What's the Point?

One of the more incredulous questions that atheists get when believers challenge them about their lack of belief is, “What’s the point of living when there is no god or afterlife?” It’s a valid question; one that scares the crap out of people who have basically lived their whole lives thinking that they’re only in transition. They’ve also been conditioned with the conventional wisdom that ultimatums keep people in line. That’s why people are good, they think; they don’t want to go to hell so they treat each other nicely.

But what if people were predisposed to get along anyways? What if we were born into this world ready to make nice? That notion already pushes against many believers’ ideas. Otherwise, atheists wouldn’t be the single least trusted demographic in the United States. It’s clear that there are some wild misconceptions about atheism and its inherent motivations. There is a perceived void of morality and intention that scares those who are mislead about where morality comes from. So let’s set it straight.

Human society has progressively gotten “nicer” over the millennia. What used to be a world of warring tribes has turned into a global nation of mostly amiable relationships. If we were to look for possible causes that correlate with this increase in cooperation, two stand out: religion and knowledge. It’s natural that practitioners of today’s religions see their beliefs as better than those who came before, otherwise they wouldn’t believe them. That doesn’t prove the slightest bit of causation, though. If we wanted to examine a religion for its positive effect on society, the first of many places we would look is its holy scripture. We would look for clues that coincide with today’s modern values; not only ones that support what we consider to be good things, but denounce what is blatantly bad.

The holy books of the who most prominent religions on today’s stage, the Bible (both testaments) and the Qur’an, both fail this test. They are laden with the support of modernly detestable behavior like human sacrifice, slavery, rape, anti-intellectualism, and the repression of women as second class citizens. Though believers are quick to point out that their holy books also contain very benevolent sentiments, we are forced to acknowledge that there is an external influence that determines which verses are good and which are bad. That influence would be knowledge.

As we’ve charged through the centuries, humans have accumulated vast amounts of information about the world. What began as a single spark has spread to become a vast luminescence in comparison. Everywhere knowledge spreads, humans become a little more civil. To illustrate this on a small level, believers don’t understand atheists, which translates into fear and hate toward them. These two sentiments are considered bad and they are also marked by the lack of knowledge. As an atheist, I think if a believer were to understand me more, their sentiments would be downgraded to perhaps a mild annoyance.

With every advancement of human knowledge, especially about things like psychology and sociology, comes the realization that we’re not all that different and there is nothing inherently bad about skin color, sexuality, or differences in beliefs. I remember learning about the history of Judaism and the Catholic church, noting every time when a hard line Catholic stance against Judaism was rescinded because public sentiment about the Jews didn’t reflect what the church thought about them. Furthermore, the church has had to account for advances in knowledge, backing down over time on its stances on heliocentrism and evolution. It has been religion that has been forced to adjust to knowledge, not the other way around. Thus, I can safely claim that my morality is drawn from learning about the world, not belief in a higher power.

This all brings us back to the original question. What’s the point? Why live life, moral or not, when there is no reward at the end, your consciousness simply shuts down and you’ll be forgotten in 50 years? The question, asked in such a manner, insinuates that we should just kill ourselves. But I don’t want to kill myself. Evolution has prepared me with a sense of self-preservation that I find difficult to ignore. While that sounds quite droll, it is the truth for all of us. Indeed, it is a very desperate or resigned person who willingly ends their own life. So, while we’re here, we might as well enjoy it.

Studies on the causes of happiness (for an example, check out Daniel Gilbert’s Stumbling to Happiness or Jonathan Haidt’s The Happiness Hypothesis) tell us various ways to obtain satisfaction with our lives. The most effective means do not involve taking advantage of others, but actually cooperation with them. We’re moral because it makes for a better life and this is the only life we have. We give to get. Unfortunately, many people don’t understand happiness and they look for it in the entirely wrong manner. That’s just something we have to live with though. Most of us get it.

For an average bloke, life is not very complicated. You live to sustain yourself and your family and you seek out happiness along the way. The reward is the satisfaction and friendship of those around you and of your tiny accomplishments. Who needs the empty promises of an imaginary deity when you can experience true bliss within your lifetime? Some of us, though, aim for a little more lasting impact. It would be nice to be remembered for centuries after our deaths for all the good we did for the world. We would not be around to see how we helped, but we’d hopefully fade out with a smile on our face.