I finally started reading The Greatest Show on Earth last week. As I read the chapter on embryology a couple of nights ago, I couldn’t help marveling at how amazing life is in all its forms. Religionists often claim that their views enhance the value of life, particularly human life, because all of it has been ordained and designed by the hand(s) of god(s). It seems to me, however, that religious views actually cheapen the value of life. I want to point out three ways in which this occurs.
First, the creation of life forms is not a particularly significant accomplishment for a deity or deities that are capable of doing all sorts of spectacular things. A galaxy here and a supernova there, a parasite here and a mammal there – just another mundane day in the deity office. Ho hum; now it’s time to rest (or take a vacation). Big deal.
Second, religious believers frequently assert that earthly life is second-rate compared to what’s ahead in the next life (or lives). Life on earth in the here and now is a trial run, a testing ground, the primary significance of which is to prepare people (or allow people to prepare themselves, or for people to allow god(s) to prepare them – there are many variations on this theme) for the hereafter. If you think this life is great, just wait till you get to heaven; you haven’t seen anything yet. Or, if you think this life sucks, just wait till you get to heaven; god(s) will reward your patience and faithfulness with something much better.
Third, there are religious believers who teach that humankind is the pinnacle of creation. Think about this a moment. As marvelous as human life is, it takes real hubris to believe that humanity is the apex of creation. Bertrand Russell put this idea well when he said, “If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as my final accomplishment.” Human life is remarkable, but to consider it the best thing going (outside of heaven) is tragically impoverished.
On the other hand, a naturalistic view of life, which asserts that we still don’t know exactly how life came about, but we do know quite a lot about how it functions now and how it developed historically – once it got started (on earth) – inspires awe. Life is precious precisely because, in many ways, it’s mysterious. Regardless of whether we ever figure out exactly how life began, it will always retain an air of wonder. After all, as abundant as organic life is on earth, it is relatively rare compared to the abundance of inorganic matter that surrounds us. It’s amazing that anything lives at all, let alone that the earth teems with countless life forms ranging from bacteria to whales. Life is also precious because the best evidence uncovered thus far indicates that living beings only get one chance at it. There are no do-overs, no second chances, no hereafters. This life is all we get, so it’s important to make the most of it. Finally, as varied as life on earth is, there may be other planets that are populated with many other life forms, forms that may (or may not) resemble the diversity of life here. There is still much more to learn about life right here on our little planet, and there may well be volumes to discover about life on other worlds. I find all of these ideas utterly inspiring and more than a little bit humbling.
One does not need to believe in divine sanction to treasure life. Rather, all one needs is an appreciation for the wonder of a cosmos that humankind is just beginning to understand. As far as we can tell so far, life forms play small roles on the stage of the cosmos. Organic beings may be relatively few in number, but we’re pretty amazing nonetheless. This shouldn’t surprise you. After all, it’s often the bit characters that steal the show.
– the chaplain
cl
November 4, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I agree, and neither atheism nor theism preclude our opportunities to wonder; rather, the closed-minded personalities of certain atheists and certain theists certainly precludes their opportunity to wonder.
Sean the Blogonaut
November 5, 2009 at 6:25 am
Cl,
Do you have any theists or atheists in mind? Or was this some sort of inside joke/reference
Mark
November 5, 2009 at 9:48 am
The thing is, that life is what you make it.
Even if a person believes in an afterlife, why not change your current (mortal) life to a more tolerable state of mind?
Why would someone purposely live in misery because of a mythical afterlife?
ildi
November 5, 2009 at 10:59 am
Well, you’re more willing to put up with a miserable life if you’re promised milk and honey or permanent virgins/raisins or daily heroic battle in an afterlife.
Postman
November 5, 2009 at 12:52 pm
it’s an excellent book, isn’t it, Chappie? I can’t recommend it enough to everyone. I was fascinated from cover to cover.
cl
November 5, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Sean,
Do you really not know any atheists or theists that come across as closed-minded? That was the point of the comment – neither atheism or theism robs us of wonder. Both atheists and theists can become closed-minded and lose that sense of wonder.
Mark,
Good words.
Sean the Blogonaut
November 5, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Cl,
Okay gotcha, just thought your wording was hinting at particular examples. I would agree that we are all close minded on some things, or rather it takes effort to keep an open mind, though I think when we have dogmatic religions /ideologies it helps narrow the field of vision.
the chaplain
November 5, 2009 at 10:00 pm
cl & Sean:
You seem to have cleared up that issue.
