All you need is Love

Sandro Botticelli birth of venus
Originally uploaded by katrencikphoto

Are the Beatles right? Is Love all you need? Obviously it also helps to have shelter, food, access to clean water, health-care, education and a stable government. If the universe does exist as the outcome of morally neutral physical forces, without purpose and indifferent to human existence, what meaning and purpose can we make of our lives? What values do we live by? How do you live a Good Life in the absence of any external force or design?

Philosophers have been asking the last question since Socrates. The Greeks thought that a good individual life could only occur in a good society and that good government was an essential element in achieving this goal. The real point of politics must be to develop a society where individual lives can flourish regardless of class, gender or ethnicity. It is probably possible to live a good individual life if oppressed, poor, hungry and scared but without doubt it is harder.

So given the constraints of time and place and societal conventions, what autonomy does an individual have to create their own sense of purpose and meaning in Life? I believe that we have a reasonable amount of autonomy over the choices we make in life and that we can and do set our own direction. Many philosophies and certainly most religions are quite prescriptive about how to live your life. But I believe that there is no one way to live a good life. However I find much to agree with in the philosopher A.C. Grayling’s recent book “The choice of Hercules” where he discusses finding a balance between pleasure and duty in trying to lead a life truly worth living.

However most of the recent studies on Happiness and Well-being reveal that it is relationships that are the greatest indicator of happiness. Not only relationships within a family, but also with friends and with the wider community which give you a sense of belonging. It is probably stating the obvious to say that love, of whatever kind, seems to be an essential ingredient for the Good Life. Moreover it seems to me that along with obeying the law, having a sense of awe and wonder at the mystery of life and the universe might also help, with gratitude for life and acceptance of death. Nothing else seems to really matter. So I’ll end with another song: Don’t worry, be Happy!

Book Review 4 - Utilitariansm by John Stuart Mill

the least misery to the least number
Originally uploaded by Pickersgill Reef

At long last – the promised blog on Utilitarianism – one of my favourite philosophies. It has occurred to me that I have been talking a lot about God for an Atheist, but this book review will be fairly free from that topic as like the Epicureans, Utilitarianism is based on human-centred ethics. It owes a lot to the philosophy of Epicurus in that it recognizes that humans respond naturally to pleasure and wish to avoid pain whenever possible. But unlike the Epicureans, the Utilitarians did not advocate withdrawing from public life to achieve this state. In fact the founder of the movement Jeremy Bentham was one of the most influential thinkers of the 18th and early 19th centuries, particularly in England. He is credited with influencing the Great Reform Bill of 1832 which overhauled the still feudal British electoral system. He also had a great impact on reform of the British legal system and was one of the first people to promote women’s suffrage and the decriminalization of homosexuality.

The main principle of Utilitarianism however is “the greatest good for the greatest number” meaning that all actions must be judged by their outcomes rather than by their motives, and whether they maximise happiness or pleasure for ourselves or for society in general. This is how we should determine what is right and wrong and this utility is also known as the greatest happiness principle. Bentham believed that humans have a tendency “to make a duty and a virtue of following their self-interest” but that because we have to co-operate with others we can develop sympathy with the needs of our fellow humans. Like Aristotle, Bentham was very concerned with defining things that we take for granted and disliked “vague generalities.” He very precisely described the different kind of pleasures such as those of the senses, wealth, skill, amity or friendship, power, reputation, piety and even malevolence. Some pleasures such as piety and malevolence can also be pains. His main interest though was in the best way to govern and to make laws as a result of his theory.

