Basics of Our Existence, Morals, and God

"I think, therefore, I am," Descartes. In other words, since I think, this means that there must be something that exists that is thinking. Though this proves that at a certain particular moment, "I" exist, really it proves little else. For instance, some evil scientist might have my brain in a jar somewhere, and is causing me to only think I have a body. I could even have not existed before this moment, all my past memories actually false ones, and in reality I exist only for the briefest moment. This would be like an old "Star Trek" episode in which Captain Christopher Pike does not realize he really is not cavorting pleasantly, but really is painfully disfigured and disabled.

This might be an interesting exercise, but generally we have to go about our business as if our perceived reality is not an illusion. Nonetheless, the thought exercise involved is important because we must remember that just because we perceive something to be true, it does not necessary mean it is. For instance, it took some creative reasoning (and turgid prose) for Descartes to go from "I think therefore I am" to "I am the human I perceive I am, and there is a God." Also, it is useful to determine first principles such as the proof of our existence, the basic rules of behavior, and so on. We should at some time assure ourselves that our actions on based on correct assumptions, or it will be like trying to get somewhere by reading the wrong map. We might being reading it the right way, but we still are going to have a hard time getting to our final destination.

Once we realize that we exist, we generally take care to continue existing. This means that ultimately we are selfish people in that our core concern is to make sure our needs are fulfilled. Now, this is not as desperate as it might seem because as humans we are social animals, and the way we survive is by uniting with others. Furthermore, our rules and laws that limit our freedom in various ways benefit us in the long run. This applies both in our personal (marriage and family require some sacrifices) and public (laws to protect our freedom and security) lives. Thus, we give up certain liberties as citizens or as spouses, but do so because we feel in the long run our freedom and happiness will be better protected. Furthermore, once such limits no longer are worth it, we either feel we have been wronged or try to free ourselves (by lawsuits, divorces, revolutions, and so on).

We do not ignore or question the validity of this somewhat selfish motivation to conform when our public lives are involved. It is realized that one reason we have laws is that they protect us from selfishness that would lead to anarchy if it is not limited somehow. Murder might be wrong, but laws against it are less concerned with its morality, than in deterring people from killing each other. The morality issue is important, of course, since there is a limit to how much we can rely on police to uphold the law. We need to believe in the rules themselves to begin with, which ultimately involves our code of behavior, our morals. Morality thus is a form of law, personal and social rules of behavior enforced by the people themselves as well as (some think) supernatural forces that keep us in line.

The idea that we are moral because it is in our interest to be so might sound cynical, but in the long run it actually is heartening. This is because reflection shows that being good in the end helps us, just like laws in the end overall are for our own good. The whole system is not perfect, of course, and in various individual cases it might be the case that being bad (whatever that might be) will help you. Nonetheless, on the whole, being bad will be hurt you. After all, a system wherein people just go around punching people in the face will set up an ongoing threatening situation. On the other hand, good furthers good, helping us all. We go about our day following various basic rules because we know it will benefit us, not out of some general adherance to ultimate moral rules handed down from up high. At times the value of doing so requires a look at the big picture, but usually, the benefit is more obvious and direct.

How do we determine what is moral? If we follow the above logic, what is moral is what ultimately furthers our self-interest (a high degree of freedom therefore should be allowed). This is really a more complicated issue than we might think, since just because something feels good at the moment, does not mean it is good for us overall. After all, an addict can tell you how short term pleasure leads to long time pain. Therefore, the determination of what is moral is a complex matter, involving both determining what is good for you and how best to achieve it. For instance, being social animals, we interact with others who are much like ourselves in various basic ways (the differences often are less important than they might seem), thus we treat them equally in many ways. This equality is also protected because others will be troubled and resist if they are treated differently, when they know they really are not. Nonetheless, just how equal we all are, and how best to protect the equality that exists is a very complicated question and in an ongoing serious matter of private and public debate.

