exist - then living a lie would seem to be an inferior way to life.. but if the truth is ultimately sad - say, people don't have real value - than maybe a lie is a 'better' way of life...

Andrew - When you write that there is "a 'way of living' that incorporates these specifically Christian beliefs into one's life" that sounds largely behaviorist. So for Christians there are a set of beliefs X that entail certain behaviors Y. (This reverses the orthopraxy of Islam where certain behaviors are supposed to entail a set of beliefs.) My point with A was to show that there could be individuals who participate in all of the behaviors of a Christian 'way of living' and yet not have the attending beliefs.

However, it's not entirely clear to be that what you have in mind is in fact a number of behaviors. Some of the things that you list look like benefits that accrue to the Christian simply in virtue of being a Christian. Yet these benefits don't all exactly look like a way of life.

Even if you are correct and Christians do have a superior way of life. I suspect it's the kind of thing most people would think you arrogant for pointing out. I also suspect that atheists, at least in terms of quality of life, ethical conduct, etc, are going to think they can match any Christian, and from what I see of many of the later they wouldn't be far wrong.

Further Matthew, I doubt that the behaviorist approach presented here is adequately defining either Christianity or Atheism. Perhaps 'Is Christian way of life a superior?' would be a better question.

I have heard it said, and it seems right in my experience, that while there is such a thing as "what all Christians believe" there is not such a thing, in 21st century America at any rate, as "what all Christians do." I think this was not always true and is to the detriment of 21st-c American Christianity.

So I am inclined to think that "the apostolic way of life" or "the monastic way of life" or "the Puritan way of life" have referents, but I am not so sure about "the Christian way of life."

There is something very tempting about the conclusion A.M. draws here; it seems to follow that, if "superiority" in one's way of living constitutes happiness and content, then living a committed, believing Christian way of life qualifies for superiority, or at least it follows that Christians do/ought to feel this way.

But then it seems that everyone has cause to feel superior, in the following way:

If I am a practicing philosopher of mathematics, I "interact" with Bertrand Russell on a daily basis and I have a relationship with him that no one else shares. This generally makes my life much more worth living than otherwise. Ergo, my way of life is superior to a philosopher studying Kurt Godel, because Bertrand Russell is a more personable and interesting character than Godel.

The philosopher studying Kurt Godel doesn't seem obviously inferior on an objective scale, so the superiority, if warranted on the first philosopher's case, follows for every single person who does something or believes in something that at least one other person does not. I'm fine with this conclusion, but it doesn't have all the rich implications of the original suggestion.

It is important to note that there is a difference between thinking that one's way of life is superior to others and there actually being one way of life that is superior to others. The former is probably mostly a subjective (psychological) evaluation, but the latter seems to imply an objective (epistemological) basis for maintaining that one way of living is superior to others.

Andrew makes the following claim: "But there are certain ways of living that many would agree are superior to other ways: living in community with other people that we love and are loved by is a better way of living than living in denial of the existence and worth of other people. This seems quite plausible to me." If the criteria listed in this quote are the criteria for establishing that there is a way of life that is superior to others, then it is one that is based on community and love. I do not think that this way of life is the particular domain of Christianity, although it is a central concept within it that it shares with any way of life that is focused on community and love. Certainly an atheist, or any non-Christian, can base a way of life on these two criteria. In fact, these two criteria can serve as the normative basis for living together in a pluralistic society. (Although I would want to change 'love' to 'respect' for that purpose.)

i think if christianity is false, then the christian way of living is not possible because the christian way of life meant participation with god. you can't participate with someone that doesn't exist so that way of life would be impossible. like the married way of life is only possible if ones spouse is real otherwise one is not really living a married life... so I'd restate 2 as: if christianity is false, then the deluded way of living is superior to the atheist's way of living - assuming atheism is then true...

and then if the christian way of life includes within it certain conduct the atheist could not mimic the chistian way of life -just lacking the true beliefs. they would literally be living very different ways of life and doing very different things - even if the behaviours looked similar.... like a husband and wife going for a walk in the park is very different from two strangers who just happen to be walking in a park - the relationships transform the actions and makes certain ways of life, ethical conduct etc... possible or impossible.

i had posted a similar comment before but it didn't appear - hopefully this doesn't cross the crazy line :)...

"Hmm, I'm not sure if atheists (who are living according to their atheism) are committed to thinking that their way of life is superior. But I think that Christians are committed to thinking that their way of living is superior in the same way that a person who has loving friends will think that his life is better than those who deny the existence of friends."

Ah, but what if the cynic is right and there are no friends, then his way of life is superior to that of those who believe in the lie of friendship. Never mind the fact that his cynicism is precisely what is keeping him from making any friends and, thus, discovering that friendships do indeed exist. The atheist, I submit, is in the same sorry predicament: his atheism stands in the way of him receiving the grace evincing the existence of a loving God. And. again, pointing this out is not insulting, but loving one's neighbor.