His follower, John Stuart Mill, who modified and expanded the concept of Utilitarianism, was more interested in ethics and morality. John Stuart Mill went further than Bentham and incorporated a Stoic sense of duty and the role of the conscience into Utilitarianism, claiming that there were two levels of happiness - one derived from sensual or physical pleasures and the other from those of the mind. Mill argued passionately that it is better to be “Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” He also emphasised the importance of love or private affections as being an important factor in happiness, something that Bentham seemed uninterested in. One of the best passages in the book I think is where Mill says “Genuine private affections, and a sincere interest in the public good, are possible, though in unequal degrees, to every rightly brought up human being. In a world in which there is so much to interest, so much to enjoy, and also so much to correct and improve, every one who has this moderate amount of moral and intellectual requisites is capable of an existence which may be called enviable.”

It is a thought provoking book and aimed at the ordinary person rather than at an academic which makes it very readable despite its age. (the collection of essays was first published in together in 1861 although some of Bentham’s writings first appeared in 1789.) Although Utilitarians were considered radicals in their time, their views on the liberty of the individual and the right of all people, whatever their station in life, to enjoy a happy life is something that we mostly take for granted now yet their influence has profoundly shaped our society particularly in the area of law, economics and of course philosophy.

A Godless Life

Sistine Chapel Creation of Adam by Michelangelo
Originally uploaded by mbell1975

Two of the most common questions that atheists’ get asked is “How do you live without Hope?” Or “Why do you want to deny God?” Mostly people just assume that you are ignorant about the Bible and that if only you knew the Good News you would think differently. However, most atheists, I suspect, are not atheists due to lack of exposure to the Bible but for the opposite reason. In fact it is knowledge of the bible that has put me off the God described there and in other similar texts. It is an emotional reaction as much as a rational one. Perhaps one of the reasons for our resistance is that we atheists have trouble with authority figures. Or are we just too critical when, after reading these texts, we decide that if humans have design flaws, whose fault is it anyway?

Perhaps though, we should respond to those questions by asking our own questions: what impact does not believing in a God actually have on your life? What do Atheists do differently than God believers? My answer is simply: nothing. For we are all born, reproduce and die exactly the same regardless of what faith we have. Apparently there are no more atheists in jail than believers. Murders and rapists can believe in a God as well as people who commit fraud and who are unkind to animals or abuse children. Atheists do not seem to be any more immoral or criminal than anyone else. As well, random unpleasant events can happen to us all, atheists or not. We would all die tomorrow if an asteroid hits earth. Believing in God does not stop bad things happening nor does it stop death.

All that seems to happen if you believe, so it seems to me, is that you feel better because instead of random atoms colliding, someone has a purpose or a plan and thinks that you are special. All the wrongs of the world will be righted and in this new Kingdom there will also be everlasting life for believers. Apparently that comforts many people. However it seems unlikely to me and, like most atheists, I prefer to wait and see for myself. But I do have hope that it will not be tomorrow!

Another criticism leveled at atheists this Easter was that, unlike religious organisations, they do not care for the sick, the poor or the under-privileged of this world. This criticism deliberately ignores the many organisations around the world such as the Red Cross, Oxfam and Amnesty International to name just a few, that do not have religious affiliations. It is rather insulting to think that you need to be religious to care about the world or to donate money to worthy causes. Atheists do these things not to please God in order to get into Heaven, but because it is the right thing to do.

Living with Uncertainty

Brits board the Atheist Bus
Originally uploaded by jurvetson

I chose today’s picture because the red bus atheist campaign in England has been so successful and I like the wording of the banner, particularly the use of the word “probably”. Richard Dawkins (pictured) usually does use this word when saying that in his view there is no God but, perhaps just because of his Oxford manner, gives the impression that really there is no uncertainty at all and that believers are generally just stupid and ill-informed. Of course people who have faith just counter his certainty with their own and accuse atheists of deliberately denying God and leading empty, meaningless lives, which rather leads to a stalemate. This lack of tolerance and understanding of the views of others is obviously a fairly natural psychological result of fears due to lack of control over life and anxieties about strangers. Freud is right I think in encouraging us to continually scrutinize and examine our own motivations and to accept and acknowledge these fears. I think that accepting some uncertainty about the meaning of Life, the Universe and whether a God exists or not, requires a lot of self-confidence or self-control and that we all need to cultivate it to live together more harmoniously.

