Every college student has had this attitude at some time. However, they soon find that tomorrow they have a hangover instead, and learn to control themselves.
While there is no meaning to life - we are born of a random winner of a sperm contest, and are raised where we are raised with no input - we can make life meaningful. Like others, I think feeling good is better than feeling bad. Since I am not a lower animal and have compassion, I know other people think the same thing, and making them feel good also makes me feel good.
I think that is far more meaningful than being created at the whim of an all-powerful deity who appears to be testing us, rules unclear, for eternal bliss or eternal torment. You might wonder why be good and help people since we all die? Well, why do that when the deity could help people with a wave of his magic staff, at no cost or effort?
I do it because if I don’t maybe no one else will. Why help a starving child in Thailand when God might send another wave to kill that child for no reason?
I’m old enough to have jumped through a lot of hoops, but doing that is less meaningful than doing things on my own. A believer has morality totally based on jumping through hoops, since you have to do what God says, and not what makes sense from first principles.
I think that’s great. Because I believe in a higher power or consciousness doesn’t make me wrong all the time. Actually I don’t care whether one believes in “God” or not. Morality is built into us, whether by evolution or intelligent design. We basically know wrong from right in any situation, it’s just that we don’t always choose the right.
It is pretty weird that HoldFast thinks Christians would all be serial killers if it weren’t for that pesky “Thou Shalt Not Kill” clause. That it would be a heck of a lot more fun to be stalking prostitutes down by the waterfront than sitting around at home with the kids.
The other thing that HoldFast and his ilk don’t seem to consider is that according to his logic all atheists should be serial killers. Yet we aren’t. But that never causes him to consider that perhaps he should check his premises.
It is always the first question that pops into my head when someone starts talking about how we have to throw morality out the window if we choose not to believe in God. I just don’t get it. Even if you believe in God, why is it that you think God’s moral commands are, well, morally correct?
As for the hypothetical in the OP: as stated, I would not accept the offer.
How could I? For one thing, I expect my idea of a perfect existence would surprise you; it has very little to do with release from care or pain or fear of death. But it would be difficult for me to enjoy such an existence if I knew that it could last only a short time, and worse still that it was only for me: that after I had left it, the world I inhabited would not even continue to exist. This by itself could be tolerated if it was just a pleasurable (if pointless) experience that I could remember; and in fact I would in that situation attempt to construct my “paradise” so as to have maximum utility for the remainder of my existence. But as you state it, no dice.
To make it worthwhile, you would have to do one more thing: you would have to erase, for the duration of the experience, all memory of my former existence. And you know what’s interesting about that? It’s not me anymore. The situation then is indistinguishable from you saying: “I will create a new individual consciousness from thin air, subject it to pleasurable experiences for one month, and then make it as though it no longer existed.”
There are three possible reasons to try to be nice: 1) because you’ve been told to, and offered rewards of you do and threatened with punishment if you don’t, 2) because you’ve noticed that people treat you better if you’re nice (this is 1 without the explicit promises and threats), and 3) becuase you have empathy towards other people and find direct pleasure and personal benefit in helping others.
1 is the province of children and theists and sociopaths.
2 is the province of well-adjusted people in modern society.
3 is generally considered the most admirable reason to be nice.
IMPORTANT NOTE: you can have multiple reasons for doing things: a nice empathic person can also be aware that they’ll get better service if they don’t yell at the waiter, and act for both reasons. So, not all theists are sociopaths; just because god told you to not to kill doesn’t mean you would kill if he’d remained silent.
However, if you would kill on god’s orders, you might be a sociopath. And if you can’t comprehend the idea that a person could be nice without being ordered too, um…
Technically they can’t be - the purpose of being nice is to foster one’s own happiness, either through practical effects or empathy. What you describe is cases where you have to decide which approach to your happiness will ultimately result in the most happiness - in other words it’s an opportunity cost question. And of course the answers to all such cases depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it’s better to be accomodating, and sometimes it’s best to just say no.
This purpose or meaning you’ve made up in your life isn’t going to work in the long run.
But it might work until you’re dead, in the sense it might give you otherwise-unmerited security and confidence in your state until then, and objectively speaking no other strategy will last any longer than that, and while I think some other methods might work better, I can hardly assert that with certainty. Heck, sometimes I wish I was credible enough to buy the bullshit of some simpleminded exclusionary anti-social religion and could thus think I’m awesome and happy with no regard for the evil I might do. (And then my empathy and self-respect kick in and I feel guilty and stupid for even considering the idea.)
I’ll break the mold - I could probably be talked into it. Because, you see, it’s not about the memories; it’s about the life you’re living while you live it. The fact you’re going to be dead someday doesn’t make your life invalid, and the fact you’re not going to remember it afterwards doesn’t make the party a complete waste of time if you really enjoy it while you’re doing it.
But a lack of memories does significantly reduce the value of the experience; if it’s only fun while it lasts and you can’t even bask in the warm memories afterwards, your time might have been better spent having some fairly-good times at the pub which can contribute to a feeling of fulfilment in your life afterwards that your time was well spent. Whereas if you come out of it with just a hole in your memory, then how do you actually know you enjoyed it? Perhaps you wasted it. It has no value afterwards.
So the question comes down to the costs of doing it - the benefits are relatively low (though not zero), so if the costs are lower it might be a go. Can I avoid losing the year, for example? You know, come back exactly the moment I left? And can I skip the part of sitting down and writing it out? That would take time that might be better spent teaching myself to accurately throw playing cards into a hat, for my future entertainment.
If I could reduce the whole thing down like that so that it has no real costs at all, I might go for it. I mean, why shouldn’t I? It’s kinda like how I don’t remember many of my dreams, but I don’t mind that I had them.
And there’s also a kind of deliberate blindness that ignores that people in non-Christian or pre-Christian societies are/were not all that different from them.
This reminds me of some thoughts I’ve had. For fun I’ve made a plan as to what I would do with ultimate power (say the infinity gauntlet), and decided that I would create an exact copy of myself to run my everyday life, leaving the current universe largely untouched, while I went out to create my own universe to play with. Then I realized that as far as I knew this had already happened, and I became really pissed off at my other self that was of in his own universe having all the fun while I was stuck at home.
