I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
Enjoy!
[21] “The universe is meaningless without my magic man”
To which the short answer is “so [frakking] what?”
Leaving aside for the moment the total failure of supernaturalists to support the assertion that their particular pet species of magic man actually exists, which also impinges upon [20] above, the idea that the universe needs this entity to impose meaning upon it is a piece of intellectual constipation that I, for one, find mind-numbingly boring, tedious and unimaginative. Douglas Adams said it best – “Isn’t it enough to realise that the garden is beautiful as it is, without having to imagine fairies at the bottom of it?”
Likewise, why should the universe be required to genuflect before supernaturalist anthropocentric conceit, and be required to be meaningful only because an invisible magic man that we have invented decrees thus?
We are beings that are capable of eliciting meaning for our own lives, and the world around us, without outside interference. Erecting an imaginary source of outside interference is nothing more than a gargantuan Little Orphan Annie complex, a wish to remain a child with a nice Daddy figure to run the world around us so that we don’t have to get off our arses and expend the effort. This is such an utterly lame stance to adopt. It’s indolent, naive, simplistic and dumb. Surely there is far more majesty in knowing that the universe, quixotic and capricious though it may seem to be at first sight, is comprehensible by diligent intellectual human effort, and that exercising that effort not only leads to a breathtaking vista of understanding that adds to the majesty, but gives us the power to work toward a better destiny for us all in a manner that produces real, substantive results? Once again, the evidence we have is that fabricated magic men are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant in this vein, and indeed, are increasingly a hindrance. “Magic man did it”, once again, is little more than a synonym for “don’t bother asking questions, don’t bother being curious, don’t bother trying to learn”. What gives meaning to the world around us is the effort we exert to understand the world and put that knowledge to constructive use.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
6 comments
October 10, 2010 at 11:45 am
Alan Scott
How do Atheists handle mortality? How do they handle luck? If your universe ends with your own death, why wouldn’t you just lead a life of debauchery? What is the rationality of your morality ?
LikeLike
October 10, 2010 at 12:55 pm
The Arbourist
If your universe ends with your own death, why wouldn’t you just lead a life of debauchery?
Some people do choose to live a life of debauchery, believers and non believers alike. Another perspective on how to view how to live life is that we are only given one brief shot at life, this short precious time must be treasured and valued, wasting it debauching would not be a particularly rational choice, would you not agree?
What is the rationality of your morality ?
I’m not sure I fully understand the nature of your question. Moral and ethical systems exist that, by most standards, are quite intelligible and rational. There is no need for extra mystical bits in utilitarian or deontological moral analysis, both being reasonable ways of approaching moral questions and controversies.
LikeLike
October 10, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Natassia
Where the heck did that come from?
And isn’t it just “naturalist anthropocentric conceit”? Man makes his own meaning and determines his own purpose because Man is the highest authority of knowledge and morality?
I decided when I was an agnostic that if I ever came to the conclusion that there was no God, then I was going to be a philosophical nihilist. That was the only real honest answer left that wasn’t warped with wishful thinking and ego — ultimately life is pointless because there is no God and I am certainly not one either.
LikeLike
October 11, 2010 at 8:08 am
The Arbourist
It seems to be a fairly reasonable statement.
Man makes his own meaning and determines his own purpose because Man is the highest authority of knowledge and morality?
We do construct our own culture and norms and that would put us in charge of our knowledge and morality would it not? There is no necessity for any other authority as we are capable of moral and ethical behaviour.
The jump from reaching the conclusion there is no god = nihilist seems a bit of a slippery slope. One should not assume that if one does not believe in mythology then life does not have meaning. ‘Why, the fact that I worked my way from nothing to this sumptuously fleshy instantiation containing the complex residue of exploding stars is something I regard as a mark of considerable well-deserved pride’*. A purposeful life can be sky-daddy free, appreciating the wonders and mysteries of our small corner of the universe and hopefully, helping people along the way. I would offer that as least an intermediate step in the spectrum of being religiously addled—>philosophical nihilist.
*quoted from PZ Myers :>
LikeLike
October 11, 2010 at 3:49 pm
tildeb
Gosh, Alan, can you stretch your mind a bit by turning it around: is the ONLY reason why you may be lucky, you aren’t living a life of debauchery, are not immoral, is because you are trying to be good for Sky Daddy’s sake?
LikeLike
October 12, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Alan Scott
The Arbourist,
” What is the rationality of your morality ?”
” I’m not sure I fully understand the nature of your question. ”
In my mind if you take God out of the equation then why are we moral ? Bear with me.
Individually we are as any other organism. If each of us only existed by ourselves would morality be necessary? Within a pride of lions there is certainly a morality that sets rules as to when they may fight with one another. Otherwise each individual would seek to double cross the others at every opportunity.
There are individuals who break these rules and prosper, just as in our society. This is true in a troop of monkeys, perhaps not true in a colony of ants where there is no free will, just instinct. If an individual sacrifices his life for the group, he has destroyed his own universe, if that universe is only himself. When he dies and his awareness is gone, indeed his universe does not exist. If his universe is the group then it goes on after him.
I apologize for the needless complexity of this rant. I only wish to explore the practicality or need of an Atheist to be moral. He needs only to be moral so that the rest of society is moral to him and does not destroy him. Now when he ponders society after his death, why should he have any morals toward it . After his death society can no longer help or harm him.
Now if the individual believes he lives on in some way because he believes in the arbourist’s flying spaghetti monster he has an incentive to be moral in his legacy to society.
LikeLike