While I find Atheism to be rationally satisfying, I think that it tends to ignore natural human desires for the irrational and the emotional which belonging to a religion can satisfy, particularly in the area of ritual. Ritual can take the form of ceremonies, stories and celebrations that mark the cycles of life or seasons of the year. Rituals can aid in developing a sense of group values and an idea of shared identity that can allay anxieties and provide comfort in difficult times. Music is, of course, central to ritual as it evokes emotion and creates atmosphere. For some years now I have been celebrating the solstices and the equinoxes as part of what my daughter calls my cult! Although really just an excuse to have a themed party with friends, I really feel that although it is fun, we lack an inherited ritual which is meaningful and emotionally satisfying.

What my historical research has shown however, is that the early Christians used many existing pagan rituals in creating their new religion, so now I can enjoy Easter and Christmas as solar and seasonal festivals without being untrue to my rational beliefs. While I know that we need to be mindful of the fine line between ritual and superstition, and that not everyone shares my world view, I have found that people really enjoy re-connecting with the natural world and becoming more aware of seasonal and celestial events. I think that living, as we mostly do, in urban environments that have very little relation to the natural world and with the decline of participation in meaningful rituals, this might help to explain the increase in depression and anxiety in our modern western world.

Do we need a Saviour?

Mosiac at the Hagia Sofia
Originally uploaded by superboggly

As it is Easter, it seems timely to reflect on religion, its role in human society and the near universal need for a savior. In the famous book ‘The Golden Bough’, James Frazer described the transition from magic to myth to religion very persuasively. He examined the origins of European fertility gods and how originally the King was sacrificed at the height of his powers to ensure the return of the sun and the growth of new crops after winter. He was usually re-born again in the spring in a new form. This practice pretty soon gave way to non-human substitutes such as animals and totems. However, it is fascinating to see the survival of such concepts in the continued existence of the Wicker-Man, the phallic may-pole and of course the most famous scapegoat of all, Jesus Christ. However, Frazer’s desire to find a unifying theory of religion caused him to make many dubious assumptions about Non-European indigenous people, their myths and magical ceremonies, leading to much criticism of his work.

It is without question though, that Humans need to belong to a group to survive, and that magic and rituals such as stories, dance or art have always been used to strengthen these bonds, with the unfortunate consequence that outsiders are necessarily excluded. The development of a priestly class, who could intercede on people’s behalf to a God, or Gods, cemented these differences, as their power always depended on the unquestioning acceptance of taboos and on their special knowledge of any rituals or sacred texts. Many modern Christians are scornful about the so called primitive belief in magic yet refuse to recognise that not only does the ceremony of communion when bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of a sacrificed Christ, but also the concept of resurrection itself, relies on this primitive belief in magic.

Although increased literacy and the translation of sacred texts into common languages have, in most western countries, reduced the power of priests, I believe religion is overall a negative force in society. Many people still believe unquestioningly in texts written in another place and time and continue to uphold taboos relating to food, dress and reproduction which make little sense in the modern world. As we all know, small doctrinal differences can cause violence and all too often, wars. The prevailing view common to nearly all religions is that their particular version of faith is the only and absolute truth and that all other beliefs, however similar, are not only wrong but will lead to eternal damnation. Many are sadly not content to leave this to God but take action in this world to eradicate unbelievers.

Critics of atheism say that secularists too have killed people in the form of Stalinism and other non-religious totalitarian regimes. It is indeed a sad fact that humans tend to want to exterminate others all too freely and that political views as much as religious views have been used to unite people in this way. Also it is true that some Atheists can be as dogmatic and intolerant as anyone else. It is this human desire for certainty and absolutes that leads to trouble in my opinion. However, I can understand why many people want a savior or a hero who will right the wrongs of the world so that we can all live happily ever after but I think we also need to leave room for a little doubt and skepticism, no matter what our world view is. Perhaps we should all celebrate uncertainty as well as fertility at Easter, as that way no one has to die unnecessarily!

