…Defining consolation as "an argument about why life is the way it is and why we must keep going," Michael Ignatieff writes:
Console. It's from the Latin consolor, to find solace together. Consolation is what we do, or try to do, when we share each other's suffering or seek to bear our own. What we are searching for is how to go on, how to keep going, how to recover the belief that life is worth living.
For millennia, that belief was the domain of religion, with its promises of salvation in another world to recompense our suffering in this one. But because belief, unlike truth, is not something for which the test of reality can provide binary verification or falsification, there are many true paths to the same belief. To find consolation "we do not have to believe in God," Ignatieff writes, "but we do need faith in human beings and the chain of meanings we have inherited." Tracing that chain from the Roman Stoics ("who promised that life would hurt less if we could learn how to renounce the vanity of human wishes") to Montaigne and Hume ("who questioned whether we could ever discern any grand meaning for our suffering") to us, he contrasts the consolations of philosophy with those of religion to offer a foothold amid the quicksand of despair:
These thinkers also gave voice to a passionate belief that religious faith had missed the most crucial source of consolation of all. The meaning of life was not to be found in the promise of paradise, nor in the mastery of the appetites, but in living to the full every day. To be consoled, simply, was to hold on to one's love of life as it is, here and now...
—Maria Popova
On Consolation: Notes on Our Search for Meaning and the Antidote to Resignation – The Marginalian
https://www.themarginalian.org/2025/01/22/on-consolation-michael-ignatieff/
Depends on who you ask.
Not quite my definition:
Humanists are non-religious people who shape their own lives in the here and now because we believe it's the only life we have. A lot of people share humanist values without even knowing the term. Maybe you're a humanist! Find out by taking our quiz! https://humanists.uk/humanism/how-humanist-are-you/
My preferred version:
Some humanists (Spinoza, Einstein, John Dewey for example,) are natural pietists who revere nature and the cosmos, regard life as precious and sacred, and are vitally concerned for the future of life (while harboring no fantasy of a supernatural afterlife for themselves personally).
But some others are as you say.
Ross Douthat's arguments for a god based on "fine tuning" and human consciousness, while impressive coming from the "precocious undergraduate" he cites, do not finally compel assent. Undergraduate conversations about the possible existence of a god are fun, sometimes. But insisting, at this moment of political blitzkrieg in Washington, that they should make us all religious believers flirts insensibly with theocratic intolerance. We don't all need to be religious, any more than we all need to be Republican.
James Phil Oliver
Nashville
The writer is an associate professor of philosophy at Middle Tennessee State University.
Feb 15, 2025 online [Sunday Feb 16 print edition]
(They lopped off my first two paragraphs but it felt good to push back against Ross's over-reach.)
Philosopher Rebecca Goldstein's novel 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction features a fictional character who writes an eponymous book with an Appendix that begins this way:
36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
1. The Cosmological Argument
1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).
3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).
5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).
6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.
7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).
8. God exists.
FLAW 1: can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though God exists, he doesn't have a cause — or else a contradiction to his third premise — and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining whyGod must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can't be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?
FLAW 2: The notion of "cause" is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, was developed by David Hume.
COMMENT: The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining!"
2. The Ontological Argument
This argument, first articulated by Saint Anselm (1033-1109), the Archbishop of Canterbury, is unlike any other, proceeding purely on the conceptual level. Everyone agrees that the mere existence of a concept does not entail that there are examples of that concept; after all, we can know what a unicorn is and at the same time say "unicorns don't exist." The claim of the Ontological Argument is that the concept of God is the one exception to this rule. The very concept of God, when defined correctly, entails that there is something that satisfies that concept. Although most people suspect that there is something wrong with this argument, it's not so easy to figure out what it is.1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipulated as part of the definition of "God").
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3 . If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive of something greater than God (from 2).
4. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God (from 1 and 3).
