Theists, What Do You Get Out of Religion?

[Neo-Scholastic]

As it applies to the issue of intentionality, something either has it or it doesn’t. The needle of a thermostat only appears intent on reaching the set point, whereas a cheetah actually intends to nab zebras. I say the goal directed behavior of the thermostat is an illusion while the goal directed behavior of the cheetah is real – a difference of kind.

Can I ask why you constantly assume that there's a dichotomy here?

When alternatives result in paradoxes and unsolvable dilemmas that means the proposed solutions are inadequate, incomplete, or down right false. The first alternative is that neither the thermostat nor the cheetah engage in goal-seeking behavior. The second alternative is that both the thermostat and the cheetah engage in goal-seeking behavior.
The first alternative posits that the cheetah is without intention. Anyone, but the most strident eliminative materialist, can see that that is false.
The second is false because it attributes mental properties to the thermostat. A panpsychist would argue that this may not be entirely false. And I am open to considering this a real possibility, but the current state of that theory is very inadequate.
The solution to the problem lies in recognizing the difference between essential and accidental properties. The goal-seeking behavior of the cheetah is an essential part of being a cheetah because the final end of any living thing is to live and thrive. It could not do if intentional behavior were removed. In contrast to this, the function of any artifact, like a thermostat is an accidental property of its composition. Any apparent goal-seeking behavior by the thermostat is derived from a person that has an intended goal in actuality.

Likewise, as it applies to meaning, the idea that meaning can be found in a purely physical description of something is ludicrous.

Why do you think this? … what observations led you to this conclusion? [/quote]Really? LOL! It should be obvious. What is the meaning of a rock? Or a waterfall? Or a caterpillar?

So how did you come to the conclusion that significance can only be imbued from outside? …What's the actual quality that allows meaning to come into being?

The meaning of things come from recognition of the ideas they instantiate or some correspondence with those ideas. To understand this, you must know a little something about the problem of universals, as conceived by Plato, refined by Aristotle, and perfected by the Schoolmen. Plato observed that part of what allows us to identify universals from particulars is that the particulars, to greater and lesser degrees, all manifest the same form. But Plato imagined these as forms as distinct entities, which was problematic for several reasons, primarily because forms multiply without restraint. Aristotle observed that forms, while real, don’t float around in some separate realm, but are always embodied. While this was an improvement, comparison between particulars to determine a common form is only really possible by referring to an infinite series of super-universals above the universals. The Scholastic solution accepts that forms are embodied but that the intellect perceives the idea of the form by means of abstraction. However the idea of a form must exist in potential before it can be actually manifest in the intellect. In order for something to move from potential to actuality it must do so by means of something already in act. Thus the idea must exist in full actuality. And since God is the only being that is fully in act, the perfect form of any idea must already be in His intellect.

While the physical beads can represent the non-physical ideas of enumeration, no purely physical description of an abacus would ever reveal the significance of the beads. Again, we see a difference in kind between a sign and its significance.

Because human beings are capable of imbuing meaning and purpose in other objects … is there any reason they can't apply meaning and purpose to themselves?

Duh! I said as much earlier. What is at issue is why we have that capacity. Having that capacity is inconsistent with ontological naturalism.

That's not exactly an impressive quality, and if god doesn't have a pre-existing entity to bring him into existence, doesn't that mean god is meaningless and purposeless, just as you accuse others of being?

Not at all. God is fully in act, as mentioned above.

---

You say that for the ontological naturalist the apparent intentional behavior of human beings is an illusion, but that does not seem to be a necessary consequence. It sounds like you are conflating it with the position that there is no such thing as free will.

I can see your point. Determinism logically follows if the physical universe is causally closed. That leaves no obvious demarcation points for the ?

It seems to be a pattern of yours that when someone holds a position that you have trouble parsing, you always conclude that they are contradicting their own position rather than considering that you may not fully understand their position.

That is always a possibility. If so, I only do so when the topic is the mind-body connection, and I like to believe I have a pretty good grasp of the main theories. The reverse is much more likely. I make constant reference to and use the terms of neo-Scholastic philosophy, which is, as you say, hard to parse.