Book Review 3 –The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton

Boethius On the Consolation of Philosophy (with commentary by Nicholas Trivet) - Italy: 1385 - Miniatures of Boethius teaching students and in prison (folio 4r)
Originally uploaded by University of Glasgow Library

This book by Alain de Botton is a wonderful introduction to the usefulness of philosophy for life with plenty of quotes from six of the great philosophers of the last 2,400 years including my favourite Epicurus. The title is a kind of philosophical joke as the “The Consolations of Philosophy” was originally written by the Roman Senator Boethius in 524 AD while he was imprisoned by the Ostrogothic King Theodoric on trumped up charges of treachery. Although a Christian he was also in agreement with Platonic ideas and his work is often described as the most interesting piece of prison literature ever written. Boethius writes the book as a conversation between himself and Lady Philosophy. She consoles Boethius by discussing the transitory nature of fame and wealth by saying "no man can ever truly be secure until he has been forsaken by Fortune."

This is essentially the theme of Alain de Botton’s work. He offers philosophical advice for a number of human problems, including unpopularity, not having enough money, frustration, inadequacy, a broken heart and difficulties in general. It is refreshingly free from jargon and the traditional metaphysical dilemmas that usually make philosophy impenetrable. Instead it is a practical guide to understanding what matters in life and how to achieve happiness. The philosophers he has chosen do not always agree on how to achieve this, but he presents their views in a very entertaining way.

I particularly enjoyed the section on inadequacy which featured Michel de Montaigne who wrote his famous essays around 1580. Montaigne’s descriptions on the size of his penis, his ingrown toe-nail and the problems of his digestion were very amusing and made me rush out and buy a copy of his work which is still in print and a great read. Although very well educated, Montaigne had no time for philosophers like Plato and Aristotle who he found boring and in denial of the human condition. He was interested in how ordinary people behaved and why. His philosophy is still very relevant today.

The other section which I really enjoyed was the consolation for a broken heart which featured the German philosopher Schopenhauer who died in 1860. Schopenhauer felt despair as early as the age of six and was one of the greatest pessimists in history, greatly preferring poodles to people. Although not lucky in love himself, he was fascinated by the idea of love and wondered why it was such a neglected topic by philosophers. Like Montaigne he believed that our minds were subservient to our bodies and he developed a theory called the will-to-life which he claimed affected our ability to reason. However he was a seriously morose writer and ends by saying, “There is only one inborn error, and that is the notion that we exist to be happy.”

Alain de Botton seems to agree and writes, “Not everything that makes us feel better is good for us. Not everything which hurts may be bad.” But despite this rather grim pronouncement, the book is rather uplifting and very informative, with lots of pictures and diagrams to break up the text. In my opinion, this is how a book on philosophy should be written – clearly and on subjects that are important to everyone.

Why do we need God?

god ganesh
Originally uploaded by jk10976

Setting aside the cosmological explanation, the concept of a personal God must answer some deep psychological need or needs that humans have, as it has been part of all cultures and societies throughout history. Neanderthals are not even the same species as us, yet flowers have been found in their graves suggesting some kind of ritual associated with death. Some people would say that this alone proves that a God of some kind exists but wide acceptance of an idea does not prove that it is true. What it says to me is that we humans have a longing for what we lack. As we know we are finite beings, we long for the infinite. As we know our lives are brief, we long for the eternal and as we know things only relatively, we long for the absolute. Infinite, eternal and absolute are words often used to define God across all religions.

But there can also be a longing for a more personal relationship. Andre Comte-Sponville says, “What do we wish for more than anything else? Leaving aside our base or vulgar desires, which have no need of God to be fulfilled, what we wish for most is: first, not to die, at least not completely, not irreversibly; second, to be reunited with the loved ones we have lost; third, for justice and peace to triumph; and finally and perhaps most importantly, to be loved.”

