(February 24, 2017 at 8:45 am)HairyCyclist Wrote:(February 24, 2017 at 7:58 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. You will see that defining your terms is important and avoids tangents/confusion. Speaking of which:
The definition of purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Just as the tree has no purpose, neither does any product of evolution--including man. What does that mean practically speaking? If naturalism is true, we invent purpose. If we invent purpose, it was different in the past and will be different in the future. Some people's purpose is opposed to others (which you can't say is objectively wrong). That does not sit well with many people.
2. Do you have reasons why you believe that ditching religion would be beneficial?
1. Trees are vital to the survival of many species (Google search the purpose of trees). As I see it man has a collective purpose, and that is to avoid extinction, of course individuals have their own ideas of their own purpose, that's a product of human nature.
You seem to be saying that there's something special about man, at the end of the day Steve, we are just mammals.
2.Yes many, but the main one would be to put a greater value on life, rather than on afterlife.
1. That's why we define our terms. In the case of the tree, purpose requires a "reason...for which something exists". Under a naturalism worldview, there is no reason why a tree exists rather than something else. It is simply the product of time and chance--just like humans. Under naturalism, the reason for human existence is not "to avoid extinction"--there just is no reason. Of course, as I said before, individuals can live for the purpose of x,y or z, but those are subjective and change and are often at odds with other people's purposes.
2. I don't think it has to be an either-or so your objection seems to be focused on some people's application of religion rather than religion in general.
