An atheists guide to reality

[Tonus]

Alex Rosenberg, (in his book "An atheists guide to reality") at last an honest atheist who admits that ultimately atheism when taken to its logical conclusion leads to lack in intentionality, lack of meaning or purpose in life and nihilism. If only a few more atheists admitted this to the general public we would be a lot better off. The true colours of atheism are coming out.

It seems to annoy some of you to no end that so many atheists manage to enjoy life without being shackled by religious belief. But that's alright, you go on and figure out how my life is meaningless and why I'm supposed to be running around raping and killing, or whatever it is that gives you that warm feeling inside. I'll be over here, enjoying this delicious bowl of ice cream.

[max-greece]

Rosenberg argues, and I agree, that since physical things do not have meaning, then any philosophy of mind that makes mental properties identical to the brain and its physical states, undermines the notion very of meaning. It sets up an infinite regress. Marks, like words & pictures, dramatic life events, and scientific “evidence”, are signs that take their significance from other signs that take their significance from others signs, and so on. In physical monist philosophies, the brain is just another sign among signs. In physical monist theories, which nearly all the AF atheist accept, the knowing subject is an illusion, a uniquely compelling one, but an illusion nonetheless. Anyone with an open mind can see the incoherence of this notion: who exactly is having the illusion!

Clearly, intentionality is a part of reality, whether fundamental to it or emanating into it. Either way, I do not know what else to call this source of intentionality other than God.

So, Esq, no matter how strenuously you assert the opposite, you cannot escape the fact that atheism entails nihilism.

I didn't understand the part highlighted in italics. That notwithstanding I want to attempt to approach this issue, that of endemic nihilism from an entirely different POV.

I'll start with an analogy of a video game, or rather with 2 types of video game.

The first has a defined target. Beat the computerised enemy, get through all the levels and eventually win.

The second is more interesting in some ways - in that there is a real question as to why you would want to play it.

In this form of game you face the enemy (whatever it is) in waves. The waves never stop. They just get harder and harder until you lose. Why play?

To me the reason that such games are popular has to be something to do with the fact that they mirror life. However good you are at life eventually it ends in death. Your life may have had meaning for its duration. It may continue to have meaning in the memories of others or perhaps in the genes you passed on but eventually they too will evaporate into the mists of time.

Ultimately, then, life is pointless, but:

For the duration of the game there is much to be enjoyed, to gain satisfaction from aside from the result. The way you played, your utilization of resources along with you achievements along the way all factor into what you get out of it.

Turning our attention to life itself there is a difference, even at the simplest level between animate and inanimate objects - even if the fundamental building blocks are the same. Life is self aware, at least enough to "want" to continue. This want operates on several levels.

The first is individual, then family, then wider circles through to species and perhaps even beyond. It seems that such an approach is a fundamental pre-requisite of life, if not a defining feature of it.

From this simple definition springs everything. All life-forms, behaviours, instincts and indeed morality.

By the time humanity had evolved it had developed a complex set of parameters that were ideally suited to keeping the species going. Amongst these are probably a fairly simple set of intuitive guidelines or instinctive appreciation of such things as empathy, reciprocation and possibly even an innate sense of fairness. It appears that those are innate in other species too.

Part and parcel of all of the above is meaning or value. We instinctively value life and we overlay on this our meaning which is expressed within the culture into which we are born.

Ultimately, as far as I can see, this fundament provides the floor to your infinite regress of significance. Meaning is allocated by us because we are alive.

[Esquilax]

Rosenberg argues, and I agree, that since physical things do not have meaning, then any philosophy of mind that makes mental properties identical to the brain and its physical states, undermines the notion very of meaning. It sets up an infinite regress. Marks, like words & pictures, dramatic life events, and scientific “evidence”, are signs that take their significance from other signs that take their significance from others signs, and so on. In physical monist philosophies, the brain is just another sign among signs. In physical monist theories, which nearly all the AF atheist accept, the knowing subject is an illusion, a uniquely compelling one, but an illusion nonetheless. Anyone with an open mind can see the incoherence of this notion: who exactly is having the illusion!

Clearly, intentionality is a part of reality, whether fundamental to it or emanating into it. Either way, I do not know what else to call this source of intentionality other than God.

So, Esq, no matter how strenuously you assert the opposite, you cannot escape the fact that atheism entails nihilism.

And this is where I disagree, because I see no reason why consciousness merely becomes another outcropping of a physical thing, and hence meaningless, merely because it issues from a physical thing. The brain is a physical object, and consciousness emerges from it, but that doesn't make it a physical thing in itself any more than the words you speak are physical merely because they are a product of your tongue.

The mind is a state, not an object, created by the alignment of our brains; a very advanced one, a self aware one that's possibly unique, but there's nothing in the idea that it comes from physical material that makes it less valuable, or inherently nihilistic. That's an assertion you're making, and to demonstrate it you'd need to detail whatever it is that you're claiming the soul- immaterial mind, whatever- has that a physically derived mind cannot ascertain for itself.