Freud of course went further and claimed that humans, when faced with the perils of life and frustrated by their helplessness, recalled memories of the protection afforded them by the father whom they both loved and feared in childhood and constructed a far mightier figure to protect them through the rest of their life and after death. While not totalling agreeing with Freud and what he called the universal neurosis, I do accept some of his arguments that humans made God to satisfy a range of unfulfilled needs and anxieties. My problem with Freud however, is that he is good at analysing the symptoms but not so helpful about offering a cure. He basically says we have to all grow up, stand on our own two feet and accept reality. Easier said than done!

I think we all have to find ways to cope with life and death – it is not necessarily a weakness or a neurosis, it is just human. We Atheists too no doubt have our own God substitutes and need to accept uncertainty. Much as I admire Richard Dawkins, like any fundamentalist he can be at times too certain of his beliefs. There is a freedom though, I think, in realising that we can depend only on ourselves and the people we love to help us through life. Maybe we would fight more to improve things in this life if we withdrew all expectations from the afterlife?

Even though their views on life after death and God are different to mine, I find that some religious figures are helpful as guides for this world. For instance, I respect Jesus for his teachings about humanity and for his emphasis on love, compassion and tolerance. It is not always easy to live in accordance with those values (tolerance is particularly difficult I find) but at least we can try. At its best, belief in God can promote the elevation of those values over things such as power, wealth and bodily pleasure. This is obviously not a bad thing but in my opinion it is not exclusive to a belief in God and can also be achieved with the use of reason and an understanding of human nature.

[The future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud (Penguin books Great Ideas, London 2004) and again the Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville were used in this post]

Spirituality

Lotus Flower IMG_7869
Originally uploaded by Bahman Farzad

Just because I don’t believe in an immortal soul does not mean I am without a desire for a meaningful or spiritual existence. Many people think that spirituality is confined to religion but I think they are not synonymous. I define spirituality as a longing to look beyond the self and feel at one with the universe. I suppose it is all in the mind and no doubt there is a perfectly good evolutionary reason for why we feel this way. Whatever the reason, I think there are many ways to be spiritual. I think you can achieve it through any activity that absorbs you completely. Some people find it through observation of nature, through meditation, through music or through art.

I most often achieve this by looking at the stars. I find the infinite and eternal nature of the night sky incredibly soothing. All my worries, anxieties and irritations fall away into insignificance and I realize that nothing really matters as I am a tiny finite speck in the universe, yet nevertheless I still am a part of it. It contains me yet it is indifferent to me and for some inexplicable reason that makes me feel peaceful and happy rather than scared or alone.

I have also found meditation very beneficial and sometimes I can achieve a similar feeling to star-gazing through just clearing my mind and listening to the silence. It kind of feels like the barrier between the body and the world has disappeared and you are just floating openness. Apparently it is called the oceanic feeling. It is very strange but not unpleasant and on one or two occasions I swear I have felt bliss. I know it must just be some chemical reaction but whatever causes it, it is good! I think that is why Eastern religions or philosophies can be appealing as you learn to look inward for your own salvation or enlightenment.

But at other times I think spirituality is whatever makes you feel really alive. It is when time appears to stand still or no longer matters. You can feel it sometimes when transfixed by a painting from another place and time or when reading books written long ago that resonate with you and you realize that despite everything it is good to belong to the human race. I know there is much we can change or improve about our world but I feel gratitude for life rather than despair. I agree with Andre Comte-Sponville when he says “Why dream about Paradise? The Kingdom is here and now.”

[The Book of Atheist Spirituality, Bantam Press, Great Britain 2008]

What is the point of Life?

NASA's Great Observatories Celebrate the International Year of Astronomy
Originally uploaded by NASAJPL

How did everything begin?
What am I here for?
What happens when I die?