Mark:
I agree, generally, with this idea. It’s a great recommendation for all of us who have the means to change our situations as needed or desired. It may be the case, however, that some people living shitty lives have very little power to change their circumstances.
Postie:
It is a good book. It’s great that Dawkins has pulled together into one handy reference so many ideas that I’ve read here, there and everywhere. It’s also great that he’s included lots of stuff I never knew before. This book is a keeper, for me, as I know I’ll want to go back to it repeatedly.
Sean the Blogonaut
November 5, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I am about half way through, for the most part it has been good, I even enjoyed the heavier bits around the Lenski experiment. Stalled when he got to cell folding. I do agree though that out of all the science books of his I have read this has been the most enjoyable.
Spanish Inquisitor
November 5, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I am really looking forward to an extended period where I can sit down and read this in a few sittings. It’s on the shelf, and I browsed the first chapter, but I want to be able to read it slowly. Two much going on now. I’m think maybe after the Xmas holidays.
cl
November 6, 2009 at 12:33 am
Sean,
I agree it takes effort to keep an open mind.
Well, I suppose I could give examples of particular atheists and theists I perceive as closed-minded, I just don’t see that such would accomplish anything in this thread. Anyone with half an intellect can see that closed-mindedness comes in many stripes and colors, so I don’t think I really need to convince anybody via appeal to particular examples.
I would agree, and emphasize that dogmatic ideologies are not exclusively religious.
Lorena
November 6, 2009 at 1:51 am
I totally agree. When I was a theist, I thought animals were inferior, worthless beings (not sure the religion taught me that).
But now, I go to zoos and safaris and never cease to wonder about the beauty of the animal kingdom. I am particularly amazed at how similar to us they are, and often wonder whether there is some level of consciousness behind those beautiful eyes.
Sabio Lantz
November 6, 2009 at 8:08 am
the chaplain
November 6, 2009 at 9:41 am
Lorena:
I also have greater respect for non-human life forms now than I did as a Christian. I didn’t think other animals were worthless, but I thought that they weren’t as special as humans, the ones created in God’s image, so they say.
Sabio:
1. The “creation” of human beings is not a minor accomplishment in the eyes of humans, of course, but, from the perspective of a deity, it would all be in a day’s work. I find the idea, which is held by some, that a god actually specifically created “me,” personally, narcissistic, to say the least.
3. Yes, humans and cockroaches all instinctively struggle to stay alive as long as possible. But, unlike cockroaches, humans have the ability to assign other values, in addition to survival, to our lives. I daresay my life is more meaningful to me, and those who are close to me, than a cockroach’s life is to itself and the other cockroaches around it.
Still, I agree that “mystery” does not capture all, or probably even most, of why life is precious to humans. It’s an important part of it, in my view, but I’m sure there’s a lot more to it than I’ve been able to articulate. I’m not sure that I’ll ever be able to articulate it particularly well or completely.
PhillyChief
November 6, 2009 at 10:26 am
Life is precious because we believe it so. It’s residue from a past theistic life to think there’s an inherent preciousness and then to look for it. Such a foolish endeavor will lead you to debating the relative preciousness of life for humans versus cockroaches.
I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that Christians share the “one chance” idea. They most certainly do not. Yes, they have their one chance before being judged, but then after sentencing there’s round two, no? Heaven or Hell, there’s a round two, and for some sects there’s Limbo where you can later move to one or the other. That’s defintively not one chance, and let’s also not forget Ildi’s point – “you’re more willing to put up with a miserable life if you’re promised milk and honey or permanent virgins/raisins or daily heroic battle in an afterlife.” So again, the believer’s afterlife belief renders their view of life completely different from the non-believer’s, non-afterlife view.
the chaplain
November 6, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Philly:
I agree that the value of life is purely a human construction. I think what I’m trying to get at it is why people often place a high value on it. I think mystery is one reason for that. I think the rarity of it is another. I think the fact that we only get one shot at it is another. George Carlin quipped that life is “sacred” (I think he used that word, or something similar) to us because we’re alive and we have vested interests in remaining that way. That’s yet another good point. You and others could probably come up with other good reasons why you value life. The reasons for such values vary widely. In my view, religious reasons are among the poorest ones available.
the chaplain
November 6, 2009 at 1:15 pm
SI:
Sorry – didn’t mean to skip you before. I’m pretty sure you’ll like the book.