Commenters:

I hate to have to point this out, but recent comments have necessitated that I do. Prosblogion is first and foremost a philosophy blog. It's not a place for apologetics and not all of the readers or contributors here are Christian. While Andrew's post is cast in terms of Christianity, commenters shouldn't take this as the opportunity to express their personal testimony as to how great the Christian life is and how bad the atheists have got it. Please try to keep your comments on the philosophical issue.

Update: Let's try an tame the rhetoric and focus on Andrews original argument. We've managed for close on 4 years to operate without to much craziness. So, let's not have an outbreak of it now.

Update II: As I alluded above, Andrew's post isn't an invitation for comments on the merits of Christianity vs. Atheism. Comments that I don't feel directly address the thrust of Andrew's reasoning will be removed, as will comments that strike me as purposefully antagonistic, inflammatory, derogatory, etc. Aggrieved parties can email me at matthew@ektopos.com.

Just "off the top of my head," in a way Andrew's question is a empirical one that can be tested if people can agree on the conditions that must be meet for a way to life to be superior to another. As long as one does not include criteria that commits one to either belief or non-belief in God as one of the criteria then we could get a fairly accurate (I think) result.

If one were to structure questions on a 7-point liker scale one might be able to find some interesting results that could pertain to the original question.

Let us define 'superior' in terms of happiness (contentment) with one's life so that the superior life is one where the person is, on balance, happier (more content) then unhappy or miserable.
Examples of questions.
1. Friendship is important to living a happy life.
2. Economic well-being is important to living a happy life.
3. Achievement and success are important to living a happy life.
4. Being in a loving relationship is important to living a happy life.
5. Helping others is important to living a happy life.
6. I am living life that is making me happy.

Track these and other questions against one 'identifier.' How would you characterize your religious beliefs?
a) Christian
b) Jewish
c) Muslum
d) Buddist
e) agnostic
f) atheist
g) other.

I realize that many of the readers of this blog may not be partial to what is called 'experimental philosophy,' but this is a question that might merit some empirical investigation.

Anyway, food for thought.

Mr. Moon,

I still don't see why it isn't just obvious, as you yourself suggested it might be, that a Christian is committed to believing that atheism is perniciously false. Why else would our Lord have obligated us to spread the Good News if other ways of living could lead one to the Kingdom? He said that those who would not believe in Him were like lost sheep. What else could that mean but that they are not living right?

Hi Andrew,

Maybe this has been said, but the dichotomy you describe (theist/atheist-- though I assume the non-theists are in roughly the same boat as the atheists here) is such that someone (either the theist or the atheist) is believing something importantly false. Indeed, each believes the other to have an importantly false belief of genuine practical significance. So both the Christian or the atheist have good grounds for believing that his own way of life is superior. If you're a Great Pumpkinist, then, no matter how this affects your welfare (perhaps by producing these wonderful mental states when you meditate on the Pumpkin Manifesto), your way of life is unlikely to be regarded as a good one (cf. Nozick's pleasure machine); it's rather pathetic, wouldn't you say? We would not regard it as a good one, however much comfort one gets from it, and however well-worked out the theology of pumpkinism becomes. Similarly, there seem to be good grounds for the theist to regard atheistic way of life as inferior. The atheist has a belief that is (from the theist's point of view) importantly wrong and he's governing his life by it. That's a good reason for a theist to believe that the atheist's life is inferior--no matter what the atheist's welfare happens to be.

Andrew,

I'm sorry. I thought you were familiar with the research on this modal operator. Perniciously false means false in such a way as to have destructive or deadly consequences for those who believe it. It is to be contrasted with benign falsity. If I mistakenly believe there is a Whopper in the fridge and so pass up BK on the way home, as I should, my belief is benignly false. Unlike atheism.

Why wouldn't you seek the explanation for those philosophers' SHOW of acceptance in psychology, rather than religion or philosophy? Something like the unwillingness to offend their atheistic colleagues, who may be in a position to derail their careers?

I'm sorry. I thought you were familiar with the research on this modal operator . . . perniciously

I'm also unfamiliar with the literature on 'perniciously' as a modal operator. I didn't know it was a modal operator. What literature on 'pernicously' as a modal operator are you referring to?

Andrew
“But to recall, my main contention is that the Christian is committed to think of the Christian way of life as the Christian way of life*, and so it is clearly the case that he should think that his way of life is superior to that of the atheist's way of life (in the same way that a person who lives with friends and believes in their existence is living a way of life that is far superior than the person who doesn't live with friends and doesn't believe they exist). I think this contention is defendable without need of much empirical data.”

