Savannah Shipman
Dr. Oliver
Philosophy 1010
December 7, 2013
So
what is going to happen when I die? Luckily, I live in a world in which I can
talk openly about what will happen after death; in the past, people have been
persecuted, executed, and excommunicated for having differing beliefs than
those in power—so I would like to exercise my right to discuss openly my
thoughts on whether or not there is a god or gods. For the sake of conformity
throughout this paper, I will not refer to one specific god (i.e. Allah, Yahweh,
or the Christian God) but gods as a whole; I would like to discuss my opinion
on whether anything created our world and if we shall join any universal
creator after death.
My entire life I have been brought
up in a Christian home with Christian values. Growing up in this way, I learned
certain attributes such as honesty, humility, and piety; at the same time, I
grew up prejudiced against people of other religions, people of no religion,
homosexuals, and even people of other sects of Christianity. When I entered
high school, however, things began to change; I could not help but notice when
some of my teachers made off-hand comments about the discrepancies in the
Christian religion, that one of my closest friends was a strong atheist, and
that as I learned history, the permanence of the Christian religion began to
fall away. And so I began to think. Maybe I should examine other theories
instead of simply believing what I have always been told my whole life. It was a philosophy that first made me have
this idea—Descartes to be exact. And it was the ideas of other philosophers
that made me really question my beliefs and arrive a new and better (at least I
think so!) conclusion about the world and my place in it. In this paper, I
would like to discuss my current views on religion and why I believe what I believe
with the help of the philosophers we have talked about in class. I have always
enjoyed historical thinking and I believe the best way to move forward is by
observing the past.
So let us start from the beginning
before the Christian religion was even fathomed and people of Ancient Greece
were “pagan,” or without “right” religion. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would
have been these “pagans,” and it is with these men that western philosophy was
brought into existence. Socrates certainly believed in a god; when the oracle
at Delphi said he was the wisest man in Athens, he was perplexed, but believed
these words whole heartedly. Thus, this shows Socrates believed in Apollo, a
god of a religion we do not believe in nowadays. I am not sure if Plato subscribed
to the same beliefs as Socrates, but he did believe in a more theoretical form
of god; Plato believed more in the idea of perfection, and believed that there
is certainly something larger than us at work in the world. Aristotle seemed
more down to earth in his philosophies, but it would be a safe bet to assume
Aristotle ascribed to the same beliefs his mentors did.
This is perhaps one of the first
things that struck me about the religion I was brought up in; it is hard for me
to imagine one religion as correct while there are so many others that have
existed within the world. In my opinion, it is unjust to claim that what
someone believes is wrong; it is certainly just to say you do not agree with
someone’s beliefs, but I do not believe it is right to say people are
delusional or barking up the wrong tree to use a euphemism. So as I learned
about the beliefs of Socrates and the other Greeks, it really got me thinking
about the ways in which religions fall in and out of favor. The Romans believed
in multiple gods, as did the Greeks, the Ancient Egyptians, and the Celts; so
in this world where Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the dominant religions,
the world seemed to open up a bit more when I realized that there were other
religions that people had believed in completely. In this way, Christianity
lost a lot of its mysticism for me and I was able to step back and think about
religion logically from an outside point of view.
But in order to observe religions
from a logical standpoint, I first had to set aside my belief in Hell. To be
honest, Hell is a truly terrifying concept, and once I put the idea of Hell
behind me, I was actually a lot more comfortable with my life in general once I
stopped believing in the concept of Hell. Hell truly terrified me as a child
while also interesting me as a young adult when I read The Inferno by Dante. Western humanity as a whole also seems to be
perplexed by the concept of Hell; Augustine is one theologian who was also
concerned with this terrifying prospect.
