Jill, who I had a Facebook debate about the Theory of Evolution some time ago, recently sent out a request to interview someone who has a different world view than her. Apparently she is taking some class where this is a requirement. I volunteered.

We had a very friendly hour long phone conversation. She later sent me her summary of our our conversation. My responses are in green.

I think that you did a good job summarizing our conversation yesterday evening.  I did make some edits not because you misrepresented me, but because I felt like I could further refine my thoughts.  I put my changes inblue font under what you had written. I hope that it is still concise enough and that I’m not too wordy. Feel free to edit as you see fit, and please don’t feel like you need to show me any further changes that you make (but I won’t mind if you do want me to review).

Good luck with the assignment (I enjoyed it) 

The person who graciously allowed me to interview is a relative.  When asked what his worldview is he stated that it was hard to really answer whether his worldview was atheist or agnostic, because people have varying definitions or understandings of atheism and agnosticism.  But, if he had to pick one, to best represent his worldview, it would be atheism, because he doesn’t see compelling evidence for a god. 
Origin: In reference to origins; when asked where do you or humans come from, he said, in short, he doesn’t really know. That ultimately, we don’t really know.  He believes that earth was already here and that evolution is a good answer to how we have evolved, but that evolution doesn’t have a good answer for how life started.  Just because we don’t really know how life began, doesn’t mean we should attribute our beginnings to god. Science is still working on these answers.  The scientific method has been the best method for obtaining truth. 
Origin: When asked where you or humans come from, he said, in short, he doesn’t really know. That ultimately, nobody really knows. Cosmology gives us a decent understanding of how the universe evolved via the Big Bang, but it doesn’t tell us what happened before the Big Bang. Likewise, the Theory of Evolution gives us a good understanding how we evolved from simple life forms, but doesn’t yet explain how the first living thing got started.  Just because we don’t really understand how either the universe or life began, however, doesn’t mean we should attribute our beginnings to a god without corroborating evidence. Lack of understanding of one thing isn’t evidence of another.
Meaning: When asked, what does life really mean, he felt that there were different levels of meaning.  There is the level of meaning that we create for ourselves; our values, likes, dislikes.  Then there is the universe for which there is no meaning, since the universe doesn’t have feeling or is indifferent. There are things or events that are valuable and rewarding to me/us.  Those things have meaning. 
Meaning: When asked, what does life really mean, he felt that there were different levels of meaning.  As far as the universe is concerned he doesn’t see evidence that there is meaning; quite the opposite. There are, however, things that are important to us; things that we find valuable or rewarding. These give our lives a feeling of meaning. 


Morality:  When asked, how do you differentiate between good and evil, he says that he feels nature has endowed us with empathy.  Some people say that god gives us the moral implication to know between right and wrong, but if I were to stop believing in god, I would not start to kill people.  Whether I believe in god or not doesn’t mean I will murder or not.  We see morality in animals.  You hear stories all the time about dogs rescuing people, and other similar stories, yet they didn’t read about morality in the scriptures.  They had an innate knowledge about what was the right thing to do. According to the universe there is no right or wrong.  The universe is indifferent.  I don’t believe in an absolute human morality.


Morality:  When asked, how you differentiate between good and evil, he says that he feels nature has endowed us with empathy and the desired to be liked by others.  Some people assume a god gives us the moral implication to know between right and wrong, but if they were to stop believing in god, he thinks that they would still find killing people morally reprehensible.  We see morality in animals.  We hear stories all the time about dogs rescuing people, and similar stories with other animals, yet they didn’t read about morality in scriptures.  They have an innate impulse to do the right thing.  This was probably developed by evolution.  Species that feel empathy toward one another and cooperate have an effective survival strategy.  While these traits give us a sort of universal morality at the human level, he doesn’t see compelling evidence that there is an ultimate morality written into the Cosmos. The universe to him appears indifferent.  He doesn’t see our sense of morality as evidence of a higher power.
Destiny:  When asked what happens to a person when they die, he stated that he hopes he is wrong about this but that when you die you just cease to exist.  He finds this abhorrent, that we cease to exist after we die, but he likens his belief to a guitar and its music.  The guitar is the instrument or body and the music it makes is the soul.  If the guitar is broken the music doesn’t go anywhere…it just ceases. 


