What does a rich, full, higher, dignified life consist of?

[nightbringer]

I'm not trying to be difficult ... I'm trying to understand your OP....

Let's say we have an atheist philanthropist (certainly realistic) who spends his whole life building libraries, or an atheist physician who spends his whole life researching cancer with some significant findings along the way.... are his feelings of having led a "rich full dignified life" any more or less valid than Lottie Moon's?

The difference, of course, is that Lottie Moon is looking toward eternity for her reward, and the atheist has no such aspirations. But that, IMO, doesn't make his contributions to THIS life any less valuable.

I'm still wondering where you're going with this.

Okay. Let me first of all clarify that I'm talking about moral phenomenology, not ontology. (And remember I'm talking about morality in a broad sense relating to the good life, not in a narrow sense relating to our obligations). So what I'm discussing is how our moral world appears to us. How we actually inhabit it and move through it. It seems clear to me that, when we observe the unemployed man I described in the OP, for most of us it seems like he really is not living the most full life. That he is missing out on certain important goods. Now, for the sake of this discussion, I'm not concerned about what this sense commits us to ontologically (if it commits us to anything at all). I'd rather stay clear of the familiar discussion about whether God "grounds" objective this or that. What I would like to explore is just this moral sense. What is it that each of us admires or throws censure upon? What sort of life commands our respect? What are the goods found in such a life? And particularly, what sense do we have about how an opposing ideology encourages or discourages the cherishing of these goods?

Perhaps it would be helpful to further flesh out some common features of our moral phenomenology. From what I can tell, you seem to think that if a person feels satisfied with their life, then in an important sense, that person does truly have a full life. I'd like to say that that's not how we really see things. Consider the person who hates education and learning. This person vows never to read beyond the bare minimum required to get by. Deep thought and reflection are irrelevant interferences according to him/her. Science, philosophy, literature, none of it is even dabbled in. Even so, this person genuinely feels pretty happy with their life. Would we not still want to say that this person is missing out on something really valuable? Wouldn't we want to say that the neglect of the intellect constitutes a real lack in their life? Surely we would.

That person's subjective sense of satisfaction isn't enough to overturn our sense that he/she is really lacking something important here. We feel that her life would be bettered (even if complicated) by some appreciation of the intellect. Of course, the subjective sense of satisfaction isn't completely irrelevant. If a person has all sorts of goods in their life but is always miserable that is clearly not an enviable state of affairs. But the subjective feeling isn't the crux of the matter, I'm saying. It's one factor among many.

My own conviction is that we over-emphasise the epistemic struggles between theism and atheism and neglect these more moral or "existential" matters. Does Christianity tend to produce impoverished lives or rich lives? Does atheism tend to promote fullness and satisfaction or a stifling of one's humanity? I think these are important questions.

[Cow Poke]

Okay. Let me first of all clarify that I'm talking about moral phenomenology, not ontology. (And remember I'm talking about morality in a broad sense relating to the good life, not in a narrow sense relating to our obligations). So what I'm discussing is how our moral world appears to us. How we actually inhabit it and move through it. It seems clear to me that, when we observe the unemployed man I described in the OP, for most of us it seems like he really is not living the most full life. That he is missing out on certain important goods. Now, for the sake of this discussion, I'm not concerned about what this sense commits us to ontologically (if it commits us to anything at all). I'd rather stay clear of the familiar discussion about whether God "grounds" objective this or that. What I would like to explore is just this moral sense. What is it that each of us admires or throws censure upon? What sort of life commands our respect? What are the goods found in such a life? And particularly, what sense to we have about how an opposing ideology encourages or discourages the cherishing of these goods?

Perhaps it would be helpful to further flesh out some common features of our moral phenomenology. From what I can tell, you seem to think that if a person feels satisfied with their life, then in an important sense, that person does truly have a full life. I'd like to say that that's not how we really see things. Consider the person who hates education and learning. This person vows never to read beyond the bare minimum required to get by. Deep thought and reflection are irrelevant interferences according to him/her. Science, philosophy, literature, none of it is even dabbled in. Even so, this person genuinely feels pretty happy with their life. Would we not still want to say that this person is missing out on something really valuable? Wouldn't we want to say that the neglect of the intellect constitutes a real lack in their life? Surely we would.