It may very well be the case that the Christian believes as you state regarding Christian*. But asserting that x is superior, or defining it so that x is superior is not an argument that x is superior. It is merely the acknowledgment that we act on what we take to be the truth and unless we hold a theory that allows for the law of non-contradiction to be non-applicable and that there is a plurality of possibly contradictory truths then one would think that the schema they are using is superior to any alternative. But, your original discussion suggests an ontological component in so far as it seems to imply that there is an x that is, in fact, superior and that maybe Christianity (in whatever form) best supports x. Is it in fact the case that those that hold Christianity to be true are in fact measurably better off regarding the quality of their lives then those that do not hold that Christian*? Somewhere along the line we do need to agree on how to understand ‘superior.’ If we can agree on some conception of the superior life that does not beg the question (that is why I suggested some formulation of happiness), then we can relate these criteria to the religious beliefs people hold and whether or not they think their lives are better off. This does seem to be one question where a ‘vote’ might actually solve an interesting question, assuming the sample is not biased.

In part of your original discussion (before the comments, last paragraph) you are asking a ‘should’ question regarding what a person believes. This question could also be answered because if it could be demonstrated fairly that Christians are better off as they regard their lives then those of alternative persuasions, then one could assert that Christianity supports, in part, a superior way of life and that it should therefore be believed if one wants to live the most desirable life given the alternatives.

To make this a simpler test, or maybe simply as a starting point, I would survey subjects that are either Christian or agnostic/atheist.

John Alexander,

how are you defining happiness? a) the experiential pleasurable? b) the good? or c ) the good and the flourishing? from the list you gave above it seems you mean something like (c) but then if either (b) or (c) is what is meant by happiness then it seems the consideration of truth (in ways of life i.e. is atheism true? is christianity true?) would seem paramount. because you can't live a good life if you don't live by what is true.

but then i don't see that a 'vote' would work to find out which way of life is superior. what would work best is to try and find out which way of life is right ... and therefore superior..

Mike (if I may),

What a coincidence! I just put The Metaphysics of Perfect Beings on my reading list today after receiving an ad from Routledge.

"If you're a Great Pumpkinist, then, no matter how this affects your welfare (perhaps by producing these wonderful mental states when you meditate on the Pumpkin Manifesto), your way of life is unlikely to be regarded as a good one (cf. Nozick's pleasure machine); it's rather pathetic, wouldn't you say?"

Linus is pathetic because he has absolutely no evidence that the GP exists. It's all wishful thinking on his part. The theist, on the other hand, has several solid arguments, the testimony of the apostles, (if he is a Christian) the historical fact that the vast majority of human beings down through the ages have also been believers (of one sort or another), and (perhaps) his own religious experiences on which to rest his belief. Believing something that couldn't be proven false on the basis of such reasons hardly qualifies as pathetic, regardless of its truth-value. Especially if the only alternative is atheism and its attendant despair and alienation. I thought this was something Spinoza settled a long time ago. The theist cannot come to grief from his belief being false (unlike most other false beliefs) and it typically brings psychological and social benefits. The atheist not only has his despair and alienation to contend with in the here and now, but is risking Purgatory or infinitely worse- with no possibility of having the last laugh on the theist (if he's into schadenfreude).

There is no research on 'pernicious' as a modal operator. That was my attempt at a joke: my way of saying to Andrew that there is nothing infelicitous about the locution 'perniciously false', pace what he seemed to be suggesting.

narcisse:

"because you can't live a good life if you don't live by what is true."

I am not sure what you mean by 'what is true.' If I have to know the truth of what it the actual state of affairs (some sort of correspondence), then what I know may be very limited. If you mean that I can claim that an idea is true if it coheres with others beliefs in my conceptual schema then what I can claim to know may be more then what is warranted by any direct evidence that supports the overall schema. (I have in mind here Carnap's distinction.) Based on this distinction the Christian, Agnostic, or Atheist may be living based on what they 'know' to be true. (yes, I do know that Carnap would probably not agree with using his distinction in a religious context, but...)

What I am suggesting is that if a claim is being made that a belief in x (some particular conceptual schema) is correlated to a life that is superior (based on some non-question begging criteria) then this claim can be tested. You are correct that we would need to agree on what counts as the criteria that counts as living a superior life. My worry is that at some point in the discussion issues are going to arise concerning "which way of life is right" that cannot be resolved without resorting to the religious beliefs of the person, which would beg the question. But maybe that problem can be averted by simply asking people to rate the happiness of their lives based on what they think constitutes living a happy life and see if there is a correlation between those that claim to be living a happy life and the religious beliefs they claim to believe to be true.

