Atheist/vampire versus the Theist and the Agnostic.
November 8th, 2009
The atheist denies the existence of God and with it all moral meaning to existence. As a practical matter the atheist is to be likened to a vampire, except that his life lacks magic and is limited in time and will finally come to a complete halt and “enter” into the nothingness that is sometimes called existence. It’s measure will be a sum total of actual fun, and there will not even be a reckoning of that sum, for it too vanishes into nothingness and the dark. And so while he may be restrained by cultural factors to act with caution, his goal is always his fun. To have as much fun as possible. That is the atheist. To even consider a moral act for a thoroughly rational and aware atheist would be like considering whether to have one’s hand roasted for supper.
The theist affirms God and meaning and dignity and acts accordingly with fervor to attain to moral perfection.
The agnostic, who admits the possibility of God, would have two arguments before him (in a practical sense). The first would be something akin to Pascal’s wager. If God is actual, thus bringing objective meaning to the moral act, and if I opt for God and live a morally upright life I will prosper eventually. Otherwise, assuming God is actual, and I don’t respect the moral law I will be in for serious trouble. If there is no God then by being moral I will have missed opportunities to have fun like the atheist. The rational choice would here be to act as though there were a God, comparing infinite possible happiness with finite actual fun (and perhaps even very finite).
The other (Kant’s) argument goes back to the common moral duty to promote good. The only way this can be found meaningful and appealing is to posit the existence of God; hence the agnostic (as every morally inclined person) is necessitated to posit the existence of God and indeed to join with others of a like mind, e.g., the theists*, and work for the moral improvement of the world.
[* Looking at the Christian faith we can now imagine two sorts of theoretical Christians, the agnostic and the believer. The creeds and rituals would be performed by the agnostic without imposing on conscience, and by the believers in sincere trust and conscience. Practically speaking they would be joined in mutual moral development and cooperating in doing good deeds.]
Two arguments then compel the agnostic to opt for God in a practical sense, one prudent and the other moral.
Trackback this post