Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

American Buddhist Perspectives

Home
About

Home
Buddhist
Religion News
Why I’d Make a Good Atheist

Why I’d Make a Good Atheist

Last updated on: July 7, 2012 at 7:16 pm by Justin Whitaker

Why I’d Make a Good Atheist 2012-07-07T19:16:14-06:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

As the title suggests, this is essentially a response to Marc Barnes’ post on his blog, Bad Catholic, titled: Why I’d Make a Bad Atheist.

His argument in brief is that he wants to be happy forever, life doesn’t guarantee happiness, and if his ‘want’ is to make any sense for him, it must be fulfillable: ergo heaven (God, angels, demons, pixies, unicorns, and flying spaghetti monsters are optional). Okay, I added the last part. And as atheists don’t go to heaven (I guess), he’d make a bad atheist. Marc states:

The desire for happiness is naturally oriented towards eternal happiness. When I am happy, I have no desire for that happiness to end. Such a thing would be inconceivable, directly contrary to the very nature of happiness.

I take it this something like the Ontological argument for God, only applied to happiness. You could make it for morality too: I want to be good, but always in my life I fail. If goodness is to be conceivable, it must be attainable outside of life: ergo heaven (God, angels….). It could be made for beauty as well: I percieve something as ‘beautiful’ but I can always find some flaw. For beauty to mean anything there must be a perfect beauty, which can only exist in…. you guessed it, heaven.

The author, as he would appear on South Park: coffee, beer, a book and a halo.

But Marc’s argument focuses more on our desire than the nature of happiness, and the fact that this world, this life, doesn’t fulfill our desires. He writes, “Our natural desire is not met within the universe we are a part of.”

Yep.

But how this becomes a case for theism requires some leaps in reason that I simply cannot take. One reason that I was first attracted to Buddhism was that it doesn’t require this particular leap. Instead of relying on some supernatural power to fulfill your desires, you are told that everything is impermanent and beyond our control. Our ignorance about this and resulting craving for control or permanence is what causes our suffering.

So, we’re told, first take a good look at yourself: what kinds of craving are causing you and others suffering? Cravings for constant experiences, toys, electronics, travels, etc that fuel environmental devestation and war. Aversions (the other side of the coin, so to speak; i.e. the craving for an absense of) to being too cold, to warm, in pain, alone, hungry, lost… And of course, in Buddhism 101 you learn that not all cravings are bad: wanting food every so often is essential to preserving life (which is very important), and wanting to reduce/eliminate suffering is central to the path.

So in a way, Buddhists can go along with Marc’s craving for eternal happiness. Defining happiness as the freedom from craving, this is what awakening (bodhi) is; it is the extinguishing (nirvana) of the fires of greed, aversion, and ignorance. (And it is true that for many Buddhists, the Buddha and/or Bodhisattvas do represent benevolent external powers that can be propitiated for favors.)

But what drew me to Buddhism more was the first step, taking a good look at myself, my own rather selfish and destructive desires and activities, including the desires to make certain moments of happiness last forever.

One of my friends and a fellow blogger, Amod Lele, has stepped away from Buddhism out of a doubt that such a state could be acheievd. But his attraction to Buddhism as philosophy is similar to my own. He wrote:

I began reading Western philosophy in high school, but my real philosophical awakening came on a trip to Thailand in 1997, coming to learn more and more about Buddhism. I found myself wishing for many things, getting them in turn, and still not being happy. I eventually realized it was all about the Second Noble Truth: suffering comes from craving. The problem wasn’t with whether or not I got what I wanted. The problem was with me. Philosophy was no longer just about abstractions or even social issues; it spoke directly to me.

Marc follows a similar rationale

Or take the idea of satisfaction. We constantly set up images of ourselves, saying, “If only I could be x, then I would be satisfied.” If only I could get that job. If only I could publish a book. If only I could move to California and join a yoga commune. Then we get those things and wake up, ready to start our new, satisfied life, and what do we find?

He goes on:

We think if only I could be successful, then I’d be happy. Then we’re successful, and who are we? The same “I”.