So here are two questions:

1) I am happy with my life. (answer to be on a 7-point liker scale from completely disagree to completely agree.)
2) I am A) Christian, B) Agnostic, or C) Atheist.

Now, a correlation does not necessary represent a casual connection, but if there is a correlation between A, B, or C and living a happy life then the investigation could take a more detailed turn to see if there is a casual connection. If there is, then it may be possible to determine which way of life is right and therefore superior to other alternatives.

Robert,

The Great Pumpkinist is not pathetic because he lacks evidence (though he is a proper object of ridicule for that). He is pathetic because he is devoted to an elaborate and complete falsehood. The question concerns the relative value of ways of life from distinct points of view, doesn't it? We're asking whether the theist must view his way of life as more valuable than the atheist's and vice versa. Take the point of view of the atheist: the theist looks like a Great Pumpkinist. I don't mean he is (like the Great Pumpkinist) a proper object of ridicule for believing something for which he has no evidence. I mean rather that he is a pathetic figure for devoting his entire life to (what the atheist is sure) is an elaborate and complete falsehood. So I want to answer in the affirmative: the atheist must view his way of life as better than the theists (similarly for the theist). This is because each views the alternative as based on a complete falsehood with great practical importance. I take the badness of basing one's life on a complete falsehood as outweighing any other benefits one might receive in welfare.

Errata:

I meant to say that it was Pascal who established that the theist's position is rationally superior to the atheist's.

Andrew, et al.
I have brought up the issue of begging the question in favor of one specific viewpoint. Here is an example of what I mean. It was from Andrew responding to my 1st call for an experiment.

"One part that wouldn't be (straightforwardly anyway) testable about a way of life's value is whether it actually includes God or not. Take two individuals with identical mental states, but one experiences the world as it actually is and the other is in a demon world. The one in the demon world doesn't actually have friends or loved ones. I'm inclined to say that the way of life of the latter individual is inferior to the former. We could say the same about the Christian way of life and whether or not God actually exists."

"Whether it actually includes God or not" is testable if it is referring only to the belief that one has not what the belief denotes as existing. Andrew is a Christian, I am not. Regarding the existence of a theistic God, one of us is correct and the other is wrong. But our individual conceptual schemas concerning God's existence are internally coherent in that they stand together in a self-supporting system that we each think is true, although one must be ontologically incorrect (Carnap's distinction). It is possible for each of us to think that we are living a life that is superior (better in some important respect) to the alternatives? I trust that Andrew is happy with his life and that he has many friends and associations that provide grounding and meaning for his existence. He may very well attribute all this to his belief in God (obviously, I am speaking for Andrew who I do not know, so if I am wrong I apologize). I too am happy with my life. One of my sources of happiness, albeit a minor one, is the fact that I have reason to believe that there is no theistic God. I may be wrong, but does this make me less happy? I think that I am right and that Andrew is wrong, therefore I think that my position re God is superior to Andrew's. But, from Andrew's perspective (that I presume is well thought out and coherent) he thinks his position re God is better then mine and therefore superior. But, if this is what Andrew meant by 'superior' this is kind of a trivial victory for either of us. What seems to be important is the causal relationship between having a conceptual schema and the happiness one experiences with the way one's life is progressing. If it is true in an objective testable sense of being true, that believing in x is more likely to result in that person being happy (in some non-trivial sense of being happy) then one can make the epistemic claim that x is superior to the alternatives that would result in persons being less happy then if they believed in x. (I am beginning to see this leading to a version of Pascal's wager.)

Where I think Andrew begs the question is in the following where he discusses two people who have identical mental states but live in different universes: "one experiences the world as it actually is and the other is in a demon world. The one in the demon world doesn't actually have friends or loved ones. I'm inclined to say that the way of life of the latter individual is inferior to the former. We could say the same about the Christian way of life and whether or not God actually exists." If I am the one that is in the demon world then I will think that I am happy, but Andrew is saying something along the lines that I cannot REALLY be happy because I do not actually have friends, etc. But I will not be aware of this; I will believe that I have friends and loved ones and act accordingly. I doubt that anyone could convince me otherwise. This is my ‘actual’ world. I will be really happy because my experience of happiness is identical to the experience of happiness of the person in the non-demon world (as stipulated in Andrew's thought experiment). To claim otherwise is to beg the question.

I just want to say how mmuch I am enjoying this discussion. You do make me think.

Andrew
I apologize for not being clearer. I did see where you were going with your discussion after your clarification on May 6th and I agree with you that a Christian ought to claim what you suggest they are committed to claiming. The same would hold for the agnostic or the atheist, etc. In my latter contributions to the discussion starting with the one on May 6th, I went of on a tangent and was doing an 'if-then' analysis of what would happen if you, or someone, were to argue that the Christian way of life is, in fact, superior. That claim I think would have to be tested. At times I wrote as if you were committed to the view that Christianity is the superior way of life and I should have been clearer that I was only making a distinction based on what would happen if you were to argue that it is a fact. I interpreted some of your comments in that light and I should have made it clear that that is what I was doing. I hope that you will do a further post and explore this question as I think it is an interesting one.

