Does it matter?
Posted on: June 7, 2007 - 12:35pm
Offline
Does it matter?
It is good to seek understanding of our universe and how it relates to a possible deity. However, does this never-ending discussion about God change the way we should live? I'm not talking about opinions on specific issues such as abortion or the death penalty. Rather, I'm talking about service. Is it right for me to have so much while others have so little? Is the aesthetic life meaningful or beneficial? Regardless of religious belief, shouldn't we be more focused on helping others instead of debating God? One only needs to look at Africa, Honduras or the homeless shelter in their town to see the struggle with poverty, disease and hunger. Let me be clear that I am not saying that atheists are immoral. That would be an ignorant statement to say that atheists lack ethics. My problem is that I don't see the point in debating, discussing and evangelizing while so many people suffer.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
- Login to post comments
I'm going to have to disagree and say that it is immoral. Especially since he seems to enjoy the fact that others suffer while he enjoys a comfortable life.
It is good to make a life for yourself, but it seems wrong to me to not use success as a means to help those who still struggle. If you understand how hard it is to improve yourself in this world, how then can you not extensively use success to aid others?
Also, I find it almost impossible to prove the morality of selfishness. You would be hard pressed to find any moral figure who supports selfishness over altruism.
I'm making a big deal of sacrifice of self-interests because I see so much devastation in the world. Not enough is being done, and people need to take big risks to begin a massive change.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Christos, put away that self-sacrifice before you hurt someone. Then read this.
There are good reasons not to just give everything you have to the poor. Everyone needs to be able to stand on their own for the most part, otherwise they will become dependant on others and unproductive.
You can't expect that everyone will share your goal of complete self-sacrifice and altruism. We define our own purpose in life, or none at all; there is no single purpose that overrides everyones judgment.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Still serving tables...Going on 4 years ;( Could definitely be worse though.
Now, to address Christos' post.
Well, when you say "should live" it complicates the question deeply. When you say words like, "should" or "ought" you are indicating a value judgment. So in an effort to make myself more clear, I will try to accurately reformulate your question to, "does this never-ending discussion about God change our lives?"
In response to this question, no, a never-ending discussion about God does not change or lives. In my opinion, what it does do, it make us think about how we live our lives. Whereby, through constantly thinking about our lives (in this case, the aspect of lives dealing with the lack of belief or belief in God) there may one day be a change in our lives, but not as a result of the discussion alone. If our lives change, it will be because we decide (the individual) whether we should change our lives. The discussion is a mere precursor leading up to the personal volition to enact change.
And one last point before I finish. In my personal opinion concerning your statement:
It seems to me like you would want people to not question or discuss God while there exists suffering in the world because our time would be better spent alleviating suffering in some way. If this is what you're saying, then you are essentially making a recommendation that all discussion concerning God will forever cease. Why? Because suffering, will always, with certainty, exist in the world. Granted, I have no proof for this claim, so feel free to disagree with me. I will reserve my right to agree to disagree with you.
All in all, perhaps a better question or concern pertaining to the discussions about God is , "where will all this lead?" Well, it will lead to greater awareness and is already resulting in a, most likely, never before seen positive atmosphere for interaction between atheist and theist. Where we can all feel safe and comfortable in an environment to discuss our beliefs without fear.
I hope that by asking your question, you are not feeling like this website, this interaction, is pointless. On the contrary, I feel this interaction is priceless and must continue. The end result of further interactions, such as these that take place on this very website, will perhaps lead to a better, more understanding world for us all to live in. Thereby, influencing and improving not only poverty and suffering, but also many other problems in the world that every human being has an ability to influence change upon.
Good day to you.
The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller
Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat
I'm a little uncertain as to what Nero is getting at (damn that pesky existentialism) so I can't comment on the second part.
You can help people without sacrifice. Think about it, everyone gave everything away to the poor, than the poor would be rich and the rich would poor. You'd end up repeating this cycle ad naseum. It just doesn't make sense.
Again, why should the reward of my hard work go to someone else? Who is to say that person is deserving of it? Why must I suffer in order to end another's suffering? Who will end my suffering then? And on and on and on.
To be selfish is to be primarily concerned with your own welfare. It is not the only concern, however.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I read the article about giving money to Africa that ultimately is wasted. That is a valid point. However, that doesn't mean you can't give extensively to people in your home town or in other countries if the money will be implemented effectively.