These are the ultimate existential questions that confront us when discussing life, religion, philosophy and the universe. For me, the Big Bang theory seems the best answer so far to the first question. The conditions that gave rise to life on earth seem very precise and rather improbable yet along with evolution seem to me to be the most likely explanation of the fact that we are here. What was there before the Big Bang and why it happened at all still seem unanswered but maybe that is due more to the limitations of my understanding rather than to gaps in scientific knowledge.

However, the purpose of the universe and of life on earth has not to my knowledge been answered yet by science. I know physicists are searching for the unifying theory but maybe it will still turn out to be just another mechanistic explanation rather than the reason or purpose for the universe. Personally I am happy to make my own purpose and just accept not knowing or being uncertain of any other, but I do rather like the idea of the giant experiment run by mice as described in the Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy. It is certainly more appealing to me than the idea of God as described in the Bible.

I suppose there is a chance that some creative force was responsible for the Big Bang and everything that has happened since including evolution. Where the force came from is still a mystery, as is its purpose. We can speculate that maybe the purpose was because it could, or because it wanted to see what would happen. Or maybe there was some other purpose that we do not know of yet, or will ever know given our relative unimportance in the scheme of things. You could call this force God if you like but I think it would have to be a different God to the one described in Bible for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it says in the Bible that God created man in his own image and I have a real problem seeing some sort of supernatural human being physically able to create the universe. The force that created the universe by definition must be something quite different to us and we can probably not imagine what it might look like or how it might think. Secondly it does not seem to me that the universe was created for us or that we are at the centre of it as the bible suggests. We are just one species among many on a small planet on the edge of one galaxy among many in the universe. Therefore it is rather arrogant to think that we are the end product of evolution and the reason for it, let alone that this force would have some special attachment to one tribe of our species in a small part of this planet or that it would necessarily want to intervene in any way.

I think that in fact we have created God in our own image for a variety of reasons including the natural human desire to find patterns and the desire for order and certainty in a chaotic world. Perhaps though it is mostly to do with the last question: what happens when we die? That is our greatest fear and maybe the hardest to deal with. I believe that we have to accept death as the end of our life and that there is nothing after death. Many people believe in an after-life where there may be personal consciousness of some kind or even reincarnation. That doesn’t appeal to me particularly but when dealing with the death of people I love, I try to find consolation in philosophy, mythology and spirituality. Spirituality like morality does not have to be confined to religion or a belief in a God as I hope my next post will show!

Book Review 2 – The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur

Madonna with Child and Angels, Filippo Lippi
Originally uploaded by f_snarfel

I read this book a few years ago and was very surprised that a former Professor and Anglican priest would argue that Christianity is a synthesis of Ancient Egyptian and pagan mystery religions with a Jewish twist. It even reconciled me to Christianity a little, because I discovered that despite the overt suppression of Greek and Roman philosophy and the burning of pagan libraries by Christians, many of the ideas and myths of the ancient world in fact survived by being integrated into Christianity. It is a well researched book with good footnotes and an extensive bibliography that has provided me with lots of further reading by authors such as Bishop Spong, Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar and Sir James Frazer (author of the seminal Golden Bough).

The theme of the book is complex but the main thrust is the incredible similarity that exists between Jesus and the many saviour gods that existed in the ancient world particularly the Egyptian God Horus, whom Harpur claims is the original archetypal Christos. The idea that a man-god who could be born of a virgin, perform miracles, suffer and die yet be resurrected to eternal life it seems did not originate with Jesus. Harpur believes that the truth and relevance of these tales have nothing whatever to do with actual happenings in history but everything to do with changing consciousness to “receive sublime truths accessible in no other way”. He means by way of symbols, allegories and myths.

