What is the Purpose?

[wwjs]

It doesn't matter what you like or dislike. Everyone has a worldview, whether explicit or tacit. You are an athiest, therefore you have an atheist worldview. If the shoe fits, wear it.

I'm sure I have different worldview than him even though we both don't believe in gods. Atheism is not a system of beliefs that one must follow ffs

[CleanShavenJesus]

The purpose of living is not to die. I figured that shit out when I was 9.

Past that, it differs per person. My "reason" is definitely not yours, and yours is definitely not anybody else's. That's the simple and true answer.

Also, I don't think my atheism affects my purpose in life. It just means I'm not preoccupied worrying about the afterlife.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It exhibits teleology, "about-ability" (within the limits of its perceptual abilities,...

Wrong. When you say exhibits that means you are assigning theleology to the chemical process that just happens to do the things you describe.

.. an omnimax* monotheistic god cannot be the ultimate origin of purpose....It is already standing on every conceivable finish line holding every trophy.

You make a good point. It deserves more reflection.

"Life" (as we know it, Jim), not gods, is the source and sphere of relevance for teleological concepts. They don't need to be imposed on life by magic (as if that idea even made sense). They are aspects of the nature of life.

Wrong again. Teleological concepts, are just that - concepts. And they are concepts assigned by one deterministic chain reaction on to another. Second, a causal chain has no definable start or end point. This means that you must arbitrary select one cause as the point where intention occurs and arbitrary select one effect as its desired end. For example, take the following causal chain:

A ---> B ---> C---> D ---> E- ---> F

Which effect is the desired end of cause A? If you say it is F, why isn't it D? And why isn't F the desired end of C and not A? Only an oustide observer can designate the start and its desired end. And you cannot say that one causal chain, like a human electro-chemical reaction, applies it to the electro-chemical process of the bacteria. Why? Because now you are saying that one meaningless physical process is transferring meaning it doesn't have onto another.

---

It doesn't matter what you like or dislike. Everyone has a worldview, whether explicit or tacit. You are an athiest, therefore you have an atheist worldview. If the shoe fits, wear it.

I'm sure I have different worldview than him even though we both don't believe in gods. Atheism is not a system of beliefs that one must follow ffs

You just have an atheist worldview that shares some but not all beliefs with another atheist worldview.

[Lord Privy Seal]

It exhibits teleology, "about-ability" (within the limits of its perceptual abilities,...

Wrong. When you say exhibits that means you are assigning theleology to the chemical process that just happens to do the things you describe.

No, I am attributing teleology to the whole-system of the bacterium, which is greater than the sum of its chemical parts. In the same way that you attribute teleology to your god as a whole rather than fretting that you can't find it all in some particular cubic centimeter of the spirit-stuff he's made of.

You seem to be very hung up on things like chemistry and extreme reductionism. OK, instead of a bacterium, let's talk about the ghost
of a bacterium, it's beautiful sparkly little soul. Now that there's no nasty chemistry involved, how does this change anything? How are we now suddenly able to talk about purpose and intention and "about-ability" instead of morosely complaining that there's nothing but deterministic spiritual processes that just are? "There's nothing here but the brute interaction of spirit particles following the Paths of the Sephiroth! Nooooo! It's all meaningless! Meaningless, I tell you! All is vanity! Sound and fury, signifying nothing! Woe! Wooooooe!"

You make a good point. It deserves more reflection.

Thank you for your open-mindedness and consideration.

Wrong again. Teleological concepts, are just that - concepts. And they are concepts assigned by one deterministic chain reaction on to another.

Why is this a problem, and why do you think that monotheism solves it? An omniscient god cannot be surprised. In a Universe with such an entity, everything is necessarily deterministic (or predestined, if you prefer that term). A Universe without such an entity at least offers us the prospect of quantum indeterminacy.

Second, a causal chain has no definable start or end point. This means that you must arbitrary select one cause as the point where intention occurs and arbitrary select one effect as its desired end. For example, take the following causal chain:

A ---> B ---> C---> D ---> E- ---> F

Which effect is the desired end of cause A? If you say it is F, why isn't it D? And why isn't F the desired end of C and not A? Only an oustide observer can designate the start and its desired end.

Why an outside observer? Why not just ask the person doing the desiring? Also, what is the relevance of this? How does adding a god help?

And you cannot say that one causal chain, like a human electro-chemical reaction, applies it to the electro-chemical process of the bacteria. Why? Because now you are saying that one meaningless physical process is transferring meaning it doesn't have onto another.