Jread- You makes some good points. I do think that discussion about god is a great thing that people should engage in. I do not want people simply to accept or reject god without serious thought and debate. On the other had, does out conclusion concerning god change how we should serve the poor? You will probably say yes. However, I think that the answer is no, regardless of what you believe. I still have not heard of a moral justification for living in luxury while others starve and suffering in poverty.
Simply stating "pleasure and enjoyment of self-interests" is not a moral justification. That response effectively turns a blind-eye to poverty. In that mindset, individual interests destroy any real hope to end world hunger and poverty. Even if there is no god, that doesn't change a never-ending responsibility to end the suffering of humanity.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Well, there you have it. I go off to lunch, and when I return, some theist has burned me at the stake for my "immoral" lifestyle.
First, meaning does not necessarily come from god. I never said it did. I said that the issues were close in nature (opposite sides of a common coin). It is impossible to find a proof of god. It is equally impossible to find a universal reason for existence. Everyone constructs their own. (If you think you can prove a raison d'etre, please share it. It should be a logical discussion though. Don't reach out for an emotional response.)
Second, I think it is super that Chistos feels his purpose to feed mistakes, I mean children, in Africa. If someone didn't feed them, how would the grow up to carry pestilence and pass poverty on to their own brood of simpering, starving babies. His acts leave everyone feeling warm and relieved. Christos must do a great deal for his community because he wields the cudgel of arrogant self-righteousness with great authority. I hope he will share his countless efforts to provide himself with meaning.
I, on the other hand, do not feel it necessary to construct a lofty meaning for myself. I prefer the style of the butterfly myself. I will eat what I want, flit about aimlessly, and enjoy the sunshine. Then, I will die. Christos and I will both rot once dead, and the absurd cycle of existence will continue.
To suggest that I am immoral because I am completely free and elect to use my freedom as I like flies in the face of the existential mode. It is wrong, in fact, to impede my freedom. If I must feed Ghana, then I don't have true freedom. That must mean there is some overarching purpose. What is that purpose? To make sure there is another generation of Ghana babies? That seems like a random reason. I won't live for that reason. So, with what little freedom you leave me, I would commit suicide.
That is the bottom line. I will live a life of complete freedom because that is the logical result of existential absurdity. If someone takes my liberties from me by force, I will use the last liberty any of us have and elect non-existence. Ergo, I'd rather swallow a bullet than serve the poor.h
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Again you said "should." I understand that it's really hard to not use that word, but again, please permit to reformulate your question to: does our conclusions concerning God change how we serve the poor? In short, no, I don't think they have anything to with how we serve the poor.
I think by you saying this, you acknowledge a recognition that there is no relation between discussions about God and poverty.
Maybe what you're envisioning the possible relation to be as the following: You may be imagining that we all are sitting at our home computers (those of us who aren't at work) living a comfortable life and enjoying our free-time. In fact, in my case, you are right. And perhaps, you are imagining that I would be better serving my fellow man if I was at a homeless shelter right now volunteering or anything along those lines of altruism. Yet, I don't see how I'm morally obligated to not enjoy my free-time. It seems that I have earned it. I have a job, I have bills, I have many commitments and my free time is my restbit. These aren't mere justifications, these are the facts of life that keep myself out of poverty and suffering. If I didn't have a job, have electric bills, have car payments, have a monthly rent, I would be considered living in poverty. The point I'm trying to make is this: our discussion of God and the having of free-time is a mere by product from our non-contribution to the level of poverty in the world.
What we do individually to help alleviate the suffering of the poor is personal and up to our own gauge of moral satisfaction as to how well we serve to stop poverty and suffering.
The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller
Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat
Hi Jane.
What do you think our society as a whole should do? From a global standpoint, the view of the USA (Are you an American?) in the minds of many (perhaps the majority in the world?) is "disgustingly rich and spoiled, and yes, they are disgusting (sweeping generalizations and stereotypes!) These are people who would push an old lady down the subway stairs if they actually took the subway instead of a town car."
I completely understand and agree with you that, that I in my personal non-super rich economic state, cannot do anything to make a dent world suffering. But our country can. And I think we can choose, out of our freedom, to help. We can even do it out of selfish motives. If Nero goes Africa and continues to 'exercise his freedom' by saying things there like he does on these boards, he'll be dead in the first week. As a county, we play the role of the spoiled guy who would push a lady down the stairs, we may be the ones targeted by others when technology finally does catch up in the other places. As a race, I do be believe that empathy and sympathy for other people is an evolutionary advantage.