This is where Buddhist philosophy so clearly departs from Hindu and Christian thought: the “I”. For the Buddhist, there is the idea that the “I” is just a concept, a falsely-imagined stable thing in the ocean of change known as reality. The “I” is unhappy – or “I am unhappy” – or “unhappiness arises” – because new desires arise and even that very success we now have can become an object of clinging and unhappiness.

The self is not the same, but nor is it completely different. Marc continues:

We have a desire to be eternally satisfied, to be eternally happy, to be one with another, to be eternally loved and eternally love — these desires cannot be met. What then, are we to make of our desire for truth?

All of this worry about eternity! I just want my daily coffee and to get a little work done. In all seriousness though, I suppose this can be an issue for people. But I don’t think it is a universal affliction. And I don’t think one necessarily needs a Buddhist or Christian (or other theist) orientation to deal with such desires if they arise.

One of my favorite aspects of atheism is acceptance. The acceptance of our finitude is a pretty humbling process and can help turn us away from the cravings for eternal this or that; and what we can turn toward is working on ourselves and the problems around us in this world. And it’s just too easy to see how promises of eternal happiness can turn people into murderous or suicidal zealots, but that’s another issue all together. The point is just to not get too hung up on the ontological nature of our ideals, as Marc seems to with ‘truth’ here:

When we go about the work of science, we go under the assumption that the desire for truth can be met, for why would we have within ourselves a desire that has no correlation to reality? But if we claim that our desire for eternal happiness cannot be met, and that any thinking to the contrary is delusion, then we seriously call into question the idea that our desire for truth can be met, and that all satisfaction of that desire is any more than just delusion.

Truth, as an ideal, is something we can strive toward. In our humility, though, it is not something we should ever get hung up on thinking we have attained. Stephen Hawking smiled this week as he admitted he lost a $100 bet over the discovery of the Higgs field. The discovery helps complete a picture of reality that unites quantum mechanics and relativity theory, two areas of science that hitherto had failed to be reconciled. Is it a truth? I’m not so sure. I’m not so sure that truth is what is sought: it’s evidence for a theory that helps us understand reality as we experience it.

That there was a Higgs field has been an object of scientific speculation for over 40 years: scientific because it’s not just something to be believed in or desired, but something that could, theoretically be detected. Marc seems to go even further astray in writing:

If our desires don’t necessarily have objects, than [sic] man is absurd [sic] creature, and his reasoning cannot be trusted. If his wants can be mere delusions and fantasies, then his attempt to fulfill those wants are suspect. All his work is suspect. His atheism is suspect, his theism, his books and his thoughts.

Yes! Many attempts to fulfill our wants are suspect! Welcome to reality. Not all though; it doesn’t all fall apart, as Marc suggests. He concludes:

If however, we look at these desires and believe that they do have objects, then our need to know can be satisfied, as can our need to be forever satisfied can be satisfied. This is the position I cannot help but take. If I have a desire that cannot be met by the natural universe, this seems to imply that there is something in me that yearns something outside of the natural universe. And I do believe these desires can be met “there” — the desire to be one with Another, to be satisfied with myself as precisely who I am, to love and eternally be loved, to be forever happy and to spend my days in perfect peace — for if I don’t, I simply make no sense. [sic]

If you have a desire that cannot be met by the natural universe, guess what: you’re human. I’m tempted to say, “grow up! Tone down your desires; think about someone else for a minute!” Go to India. There you’ll find people whose whole lives are filled with about as many desires as you or I will have before lunch today. See a therapist. Or go to a soup kitchen. Anything to get outside your head and the horrible trouble you seem to have with not getting eternal happiness in this life and not being satisfied with yourself.

That may sound harsh, but it’s good advice that I’ve received a number of times from therapists, Buddhists, teachers, philosophers, and a good Catholic or two.

On the other hand, if a heaven to satisfy your desires out there is what you need to make sense of the world and to hopefully do some good in it, then okay. But the route of accepting that some desires might not ever be met (and that many desires don’t have objects) is open, available, and pretty reasonable.

* Note: I’m not opposed to various forms of theism in general, but I do see the desire for eternal happiness and sasfaction as a generally poor rationale for them.

Buddhism

Theism/Atheism

Previous Post

July 6, 2012

Happy Birthday to H.H. the Dalai Lama

Next Post

July 9, 2012 Buddhism in the News

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz