Since the dawn of civilization, humans have sought to develop a coherent and communicable worldview. The desire to order the universe into a sensible set of rules, and to live a lifestyle in accordance with those rules, is an innate part of the human condition. This is why religions rise in every culture without fail. Man seeks to understand, and man feels good when that understanding lights a path forward for himself.
This may be why the atheist is so detestable to the general populace. How can a man live without a set of rules? How can he discern a direction for himself without a compass to guide his way?
Most atheists do actually live by a set of rules, unbeknownst to the naysayers. Whether it be codified, as in the case of many Buddhists, particularly of the Theravedan tradition, or it be instinctual, such as living by the desire to please ones self and avoid hurting others.
I personally believe that a codified set of rules, a philosophy, makes a man the happiest. A consistent, justified, well thought out approach to life provides a contentedness and an assuredness that simply wading through whatever life throws at you each day, with no structured approach to how you as a human being will interpret and respond to it, simply cannot. In fact, I doubt there is such a position at all. There are those with poorly thought out philosophies, or those who can't put theirs into words, and those whose are not self-consistent, but everyone has their own private philosophy. After all, a philosophy is just a world view, which is in essence just a subjective vantage point- a requirement for consciousness.
Extending on this individual philosophy, the benefit of philosophical schools is that they are subject to rigorous self examination from many points of view, whereas the fiercely independent philosophy we all secretly harbor within is likely riddled with inconsistency and contradiction. Thus I conclude that
A) everyone has a philosophy, and that
B)a group philosophy is superior to an individual philosophy.
As a group philosophy, or, as I called it above, a philosophical school, is superior to an individual philosophy due to its self corrective and reflective nature, we would do well to seek out like minded individuals and discuss our philosophical world-views with them. Many atheists do this, and many atheists have arrived at a common ground: Humanism.
Humanism is commonly embraced as the belief that we should reduce suffering in the world, and has appeared in various forms under various Humanist Manifestos. In my opinion, Humanism is not sufficient as a philosophy- it is nothing more than a collection of liberal goals. While agreeing with my fellow man that ethical values are derived from human need is an admirable reconciliation, it hardly helps me role out of bed a better person each morning, feeling a sense of direction, confident in my own growth and happier about myself.
That is what we all want, isn't it? To find happiness? How does humanism explore the issue of happiness? Well, from the Humanist Manifesto III:
Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death.
Sorry humanists, but that's a load of horseshit as far as a legitimate explanation for how to find happiness goes. We can't just wander through life in awe of the challenges and tragedy of human existence, and in awe of the finality of death, backed up by our unwavering lack of faith in a god and call it good. In my opinion, the atheist needs more meaning. The atheist community should not settle on humanism as a world-view. The atheist needs a true ethical philosophy, something they can guide themselves with, something they can explore with others and improve using their own understanding.
At least, this is the conversation I've had with myself. This is the conclusion I've reached.
So what are our options? As Seneca said of philosophy in his excellent letter, "On the Shortness of Life,"
We may argue with Socrates, we may doubt with Carneades, find peace with Epicurus, overcome human nature with the Stoics, exceed it with the Cynics. Since Nature allows us to enter into fellowship with every age, why should we not turn from this paltry and fleeting span of time and surrender ourselves with all our soul to the past, which is boundless, which is eternal, which we share with our betters?
We have an opportunity as members of a social species to explore the meaning of life while standing on the shoulders of those who came before us. I consider this an obligation.
While the Buddhist philosophers of old established a millenia spanning religion focusing on the emptiness of life, it is far to foreign for most westerners to comfortably practice, much less to experience happiness from. The same can be said for Taoism, save the emptiness with a lot of materialism thrown in for good measure. Though Taoist philosophy was far more exciting and fulfilling for me to learn than was Buddhism.
I have recently had the pleasure of studying two competing schools of thought, much more attainable to the western mindset, which I believe could today be reconciled and offer a fulfilling and coherent way to approach daily life: Stoicism and Epicureanism.
In short, the Stoics would have you believe that the key to happiness is self mastery. Self mastery would mean developing the ability to behave rationally in every situation, to detach yourself from the whims and ways of a selfish and materialistic world, pursuing excellence over yourself and accepting that which is beyond your control. They believed that this was the best way to mirror nature, to move as the universe moves, to be at one with yourself because the universe was thought to be a mathematical, deterministic place.
Their opposition, the Epicureans, also sought happiness through being at one with nature. They, however, saw nature as dynamic, unpredictable, and fundamentally explained it as atoms swerving randomly through chaos, grouping together according to rules but fundamentally on their own unpredictable trajectories through the cosmos. As such, they felt that a similar approach to life was necessary. To meet your own materialistic desires was considered true happiness, though these desires should be tempered. It was thought that whom you dined with mattered more than what you dined upon, that attaining friendship, knowledge, and security from anxiety would provide the best environment for the mortal soul.
The fundamental disagreement between these two stemmed from a misunderstanding of the universe. Though the Epicureans discovered Entropy, and concluded the inevitable fate of both the universe and man himself from that knowledge, atoms are not swerving, light is not a whisp of atomic structure struck from the surface of a rigid object by chaotic atoms, an apparition ascertained from chaos by the dense atoms of the soul. The Stoics, though correct about an underlying mathematical order to the universe, had no appreciation for the probabilistic nature of fundamental reality.
Can we not benefit from discarding this fundamental error, and embrace both as reflections of our mathematical yet unpredictable universe? Should we not seek to find meaning as atheists? Can we not stand upon the shoulders of the ancients, and unite their divided philosophy for our own benefit and the benefit of our children? Are self mastery and material satisfaction not both admirable goals?
I do believe I am onto something, or maybe not. One thing I am sure of- it is not wrong to seek meaning in life, to seek to codify our environment, or to stand upon the shoulders of our forefathers to do so. It is only human nature.