John (if I may),

Why would thinking that you have a “reason to believe that there is no theistic God” make you happy? I should think that one would WANT a loving God to exist whether one believes in Him or not.

When I was a Christianist not too long ago in my life, I absolutely believed that the superiority of my way of life was a (super-)natural result of the superiority of my worldview to all others. The exclusivism of my denomination and the tenants therein only reinforced my view that my happiness and good fortune was a product of my theological and religious views. God created me in his image (Gen. 1:27); had a plan for me from all eternity; knew me before I was born (Jer. 1:5); spoke to me as I petitioned him bedside and in the pews of my Church (Ps. 66:19-20); comforted me in the most perfect and most personal ways in the most needy of times (2 Cor. 1:3-4); surely, as one of the chosen to reside beside Him in Heaven, “My God [was] an Awesome God”. The unshakable certainty of my beliefs—my faith—was a perfectly self-reinforcing means of strengthening my beliefs. It was a win-win situation no matter what I read or what I saw or what I was told; “challenges” to my faith only strengthened it--as was necessary for me to retreat into my beliefs and mine from them in order to save them—and everything else that was not in contradiction to my beliefs only told me that they were ever more true, just, and wholly pious. In justifying and defending my beliefs to myself while alone and to others when witnessing to them, the total circularity and self-confirming nature of my beliefs and methods during the time I was religious was only ever more indicative of its virtue, truth, and strength. Like pulling at the loose ends of a rope in order to loosen a knot, the paradigm of infallibility was knowing that God wrote the Bible because the book itself, and all of creation testified to its validity. Everything, no matter how prima facie contradictory, confirmed wholesale everything I believed. In apologetics and in service, my sense of teleology was on overdrive. With others, I would pray for good fortune to befall my family and me. If my sister found five dollars, bingo; God listened. Hallelujah. When my wife lost her job, bingo; how fortunate are we, we said, to have God test us and our faith in the manner of Job: He wants something from us, and we’ll dutifully deliver. Hallelujah indeed. How could I not believe that, compared to me, the atheist was the most impoverished, pitiful, and nihilistic person on Earth, in mind and in heart?

While witnessing to atheists and engaging in apologetics with them, I made sure to behave in the most Christ-like and Christ-affirming manner; cordial, friendly, and jovial. It was a complete lie that I bought into through endless repetition to others and by others: “I’m a sinner just like everyone else; everybody—from kings to paupers—need Jesus.” In reality, I had a deep and abiding sense of spite for the atheists I knew personally; I had a lingering, thick animosity to even the atheists that I befriended for years, and many of my philosophically-inclined and apologetically-minded Christian friends confided in me that they not-too-secretly felt the same way. Knowing--not just believing, but knowing--that the atheists who I knew would be thrashing in unspeakable pain in Hell for eternity while I was subsequently in Heaven was something that kept me up at night. I am ashamed to say, I felt like it was the ultimate comeuppance in the end, no matter their “arguments”, I’d win in the long run. They’d become instant Christians the instant they died and would have to live with an eternity of regret for not having been persuaded by my convictions and arguments. How dare they reject Christ to whom they owed everything? No matter how reasoned, coherent, or (of course, superficially) persuasive their defenses and arguments were, in the end, it wouldn’t save them from the hell that God had prepared for those who turned away from the atonement of his Son’s blood. After all, I thought, in the end God will judge them as fools (Ps. 14:1/53:1) wholly without excuse (Rom. 1:20).

In retrospect, I am deeply ashamed to know that, when I was a Christian, the superiority of my beliefs that I knew in my heart of hearts, was really indicative of the most deep-seated egoism, selfishness, and self-aggrandizement that I can imagine. Parading as humility, nobility, and good character, all the years of attributing and theologizing in seminars, seminaries, and philosophy conferences about the goodness, virtue, and justness of God and His judgments, were really just reflections of myself: anthropomorphisms of what I wanted and what I projected as the best ‘me’ I could think of. It was all, in the end, a disgusting and pathetic enterprise born out of self-worship, aggrandizement, inadequacy, and fear. When I said “God says x” or “God is x” it really meant “I say God says x” and “I am x”. Bierce said it perfectly: Admiration is “our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves."

With all my superficial humility, I had the answers. Even if I was unable to express them as well as my heroes—Plantinga, Alston, Wolterstorff, Quinn, Craig, Moreland et al.—I was still right, in some deep way, even if my arguments failed to meet (arbitrary) standards in philosophy, besides the text of its coherence with scripture.