That person' subjective sense of satisfaction isn't enough to overturn our sense that he/she is really lacking something important here. We feel that her life would be bettered (even if complicated) by some appreciation of the intellect. Of course, the subjective sense of satisfaction isn't completely irrelevant. If a person has all sorts of goods in their life but is always miserable that is clearly not an enviable state of affairs. But the subjective feeling isn't the crux of the matter, I'm saying. It's one factor among many.

My own conviction is that we over-emphasise the epistemic struggles between theism and atheism and neglect these more moral or "existential" matters. Does Christianity tend to produce impoverished lives or rich lives? Does atheism tend to promote fullness and satisfaction or a stifling of one's humanity? I think these are important questions.

oh

[nightbringer]

oh

Lol...

[Cow Poke]

Lol...

[nightbringer]

I think it's a great question to consider. Philosophers have been struggling for centuries to describe what the 'good life' is. I think CP is right in talking about the subjectivity of the evaluation. I suppose we may only speak of ourselves and our own experience. For myself, I certainly felt I was living a full and rich life when I was a Christian. Now I'm not my viewpoint has changed. Looking back I would regard my Christian life as too cosseted, too narrow, too exclusive, too limited in its recognition of the variety of human experience both culturally and spiritually. Since adopting a lower profile, less dogmatic world view I've felt more open to life, more appreciative of authentic difference. I am more able to wonder freely at the weirdness of the universe, to speculate and imagine without trying to 'fit' everything into what I now consider is a limited framework. (I would really appreciate not getting into the whole 'well, you weren't really a Christian' business.)

Don't worry, I'm not going to question the sincerity of your former faith. I can actually relate to some of what you say about how you lived as a Christian. I sometimes worry about the fact that I worry about trying to "fit" things in to my framework (it's like a second order worry). I wonder to myself, "is this Christianity stuff good for me? Is it intellectually stifling?" I wondered that too about a shift I noticed when I went from unbelief to belief. Before it seemed that I was super curious about everything. I just wanted to know the truth, wherever it took me. Now there are definitely things I'm interested in learning about, but I don't feel that same sense of urgency. In some areas there's even an element of fear. Having adopted an appreciation for the intellectual virtues that seem to be promoted in the modern world, this shift has concerned me. But I don't think it's Christianity per se that's the issue. It's really, I think, because of a switch from a "seeking" perspective, where I was spiritually (or morally, in the broad sense) dissatisfied with my framework, to a "sustaining" perspective, where I'm now happy with my framework and I suppose I want to stay put.

So is there anything you miss about your former faith? Or has losing it been nothing but a gain for you?

[nightbringer]

The reward is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant, since the atheist can cite virtue in the rejection of its palliative value.

Can you elaborate that or put it into different words? I'm not quite sure what you mean but I think there's something important here.

[nightbringer]

As far as what I see exclusively enriching because my beliefs (some of which are unique to my own Faith), would be:

1. Knowledge. Knowledge (not empirically derived, but derived spiritually), that there is an afterlife, and that my spirit is eternal, and this life is not the end of my existence.
Knowledge that I can be re-united with loved ones if the hereafter.
Knowledge that there is a purpose to mortality.
Knowledge of why God allows evil to take place.
Knowledge of a loving Father in Heaven.
Knowledge that I existed as a spirit before coming to this earth to obtain a body.
Akin to knowledge, is perspective.
My faith has given me a broader and deeper perspective on suffering and affliction. It has helped me in a personal struggle between life and death.
I could go on.

Hi OtherCheek, thanks for sharing.

May I ask, aside from the hope that those belief generate, in what way do they enrich your life? It would be particularly interesting to see how you think the LDS-specific beliefs enrich your life.