You're mis-applying reductionism. A tire can't drive anybody anywhere. Therefore, there can't be such things as cars, unless "driving" is defined as a supernatural act. How does substituting "spiritual-miraculous" in place of "electro-chemical" make a difference? As far as I can tell, teleological operations are substrate-invariant. If a particular calculation is performed using the beads of an abacus, the gears and cams of a Babbage machine, the microchips of an electronic calculator, electro-chemical reactions in a human brain, or in the soul of an angel, it makes no difference. It's the same calculation, and if performed accurately, generates the same result, and can accomplish the same purpose. The only difference I can see is that you have a positive evaluation of "spirit" (or whatever word you use to denote god-stuff) and a negative evaluation of "chemical reactions."

Given what we now know about quantum mechanics, a sub-atomic particle is at least as wondrous and magical as any ancient writer's conception of "spirit." BTW, a lot of those ancient writers believed that the rainbow-sparkly spiritual realm could be quantified mathematically in terms of Number and sacred geometry. The elegant determinism of the spiritual realm that made it possible to reduce the entirety of the Mysteries to the diagram of the Tetraktys was what made it so wonderful, in comparison to the messy, gritty material world that never quite managed to behave with the sublime coherence and predictability of pure mathematics or shape itself to match the geometric precision of immaterial Form. It seems to me that if you had been born in ancient Greece, you might have scoffed at the Pythagoreans and argued that the material world was ever so much better than the spiritual world, because the things here transcend the limits of what can be deterministically constructed from the vesica piscis using a compass and ruler.

[wwjs]

You just have an atheist worldview that shares some but not all beliefs with another atheist worldview.

Go ahead and list these beliefs

[Joel]

The worldview of an atheist is different to an atheist worldview.

[FifthElement]

The purpose is to love the Lord and extend the love of Jesus Christ to others.

So what is actual difference here (love wise) if I say that our purpose is to love one another and extend that love towards the rest of our little planet ?

[Ryantology]

You just have an atheist worldview that shares some but not all beliefs with another atheist worldview.

Atheism is not like Christianity, where under the threat of eternal torture we are forced to make it the centerpiece of everything we do, say, and think. Being stuck in such a dull mindset seems to make you think everyone else is, but that is not true. Atheism is merely one component of my worldview, and in most practical matters, an irrelevant one. I call myself an atheist only because I'm comfortably sure that there are no gods of which to run afoul. The reason I am vocal about my criticism of your religion is not because it opposes my atheism, but because it opposes basic human decency and would deny me the benefits of science, freedom of thought, and life itself, if it still had the power to do so.

[cneron]

Purpose, meaning, whatever, is relative to the individual. I say, in the Grand Scheme, that there is no purpose or meaning to life. It is, very often, just this subjective lack of meaning that causes Godders to embrace faith so desperately; I myself see it as cause for joy, not despair. Since I'm not a wind-up toy put here magically for the amusement of some cartoonish deity, I'm free to pursue life as an adventure, and to find purpose and meaning in whatever I choose.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No, I am attributing teleology to the whole-system of the bacterium, which is greater than the sum of its chemical parts.

Keyword: attributing. Once you start to talk about emergent properties, you've already given up the game. You cease talking about physical properties and begin discussing mental ones. This is a problem because you can now start assigning mental properties to anything you want. "My thermostat wants to reach 72 degrees."

You seem to be very hung up on things like chemistry and extreme reductionism.

Guilty as charged. Physical reductionism is a pernicious and common belief among AF members. I doubt that many fully understand the logical conclusions of this belief.

OK, instead of a bacterium, let's talk about the ghost
of a bacterium, it's beautiful sparkly little soul. Now that there's no nasty chemistry involved, how does this change anything? How are we now suddenly able to talk about purpose and intention and "about-ability"

Now you have posited the existence of a non-physical entity already endowed with mental properties like intention. That's hardly comparable with an actual physical process.

In a Universe with such an entity, everything is necessarily deterministic (or predestined, if you prefer that term).

That is only one doctrine. I have a different view.

You're mis-applying reductionism. A tire can't drive anybody anywhere. Therefore, there can't be such things as cars, unless "driving" is defined as a supernatural act.

Not at all. I try to maintain a clear distinction between identifiable physical processes and descriptions made in terms of mental properties. I think far too many people blurr that distinction with ambiguois ideas like emergence as if that somehow bridges the Cartesian divide.

As far as I can tell, teleological operations are substrate-invariant. If a particular calculation is performed using the beads of an abacus, the gears and cams of a Babbage machine...

Kudos for mentioning Babbage machines. You prove my point. The beads of an abacus have no meaning in and of themselves. An intelligent agent must assign the meaning of '1' to some beads and the value of '5' to others. Not to mention the order of magnitude represented by each column. The abacus itself has no meaning.