Is the Christian way of life superior? If you are a Christian: it is absolutely true that Christians are committed to believing that their way of life is superior to the lives of atheists. I thought that the inferiority of their way of life invariably reflects on their inferiority in the eyes of God; and likewise, eventually, their inferiority to me, despite my superficial and shallow façade of humility with claims about the “universal fallenness of all humankind--atheist and Christian alike.” I even preached a sermon many times to some hundreds of kids at Campus Crusade meetings, Youth Group meetings, Church camps, etc. which included some story about two Christians and a non-believer on a mountain hiking trip, and after a landslide, one Christian and the non-believer ended up hanging precariously off of a ledge, and the able-bodied Christian could only pull one of them to safety. I said that, in the end, the moral of the story was that—despite their strong sympathies to the other Christian--they should pull the atheist to safety, because the non-Christian was “the one that really needed saving.” Everyone I preached that sermon to totally ate it up; I thought it my jewel, and told it for years. Wow. I don’t tell that to too many people because of how incredibly ashamed I am that I actually believed that. I can’t believe how anyone, myself included, could be so amazingly conceited.

And now, I cannot say to myself that I am anymore a Christian. I’ll speak for myself, because atheism does not imply anything but an absence of belief in a deity, nothing else. Forgive my maudlin sentimentalism hereafter; I assure you, it reflects a genuine exuberance that I have for living:

For me, because I am not a Christian, I no longer see my venture through life as a mere means to an end. In fact, as a waning, agnostic “Christian,” I recognize that there is an end, and therefore I have more purchase than a Christian on meaning because, for the Christian, I have no infinite afterlife to await me when I die. Indeed, because I am no longer a Christian, my life no longer centers around death and a worship of death, but a full exuberance that comes with a finite life, not an infinite one of either eternal slavery and cheerleading for God in Heaven, or eternal punishment and torture in Hell. I no longer believe it to be wholly just that Hitler burns millions of Jews and is called the epitome of evil, and that God burns billions Jews et al.—for eternity—and is called wholly good. Because I have abandoned the belief in an afterlife, it means that every minute I have left is all the more important and valuable, because it will never be available to me again. I don’t look at the world like some shabby apartment compared to the gold-plated mansion of Heaven. I recognize that I value life more for the same reasons that I value all things because they are rare, finite, and exceptional. When we cheat when playing a video game, we’re all the more reckless with others and with ourselves in the game when we grant ourselves an infinite number of lives. But, when we don’t evoke magic to make our lives infinite, in the video games with cheat codes, or with religion the game of life, I find that I get more out of it: it is infinitely more meaningful and more valuable in every way. Every moment I have now is more beautiful because it is the only opportunity I have to experience it; be it with my son, my wife, or with others. My sense of morality, no longer numbed by inane commandments or derivative rules, makes every single moment truly a “once-in-a-lifetime experience.” This life is it—and I make the most of it. In abandoning my “Christian” sentiments, I demand a higher quality of life because it is not a means to an end. Because I have only one life, and a few million seconds left to live, I cannot be complacent with the pabulum or superficial things in life; I demand of myself the highest degree of excellence capable in what I do and what I indulge in. To paraphrase Thoreau, I cannot merely read “The Times” without having made every day richer by reading “The Eternities”. Furthermore, not only am I wholly compelled to make my life more moral and worthwhile, but also I am deeply compelled to make it better for everyone I can when I’m no longer around. My life finally has a tangible, practical, and recognizable purpose; one in which can felt, touched; the benefits therein witnessed and experienced. Because I am no longer a Christianist, my thoughts drift from making sure that I “get mine” with my soul with a lifetime of obedience and servility and guilt, to the fortunes and quality of life in others because it is all the more important. Pardon the parallels to Mill, but because I have rid myself of the chains of Christianity, I now have a deep, abiding moral imperative to make my life the best it can be and do so for as many others as possible; not because it “glorifies God” as my pathetic raison d'etre as some cosmic cheerleading squad for the infinite ego of the creator; but because it is the summum bonum, so to speak.

As a result of this, and so many other reasons that I cannot fail to see Christianism as deeply and inescapably nihilistic. As a Christian, my beliefs rendered the life I had as nearly meaningless, despite the claims by Christianist of its importance in “finding redemption before death.” For years, I repeated that old canard that without God, our lives would become ones of egotism and selfishness (Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ was a champion of that one, with his quaint, simplistic little sketches of “God-Centered” and “Human-Centered” lives). However, the lie that I helped to perpetuate, I found, was completely false. If only I hadn’t believed it too, maybe I would have shed my chains sooner. Now, I realize, I was born just fine the first time.