[nightbringer]

I don't think Christianity or atheism inherently enriches or diminishes life. Strictly speaking (and I realize that I'm greatly simplifying things), they're merely sets and systems of propositions. What enriches or diminishes life is how one chooses to view the implications of and act upon those propositions. For instance, I've heard several atheists express the sentiment that their atheism has allowed them to more deeply appreciate the wonder and awe and splendor of the universe, with that sense of mystery and the sublime that accompanies it. But this is the same sentiment that the Christian scientists during the Scientific Revolution expressed, and it sounds a lot like a spiritual/religious experience. It's the same thing, but it's experienced by people of different worldviews. Then there are Christians who seem to be held in bondage by a black-and-white fundamentalist style of thinking, who have us-against-them and all-or-nothing attitudes, but there are also atheists with that same type of thinking (I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about)

I think you're right that there are different ways of embodying Christianity and atheism, some of which are clearly bad ways to live and others aren't (or not obviously so anyway). As a Christian though, do you think that all the goods enjoyed in your life would be equally present for you were you an atheist? Or are there some goods you can only experience as a Christian?

[nightbringer]

I think you can live a rich life regardless of what your beliefs are. But is it possible to come to the conclusion, that while you could live a rich life with any beliefs, some beliefs might make your life richer than others?

My own thoughts are, I think my love for those dear to my heart, is richer for believing that it transcends the limits of this mortal life.

My cousin died in her early twenties. She committed suicide. But I believe one day I will see her again. I feel having that hope, for her and for others dear to me, makes my life richer than if I lived the same life without that hope.

I remember when she died, I told a friend of mine who didn't believe in an afterlife. My friend tried to be as nice about it as she possibly could, but her answers left me feeling empty inside. Tragedy without hope is spiritual poverty.

You may not agree with me - fair enough - but this is how I feel.

Zack

Thanks for being honest and open, Zack. From my perspective as a fellow theist (and believer in life "beyond"), I agree that hope in the face of tragedy makes one feel like life is fuller than it would be just faced with raw loss. I also think that belief in an eternal life ahead fills one's present actions with a sense of significance that makes life seems richer.

[nightbringer]

I suspect what we actually do when we evaluate the fullness, richness, etc. of another person's life is to measure both their subjective experience and the external effects of their life against our own subjective values. And when we consider our own lives, we do so as though it belonged to another person.

So we might consider the jobless adult gamer to be living a poor life even if he is enjoying himself because (1) We think he might enjoy himself more if he made some changes, and (2) we don't value the effects of staying home and playing games so much.

What about a person hooked up into an isolated holodeck who is, in fact, enjoying her life as much as she possibly could? We still feel something is lacking because of the second consideration. She isn't helping the world out in ways we ourselves value.

Or a person who goes to hell and suffers intensely forever, never knowing that this is keeping the rest of humanity out of hell? This might rate amazingly well on the second consideration, but we still care about this person's subjective experience enough to say it's a poor life to lead.

When we look at our own lives, we don't just evaluate our own happiness. We also estimate the impact of our life on the world, yes, according to our own values…but it's often when we balance our own experience against our effect on the world that we describe our lives as rich or meaningful.

Yes, I'd buy something like that distinction too.

[nightbringer]

I believe a richer, fuller life is reflected in the extent one is willing to embrace a universal perspective first described by Aristotle in Physica. It may be described in some ways as the Renaissance Persona. The fewer presuppositions and assumptions that one has fixed, ie one foot nailed to the floor, the more one is able to appreciate the diversity of beliefs, philosophies, and the richness of the knowledge of science.

That's really interesting!

Typically, "open-mindedness" and a lack of dogmatic conviction are promoted as epistemic virtues. But you insightfully point to the sort of moral admiration they can generate too. A person not so "fixed down" seems like someone who can appreciate and cherish the diversity around them, caring for varying individuals while experiencing a rich variety of life's gifts. Contrast with the dogmatist who can be portrayed as closed off to alien experiences, and hostile to "the other".