5. It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).
6. God exists.
FLAW: It was Immanuel Kant who pinpointed the fallacy in the Ontological Argument: it is to treat "existence" as a property, like "being fat" or "having ten fingers." The Ontological Argument relies on a bit of wordplay, assuming that "existence" is just another property, but logically it is completely different. If you really could treat "existence" as just part of the definition of the concept of God, then you could just as easily build it into the definition of any other concept. We could, with the wave of our verbal magic wand, define a trunicorn as "a horse that (a) has a single horn on its head, and (b) exists." So if you think about a trunicorn, you're thinking about something that must, by definition, exist; therefore trunicorns exist. This is clearly absurd: we could use this line of reasoning to prove that any figment of our imagination exists.
COMMENT: Once again, Sydney Morgenbesser had a pertinent remark, this one offered as an Ontological Argument for God's Non-Existence: Existence is such a lousy thing, how could God go and do it?
... (34 more arguments summarized here, including all the famous ones and some truly novel inventions)
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been recording conversations about my new book, “Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious,” and one of the striking things — not unexpected, but still interesting — is how different people react to different arguments for being religious or believing in God.
You’ll get one very smart interlocutor for whom it seems perfectly reasonable to consider religious possibilities in light of the evidence for order and design at the deepest level of the universe, but who just can’t swallow the idea that there might be supernatural realities — visions, encounters, literal miracles — that inherently evade the capacities of modern science to measure and dissect. Then you’ll get another person for whom it’s the reverse, for whom the primary case for religion is experiential, while attempts to discover God in, say, the cosmological constant leave them cold.
My own view is more promiscuous: I think that the most compelling case for being religious — for a default view, before you get to the specifics of creeds and doctrines, that the universe was made for a reason and we’re part of that reason — is found at the convergence of multiple different lines of argument, the analysis of multiple different aspects of the existence in which we find ourselves.
Consider three big examples: the evidence for cosmic design in the fundamental laws and structure of the universe; the unusual place of human consciousness within the larger whole; and the persistence and plausibility of religious and supernatural experience even under supposedly disenchanted conditions... (nyt, continues)
My reply to Ross:
Re: Ross Douthat, Feb.7--
Ross Douthat's convergent arguments for a god based on "Fine Tuning" (aka the "anthropic principle") and human consciousness, while impressive coming from a "precocious undergraduate," do not finally compel assent. As Carl Sagan put it in his book Pale Blue Dot, “There is something stunningly narrow about how the Anthropic Principle is phrased. Yes, only certain laws and constants of nature are consistent with our kind of life. But essentially the same laws and constants are required to make a rock. So why not talk about a Universe designed so rocks could one day come to be, and strong and weak Lithic Principles? If stones could philosophize, I imagine Lithic Principles would be at the intellectual frontiers.”
==
Carl Sagan's discussion of the anthropic "fine tuning" argument--
“There is something stunningly narrow about how the Anthropic Principle is phrased. Yes, only certain laws and constants of nature are consistent with our kind of life. But essentially the same laws and constants are required to make a rock. So why not talk about a Universe designed so rocks could one day come to be, and strong and weak Lithic Principles? If stones could philosophize, I imagine Lithic Principles would be at the intellectual frontiers.” ― Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space
"If the very strong version of the anthropic principle is true, that is, that God created the universe so that humans would eventually come about, then we have to ask the question, what happens if humans destroy themselves? That would make the whole exercise sort of pointless.
We would have to conclude either (a) that an omnipotent and omniscient God did not create the universe, that is, that He was an inexpert cosmic engineer, or (b) that human beings will not self-destruct. Either alternative, it seems to me, is a matter of some interest, would be worth knowing."
Sean Carroll's view of it...
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2015/12/31/sean-carroll-debunks-the-fine-tuning-argument-for-god/
Douthat: My Favorite Argument for the Existence of God
We, ourselves, are part of the proof. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/opinion/religion-god.html?smid=em-share