For over thirty-six years I believed Christian way of life was superior because of my beliefs. Now, I am nearly of the opposite persuasion.

Concerning the content of the post, it would seem that the characteristics listed--belief that God loves us, made sacrifices, said deity communicates with us, comforts us, our holy book confirms out belief, and our present way of living is fantastic—all could be claimed of anyone else as reasons for the superiority of their religion. When I was a Christianist, I too believed that the fruits and wealth afforded to me by a Western, Protestant, and American economy and culture were, in fact, indicative of being in God’s favor and made obvious the superiority of my religion. Of course, people in other wealthy countries could look upon the circumstances of their western governments and claim that this supports the superiority of their belief-system also. Don’t worry, when I was a Christianist, I too was incredibly myopic concerning my heightened sense of teleology in the world; coupled with uncanny abilities of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias on overload, I can’t blame you; nor is the content of this post surprising. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, it is like a puddle of water waking up one day and exclaiming how incredibly apt and successful that they are to be so talented and blessed as to fit so handsomely into their respective holes and containers. Celebrity Scientologists look upon the incredibly lavish lifestyle that their ‘Church’ bestows on them and also claim that this is highly reflective of the successes and excellence of their beliefs. So too, indigenous peoples see the rains that they pray for as indicative of the superiority of their beliefs, even though their reasons are as solipsistic and post-hoc as the reasoning that inspired the contents of this post. Innumerable examples are found; see the vast psychological and anthropological literature on the Millerite “Great Disappointment” of 1833. Aptly put, the “Skepdic.com” encyclopedia article on “cognitive dissonance” quotes Bob Dylan in its header: "There's no success like failure...."

You say:

“It seems to me that in the same way that it is plausible to think that a person who denies the existence and value of other people is living a way of life that is inferior, so should the Christian think that the atheist is living an inferior way of life by not living the Christian way of life. And I think that this is an interesting and surprising conclusion, though some may find it completely obvious. I'm still trying to get clear on my thoughts on the matter, so comments are welcome.”

It would be incredibly surprising to find that a way of life that did not deny the existence or value of people was inferior to another that did. However, on the fourth, fifth, and sixth reading of this paragraph, it appears that you think that atheists deny “the existence and value of other people.” I don’t know what kind of bizarre theology you’ve been reading, but I am at a total loss as to how you came to the conclusion that atheists deny “the existence and value of other people.” Not only is this incredibly short-sighted, but I’m rather struck with the how easy you were with typing this; as if the audience of this blog would agree with it in the same manner that the sky was blue. I’ve worked in a Christian homeschooling center for years—people who were devout followers of charlatans like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind—and even (most) the people there weren’t so sheltered and naïve as to believe a statement like this.

It is clear to me, Mr. Moon, that the degree in which you are surprised at the “obviousness” of your observation that a superior way of life is one that acknowledges “the existence and value of other people”, is exactly proportional to the gargantuan straw man that you’ve constructed and invested belief in about the nature of atheists and of atheism in general. From my years of visiting the regional conferences of the SCP and reading years of “Faith and Philosophy” and “Christianity Today”, I’ve learned that, in the company of others like-minded, arguments and statements that would otherwise be challenged in more intellectually rigorous environments often get a pass (the amount of hero-worship among Christian philosophers is a huge problem; I too was part of it when I participated). I know that Christians dominate this blog, so I fully expect to be dismissed and have every sentence picked apart. But, in light of the myopia expressed in the content of this post, I cannot let something like this go unchallenged.

Is the Christian way of life superior? No.

Mike,

Willy Loman is pathetic. The aging fighter who refuses to hang up his gloves is pathetic. But not someone holding a belief with the credentials of theism. Of course the atheist, assuming the truth of his position, is going to take a dim view of the theist’s way of life, and vice-versa. But this assumption neither side is entitled to make, unlike those evaluating the life of the pleasure machine occupant, who could be doing much better. Instead, all we can look at here are the benefits of holding the respective beliefs and the evidence in favor of each. And. as Pascal pointed out, the theist definitely comes out on top here. There is a tremendous amount of non-perceptual evidence in his favor- and that is all one should expect, given that God is transcendent- and the happiness, true or otherwise, he derives from believing as he does. The atheist, on the other hand, is alienating others, denying himself hope, which is surely a part of happiness, and, most importantly, putting himself at great risk. And for what? Because he can’t see God, as one of my students said this semester? But God is a spirit and so that is asking for the impossible and/or assuming empiricism. Because of the Problem of Evil? There is a solution to that. (Cf. my “St. Augustine’s Free will Theodicy and Natural Evil” @ http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000096/article.pdf.)

