Inconsistant Irrelevance

AN HONEST VIEW OF LIFE
I am a Christian and yet I really enjoyed an article related to feeling better about life that is clearly not theistic at all! What's amazing about this article is that it starts with a view of the world that basically says, we evolved, there is no meaning in life, and you should not expect anything in life. The approach begins with the rejection of ANY metaphysical reality - that is, there is no God, there is no spiritual realm, there is no supernatural - period.

The article is boldly honest and the first part is relatively internally consistent - this is why I really enjoyed it. You see, most people lie to themselves regarding how they view the world, and non-believers and non-theist are just as prone as believers of all sorts to fall into this trap - regardless of their religion or philosophical persuasion. What's amazing about some systems of religious or philosophical belief is that entire cultures and societies actually foster the lies, deceptions and inconsistent components of such systems. The adherents to these systems do not grasp the full implications of their beliefs and the inconsistencies between the beliefs and the practical side of living their lives. But this is why I really enjoyed the article - which can be found here: http://www.squidoo.com/FeelBetterAboutLife - the first main points, the metaphorical four compass points, are very honest and relatively philosophically consistent.

Within that honesty, the author has defined a pragmatic way of life that removes the need for faith and/or redefine the purpose for any meaning in life. Succinctly put, this way of life says: live strictly for your enjoyment in the hear and now. The author does not imply some form of hedonism, so please do not misinterpret. Many religious folk (especially those that can be politically charged conservatives) tend to easily use the hedonism, living for pleasure argument to debunk a non-theistic world view. This is irrelevant at best and leads to bad logic at its heart. The point is that individuals must adapt to and accept what I think can be abstracted to three powerful parameters that MUST be absolutely true. A person accepts these principles and frames a consistent philosophy of life around these boundaries. The author uses four points, but I really see only three and the key to this is an emotionally healthy acceptance - one i define as not being self-destructive or destructive of other people:

1. Life is an accident
Life has no meaning so stop trying to find one. Life has no purpose, so stop trying to give it one. Life has no guarantees, so get rid of any expectations you have about life. The approach says that attempting to find meaning or purpose in life is a "futile search".

2. Accept #1 without assigning any values
One has to accept all of life's meaninglessness without it being good or bad - it just is. One should not be depressed about it, nor discouraged. In fact, values get in the way and imprison. By not assigning any values to any behavior, one is liberated - so says the philosophy. The ideas is that values, espeically if they spring from meaning or purpose, "becomes completely irrelevant". Life just IS. One needs to fully embrace this.

3. Given #1 and #2, seek enjoyment for yourself
This third point, again, does not imply hedonism as I've already written. However, it does not forbid many behaviors and endeavors that many (including myself) would view as impure and ultimately selfish. In fact, the article explains the liberating nature of points 1 and 2 such that you can live life freely without trying to seek meaning/purpose. Instead, one can live for enjoyment without attempting to adhere to any particular moral standards - especially moral/ethical standards that are determined by a theistic system.

These three parameters, in order to be pragmatically applied, must include the idea of mutual altruism - that is, as I give enjoyment to others, I receive enjoyment as part of the transaction. Thus, my ultimate motive for any ethical behavior is my own enjoyment which is achieved by a synergistic existence with others and with nature itself.

THE MAJOR PROBLEMS
Now, after praising and pointing out the consistency of all of this, there are a two major problems that anyone that accepts this, must also fully accept. These include:

1. No real concern for truth.
Truth is not just facts but facts within a philosophical framework. The approach above only cares about the immediate facts that can be experienced now. In general, this approach requires others in society to take on ideals that incorporate truth on behalf of the individual who is living for the here and now. Those who frame and institute political entities and civil order provide the environment for those who choose to live this way. Without civilization, this approach to life would be difficult at best and people who devise and build our civic institutions either deceive others into accepting some form of metaphysical/spiritual reality/meaning to life, or they accept it themselves. This is clearly what has happened historically - the future is unclear, but I have my own thoughts on such things - but that would be for another time.

2. A limited view of reality
The one who accepts the philosophical non-theistic approach to life as described above simply doesn't care if that view reflects ultimate reality. They have fully accepted as an absolute truth (remembering there is no real concern for truth in the philosophical sense of the word) that life is an accident, that is, we have evolved. Yet, there is no reason to substantiate this foundational stronghold. The approach is to simply live and let live as long as no one gets hurt. But of course, many people do get hurt. - badly hurt. Obviously natural disasters, age, disease, birth defects, and the like cause suffering and in a limited way, this has been taken into account. But what is ignored about reality is the vast amount of suffering that occurs at the had of other people and there is no way to resolve this without doing more damage.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The real question is this: is life really an accident? (a) If it is, then such an approach is probably the best we can do as evolved beings. Survival and existence would ultimately dictate some form of mutually benefiting synergistic mechanism be developed whether we are consciously aware of it or not. (b) However, if we did not evolve then we were created by a living being that is ontologically way beyond our ability to grasp, a being that exists literally outside of the physical realities and limitations of our existence, and a being that transcends time and space in all of it's intricacies, complexities, and mysteries. As a Christian, I accept the second choice - but not blindly. Ultimately, I think the evidence - both physical and non-physical - point to this choice. Anyone who accepts (a) or (b) should ultimately do so because they think the evidence points that way. Such evidence does not need to meet some scientific proof, AS LONG AS the evidence takes into account all aspects of life, is internally consistent, and considers both the experiential and the non-material.