Augustine was perplexed by the
concept of Hell; and if you are a Christian, going to Hell is a very real
possibility—and a very terrifying one! So Augustine wrestled with the ideas of
evil in the world and whether or not we had freewill. After much philosophizing, Augustine decided
that God (this time the Christian god) gave us free will even if God knows how
things will eventually end up. Boethius was also interested in the concept of
free will and believed that even if God knows how everything will end up, he
operates outside our time. Augustine’s and Boethius’ philosophies are
interesting, but during Augustine’s early life, he seems to have struggled with
the notion of God—specifically on how to reconcile physical pleasure and
religion. One of the first things that struck me about religion was the guilt
trip it seemed to create. True, religion does give hope and strength to some,
but it also creates a system of rules and regulations that are not to be
broken. Augustine seemed to have the same thoughts as he participated in all
sorts of debaucheries in his earlier life and prayed to God to give him piety
and strength—but not yet, because he was simply enjoying himself too much.
This is certainly an interesting
concept to me. Physical pleasure is a very integral part of life—I mean, we
aren’t stoics or anything. People drink, smoke, have sex, and party all the
time almost as if they need to. True, these events can get quite raucous—and
perhaps that is why they are considered sins. Is it not convenient that many of
the things that are fun in life are sins? It is almost like religious rules were
made to control people—do you not agree? Well this is what runs through my
mind, at least. Augustine found a sort of faith in this concept, but the system
of guilt under which Christianity seems to operate simply does not work for me.
It does not seem healthy, nor does it seem like a very fruitful way to live my
life. To me, life is about human relationships and having fun as much as
possible. I do not believe anything happens after I die, so why not enjoy this
truly precious life that we have now? The fact that I believe this is the only
life I will live makes my life all the more precious.
Most of the philosophers we studied
in class, at least the earlier philosophers, were strong Christians. Anselm
attempted to prove the existence of God (the Christian God, specifically) with
his Ontological Argument. Anselm seemed to believe that God existed simply
because we humans had the possibility to imagine and understand this being, he
(or she…) then existed. I have a number of problems with Anselm’s theory,
however. First of all, Anselm’s theory must be applied to all possible gods and
does not seem exclusive merely to the Christian God. I guess Anselm could say
people were mistaking their thoughts of Apollo (as an example) for the
Christian God, but this seems like a feeble response. Second of all, Guanile of
Marmoutiers’ reasoning to disprove Anselm’s theory is quite strong. He cites an
example of the perfect island and how ridiculous it would be to imagine that
this perfect island exists just because we can imagine it. It would be
awesomely magical if we could imagine anything we wanted and it would awesomely
appear, but it seems a fantastical way to prove that God exists. Thirdly, I
feel that Anselm bridles the imagination with his proposal. Perhaps one of the
most amazing things about us humans is our brains and we can imagine,
understand, and create.
This thought leads me to Nietzsche—perhaps
my favorite philosopher. Nietzsche was quite angry with religion and seems fed
up with the ways in which it constricts us. Instead of looking to the sky for
answers—a pre-19th century phenomenon, it seems—Nietzsche instead
looked to the human race for answers and for salvation. This philosophy
affected me the most of all philosophers, I think. Humans have continuously put
faith in something that has been bigger than them, stronger than them, and
smarter than them. But Nietzsche suggested that perhaps the savior we have been
searching for all along was one of us—to me, this theory certainly seems more
reasonable than the belief in a mysterious and fantastical god somewhere in the
sky.
Nietzsche makes a few really good
points, in my opinion; he forms the image of the Ubermench and attempts to
prove that one day, hopefully, there will be a man who will rise up and lead
the rest of the humans. For far too long have humans bowed down to a god who
seems fairly absent; true, people cite parts of the Bible in which God has
direct influence in human affairs and seems to actually care about what is
going on with the Isrealites—but it seems quite curious that God (or any god
for that matter) does not come into the world anymore and make himself (or
herself) known. When I mentioned this stark absence to my friend, he said that
he believed God had stepped away from the world because humans had been too
sinful. This reply really disturbed me. I asked him why he thought it was our
fault that God had stepped away—I mean, what could humans possibly have done to
upset and all-knowing God who is supposed to love humans? In fact, I told him
it was unhealthy that he was blaming the human race, and thus himself, for God’s
departure. It is the same system of guilt under which I feel Christianity has
always operated under—I think it is unhealthy to continually blame humans for
the troubles within the world. I mean, look at this violent and pain-filled
world we live within! If a God has stepped away to leave us here, then I don’t
think he needs to be revered or loved anyway—at least that’s my opinion!