No matter how complex it is to determine, morality and "good" is present in some abstract sense, as a type of natural law of sorts. Certain behavior and guidelines further our happiness, even if they are not the same for everyone. We determine these moral guidelines by using reason, which is clearly a flawed exercise, given all the bad things argued to be good over the years. There are also a lot of disputes in reaching conclusions as to a moral path of life, as shown by the various religious and spiritual paths out there. Ditto the use of personal revelation to justify conflicting moral values, including some few take seriously. Morality can be understood as arising from a reasoned contemplation (if so, "moral" exists only because we define something as such) or as an overriding set of rules arising from nature and/or God (no matter what, something is right or wrong, even if no one knows it is), but either way, it is a complicated and often inchoate matter.

Note that saying something is immoral does not suggest the person who performs the action be morally at fault. After all, the person is acting in a way s/he sees as furthering pleasure, which is our natural instinct. So, saying we have "original sin" because we tend to act in ways that can be seen as sinful is weird. Sin implies a degree of fault not truly present here. The acts might be bad ones, ones we want to deter in any number of ways, but sinful? A human's inability to always act in ways in his/her enlightened self interest is more comparable to a child being bad than one step on the way to hell. A child is not mature enough to control him/herself, is disciplined and instructed how to act, but not expected to make mature decisions at a young age. At some level, we never truly mature, if mature means being able to control our animal instincts, and acting a some higher plane of moral goodness. Our flawed natures could be considered sinful, if one likes, but why not call a dog that eats off the table sinful as well. After all it knows enough not to do so, even if its little brain finds it hard never to do so.

Where does God fit into this equation? The general consensus in this country is the source of our morality is God, an all powerful, knowing, and good entity of some sort. Therefore, another definition of good could be "God" This seems troubling since if God is the source of all that occurs, a lot of it seems rather bad. For instance, natural disasters and harm to innocents occur on a regular basis, though we only seem to care when it happens to us personally. Let me say I think it is uniquely selfish for us (which kind of furthers my argument) to only blame God when something bad to us, as if no one else's pain matters. At any rate, we can say that God works in mysterious ways, but why say that? Why not say that nature itself works in mysterious ways without relying on a troubling concept of an all good, powerful and knowing entity allowing bad (even if only in the short term, like before you die) things?

If we do so, our habit of trying to do the best we can with life's hardships a bit easier to accept. For instance, various people have shown how suffering can make us more humane and humble, which might be true in various cases. Nonetheless, if we say that God is behind such events, it is harder. After all, could not God set up things differently so we can be humane and humble without the hardship? God is all-powerful after all, it should not be too hard for an all-good entity not to allow so much pain. The same goes for the whole problem of free will, which is confusing if we notice we suffer for choosing badly, even though ultimately God is said to have hard wired us to thus choose in the first time.

After all, the problematic entity of God does not hold up very well upon reflection, even with all the arguments used in support. For instance, the way things work (including morality) can be seen as following scientific laws, which led some eventually to suggest God just started things off. The problem being that this does not explain God existing, any more than saying life on earth started from out of space explains the ultimate origins of such life. Furthermore, even if we use such a deus ex machina of sorts to explain natural laws, there is no need for such a God to be an all good, knowing, and powerful entity. A mindless life force of some sort could be used to explain things without giving it some moral weight or mythical powers.

This life force might not exist, but it is as useful in explaining things as God, if not more. For instance, many scientists see the universe as an ongoing process, which is more logical than explaining everything by assuming a God started everything without explaining God. At the very least, our current concept of God is troubling, and a more universalist nature religion like concept would make more sense. In fact, a pagan view that sees good and evil forces among us makes more sense than explaining bad things as actually being good somehow (God cannot do bad things). Furthermore, upon contemplation, our religious beliefs is more a result of socialization than anything else, as shown by the fact our religion (Christianity) is one of quite a few traditions honored throughout the world and history. Finally, if one ultimately relies on faith and personal vision, why are Moslems and Mormons (quite aside from those of ancients) seen by most of us misguided, when their visions are as fanastic as those mainstream Christians honor?