Spanish Inquisitor
November 6, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I knew that. 8)
cl
November 6, 2009 at 1:55 pm
My problem with Philly’s comment is that as usual, it’s just his opinion of what he thinks being a believer necessarily entails:
Philly merely asserts his naked opinion that searching for preciousness in life is foolish, and his attempted justification is that doing so leads to “debating the relative preciousness of life for humans versus cockroaches.” Yet, I search for preciousness in life, and am not troubled by the (false) dilemma Philly raises.
Philly uses the generic “the believer” in his argument, which makes it a blanket statement; which believer(s)? I am a believer, and the idea of an afterlife DOES NOT encourage an attitude of mental passivity regarding my Earthly life. In fact, it’s quite the opposite; I believe that I’m only going to get one chance on this present Earth, and therefore I believe that I ought to make the most of that opportunity: many whom I see here I may not see again.
If we are to be rationalists, shouldn’t we argue from more than opinion and generality?
ildi
November 6, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “purely human construct,” but I would think there’s a strong evolutionary basis for valuing our own lives, so we survive long enough to procreate, then valuing our descendant’s lives becuase they carry our genes… in fact, that’s what the “family values” crowd is all about; why should I support your gene pool at the potential expense of mine?
It’s only a couple of steps out to value all life because you need the whole ball of wax to support your gene pool… when people say “such and such” will destroy life on this planet, they really mean “human life.” Even the potentially worst case scenario, such as an EM pulse from a star going nova, would only set the process back a couple of billion years, and bacteria can start all over again. As it happens, we’re in such a backwater of the galaxy it appears we’re safe from this particular scenario.
the chaplain
November 6, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Good point. Perhaps “purely constructed” was a clumsy way to say it, and even the wrong angle to take on the matter. It may be more accurate to say that human values arise out of purely natural, human conditions; they are not imposed upon humans by god-beings.
cl
November 6, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I believe ildi makes the same mistake as those “divine command theory” theists most atheists criticize, and I’d caution you to dig deeper before you agree with her, Chappy. You’re both on the outskirts of affixing an external or objective justification for the valuation of life much like any theist, only you swap evolution for God. The problem is, the latter is far easier to justify when the question is, “On what basis do we justify this assignment of prescriptive force?”
PhillyChief
November 6, 2009 at 4:45 pm
The wanker is right, and again you’re falling into the trap I described earlier. Why would you either go hunting for or simply crown something as the objective source for finding life precious? It’s not enough to simply value your life as precious because you want to value it as precious?
Life can value itself and/or other life for whatever reason(s) it wants to. Searching for an external source for that valuation is not necessary.
ildi
November 6, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Postulating that we find life precious as a result of a possible evolutionary advantage does not imply that there is an inherent preciousness to life.
Because the obvious next question is “Why do you even have the tendency to want to value it as precious?” If there’s no objective source, then wouldn’t you find that people would fall generally randomly on the “value – no value” scale? Yet finding that life has value seems to be a very popularly-held aesthetic, which I don’t think is necessarily an artifact of theistic thinking.
PhillyChief
November 6, 2009 at 6:38 pm
If not an artifact, then a symptom of the same flawed thinking. Mr. Douchebag is correct in suggesting you’re merely substituting evolution for god. You’re assuming there must be a cause, and when it’s suggested that there is none, you resort to a panicked false dichotomy of cause or chance, which sounds EXACTLY like a Creationist argument.
Your value -no value scale is as much an invention as your own valuation of your life, btw. There’s no standard, no constant to look up like the temp that water freezes or Earth gravity. There’s no chart to look up Ildi life value. You have your value for it, others have their value for it, and so on. We can all agree on a value of course, but again, that’s an invention, like morals.
ildi
November 6, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I agree with this part; I just don’t agree there’s no cause for WHY people even ascribe a value to life at all. People do and believe a host of things for reasons that you can test and replicate. How is “chance” an answer? I think it’s a false comparison to creationism; neither physicists nor evolutionary biologists say “it’s chance.”
PhillyChief
November 6, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I read your “random” remark as chance.
I really don’t see why one would have to look for external reasons for why they or any life form would value their existence. I think the Carlin line earlier pretty much sums it up.