Thanksgiving poses a problem for atheists. Why? Because while they may have people to thank for their well-being or camaraderie, they have no one to thank for their very existence. G.K. Chesterton once said:
If my children wake up on Christmas morning and have someone to thank for putting candy in their stocking, have I no one to thank for putting two feet in mine?
While the atheist can be thankful for turkey and mashed potatoes, the stomach he stuffs is, according to him, a cosmological accident. Ultimately, the people and conditions he honors are but biological quirks, advanced animals, destined for existential nothingness.
One adventurous atheist argues that those who believe in a godless universe can give thanks for lots of things. For instance:
- Farmers
- Soldiers and Veterans
- Doctors and Modern Medicine
- Engineers and Modern Technology
- Science and Scientists
- Friends and Family
I must admit, I’ve never expressed gratitude for Engineers and Modern Technology around the Thanksgiving table. Still, if the human race is a cosmic blunder as atheism purports, nothing really has any meaning. Even acts of kindness or courage are, in the end, pointless attempts at nobility that will be swept away by the vast, cold universe. It doesn’t wash.
Perhaps it’s an advantage we believers have: Not only can we praise the hands that made the meal, we can praise the Hands that made the chef.
Grace and blessings to you and yours this Thanksgiving!
That’s why the need to shift the focus. To judge atheist view on the extreme conditions require a special analysis.
Would you say that it would be impossible to people to appreciate this life when living through hardships, if they don’t believe in afterlife? I would concede that it would be more difficult, but wouldn’t in the same way belief in the afterlife promote shunning this life? It’s better to die from a disease than to fight for you life in the hope of recovering. Or the believer who is angered at god for the injustices in the world? Those are extreme situations, not unlike the questions you asked, dayle.
However I would argue that is not just a few that could enjoy life. It doesn’t have to be a vacuum. This vacuum that was devoted to a god, would be filled by family, friends and humanity; the strength to live, the will to change things. This can be taught by other means other than religion, and you can disagree with that. After all, you do have a strong opinion on this, otherwise you’d be in doubt rather than say you’re a devout Christian. Other people don’t think like that though, and if you look for it you’ll see plenty of other philosophies regarding the appreciation of life, and not centered in god. These can work for some people, even if you disagree. Like I understand the appeal of religion to some people despite not having evidence of it being true. It is not needed, you believe and that’s it. Something being comforting doesn’t make it true… however, it may be what you needed to face a hardship.
Those that are unfortunate would still be unfortunate unless we make things happen to change that. Or they change themselves.
And this would veer into the morality on religion argument that I was trying to avoid, if I address your comments on that.
I thank you for your kind words, dayle and Nicole, and I have to say that I try very much to always be respectful. However, sometimes, people take offense on the strangest things… I hope I don’t light any signals. 🙂
Regarding Nicole’s comment. Well, if he indeed as making a comment on how he would feel being an atheist, rather than generalizing what atheist would feel… than I’m sorry, Mike, for I understood it incorrectly.
Believers thank god, for they believe such entity exists. Atheist do not, and that’s not to say they deny the existence of god (god existing, and atheists denying), they just not believe and therefore feel no need to be thankful for that particular reason.
My argument, and why I posted a comment here, is that atheist do have reason to be thankful, and that believing in god doesn’t make anyone special in that regard.
I have a feeling that that is not being contended, right?
P.S.: Thank for you well wishes, and I would also wish you a happy life and that great things happen in your lives.
I have seemed to diverge a little from the point, and for the sake of completeness I will reiterate the topic on that point, lest I be accused of not addressing the issue.
As we seem to agree that we can be all thankful for the lives we have, Mike seems later on to emphasize on the brevity of life and the ephemeral nature of existence. And how does an atheist cope with that, if he could.
My argument on this was and is memory and collective experience. It is because our memory is bound to the fate of humanity, and thus subject to its demise – should it happen – that we should work toward guaranteeing our longevity, humanity’s longevity that is.
And for the efforts to promote that that we should be thankful for. And this include remembering our ancestors (people’s ancestors in general, not just our own). We can be thankful for the time humans lived, how long it may be.
I am going to die, I am going to decompose into nothing, but the memory of my life will be on those that live on. Should some cataclysmic event happen and all memory of myself, and humankind, disappear, no one would be left to regret it. But those that lived, might have enjoyed whatever time they had.
But if we know in advance, we should be extra motivated to find steps to prevent it.
And about the example of a great sex on the deck of Titanic. You might die, but if you wasted your time having sex instead of trying to find a solution to you problem, then it better have been a great sex indeed. And if your going to die anyway, why not enjoy the ride. Is not like you’re going to suffer more if you don’t.
The point is, you shouldn’t expect a reward to live a good life. You live a good life so others will enjoy the reward. It doesn’t matter if we all going to die anyway, it matters that we lived and done something with the time we had.
I just want to say one more thing, Brian, and not exactly on topic but important–if to no one but myself. 🙂 Christianity is not a “religion” although it is described as such because it contends for God. It is primarily relationship with the Creator of all things. Without Jesus Christ, there is no real back and forth of relationship. While the distinction probably holds no significance to you, it really is the gist of our faith.
Yes, you’re right Nicole I don’t really see a difference, but maybe it is because we give different semantic value to the word religion. It’s a common thing though, if you view it through semiotics (the study of signs and symbols and their meanings).
The relationship between believers and Jesus Christ is an expression of the worship of god. Isn’t it? And this is a definition of religion. But religion can also bring to memory the symbols for rules, rites, system… something not really in tune with an informal system of worship. So I can understand that to a believer the association with the word religion becomes not desired, and the euphemism becomes more appropriate.
The same happens with atheists. If you can believe me. Agnosticts are atheists… but they don’t like to be associated with the symbol Atheist. Brights are atheists, that view that the atheism symbol have been imbued with many bad sentiments, such as immorality, arrogance, and other things; and they want to create another symbol with a desired semantic value. Like gays did with the transition from the Homosexual word, at that time – and it still is – loaded with bad symbols.
🙂