And as a side note, your comments about the 'super rich' is a relative concept. In an area where wages are $5 a day, people that see you walk into McDonalds (even many super poor areas have McDonalds) and drop $5, a days wage, on a burger and fries.... may well have exact same feeling about you, that you have about the disgustingly rich here....
www.andyhanson.net
Andyy,
Your concern for my safety is much appreciated. In fact, I have travelled to Africa (Tunisia and Algeria). They seem to recognize the natural order of wealth and poverty. The Africans I met were mostly interested in gaining some small portion of what I own. They are exceptionally polite, and I never feared for my safety.
I am sorry that your delicate sensibilities have been disturbed by my lack of concern for the impoverished of other continents. Would you feel better if I referred to Russian orphans or Brazilian street children? In the end, if they have been born into a situation in which their parents cannot support them, then they should not have been created. See, people have the ability to decide whether to procreate. The children bear the brunt of their parents' stupidity, but where does that not happen? The parents have the freedom to choose to procreate and hope some emotional sot will take care of them.
Rather than making moderately entertaining quips about the world's interactions with me, consider whether you are maximizing the value of your freedom of action. What do you suppress because the social construct demands it? Whether they would kill me in Africa for my comments depends upon the social construct they have. Fortunately, they mostly have a proper sense of deference.
Everyone loves the idea of freedom until that freedom is maximized. "Oh no, you don't help the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the cold, and care for the loveless? You must be a real bastard!" Wrong! My actions, as discussed here, impinge on no one else's freedom. Why should anyone else have the right to impinge on mine? What makes your world so wonderous, other than the fact that it makes you feel like your postcoital?
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
The point I wanted to make with that is that by helping we can cause greater harm. It's a fine thing to help out people in need, but people also need to be self-sufficient, so giving has a limit past which it hurts the intended beneficiary. And the rule that people need to be self-sufficient applies to you as well; don't give so much that you are not happy.
The article I posted is part of the answer here. It's hard to solve these sorts of problems without causing worse ones.
You're assuming that your morality is the only one. It isn't.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
(Dude, your avatar creeps me out, I'm sorry)
Yes, I'm American.
My main issue with the topic at hand was the idea of suffering because of your wealth, success or class. That was what I thought Christos was alluding to. I take issue with idea that because I am more successful than someone else I have a responsiblity to 'sacrifice'.
I also believe that empathy and sympathy are inherent and necessary, as is altruism. I never said they weren't. I believe I touched upon this in an earlier post on this thread.
I also never said that we shouldn't do anything about the suffering. I only said that I didn't think it would be right to sacrifice my happiness, accomplishments and success so that someone else can be happy, accomplished and successful.
I wasn't so much taking issue with the fact that we should help the poor and sick, I was taking issue with the fact that there was this underlying idea that the only way in which to do this would involve sacrifice. I'm also speaking on an individual basis.
I'm simply not going to offer up my life so that another can be saved and that's what I got from the questions. It's not logical.
I'm also fully aware that wealth is subjective. I was expressing a personal opinion. I actually know nothing about those people, they could be in debt and not have a penny to their name. Thus the sweeping generalizations. I also know that to other people in other countries, I am that disgusting person. We really do live in the lap of luxury compared to other people. I don't think I should have to be punished because of it, however.
As far as what we can do as a country, I honestly don't know. I don't know enough about public policy to offer a solution. As I said in an earlier post, it would behoove us to be altruistic. I have no issue with sending aid or help to people. I have issue doing it when it becomes detrimental to the giver.
If you're asking if, as a country we could make a dent in the ills of this world, I'd say yes, a small one. Helping other countries would be beneficial to us as well. If you're asking if we should help another country at the risk of our own, then I say no, we shouldn't help.
Perhaps if you give me a specific scenario, I could be more helpful. I don't want to end up giving you a cop out answer.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Hey Nero.
I only mentioned 'Africa' because that was the topic at hand. But yes, any other impoverished part of the world would work as a substitute.
And the comment of regarding your safety in Africa... I think you know what I was getting at, but since you brought it up... First, I doubt that you had discussions in the public or semi public relm with impoverished people in which you said the things you are saying here in a similar manner. (correct me if I'm wrong) And while Algeria and Tunisia are in Africa geographically, they are a world away from sub saharan africa. They are more similar to the Middle East in culture, and the social constructs in the two cultures are vastly different. Drive a fancy car in Cairo and command some respect. Flaunt some nice gold jewelry walking in downtown Nairobi and your experience will be differenr. My bad for not clarifying.
