disenchantedbunny.

Internet prices were raised at my uni this year, and as a result I’ve been avoiding (much to my dismay) any forums, blogs and porn sites. As a result I’ve had more time to study and drink myself into paralysis, hoping that maybe I’ll induce one of those mystical subjective experiences that convert thousands each year. I’ve decided alcohol doesn’t work, so perhaps I’ll give up for now. With the extra time and money I will save from drinking I think I can afford to post once a week or so. Yay.

A few posts ago I teared a new one in an episode of medical comedy Scrubs about how it dealt with the problem of evil. In the latest episode screened on American TV it picks up the issue again, this time putting a different spin on things. Nurse Roberts is the generic large black gospel women; probably one that fell out of Sister Act when they decided there were enough sequels to leave a lasting meme floating about the realm of popular culture. Dr Cox is the generic cynical, angry atheist with Daddy issues; probably an inversion of that much more plausible Freudian understanding of worshipers and fathers. Memetic lineage aside, Cox wants to show Roberts that bad things do happen for no good reason. Thankfully the show doesn’t resort to miracles again. Instead, Roberts argues that without her faith (in this instance, trust in her purely subjective communication with the J-dog) she wouldn’t be able to keep going with all the seemingly bad things that happen for no good reason.

There are two important questions a disbeliever should take into consideration. Firstly: Should people be allowed to trust their mystical experiences if it is the only thing keeping them going? And secondly, how is an atheist or agnostic to deal with evil?

Answering the first question is probably most controversial. Most people I have met who define themselves as atheists would argue no. They would argue that if it is not reasonable to believe then they should disregard the belief. But most of these people I know would not hesitate to give an addict drugs if it meant he could live to potentially kick the habit, or even, to just live slightly longer. There is inconsistency here if one objects to thousands of people dying.

The problem with enforcing beliefs is that people can’t always be reasonable, or that what is reasonable for one person may be unreasonable for another with different experiences. If ex-Korn guitarist dude believes that Jesus exists because he has conversations with him about everyday activity, then it would be hard for him to disbelieve that this character doesn’t exist. Sure, he’s crazy. But to him this character really exists beyond reasonable doubt. He’s probably too stupid to ever understand enough of the history of science to know that science does make progress on theories and technology, so probably to stupid to trust medical authorities when they tell him that all those drugs that he’s taken in the past have probably screwed with his head a bit and now he’s talking to himself, not to mention that there are hundreds of others that have their own different imaginary friends that don’t correspond with each other.

What it comes down to is something like Plato’s ‘noble lie’: how let the masses give meaning to their suffering without infringing on philosophical and scientific inquiry. What religious tolerance does is allows room for people like Nurse Roberts to hold her belief without forcefully pushing her beliefs onto others. As long as she doesn’t mind if Doctor Cox can get by without it, she can keep her faith. The best environment for freedom of meaning is secularism and religious pluralism. On this view fundamentalism is the enemy of religion, as is extreme rationalism, ala Descartes, or perhaps the crazy cult of objectivism, ala Ayn Rand. Expecting everyone to be reasonable is unreasonable in itself as reason is not tied down; what’s reasonable is relative to a subjective experience of life. Pluaralism gives religious meaning (which some people actually need to continue existing) some moving space while letting scientific inquiry continue. People should be able to have private freedom and private beliefs, as long as they don’t spill over to infringe other people’s freedom of belief .

The second question is easier to answer and much less controversial. Unbelievers can deal with evil any way they want. Disbelief in god does not logically entail any view on morality. Both Nurse Roberts and Dr Cox understand medicine in the same way as Camus does: as a never-ending defeat. Eventually people die and suffering wins. All that we can do is rebel against the state we find ourselves in and temporarily hold it back for ourselves and others.

Some people need more than that though. And they can believe more as long as their beliefs don’t restrict the fact that we don’t.