"God" is actually a skillful creation to personify nature and the ultimate world view we create for ourselves. This is seen by the various development of God through the ages, from natural forces, warrior gods, and finally a more distant deity whom is the ultimate source of reason and life. The level of discussion, scholarship, insight, feeling, and thought involved cannot be denied, but truly seem to me to be misplaced. Use of God to explain things like good, evil, compassion, sadness, good works, special mental insights and emotions, and so on is not only unnecessary but just confuses the matter. This is akin to using God to explain natural disasters, which originally were seen as fantastic proofs of the supernatural. It does not belittle the complexity of the human existence (and nature itself) to use more earthly and at times more mundane explanations.

The use of God and the spiritual world in general to explain various things is not necessarily the problem in certain cases. For instance, one need not believe in God to consider homosexuality to be unnatural, and many believers in God go about their lives without incident. Nonetheless, there is a problem in using someone or concept to describe something, if it is so glorified, that it is used to justify things without reason being involved or at least not the primary value. How do we question something like that, even if it is demonstratively false? And if reason is not as important as faith, why not let it be used across the board, such as for our drug policy (drugs are bad, let's make them illegal, no matter what) and hysteria of child sexual abuse in day care centers (found after the fact to be mostly if not almost totally imagined)? Life is at times more complex as well as mundane than many think, and not questioning many of our central assumptions (including religious and moral) only makes it less likely will we understand this fact.*

Anyway, do those millions that question or do not believe in God as currently defined lead bad lives in general? (for those who do not know, the answer would be "no") Is furthering personal and human happiness not a better incentive than the rules of an entity that causes pain and seems a contradiction in terms? Again, no. After all, not only do we usually make decisions based on moral choices without much thought of the God allegedly behind them, but it is often better that we do. In this way, we realize how imperfect and open to error we truly might be. Imperfect is our nature, let’s take it as it is, not use a “God,” or rules apparently handed down from up high or hopes of eternal lives or souls to try to pretend things (and we) are as they are not.

Finally, this essay is my personal view of the world, and is not necessarily the viewpoint of others who share my point of view on the various issues addressed. For instance, my view of morality need not be the same as someone else who questions the existence of God (agnostism, though if one goes by the usual definition of God, I think I am pretty close to being a full blown atheist). Nonetheless, let it be noted that an atheist is also not some immoral person with a depressing and pointless life either, since I hopefully suggested how morality and goodness need not go hand in hand with belief in a deity. I find it insulting that disbelief and rationality is seen as some kind of immoral character flaw, especially given how bad off many believers obviously are. Belief is not necessarily the path to ruin, since often believers lead good and productive lives, but let us not become too enamored with a view of the world that is often illogical as well as supportive of some rather bad things. I know personally I am a bit more modest and humble in part because of my view of the world and do not deserve the scorn or pity of those who do not think leading a good life is enough if you do not believe in God.

“I think, therefore, I am." I personally want to truly think, to truly be who I am, not let ignorance cloud my reality just because it might be nicer that way. This is especially since upon contemplation it really is not.

* I discuss the use of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, here. The use of "God" in court rooms, our national anthem and currency, and so on is part of the problem: not only is it a national establishment of a religious belief, it glorifies a deity that is arguably just a creation of our imagination. An interesting, if somewhat flawed, discussion of our culture's use of faith over reason (at times to our detriment) is a book by Wendy Kaminer, Sleeping With Extraterrestrials Her chapter on the Internet appears to belittle web sites and netizens like myself and the book spends too much time on new age religions (which she clearly disdains, a bit too much at times) over mainstream religions, but the overall theme is well discussed. Few truly question 'religion' itself these days, no matter what some people say, and it is good to find someone who does.