I keep reading you write about freedom. If you choose to live your life trying to maximize your personal freedom, so be it. I respect your right to that. I love freedom as well. It pisses me off when governments resrict it. But I'm not so naive to think my actions don't affect anyone else. Even if they are people in far away lands. I'm assuming you know this since you mentioned earlier that you understand the global economy. I am NOT advocating that we all get rid of our cars and live in the wild as to not have an effect on other people. But being fully aware of what we're doing, and in turn acting out in empathy and sympathy to help those born into bad situations, is the position I advocate.
And I do understand your worldview, and I do think its logical. Even if we helped the whole world and 'cured poverty' it wouldn't really matter cause this whole planet will cease to exist in a relatively short time. (that would be your stance, right? Correct me if I'm wrong)
I don't like pain. I don't like suffering. From my observations, people in general are the same as I. I live a life free of pain and suffering (relatively speaking of course). We (as a nation, and western culture in general) have the power to help. So why not help? Or why help? Either way, it doesn't REALLY matter in the long long term... People have done the same for me allowing me to live my free, minimal pain life, so I support actions to do the same for others, even if they are just a kid in Ghana or a slum in Brazil.
I also like seeing Christians deconverted, and I think if all atheists thought like me, we'd have an easier time with deconversions than if all atheists thought like you
(I know, this statement has NOTHING to do with actual truth)
www.andyhanson.net
First... I've tried switching my avatar a few times, but both firefox and IE timeout! (even deleting didn't work) So we're stuck with this one... I'm getting sick of it too
I feel like you defined your postition very clearly. I'm reading your posts, Nero's, and Christos'... and you and Nero agreed a few times, so I was trying clarify your position from his. (Nero, you are a male? Nero sounds like a male name...)
These issues are tough. With an issue like climate change for example... Richer people are more responsible for it, poorer people bear the brunt of the consequences... but on top of that, there far too many unknowns right now to come up with solutions. So the situation we have is one where the 'richer' people are being ask/forced to sacrifice economically (give up some freedom) to benefit primarily the 'poorer' people... all without guarantees.
Immigration is another one. Illegal immigration has helped countless millions of immigrants and their families, friends, and economies, of their home countires. The 'richer' people of the US and Europe have 'sacraficed' (usually unwillingly) economically in the form of social benefits in the process. From the perspective of a patriotic American, this is a bad thing. But from the perspective of the immigrants, its a good thing. They are using their human freedom to do what it takes to better their lives.
These are just a couple examples, if anyone wants to write more than a couple paragraphs on either of these specifically, we should probably start another thread...
www.andyhanson.net
Nero, these are people you are talking about, not mistakes. If we say that all humans are equal, thus they should be treated as such. I cannot ignore their suffering and retreat to a world of self-denial. Serving is not something to do to provide meaning. We should serve because it is the right thing to do. I'm not trying to hold myself on a throne of self-righteousness. I also fail to adequately serve the needy.
Nero, maybe you just want the weak to peish to fit some disgusting example of "survival of the fittest." All I can say is that your opinion will only fester the problems of starvation and poverty.
Jane, you made a point about someone deserving help. Why does someone have to earn compassion and aid? A poor person is probably the least able to earn someone's help.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
For the record, I'm trying to examine this question generally, without attacking anyone's life. I have no real idea how much anyone here does to serve the poor. I'm sure almost everyone on the forum gives to some extent.
You are right that it is a personal decision. However, that still shouldn't prevent us from examining the morality of the question. Just becasue we are lucky and have made a good life, that doesn't change the responsibility to give extensively to those in need.
Wouldn't you want help if you were in extreme poverty? If the answer is yes, how can we give more considering our status?
If giving more would mean that someone throws themself into poverty, then that is a justification not to give. However, if someone can afford luxuries and comforts, then they should give more extensively.
In terms of God, I am separating them becasue I see the responsibility to end poverty as a human problem. Our attitude towards helping the poor shouldn't change based on religious belief.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Andyy,
You have successfully deflected my sarcasm and made an excellent argument. In the end, I soften as well. As I said, David Hume would have us do so based on his notion of "sympathy." I am not, however, willing to trade in any future freedom for a promise of what I will do for others. I would help if it felt good at that moment. I wouldn't do it because society says it is right. It would be done because it somehow increases my freedom and someone else's as well.
Thank you for your thoughtful and unemotional response.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Christos,
Unfortunately, I just gave all of the accolades I can give in one day to Andyy, which means you only get vitriole and bile. Sorry.
