Michael ( at Atheistperspective.com ) and I have an ongoing conversation in the comments section of my post “Overchurched” that I thought would make a decent post in themselves. I really enjoy these conversations with Michael, I hope you enjoy the vicarious involvement:
Michael (the atheist) asks: Okay, let’s say I agree with your initial assertion; tell me this, why should man not be the sole focus of his attention? Neither of us believe that a secular humanist’s sole focus is himself, but rather the well-being of mankind. How is that so different to how you would want others to live their lives?
Michael (the Christian): What I said was that “therefore man is the sole focus of his attention.” If I did not state it clearly, my intention was to communicate the idea of the humanist being focused on “mankind”, not each individual on himself. However, this does seem to be the logical outworking of such reasoning. But you can help me understand it a bit more. Would your reasoning run something along this line: “I want the maximum enjoyment/pleasure/gain from this life. In order to attain that it is important not only that I do well but that as many people as possible do well. Under these conditions, the maximum enjoyment/pleasure/gain can be attained.”?
Michael (the atheist): For me, God or no God, our first thought should be for our fellow man, our families, our planet. I would find it very surprising if you thought for one moment that your God would not be the first to wave the secular humanist banner.
Michael (the Christian): Loving God is of first importance, but I would argue that loving him will always leads to loving others. Now, of course, we come to our differing definitions of love. Does loving others mean allowing them always to pursue what they think is best for them, including behavior that is self-destructive? Or does it mean assisting them in discovering the plan God has for their lives?
Michael (the atheist): If he were to exist I think (apart from the not believing in him bit) secular humanism would be a philosophy he’d be more than willing to trumpet. Or is he so vain that believing in him takes precedence over treating others with respect and love?
Michael (the Christian): He desires our love, our attention, our affection because he is the ultimate truth and in him we find our purpose. Anything that robs him of our focus is unhealthy not for him, but for us.
Michael (the atheist): Think about it, if your kids grew up with respect for other people, for the planet, didn’t cause any harm to others and lived every day to make sure it was better for the people they knew would that be so bad? Would it matter that they didn’t believe in God?
Michael (the Christian): The trouble is I don’t believe that can really be done without a life based on faith in God. What is “having respect”? How does one “not cause harm”? Why only seek to make life better for those we know? Why not a more global focus?
Michael (the atheist): IMO, the moment one puts God before fellow man is the moment we’re all in trouble.
Michael (the Christian): No, that’s completely backwards, but I understand it in the context in which I think you mean it. Those who perpetrate some of the worst crimes claim they do it “in the name of God.” But we’re in trouble to a large extent because we try to please fellow man rather than looking first to God. The fallacy of pluralism is that everyone’s beliefs can co-exist peacefully. Well, is there truth or is there not? If there is, the “true” truth negates the false. Loving others involves pointing them to truth. You loving me involves disabusing me of my belief in what you see as religious mythology, which robs my life of proper fulfillment; me loving you involves pointing you at Jesus Christ, who I believe not only represents the truth but is the truth.
Michael (the atheist): Oh, and I have a really interesting question for you. I’ve been puzzling over this one. I was chatting with a friend the other day. He’s a bit religious and he said, “How can you live thinking that death will be the end of you? How depressing”.
Michael (the Christian): Well, first of all, I don’t believe as he does. I would be OK with death being the end of me, I just don’t happen to believe that is the way it will turn out. I wouldn’t find it depressing but I think it would have to change the way I live my life.
Michael (the atheist): Okay, it’s a tad boring but here’s the question. Why do Christians get upset when faced with death in the family? If my son died I’d be distraught, naturally. But if I truly believed that this life was just a junction, a way to get to eternal happiness, well, I’d be fine. I’d think ‘lucky bastard, he’s up there with God living the eternal afterlife in pure bliss’. I’d be more annoyed that I’m not there with him.
Michael (the Christian): No, I don’t think you’re being completely honest. You would still grieve for your son just for the same reasons I grieved for my grandfather (the only person really close to me who has died). Although I do envy his current state, I still miss his essence, his voice, his firm handshake. I miss talking to him, golfing with him, joking with him, and helping him with building projects. These are all completely human reactions to an upsetting event.
I am not annoyed that I’m not there with him because we are all intertwined in many similar relationships and that is why I do not look forward to death. My daughters and wife would suffer from the absence of all the things I mentioned above.
Michael (the atheist): So what’s up with Christians getting so upset? The same goes for those that make a big thing about people sacrificing their lives. It’s not a bloody sacrifice! If I thought I could help others by going to war and if I died I’d be able to eat Big Macs in heaven all day without getting fat, I’d be first in line. Sign me up to that kamikaze course sergeant!
But seriously, why the heck do Christians get so upset about death? I simply don’t get it.
I’d love you to write a little on this. Should death be seen as a negative? Shouldn’t it in fact be celebrated by those that truly believe? (and I’m not talking about a few drinks after the funeral, I mean real celebration) :) If not, why not? If a close relative of yours dies, (I’ll use the term, God forbid) would you be upset? Why? Shouldn’t the first reaction be a clench of the fist and a knowing smile?
Michael (the Christian): I do balance the grief of a death with the comfort of knowing where my grandfather is, but this only alleviates grief, it does not obliterate it completely. So death is, in one aspect, a celebration, and in another a cause for grief. John Piper recently spoke of this at the funeral of a young Christian who had taken his own life and drew a parallel to the raising of Lazarus by Jesus. We long, when someone dies, for them to be returned to us, but if we believe that they are now with Christ in heaven, free from sin and suffering, cured of their afflictions, and enjoying eternal happiness, isn’t it selfish of us to ask for them back?
He saw this as the reason that, as reported in scripture, Jesus wept before he raised Lazarus, since he was doing something wonderful for Lazarus’s sisters but issuing something of a downgrade for Lazarus. Lazarus was returned to his earthly existence, to sin again, to suffer again, and finally, to die again.
Michael (the atheist): Ps, and what’s up with this focus on Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross? For goodness sakes, earth was s— for him, he would have been relieved to get up there with dad and the rest of the family.
Michael (the Christian): Yes, but he stayed for a reason, and that was to serve as a substitutionary atonement for our sins.
Related posts:
- Review of Mark Driscoll’s “Death by Love” Tim Challies: What makes Death by Love so different from his other books is what makes it good. Driscoll holds his tongue, refusing to bring...
- An Atheist’s Perspective Michael, on his blog Atheist Perspective, has taken theists (me in particular) to task for focusing too much on Dawkins’ tone rather than on the...
- A Detailed History of the Future 3 – Media and the Christian Believer I think it would be right to make a case that Christian believers always stand to lose more than they gain if they unthinkingly embrace...
- Is this the dawning of the age of Atheism? ***This post is part of a series on Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion”.*** I should start by saying that I’m not that familiar with...
- Richard Dawkins: Heaven. Leona Helmsley: Hell. Jerry Falwell: Somewhere Between People are… amusing? Is that the right word for this? I received these three comments on my Dawkins page. I reprint them here for your...