It is easy to see the upgrade for the escapee from the pleasure machine: he not only is now CERTAIN of the truth- let’s say he had doubts about the legitimacy of his experiences- he can also have a 'real life' based upon it. If the mistaken theist were pathetic, he would similarly benefit from abdicating his faith. But he wouldn’t, so he’s not.

Of course the atheist, assuming the truth of his position, is going to take a dim view of the theist’s way of life, and vice-versa. But this assumption neither side is entitled to make . . .

If you are a theist, then of course you take theism to be true. It is the rare person that calls himself a theist and adds that his credence for theism is just .8. Similarly, if you are an atheist, then you believe that atheism is true. So of course each is "assuming the truth of his [own] position", if what you mean is that each believes his own position to be the correct one. The question Andrew proposed was whether a theist (i.e. someone who believes theism is true) must also believe that it is a better way of life than atheism. For the reasons I've given, I say yes. But then so would the atheist, for the same reasons. It is an interesting, but different, question to consider whether those not fully committed to the truth of theism must come to the same conclusion.

Robert
You certaily may call me 'John.'

As to your question:

I am happy not believing in a theistic God because I find that conception inconsistent with the evidence. But also because that way I do not have to think that all the suffering in the world is the result of some plan that I had no part in developing. It does not seem fair for a being to judge people for doing something in a context they did not have a part in developing. As Ruiex says (paraphrased, I think)in Camus's The Plague, I will not believe in a system that puts a child to torture. At one level, I admit that there may be a God, I simply refuse to believe in that God if he created the world as it is, with some plan for humankind that allows him to reward and punish based on criteria that those beings judged had not part in developing or agreeing to.

Maybe Mike means that no one is justified in being a theist or in being an atheist?

Maybe Mike means that no one is justified in being a theist or in being an atheist?

Alex,

How do you arrive at that? Are you advancing--very implicitly--an epistemic peer argument? Setting that aside, I think theists put perfect credence in their theism. I do not raise the question of their justification in doing so, since it isn't part of the question. Or, at least, I don't see it as part. The question is what a theist (I take it, a fully committed theist) must say about the relative value of his way of life. It's a separate question whether any theist can be justified in being fully committed; I happen to think they can be. I also believe that an atheist might be justified in being fully committed to atheism. I doubt we disagree that these are possibilities.

Mike,

What I'm trying to say is that for the purpose of evaluating someone's life- determining whether or not it's "pathetic"- you shouldn't assume the truth of your position and then see how he fares. No, you must look at what evidence he has for his view (along with its practical effects upon his life). Were the theist to switch sides it would not benefit him in any practical way nor would he be better off epistemicly, only luckier, given that the evidence favors theism (Ont. Arg, Cosmol Arg, Design Arg., solutions to the Problem of Evil, testimony of the apostles, faith of billions of other people ...).

My apologies, Mike: I confused you with someone you were quoting.

What I'm trying to say is that for the purpose of evaluating someone's life- determining whether or not it's "pathetic"- you shouldn't assume the truth of your position and then see how he fares.

This is fine, I suppose. But I'm reasonably sure that doesn't address the question Andrew posed. Incidentally, I don't think it's even close to obvious that the evidence, all in, favors theism. There are way too many superb and sophisticated arguments on both sides of this issue for such a simple assessment. But then believers need not be evidentialists.

Hi all
I apologize because this is completely off the topic of this post, but I have no other way to ask this question. I could not figure out how to reach Matthew to ask him to post this question. Back in February, Trent had a post dealing with Flew. Some of the discussion centered on the idea that Flew changing his mind was evidence for the truth of theism because he certainly was capable of analyzing arguments, etc. In light of the comments on this post by "2", I was wondering if his change counts as evidence for the truth of atheism or agnosticism? I was also wondering what people think the evidentiary status is of the recent revelations of Mother Theresa's view concerning her lack of feeling the presence or closeness of God. I am asking because I hope someone who has posting privileges on this blog will address the question of evidence re a person's change in beliefs and the role it plays in evaluating the truth of a given position.

John,

Before the atheists start gloating about Venerable Mother Theresa's revelation, they should consider that many saints and religious people have had "dark night of the soul" experiences. In fact, that's how you get to be a saint: by undergoing and overcoming trials both physical and psychological. That she and others did manage to do just that only speaks to the truth of the faith that enabled them to.

Robert
I trust that you are not asserting that I am 'gloating' over Mother Theresa's revelation. You do not know me well enough! I am very familiar with "dark night of the soul" experinces, both from personal experinces and from reading about the lives/experiences of others. I am asking what evidentiary role they play, one way of the other, in establishing the epistemic status of theism.
Also, please note that I am not asking for a discussion at this time. I would like to see a post from someone who has 'contributor' status on this issue. that is all.