Karmatheism

As per what is sadly typical of the tangled web which is weaved by our pop-culture, the concept of karma has been ubiquitously promulgated. However, as per what is sadly typical of our pop-culture’s tangled web, the ubiquitously promulgated concept of karma has been watered down in order to be sold for mass consumption.

References to karma are sprouting up any and everywhere and the TV show My Name is Earl has been at the forefront. This show’s erudite elucidation of karma is very simple and it is one with which pop-culture hardily agrees:

Do good things and good things happen. Do bad things and bad things happen.

Of course, when we insert the underlying premise to this slogan we get to the bottom line:

Do good things and good things happen, to me. Do bad things and bad things happen, to me.

Locally, one coffee shop does not have a tip jar rather, it is as karma jar. The sign outside a new age style eatery warn against parking in the to go spot if you are not getting an order to go because bad karma will get you for that.

While there are a few forms of what is traditionally termed karma, in essence, it is tied up with reincarnation and is about more than merely having good outweighing bad. Since karma of any sort keeps one reincarnating, the point is not to accumulate lots of, or exclusively, good karma because this would still keep you reincarnating which, ultimately, is a cycle that one would want to exit. No, rather, the point is to rid oneself of any and all, good and bad karma altogether.

This is why spiritual systems developed, primarily in Hindu and Buddhist forms, which encourage utter detachment from life, detachment from actual reality (to the point of denying that reality is real). By being utterly unmoved by anything one can be rid of it all. The very best bet is to become a human vegetable which is not moved by joy, grief or anything in between.

But such factual baggage is simply irrelevant to pop-culture and easy fix-ism.

The issue is that when we reject the personal God who really exists, the one which nature implies (learn about natural theology / general revelation) we are left with blind, unguided, natural forces / laws or equally impersonal god(s) / spiritual forces. Natural forces / laws care not for morality but only care for survival (to say that forces / laws care is an anthropomorphism).

One can survive by being utterly deluded or by ascertaining empirical fact: it matters not.

On can survive by loving one’s neighbor or by eating one’s neighbor: it matter not.

As for impersonal god(s) / spiritual forces, C. S. Lewis put it well referring to Life-Force philosophy, Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution (Mere Christianity, Chapter 4: “What Lies Behind the Law”):

One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.
When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest.
If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children.
The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you.
All the thrills of religion and none of the cost.
Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?

For the atheist, rejection of God leads to the consoling delusion of absolute autonomy which leads to their consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability.

Thus, we want to reject God’s moral laws. However, God’s moral laws are still evident within us. As we seek to invent reasons for performing good deeds and not bad, and encouraging others to do likewise—in a God-free universe of impersonal forces—one enticement rules the day: the appeal to self.

Ultimately, karma is selfish in that it is based on doing good things so that and good things happen to me and not going bad things so that bad things will not happen to me. Sure, you may benefit as a by-product of my good deeds but I am not doing them for moral reasons but for selfish ones.

Here are some examples of karmatheism as atheist appeal to well, the only thing they can: benefiting themselves:

Dan Barker (of the Freedom From Religion Foundation) explaining why one should be moral:

If you wish to be...a healthy person" [meaning mentally healthy].
If you wish to be labeled 'ethical' by other people.
If you wish to be viewed by your society as 'a good person.'
If that's something you wish.

This was analyzed in the essay Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs

The Humanist Society of Scotland,

"It's best to be honest because...I'm happier and feel better about myself if I'm honest." [emphasis and ellipses in original]

Paul Kurtz:

…he or she does not have to refer to God. If Johnny hits Mary and Johnny’s mother says, “Don’t hit Mary,”…why should he not his Mary, it is because God exists?

No; if you hit Mary she will hit you back, she won’t like you, and you won’t have any friends if you continue this.

In other words, a child needs reasons for growth and development and that is who and what we are as moral beings.

Reginald Finley (aka The Infidel Guy) and Matthew Davis,