Both Murph and James have called me an atheist recently. I suppose in some respects I am. However, I'm uncomfortable with this moniker as it seems that I'm being defined by what I'm not, as opposed by what I am.
Yes, I don't believe in the existence of an overseeing god, and neither do I believe that there's a natural, moral order to our universe. However I do feel, like Frankl, that our place in the universe has to be rooted in some meaning. Otherwise we'll end up flaying about like fish out of water.
Which I'll admit is fundamentally confused.
What bothers me most about atheism and existentialism, if you choose to link the two together (and yes, I know of Kierkegaard), is the reductive argument that meaning can only be created provisionally from the point of view of the individual. We must sit, observing the world as if it's absurd and make sense of it from our own, individualistic standpoint. Ultimately then, everything becomes reduced to a selfish, Freudian pursuit of self gratification?
Given that I've struggled recently with concepts such as altruism and interdependence, I'm pretty confident that I'm not some hard arsed individualist. Can I follow existentialism to its natural conclusion then? Probably not.
So, there's an obvious flaw in my thinking. Some piece missing in my jigsaw if you like. Is it God? Unlikely, but possible, of course.
To be honest I've always coveted the beliefs of the religious. After all, their dogmas do provide well for those of a philosophical bent. I've tried so hard in the past to believe in the concept of god. It could hold the answers to many of my deeper questions.
Perhaps I'm so small minded that I just don't get it. Or am I at the "point between being under enlightened and being enlightened" and about to experience an "instantaneous moment of epiphany"?
Convince me then, go on, I dare you...