My goal here is not to offend but simply to establish a civilized dialogue on the subject, which I’ve always had some doubts about, even when I was religious. I think it’s an interesting question, even for theists.
Recently, I watched a video by Pirulla where he was answering questions posed to atheists. One of them was: “If God doesn’t exist, does it make sense to care for the future of the planet? After all, if we don’t take care of it, it won’t be our problem but rather that of future generations.”
This reminded me of a question I often had as a Christian: “Why fight for a better future?” Why did I think this way? It’s simple. If you ask any Christian in the world about when the end of the world will be, the most optimistic will say the planet has, at most, 80 years left. If they believe the world will end in such a short time, why fight for a better future?
If humanity is truly going to end in such a short period, what’s the logic behind fighting long-term inequality? What’s the point of protecting the environment or trying to reverse climate change?
Many also say the world will always be evil and cruel, which is why Jesus will return to destroy it. But if that’s the case, then it doesn’t make sense to fight for peace, since humanity will always stray from it, and all efforts will be in vain.
What do you think about this? If I’m in a house and I know other people will come to live in it, I would certainly try to leave everything well-organized for the new residents. But if someone told me it would be demolished in 8 days, what would be the point of taking care of it? Why would I fix the roof if, in a short time, the walls supporting it were going to fall?
This question seems to circle back to the idea that if God doesn’t exist, then nothing matters . . . and I reject this logic.
Why do people believe that “meaning” (in however you define the concept) must only come from God?
I believe that it’s worth protecting the planet purely for its own sake. If we can alleviate suffering (of people and animals) and engineer civilization to a point where we all care for and cherish each other, then why is this meaningless if there is no God?
And if it turns out that I’m wrong and there is a God, then how would this accomplishment displease Him?
Also, if there is a God (as described in the Bible), then getting into heaven by being “saved” means that we praise Him for all eternity . . . and what is more meaningless than existing for an infinite amount of time for no other purpose than to satisfy God’s narcissism?
So . . . I consider this reasoning to be a kind of “reverse Pascal’s Wager.”
Regardless of belief systems, there exists a moral obligation to consider the well-being of future generations. Many argue that fighting for a better future is not just about immediate benefits but about creating a sustainable world where future inhabitants can thrive.
Well the question doesn’t need a deity posited, unless anyone can demonstrate any deity exists or is even possible, the question is complete without it.
It’s a matter of subjective perception, and beyond that if you have children or people you care about who will live after you’re gone, then that seems a pretty good reason.
No there doesn’t sorry, we may impose one on ourselves subjectively, if that’s what you mean, but it doesn’t exist in any objective sense. We can of course construct sound arguments as to the folly of not looking after the planet, and the “future” here might be a lot closer than many people imagine.
Many ideas by some Christians and other theists are really anti environmental. Your absolutely correct, they don’t care about those things. Because god creates, protects, provides for good christians.
God will re-create the earth, or god can create more resources.
God will remove good Christians before the destruction of the earth(the rapture)
In discussions like this occasionally I’ve seen someone take an extreme position of this sort, along the lines of, “the universe is going to end in heat death in some tens of billions of years, therefore everything is ultimately pointless, therefore, nothing matters.” There are actually people so morose and hyper-idealistic that they have trouble getting out of bed because of something that may happen in the distant future, far outside the scope of their own existence.
The common denominator I see in such folks is the demand to understand the meaning of life and everything, which is what Douglas Adams was poking fun at in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where an advanced computer was asked for the answer to this question and the answer turned out to be “42”. Such questions are overwrought and meaningless, because meaning and purpose are found within the scope of individual lives, and sometimes, even smaller scopes. The heat death of the universe, or the return of Jesus, are irrelevant to my current scope of existence. If Jesus surprised me by (1) existing and (2) setting up his kingdom on earth tomorrow, I’d have a new scope of existence and have to find new meaning and purpose [shrug].
Or another good example: I’ve lived in a pretty free and democratic and just society my whole life, and that is currently being flushed down the toilet … new scope again. Such transitions, should they happen during one’s lifetime, can be painful, but all is not lost. Some portion of the relationships, assets, and skills from my old scope will translate to the new scope. Others will be foundational to new strategies and skills, or may lead to new relationships. So life goes. People lose jobs, and loves, and opportunities, and abilities sometimes. And it can be tough, but one of the great secrets to a successful life is to flex with life, to let it pass through you rather than run you down.
