RE: Question for Atheists
August 26, 2014 at 6:01 am
(This post was last modified: August 26, 2014 at 6:03 am by ManMachine.)
(August 25, 2014 at 12:14 am)WonderStruck Wrote: Hi! I've been trying for a while now I get an atheist's response to a particular line of thinking, but have thus far been unable to help anyone understand it or give a coherent thought about it. I'm hoping here is a better place to find some discussion on the matter!
If the universe is entirely material (which it must be under atheistic thinking), then everything that exists or happens is fundamentally just chemicals reacting. Chemicals, however, cannot act reasonably or morally. We can't take one test tube and say that the mixture in it is "more right" than the one in another tube. Natural laws simply dictate their behavior.
Humans and their thoughts and beliefs, as parts of the universe, are merely chemicals as well. Every idea is a natural string of reactions in the brain. The reactions in one mind lead someone to be an atheist while the reactions in another mind lead to a theist. Sort of like different outcomes in two test tubes.
On what basis then can we say that one thought or belief is more rational than another? Dead chemistry can't be spoken of in terms of reason. We are all parts and products of a giant chemical universe, atheists and theists alike. How can the universe be behaving unreasonably in one place but not in another? It just is. Lines of reasoning become totally subjective since we are all slaves to our particular chemistry. But if reason is subjective, we lose any grounds we had of evaluating statements. If my chemistry makes me think you are unreasonable and yours does the opposite in your brain, since no reaction can be said to be rationally superior to another, then there can be no meaningful debate. Ideas are all equally natural. Isn't that kind of a problem?
If you have ever seen a child bump their head on a table you will see them say something like 'bad table'. You may even have bemoaned your car door if you shut your fingers in it, called your printer 'stupid', it is easy to ascribe intent (and by inference, morals) to inanimate objects. So easy, in fact, that you could be fooled into thinking the emotions and morals you feel are not a collective delusion we all share in when we ascribe them to ourselves, when we are, as you have pointed out, are just bags of chemicals.
Morality is not a Universal entity, it is a human strategy. Centuries of romantic notions have layered them is mystery and intrigue but they are just survival strategies driven by biological imperatives. It's not a popular theory but then we have always had inflated opinions about our own species importance.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