Destiny:  When asked what happens to a person when they die, he stated that he hopes he is wrong about this but that when you die you just cease to exist.  He uses the analogy of a guitar and its music.  The guitar is the instrument or body and the music it makes is the soul or mind.  If the guitar is broken the music doesn’t go anywhere…it just ceases.  Likewise, the mind is a byproduct of the brain. If the brain ceases so does the mind (soul). He finds this abhorrent, that we cease to exist after we die; but this dislike isn’t evidence that this is the reality. Reality doesn’t have to conform to our likes and dislikes.

A week later she said that the class had follow up questions for me. She was supposed to answer as she thought that I would. She sent me her attempts for my review. Her attempts are in blue, my edits are in green.

Questions  (here are the questions I received.  They are tough.  I tried to answer as if I ascribed to your worldview, in blue.  But, please change or add to, if you would have answered differently.  I didn’t know how to answer # 2, because I don’t know what evidence you would find compelling or corroborating. If you wish not to answer or are too busy, I will answer with the answers I have. Thanks so much.)  

• What might be the goal of human life? Is it simply to continue for millions more years?

The goal of human life is to be the best person you know how to be.  Treat others as you would want to be treated.  Ultimately, have fun because it will all end. 

If I read the question correctly, it is asking what the goal of the human race should be, not what the goal of each individual should be. What I would like to see is humanity to continue to increase its understanding of the universe and of the nature of existence. I’d like us to expand our technological knowledge in a way where all people can lead better lives.  I’d like us to continue to understand each other better and increase our compassion toward one another so that we can live more in harmony and reduce conflict and be better off.

By the way, I don’t think that for individuals that it should just be about having fun.  It’s also about living a rewarding life. I can see, for example, how parents may not always be having fun raising children, but they get a great feeling of purpose and find it deeply rewarding.

Regardless of all this, I don’t see how the question of whether there is an ultimate goal for humanity says anything about truth claims about there being a god. 

• If I were to ask him something it would be in regard of his answer on "origin": "what would he regard compelling or corroborating evidence for a creator?

What would I think is regarding evidence for a created god? If he stopped by and said hello I would take that as evidence. I hope that that doesn't come across flippant, but it seems to me that it would be an easy thing for a creator god to make himself know.  If the prayers were answered in a consistent and non ambiguous way, I might take that as evidence. If one particular religious group did better over all than other people in a way that could not be explained by social, economic or environmental factors. For example, if one religious group got cancer at a substantially lower rate than other people and that this lower rate could not be explained by diet, environment, etc. I might take that as evidence.

• We both agree that morality is a good and necessary thing, because some things (like killing people) are truly evil. But, evolution cares only about survival of the fittest. It has no concern for decency or anyone's happiness. According to evolution, all the matters is that we as a species survive. So there's no way to condemn killing weaker members of our society, because we are simply making our race stronger biologically. Yet you obviously don't believe this is true. Where can you get your morality if science doesn't offer it?

Evolution isn’t just about survival of the fittest.  It is one part of science, which I think makes the most sense, attempting explain how we came from simple life to complex, as we are now.  There is a lot we don’t know, which I admitted in my answer to where we came from.  I think morality is innate.  We just know right from wrong, even though one person’s right may be different from mine. 

 All I know is that when I do something that hurts someone, I feel bad. When I do something that helps someone, I feel good. I think that most (healthy) people feel the same.  We may disagree where the innate knowledge comes from; I’m just suggesting that there is a non-supernatural explanation.  Our desire to cooperate and not harm each other can be an effective survival strategy for both the individual and the species as a whole. It makes sense in light of the theory of evolution.  What I meant to say in my original answer is that this innate desire that most (healthy) humans feel gives us a sort of common human morality. It does not imply, however,  a morality that is written into the Universe or given from a deity, no matter how much we feel it to be. 

I the natural explanation compelling when we consider that brain injuries can change people’s personalities including their sense of empathy for others (as can chemical imbalances). For me this suggests a natural explanation.