Do you go down whimpering or fighting? Caring about what’s right or about what’s easy, certain, and expedient? Your call. Humanity might end, or it might regress back to a 16th century (or stone age) standard of living, and eventually recover. Or something less than that. I don’t want any responsibility for that; others can bear that stain on their soul, which is just as bad if you’re the one setting the arson fire or just standing by without resisting or accepting your fate without preparing to cope with it as best you can – and helping others to do the same.
I’m supporting my family, am fortunate enough to aid a few others along the way, am advocating in my homeowner’s association for mutual aid. I have a deep pantry, emergency power and water, spare medications and tech to help others with. That’s very meaningful, IMO. Meta questions such as whether I actually reduce or just prolong human suffering thereby, are outside my knowledge and scope. I work with what’s in front of me and what I can definitely ascertain.
Things like evil, cruelty and war may not be able to be eliminated completely, but can be reduced, eased or compensated for to an often very significant degree. Today an ex-military guy showed up at the men’s group I attend on Saturday mornings. He struggles with PTSD and is trying to get out more, meet new people, do new things, distract himself from his demons. Should I have just told him that his head is permanently screwed up and he should hang himself because he’s always going to have these burdens? Or should I have done what I actually did, which is welcome him to join us, warts and all, and enjoy a game of cards and have a warm invitation to return. Was extending ourselves toward him “futile”? Maybe in some sense. But is that relevant? Not really. The guy needs friends. It costs us next to nothing to be those friends.
Look, I’m no Pollyanna – far from it. If anything, I’m a native pessimist and very practically minded and strive to have as few illusions as possible. I am, for example, somewhat antinatalist in the current environment. BUT, I have come to understand that our brains are wired to constantly scan the horizon for new threats, and to miss the found blessings in every moment that are there, so you need to make a bit of effort to see and enjoy these blessings “anyway”. I try to help myself and others detach from the constant stream of threats and create their own peace within them. Seems to work pretty well.
I have lost several close loved ones during my life, including a wife and a child. I could choose to be entirely defined by “my terrible sorrow” and piss and moan about it 24/7, but I have chosen not to. I’m also just too cussed to succumb into some downward spiral. I find meaning in this. Maybe some people find meaning in despair, but I don’t see how.
Fundamentalist Christians tend to find the notion that puny humans could influence the weather in some significant way to be a blasphemous denial that god is in control and has given over dominion of his creation to his people. If this led to a sense of responsibility and stewardship for the environment and the creatures living within it, that would be one thing. But for fundamentalists it is just cover for a sense of entitlement to pillage the environment at will. Because as you point out, god will either protect or provide for his own, or rescue them, from any consequences.
Well, no. They believe that they could petition god through prayer to change the weather. For example to end a drought. There is a fine line between magic and prayer of this sort. If its really his will, then there seems to be little one could about it.
I think some preachers have outright commanded some weather to change, like casting a spell. "in the name of jesus’ of course. That is like a passcode, I suppose. I am sure sometimes it ‘works’ and other times it does not! Of course its a miracle, if and when the weather happens to change after such statements.
I have also read about Hindus claiming one could obtain siddhi powers after doing rituals, or chanting mantras for some particular amount of time. The number of times to obtain siddhi is often in the millions. One power is the control over weather, another is the power to do anything one desires to happen. Its a bit different from Christianity, as mantra ideally is to bring one in alignment with the divine. So, is one doing what one wishes, or is one just becoming the means for the divine manifest its will?
I see no line of any sort, fine or otherwise, magic is exactly what such claims are appealing to,
Magic
noun
the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Indeed, and how do you differentiate between the two results?
I am dubious, as that looks suspiciously like a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and most especially since the very definition of a miracle, is itself an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
miracle
noun
an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
I have read about Superman and Spiderman, this doesn’t make the claims true.
Can you objectively evidence just one for us please, otherwise this is just a bare appeal to numbers, and it would be fallacious to argue the number of unevidenced claims makes them more likely true.
I don’t believe this to be true, what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this claim?
Again this hyperbole seems risible, when the claim is all that is being offered.
Yet they are both unevidenced superstitions, that make fallacious appeals to magic.
All talk of the divine is meaningless to me, unless you can demonstrate sufficient evidence, and sufficiently objective evidence, a deity exists, or is even possible, can you do this?
My point is that they believe God controls the environment and human activity (their business activities for instance) can’t destroy it without their God’s permission. It is their reason for considering climate change a hoax.
Asking God to do it doesn’t violate this concept. If God agrees to do it, then God has the prerogative and that power. Humans don’t.
I am not sure that Christians even believe there is any environmental problem, or any Global climate change. I would be surprised if even a single church prayed for healing the climate on earth.