Nietzsche perhaps thought the same
as he stressed the idea of the Ubermench and how only one of our own kind can
save us from this harsh world in which we are all forced to live and work.
True, his theories favor survival of the fittest and violence under some
circumstances, but I think he is completely correct in asserting that only from
the ranks of humans will we find any kind of guidance and comfort. It is
certainly a romantic notion to look to the skies for guidance and answers to
life’s questions, but in an age where people no longer fear the creaking sounds
coming from the woods, why wouldn’t we put our faith in something that we can
see and understand? Human kind is something to be celebrated! We are finally
reaching an age in which we can have worldwide peace and celebrate each other’s
differences while also working together in a global economy, trading and making
goods for each other. Many of the countries with which we communicate also subscribe
to other religions—we, as a human race, have taken enormous strides since
historical religious disasters such as the Spanish Inquisition and the
Crusades.
So when Nietzsche suggested that we
allow one of us to step up as a sort of demi-god or leader, I am going to have
to agree that this is a more reasonable explanation than waiting for some
massive being in the sky to come and judge us off His morality. Humans need to
make their own morality and stand as leaders of their own lives. Why wouldn’t
we? It seems crazy that we would bow down to something that is not there, forsaking
and alienating other human beings, and creating splits in cooperation for the
sake of religion. And I am talking about any religion, as I said at the
beginning of this paper.
Thomas Aquinas, a theologian who I
actually like a lot, also attempted to explain why God (the Christian God,
specifically) must exist. In order to explain this, he used an example of someone
finding a clock randomly. This person, according to Aquinas, must then
postulate that someone, or something, made this watch. Aquinas then expanded
this theory to include everything in our world—if we see it now, and it works
perfectly, who then is the watchmaker?
This theory is an interesting idea,
and I have certainly struggled with the idea of how we are here and why this
world even exists for me to experience, but David Hume points out that just
because it appears that someone made this universe, it doesn’t necessarily mean
that someone did. This is a good point that Hume makes, but I also have a few
comments on what Aquinas said. If he were around for me to debate with, I would
ask him why he so adamantly assumed that it was the Christian God specifically
who made this world. Why not Zues? Why not Apollo? Why not any of the other
gods people have worshipped over the years? Perhaps he didn’t even fathom this
possibility because he lived in a western world where they only entertained
western ideas. It is certainly true that the western world has been ardently
Christian until recent years, so his tendency to only entertain the idea of the
Christian God seems to make sense—but it does leave some holes and prejudices in
his philosophy.
Hobbes believed that God was more
like some huge machine who created the world and left it pretty much alone
after that. Many thought Hobbes was a disguised atheist, so good for him in my
opinion, but he received much criticism for his views. It does not bother me
that he is an atheist, but Hobbes’ low view of humanity seems to sprout from the Christian
tendency to believe that there is something wrong with humanity that only a
all-knowing God can fix. Hobbes commented that humanity was “nasty, brutish,
and short” as they are driven by base desires of lust, jealousy, and violence. I
think it is unhealthy to sit around and talk about how horrible human nature is—instead,
Hobbes could have been more productive if he focused on the positivity in human
nature. Maybe he would have been less of a misanthrope if he concentrated on
the successes of human nature instead of wallowing in their downfalls.