Your argument (I use that term loosely.) is an appeal to emotion. They're human; ergo, we owe them something. Wrong. No one is owed anything. I might help them, but it has nothing to do with obligation. Who says we are obliged? Your gut? That is not an authority as far as I am concerned.
Now, quit simpering over the downtrodden and reflect on the logical outcome of existential absurdity. Once you have managed to wrap your mind around it, we will discuss whether there is anything further that should influence our actions and our freedom.
Until then, I will be wasting food I could send to starving people. Further, I will be spending money that could go to them on lines of cocaine that I will be snorting off the asses of asian hookers.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
"There is no good reason for the fact that I have so much and my neighbor has so little." Sam Harris
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
What's your point? What context was that taken from, what was he talking about exactly? Which book?
Also, just because he is an atheist, doesn't mean that every atheist agrees with him.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Yes, I would like to know your point too. I have skimmed through this thread and am still unclear about the point you are trying to make. Are you implying that atheists are selfish and materialistic? As far as I know, the majority of the world is theistic so if there are problems such as hunger and poverty wouldn't it stand to reason that theism is selfish and materialistic? Or is it simply that people are people and some give and some don't. Some can and some can't. Bill Gates is a prime example of an atheist that gives...a lot. Granted he has the resources to do it, but he does not have doctrine or dogma dictating his charity. He gives because he can and he wants to.
I got that Harris quote from his debate with Rick Warren.
No, I do not think that atheists are immoral. Such a sweeping generalization would be very ignorant.
My general point is that regardless of religious belief, there is no justification for aesthetic comforts while chidren starve.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Well, that is a very noble statement. I assume you are posting this message all over the internet including theistic sites. Perhaps you should e-mail the pope. Or maybe you should start packing for a trip to Ghana.
I am not trying to be rude, but I am confused as to why you started this thread. The general population does sometimes fall into the trap of "not my problem", but this is not exclusive to atheists. Sometimes people just suck. All people. And sometimes people do great things.
If you are insinuating that we should turn off our computers and get cracking on providing assistance, then I would have to ask you exactly how we are to communicate with one another on just those issues? There are threads on this site that address the needs of those less fortunate and without that information I, for one, would not necessarily know there was a problem in the first place. I rely on this site (and other sources) to keep me abreast of issues so that I can help. Is that wrong?
I should have been a bit clearer on the subject of this thread. I was stating that the discussion of God's existence should not effect how we react to poverty. Thus the title: Does it matter?
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Christos,
First, I am touched that you have chosen to quote me for all of your posts. In fact, I am flattered and hope that after you reflect upon it that you will go read the core Existential texts.
Second, does it matter? Yes, it does matter. Your man-god gave you direct orders to help the poor and hungry. You are bound to do so or feel your sky-god's terrible wrath when you are judged with the quick and the dead. So, by your religious choice, you are bound to the impoverished.
Now, as for those who see no proof for the existence of your sky-god or your man-god, we are not so fettered. As I have explained before, we live in a state of complete freedom. We can elect whether to assist. We are also allowed to feel any way we want to.
You are so concerned about my emotional state and how I feel about other people. This seems odd to me. I have restricted my freedom by the laws of society and have never committed a crime. I merely refuse to sit about worrying as to whether people in our overcrowded world have enough to eat. This is a matter of omission on my part.
This freedom of thought grates on you though. In fact, it grates on you so much that you would quote me with regard to my shauden-freude. But, you don't have the right to restrict my thoughts.
Most of our laws involve restricting actions, and few dictate positive action. So, there are more do not kill people types than pay your taxes types. It is bad enough that my actions are restricted by the former, but now you want to increase the number of latter?
Does it matter? YES! You have been ordered to do so. You have an active order to do something. I do not, and am not inclined to do so, even if absurd emotional appeals are used.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
The discussion of god's existence does not effect in any way how I react to poverty. I don't take his existence into consideration.
You're already familiar to my stance on this. While I'm not opposed to helping others, I don't feel that it should come as a sacrifice to myself. There are times that helping others becomes dangerous to yourself.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Nero, you make the assumption that I am a Christian. I don't remember stating that or mentioning Jesus as a foundation for my position. I could be called an deist-atheist because I believe in God while rejecting theism.
Now that you've brought up Jesus Christ, I do feel that his stance on the poor is the position we all should have, regardless of religious belief. I admire his message of giving and sacrifice to the needy.