And honestly, it's strange, the kind of freewheeling, unconnected assertions theists like to make on this subject; in your view the mind doesn't exist beyond the brain, therefore it's an illusion (nevermind the false dichotomy inherent in not making room for a potential third category there) and therefore atheism is nihilism... none of that follows.

[Whateverist]

You really are clueless about the infinite regress of getting meaning from something else that gets its meaning from something else, etc.

But if your idea of a remedy is to define into existence an abstract notion of a prime mover, how is that supposed to help exactly? All these arguments from logical necessity always strike me as lame. Rather than point to apparent conceptual conflicts and then make up a solution that gives you peace of mind, why not just admit you know far less than everything? Remember concepts are overlays for reality. Reality is what it is. It isn't required to conform to our best cognitive models. There is no guarantee that our very best attempt to conceptualize how everything goes together will ever be entirely adequate.

[*Deidre*]

Well said, whateverist!

During the Paleolithic time period, archaeologists have suggested that people of that time practiced a form of religion. In part, this brought order to "society," but it shows that mankind has an insatiable appetite for filling in the gaps of what it lacks in knowledge and reason with "God."
I find this both perplexing and comforting at the same time.

Perplexing in that why are we not satisfied with the life before us? Why must we concoct a "Divine Ruler" over us to "make sense" of life?

Comforting in that perhaps this is an innate quality of mankind's subconscious, the desire to create its own answers to problems where natural explanations (science) has not yet answered.

Seems to me we would live far more productive lives if we focused on how to improve the here and now than casting our gaze off into "another world" of our own imaginations. Scary to note, wars have been fought, blood shed, and bigotry racism and a whole host of negative things have been spawned from "religion."

No one needs it. I lived in a "pseudo-reality" for years as a Christian. Reality as it IS, complete with its boredom and struggles at times, is a far better experience.

[Ryantology]

Firstly, the word carries with it the connotation of “lasting value”. Anyone can see that apart from an afterlife, mankind’s achievements are, to borrow a line from Kansas, “dust in the wind.” When confined to the brief span of their days, the meanings people assign to the things of their life vanish with them. In some sense, atheists can take comfort in this notion and the sense of liberty it can give them. As a former atheist, I say this from personal experience.

What is the lasting value of human achievement according to the Christian faith, which repeatedly downplays the relevance of human ambition and desire, the corrupt, flawed nature of this world, and the final battle of Revelation which will render all terrestrial affairs irrelevant? Really, the ultimate complain I have about the whole mess is "why doesn't this timeless god just skip all this bullshit theater and get right to the eventual point?"

Nothing sounds more nihilistic to me than the idea that I don't even have the right to enjoy my life for its own sake, because I exist only because I am an insignificant cog in the vast machinery of a vague and incomprehensible master plan concocted by a being who is infinitely distant and impossible to relate to.

Compared to that, the idea that I'm living out my short existence for the sake of the pleasures and experiences I can get in the blink of a cosmic eye sounds a lot less terrifying and pointless.

[Neo-Scholastic]

For the duration of the game there is much to be enjoyed, to gain satisfaction from aside from the result.

Eat, drink, man, woman...get what you can while you can? Sure, why not?

We instinctively value life and we overlay on this our meaning which is expressed within the culture into which we are born...as far as I can see, this fundament[al] provides the floor to your infinite regress of significance. Meaning is allocated by us because we are alive.

So you say the value chain terminates at the conditioned reflexes people have because of a change outcome within an indifferent universe.

[max-greece]

For the duration of the game there is much to be enjoyed, to gain satisfaction from aside from the result.

Eat, drink, man, woman...get what you can while you can? Sure, why not?

We instinctively value life and we overlay on this our meaning which is expressed within the culture into which we are born...as far as I can see, this fundament[al] provides the floor to your infinite regress of significance. Meaning is allocated by us because we are alive.

So you say the value chain terminates at the conditioned reflexes people have because of a change outcome within an indifferent universe.

I wish I could say yes or no to that but I'm not sure I understood it.

In essence what I am saying is that once life formed (however that happened) then it developed a sense of value instantly - in that it instantly strove to survive and therefore valued existence higher than non-existence or death.

As life got more complex so did the understanding, and need, for value.

I'm not sure indifference is the right word for the inanimate universe as indifference implies that it could care. The universe can no more "care" than can a door.

[Bittersmart]

For the duration of the game there is much to be enjoyed, to gain satisfaction from aside from the result.

Eat, drink, man, woman...get what you can while you can? Sure, why not?

Man, that is one short list of pleasures.

[max-greece]

Eat, drink, man, woman...get what you can while you can? Sure, why not?

Man, that is one short list of pleasures.

Its also a typical list from a theist who wishes to deny value. No mention of love, honour, achievement, duty, help.........