Give up? Watch the video below for the answer-
More details here and here.
Worse, the worldview of science is rather chilling. Not only do we not find any point to life laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature, of the sort imagined by philosophers from Anaximander and Plato to Emerson. We even learn that the emotions that we most treasure, our love for our wives and husbands and children, are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on chance mutations over millions of years. And yet we must not sink into nihilism or stifle our emotions. At our best we live on a knife-edge, between wishful thinking on one hand and, on the other, despair.
"So why do we have all these tendons in our legs?" Lieberman asks. "You don't evolve big tendons unless you're a runner."I would argue that we were created to run, rather than evolved to run, but either way, baby, we were born to run! Here's my favorite line- you'll have to read the article for context:
The butt, it turns out, is crucial—
... don't believe in nothing, but they will believe in anything. Here's evidence:
The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?
The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship (sic- she means, "never attend church") expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.
The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.
She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society. (link)
The battle over human dignity is still in its infancy. Do humans have inherent ontological value or only utilitarian value? Health care is expensive and many people lead lives that don't add value to the economy or culture- should we just off them so there's more money for the rest of us to spend on upgrading our iPods or so we can afford organic rather than proletarian foods?
There's a long history of governments helping people to die "for the sake of society"- in recent times Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler come to mind as major proponents of this line of thinking. Should we get rid of everyone who can't hold down a decent job? Round up all the panhandlers and toss 'em in the sea? Send hit squads to the Special Olympics? Gas all the nursing homes?
With all the partisan rancor today, how many angry right or left wingers would agree that doing away with their political opponents would be the best thing for the sake of society and the planet and the future of the human race?
Who decides whose life is worth living? Who determines the standards and decides how to apply them?
Human beings are made by and for God. Life is sacred. But if we stop believing in God, that becomes a nonsensical statement. Christians believe that ALL human life is sacred, including, yes, the lives of unbelievers. But atheists and agnostics have no logical reason to agree. In the end, for them, it comes down to economics, or perhaps sentimentality.
Eighty percent of British children have televisions in their bedrooms, more than have their biological fathers at home. Fifty-eight percent of British children eat their evening meal in front of the television (a British child spends more than five hours per day watching a screen); 36 percent never eat any meals together with other family members; and 34 percent of households do not even own dining tables. In the prison where I once worked, I discovered that many inmates had never eaten at a table together with someone else.Click here to read the whole thing.Let me speculate briefly on the implications of these startling facts. They mean that children never learn, from a sense of social obligation, to eat when not hungry, or not to eat when they are. Appetite is all they need consult in deciding whether to eat—a purely egotistical outlook. Hence anything that interferes with the satisfaction of appetite will seem oppressive. They do not learn such elementary social practices as sharing or letting others go first. Since mealtimes are usually when families get to converse, the children do not learn the art of conversation, either; listening to what others say becomes a challenge. There is a time and place for everything: if I feel like it, the time is now, and the place is here.
If children are not taught self-control, they do not learn it.