Harpur believes Plato’s idea that we are all “sparks of divine fire struck off from the flint of the Eternal”, immortal souls clad in mortal bodies and that the divine is within all of us. He says that the ancient messiahs were symbolic sun figures who came not only each day with the sunrise and sunset, but were renewed through the seasons, the solstices and the equinoxes. Worshippers could take part in this renewal through mystery dramas and rituals and thereby awaken their own divinity. He believes that the sole and crucial difference between the ancient myths and Christianity is that Christianity eventually concentrated this endless universal concept into a single historical person, Jesus, and the unrepeatable events of his life.

In Harpur’s opinion, timeless myth had been misread as biography. Christianity took a tragically wrong turn at the end of the third century by denying and trying to destroy its pagan roots. People were then forced to look externally to a morally perfect and unreachable Saviour instead of looking within for the divine and understanding the true meaning of the cross as the symbol of spirit entering matter. Oddly enough, Jesus appears to says this in Luke 17:21 “for in fact the kingdom of God is within you.” It is fascinating stuff and I realised that in the end, perhaps it is just a matter of terminology that separates me from religion as I prefer to use the words nature, the universe and life-energy instead of the words god, divinity, and immortal soul.

Balancing reason with mythology

Dionís
Originally uploaded by Sebastià Giralt

It occurs to me that I may have unintentionally given the impression that I am some kind of modern day Aristotle wrestling with deep metaphysical concepts such as Truth, Justice and the meaning of life while leading a life of impeccable virtue and moderation under the grapevines. This is not exactly the case. I don’t think I practice what I preach any more than your average philosopher. I have to confess that the only thing that stops me giving in totally to the sins of the flesh is concern for my health, not classical ideals of self-control and restraint. My virtues only really consist of being kind to animals and small children. I thought it best to be up front on that point before continuing my exploration of the philosophy and religion of the classical world.

Greek and Roman philosophers discussed morality, ethics and how to lead the Good Life from an entirely human perspective because their Gods were by and large uninterested in questions of morality. The Gods were larger than life humans who happened to be immortal and seemed to spend most of their time quarrelling, chasing lovers and sulking. The concept of life after death was mostly confined to a ghostly existence in the gloomy Hades along with everyone else. Only special heroic individuals like Heracles could look forward to the blessed fields of Elysium wherever they were!

The Gods obviously began as nature gods who developed special attachments to places or to cities. Temples were the houses of the Gods not where a congregation met for worship. You could pray to a particular God for protection when travelling for instance but all Gods and humans were at the mercy of the blind, indifferent Fortuna or chance. Religion was part of the civic duty toward your country and honoring the Gods meant honoring the State and its institutions. (This is why the Christians were seen as a treasonous cult and got into trouble later)

There was no revealed scripture but stories of the gods and their all too human antics abounded. Greek dramatists used the myths about the Gods to reveal profound truths about what it is to be human. The Oedipus complex described by Freud took its insights from the ancient myth. Plays like the Bacchae by Euripides pointed out the danger of trying to suppress the irrational in humans, a tendency that the Greeks and some would say our own culture, had. As the play shows, the desire to forget moderation and reason and find transcendence in a frenzy of ecstatic worship of Dionysus, the God of the Vine, had become increasingly popular.

Logos or rationality led to some of the great developments in mathematics, science and philosophy yet the role of mythos or the irrational perhaps equally contributed to classical culture. Maybe it is too easy in a rational world to underestimate the importance of the imagination and the outlet or catharsis that stories, music, dance and art provide in expressing human emotions and anxieties.

Humanism and the Enlightenment

Delacroix, Eugene (1798-1863) - 1830 Liberty Leading the People (Louvre)
Originally uploaded by RasMarley

It occurred to me on re-reading last week’s post that I was a little dismissive of Socrates. After all, he was perhaps one of the earliest documented sceptics. He was also unusual amongst sages and prophets that, instead of giving people rules to live by, Socrates demanded that people think for themselves and continually question the status quo. In Plato’s Euthyphro Socrates asks if something is good because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is already good. He was influential in the development not only of Ancient Greek rationalism but also that of modern humanism.