Voltaire seemed to have a more
positive view of human nature than Hobbes. He ridiculed Leibniz’s view that
this is the best of all possible worlds, but points out the futility of sitting
around being absurdly hopeful in the face of events that are unfavorable. As an
answer as to how we should deal with monstrosities and unfortunate events in
our lives, Voltaire in Candide,
suggested that we simply cultivate our garden—or attempt to do something
positive in the world instead of waiting around for others or a god to do some
good. Voltaire’s is perhaps one of the best working philosophies I have studied—and
certainly the most simple! True, the world is filled with a lot of pain and
misery, but Voltaire puts the responsibility of change in the hands of humans.
I feel that this philosophy is akin to Nietzsche’s as Voltaire charges humans
to have influence over their own lives instead of waiting around for a god to
come and save them or make the world better in some way.
So at this point of my life, I would
definitely consider myself an atheist. But when I was still struggling with
exactly how I would define my religious views, Pascal’s Wager struck me as very
interesting. Pascal basically said that we might as well believe in God (the
Christian god) because the repercussion of just believing would be way better
than not believing and risking eternal damnation. Is this really faith though?
I don’t think so. But also, what kind of wonderful God would even send his
creations down to Hell?—but that is another conversation, I think. Anyway,
Pascal’s Wager was definitely something to think about when I was struggling
with my faith, but in the end did not really end up affecting my decision. I
feel like my opinion on Pascal was actually influenced by one of Descartes’ philosophies;
when he comments that God must exist because we can fathom this concept, this philosophy
seems to flow both ways. I think it is possible for a god to exist in one
person’s reality but not in another. At least this is how I have reconciled
people’s strong belief in god with my own disbelief. Good for you if you
believe in a god, but sorry, I don’t. And I don’t think that because of this I
will be punished in any way for not believing or being sinful or whatever.
After we die, I think blood stops
pumping through our brains and that’s it; but people can believe in whatever
they want while they are alive as long as it does not harm other people. I
personally do not believe that anything is going to happen after we die, but if
it comforts you to think that, go you. But there is no reason to feel any sort
of hostility towards me or people of other religions—because I certainly have
seen this before! Maybe they are threatened from my disbelief or feel alienated
because I do not subscribe to their beliefs, but people need to quit
splintering and alienating each other on this planet. If one thing is certain,
our time here on this planet is exceedingly limited, fleeting, and short; so
can we all get along for the time being?
At least that’s my philosophy. Human
beings are awesome! We are the most highly evolved and intelligent things on
the planet. So why don’t we quite bowing down to something that may or may not
be there and celebrate our amazing lives that we have now? Maybe a god is
there, but if he or she wants us, then they will have us. I don’t really think
our wants or needs or actions will have much to do with it in the ends. All I
know, is that I will continue living my life as usual as I have as much fun and
laugh as much as possible. That is my philosophy at least for this moment. I
try to be as optimistic as possible. I consider myself a good person and I do
not lie or hurt anyone intentionally. I think on this earth we are supposed to
enjoy our lives, never mind how we got here! If there is a god, let him or her
come over here then! But I am not going to spend my time worrying about it. I
am going to truck along in my little life, happy to be here, and happy to be
alive.
Great job
ReplyDeleteNice survey, Savannah, and (in the context of our region and some of our peers) a courageous profession of your personal belief. "The fact that I believe this is the only life I will live makes my life all the more precious." Exactly. Your glass-half-full approach is refreshing, and inspiring. Enjoy your life, be happy, good luck!!
ReplyDeleteP.S. I once considered Nietzsche my favorite philosopher too, and still enjoy reading him. But ultimately I agree with Wm James that "poor Nietzsche's antipathies" towards happiness-seeking humanity in general, and religious believers in particular, are corrosive and unhealthy. My suggestion: read more Mill, Hume, Voltaire, James... and realize that we're all seeking many of the same things: life, meaning, happiness, hope. Reserve antipathy for the narrow-minded bigots of whatever persuasion. Live and let live.
ReplyDelete