I'm glad you like my signature. I just wanted everyone to know how compassionate you are.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
But why the sacrifice? Why must there be a sacrifice? Who has decided that one life is worth more than another?
I just can't understand why a sacrifice is necessary.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
When there is so much extreme poverty in the world, people need to give above and beyond their means to really make a difference.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
To give above and beyond your means would just put you on the same level as those who are in poverty. Not to mention that a sacrifice is basically saying your own life is not worth as much as the life of another. That, frankly, doesn't sit well with me.
Who decides who should be helped? There are, after all, people who probably don't deserve to be helped.
As an example, when I was in Drivers Ed in high school, we were told to never stop and help someone on the side of the road. Likewise, if we were stranded, we were advised to refuse to get out of our cars and refuse any help offered until the police came. Why? Because people pretend to be stranded on the side of the road and then they rob you. Or, they see someone stranded on the road, offer to help and then rob you. While I realize this is not nearly as severe as world poverty, I'm sure you see my point. Not all people are nice or deserving.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Giving beyond ones means does not necessarily put someone at the same level as those in poverty. For example, someone giving half their paycheck would not put them in poverty, they would just live with less comforts.
Again, why does someone who is poor have to earn love and aid? Their social class puts them in the worst position to earn help from others.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
I need real friends. Imaginary friends are for kids-- Ely Toka, Goddess of Butterflies
Philosophy's not my long suit either... but I find myself agreeing with a good many of your points, and having some reading to do as a result.
Christos: How do you define "give extensively" to "the poor," exactly?
With any donation of time or money to charity whatsoever, I am choosing to sacrifice some "luxury" or another and give to the less fortunate. Sure, compared to people in Ghana I'm living like a queen; hell, compared to some of my own friends and family that's true too. If there's any "moral obligation" I have toward helping those less fortunate, it begins in my family and radiates outward from there. If I feel compelled to help someone in need, it is still my choice as to the manner in which I will assist.
I'd guess I'm not alone in having intimate knowledge of the "who is/isn't deserving" problem with regard to helping someone in crisis simply from living in any large family/clan. There are some people who are as fucked up at 64 as they were at 24 and at 14... can't hold a job, function socially or whatever. Should other people really have to "sacrifice" or "give extensively" when they're probably already having to do so to some degree (no matter how little they can afford) for their own kin? Especially when they are well aware of how adept some people are at gaining sympathy and milking everything they get for all it's worth.
The argument about God's existence has a hell of a lot to do with how we "react to poverty," in that it's mostly people who believe in him holding the country's purse-strings, and their help for the needy is contingent upon their particular brand of faith being adhered to and proselytized. So yes, it does matter. I don't want my money going toward funding a "pregnancy crisis center" or "at-risk youth program" that's more concerned with spirituality than science, social realities and sex education.
If I were afforded the luxury of keeping the money I pay in taxes, I'm sure I could find far more charitable, and more practical ways to help end poverty than my government sees fit to fund with it.
Long week. Babbling. Please forgive
Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.
You made some points, but I still have not seen a single person adequately answer the question: How can I justify aesthetic comforts while children starve?
You brought religion and government into the discussion, and that is not my intention to discuss those factors. I'm talking about giving and service on a personal level.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Let's suspend reality for a moment and say that giving half my paycheck to the poor would not put me in poverty. What it would do is take away what little safety net I already have. If I had an emergency, I'd half to use credit. Once my credit becomes maxed out, I'm screwed. I'd better really hope I don't get sick or anything like that. So now my life has turned into a constant worry and a contant struggle but some guy somewhere else is doing ok because he's got half my paycheck.
What did he do to earn it? I'm sorry but being poor does not earn you half my paycheck. I still stand by my position. I cannot understand why I should possibly have to suffer in some way because of the suffering of someone else.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
You haven't justified why anyone has a responsibility to help anyone else. You keep ignoring that problem with your argument.
You mentioned God in the OP. You brought it in.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Christos, please. What is it you're trying to get after? You feel that no person should be comfortable until everyone is. Well, keep dreaming because it is never, ever going to happen. You're sitting here tapping away at your computer while there is some poor pariah in India who can't get a bite to eat because it is the station he was born into.
People have answered your question quite adequately, myself included. The problem is, it is not the answer you wanted to hear.
People have spoken many times about giving on a personal level. You just don't like what they have told you.
So, back to your initial question: how can you justify aesthetic comforts while children starve?
My answer: In any way that makes you feel comfortable. I think what is making you uncomfortable is the fact that others do not share your view.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I love this post.