Humanism embraces modern science, democratic principles, human rights, free inquiry and the separation of Church and State. It rejects the notions of sin and guilt particularly in the area of sexual choice. I think it is a very liberating and joyful philosophy of life. It means taking control of one’s own life and finding your own answers to the great questions of life. It does not mean that anything goes or that all worldviews are equal, rather that there are objective criteria against which we should evaluate these views. Respect for the law and for human rights being amongst the most important.

The Enlightenment (1700-1800) had a profound effect not only on Humanism but also on law in the Western world with the idea expressed in the American Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal” and deserve equality under the law.(It would take another century before these concepts would be applied to women, children and non-white people as well!) The Enlightenment was opposed to the arbitrary use of power by Monarchies and the Clergy and further influenced the American Declaration of Independence with the revolutionary idea that we all have a “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” regardless of social status.

At the same time, advances in science encouraged the idea that direct observation of nature rather than reliance on sacred texts could be the answer to some of the most important questions that confront humans. Ethics and values began to be discussed for the first time since antiquity in terms of a humanist world rather than one lived in obedience to God-given rules.

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, famous philosophers of the Enlightenment, believed that humanity, in a pursuit of a better and more civilized way of life, has agreed to an implicit ‘social contract’ through which people grant certain rights to their neighbors in order to get the same rights for themselves. However with these rights come civic responsibilities. I think most people now accept that the rights of the individual sometimes need to be balanced by the greater good of society as a whole. But I will discuss the Utilitarianism philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham and their contribution to my Atheist view of the Good Life another time!

How to Live the Good Life

Plato & Aristotle
Originally uploaded by Muli Koppel

Ancient Greek philosophy is appealing to me as it is very much concerned with how to live the Good Life or how to achieve eudaimonia. This word is often translated as happiness but should be viewed as a state of mind rather than as a result of a particular pleasure. It is often described as ‘flourishing’ or the realization of human potential.

Greek philosophers also believed that virtue or arête was essential to happiness. Arête is not just about moral virtues such as justice, moderation, courage and wisdom, it also includes attributes such as beauty, good health and doing something well. Socrates claimed that a person who is not virtuous cannot be happy and that a person who is virtuous cannot fail to be happy. Different schools of thought grew up around the exact balance needed between virtue and happiness in order to lead a good life. Discussion on these issues was human-centred, often heated and independent of any super-natural law giver or deity which, in my opinion, makes it still relevant today.

Despite this, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are not my favourite philosophers probably because I find them so hard to understand. I prefer my philosophy or guide to life a little simpler which is why I prefer Epicurus (although Socrates was good in encouraging people to think for themselves and be sceptical). However, a study of Aristotle’s book Ethics is useful, as he claimed that the natural function of humans was to reason and that to reason well is to reason in accordance with virtue. Epicurus agreed with him saying that of all the virtues, wisdom is the greatest, for through it we can learn which pleasures to seek and which to avoid.

Aristotle believed that we are driven by our natural instincts or passions and that we can achieve virtue if we seek the mean in the expression of these feelings. For example, for the feeling of fear, courage is the mean, rashness is the excessive expression and cowardice is the deficient expression. Virtues include generosity, prudence, patience and modesty. All the old biblical vices or sins such as envy, licentiousness, vanity and shamelessness are mentioned as either the deficient or excessive expression of human feelings or actions. Aristotle believed that virtue is not necessarily a capacity we are born with, we must develop it through practice and reason.

Unlike the Stoics who believed we should be indifferent to power, wealth and bodily pleasures and be happy with virtue alone, Aristotle was not so extreme and believed that friendship and good fortune in life and body were as important as reason and virtue in living the good life.

[I have found Philosophy: 100 Essential Thinkers by Philip Stokes (Arcturus Publishing, London 2008) and This is not a book: Adventures in Popular Philosophy by Michael Picard (Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest NSW 2007) and of course Wikipedia helpful for this post and for the post on Epicurus.]