Why Atheism is Incoherent & You Aren't as Smart as You Think You Are

[Foxaèr]

But atheism has the same problem—how can you explain that natural laws should lead to ever greater progress, towards ever more complex life, if nature is ultimately devoid of meaning or purpose?

I don't know of a single atheists who has arrived at that conclusion.

Purpose, after all, can exist without sentience after we have logically assigned meaning to a life. A seed, being a part of nature, has the sole purpose of growing into a plant that will reproduce so that its existence can be carried forward, all this meaning we have assigned by comprehending its existence.

[Angrboda]

[H]ow can you explain that natural laws should lead to ever greater progress, towards ever more complex life, if nature is ultimately devoid of meaning or purpose?[/font][/color][/font][/color]

Given the enormous amount of embedded formatting codes, I'm suspecting this was copy-pasta from somewhere, if only your editor.

I can explain it simply. There is no trend toward progress. Nature has no arrow. As Robert Ingersoll observed, in nature there are neither punishments nor rewards; there are consequences. The idea that nature is trending one way or the other, beyond perhaps some entropic effects, is an illusion fostered by sloppy thinking.

FWIW, when I consider theist options, as a former Hindu, I lean toward the idea that we are all ideas in the mind of God, or, secondarily, the Neoplatonic god in which we are essentially derivatives of an unseen perfection, like instances of a Platonic form. How either of those differ from pantheism, I don't know. Much of what I see as pantheistic urges in people is just taking the inert universe and slapping the label God on it, which, lacking any evidence of purpose is nothing more than equivocation.

[Seax]

[H]ow can you explain that natural laws should lead to ever greater progress, towards ever more complex life, if nature is ultimately devoid of meaning or purpose?[/font][/color][/font][/color]

Given the enormous amount of embedded formatting codes, I'm suspecting this was copy-pasta from somewhere, if only your editor.

Enormous amount of what? My editor?

I'm flattered that you think I have an editor, or that my writing is good enough that others would copy and paste it, but alas, neither is true.

[Angrboda]

Given the enormous amount of embedded formatting codes, I'm suspecting this was copy-pasta from somewhere, if only your editor.

Enormous amount of what? My editor?

I'm flattered that you think I have an editor, or that my writing is good enough that others would copy and paste it, but alas, neither is true.

Having an editor would be something you'd be flattered to be accused of? You are a twat. I'm beginning to suspect your brain is guacemole.

Gonna address the content, or are you content to troll?

[Deesse23]

I am saying that if nature is deterministic, then it can be said to have purpose,

Non sequitur

Got more?  

But atheism has the same problem—how can you explain that natural laws should lead to ever greater progress, towards ever more complex life, if nature is ultimately devoid of meaning or purpose?

Atheism has no problem, because Atheism does not have to explain anything. You however have a problem though: You dont know even what Atheism is, but are asserting that you are way more clever than any atheist around here
Not a particularly smart move from you, id say.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I am saying that if nature is deterministic, then it can be said to have purpose,

Non sequitur

Got more?  

But atheism has the same problem—how can you explain that natural laws should lead to ever greater progress, towards ever more complex life, if nature is ultimately devoid of meaning or purpose?

Atheism has no problem, because Atheism does not have to explain anything. You however have a problem though: You dont know even what Atheism is, but are asserting that you are way more clever than any atheist around here
Not a particularly smart move from you, id say.

Very much this. Seax doesn't seem to grasp that atheism is a position, not a cosmology. Pantheism, on the other hand, is one of those cosmologies that attempts to explain everything by explaining nothing.

Boru

[Belacqua]

Welcome. You raise some interesting questions.

I am not talking about the Judeo-Christian spook of a bearded man in the sky, I'm talking about the the laws of nature themselves.

This is a little bit of a straw man, since educated Christians don't believe in the bearded guy either. Christianity for grownups, with God as ground of being, God as Logos, etc., is not so far from what you're describing. Basically, educated Christians say that God is much as you describe him, plus infinity. They don't want to say that God is equal to and contiguous with the universe, for various reasons. 

It does look as though a lot of less-educated Christians stick with the cartoon version, and this is certainly the type that a lot of anti-religion people spend their time complaining about. 

But I think that's not your main topic here.

If nature is deterministic, and one of the fundamental assumptions of science is that it is, then we must assume that the rise of life from proteins, and the ever upward development, through struggle, of life from these early proteins to complex, highly advanced lifeforms like men has been predetermined by the very laws of nature themselves. Nature then is not meaningless, without purpose, but has goals and ends. 

This may be true; I don't know. I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea. 

The laws of nature themselves are an expression of God. [...] Nature; the universe, is directed by Divine Will. That is what the laws of nature, whether they be the laws of gravity, chemistry or biology, are; the Will of God!

This part, I think, could use further explication. 

Let's say for the moment that the laws of nature point in one direction, and that it is fair to use the word "determined," and even "purpose." We'd be defining "purpose" as that end toward which the laws of nature inevitably point. 

How do we get from saying "the universe has a purpose" to "this purpose is the will of God"? Isn't it simpler just to have a natural purpose without God? 

And if there is a good reason for calling the laws of nature God, does this add anything to our understanding? For example, would it suggest any of the traditional aspects of religion, like prayer or revelation? Or would it leave us, practically speaking, as we are now, with the addition of calling nature God?

[brewer]

So your position is that nature is deterministic in the context of life forms/living things?

You still have not identified a source of "will". So far all you've presented is supposition.

---

Don't break this one, not quite yet.

No, nature is deterministic overall. This is true whether we are talking about natural selection or the orbit of planets.

I am saying that if nature is deterministic, then it can be said to have purpose, one probably unknowable to us, but purpose and meaning nonetheless. Where there is purpose there is will.

What is deterministic about a vacuum? Or entropy?

Nature just is. If you want to look at the results of nature find purpose that's fine by me, but I'll never be convinced by belief alone.

[onlinebiker]

The OP = "My brand of woo is LEGITIMATE!".


....

Sure it is...

[The Grand Nudger]

So you've figured out that the world is, so far as anyone can tell, around four and a half billion years old, life began as self-reproducing proteins that, driven to transmute through natural selection, produced all modern species. You've figured out that Genesis is nothing but a Jewish fairy tale. You, since you're on an 'atheist forum,' think you're very clever no doubt for having figured this out. You imagine you are a part of a small, but growing, rational community of enlightened individuals.

Well.....first, welcome aboard.

The truth is anyone with a room temperature IQ, unless hindered by religious brainwashing, can figure this out in 2021. You aren't nearly as clever as you imagine. Because everything I mentioned in the above paragraph speaks to the universe having fundamental purpose and meaning. I am not talking about the Judeo-Christian spook of a bearded man in the sky, I'm talking about the the laws of nature themselves.

The majority of people are still hindered in this way, if we choose to think of it as a hindrance - and many of our board members are de-converts, themselves.  I would certainly agree that it's not MENSA level difficult to work out that there is no bearded man in the sky.  We don't get many bearded man in the sky cultists here, not even from our faithful interlopers.  Still...the things our first and most trusted advisors tell us can be hard to let go of.  I'd ay it's not hard to have thoughts or doubts - that much just happens in a human brain.  It's more difficult to overcome conditioning.   Like any other lever, it works regardless of how smart or dumb a person may be.

If nature is deterministic, and one of the fundamental assumptions of science is that it is, then we must assume that the rise of life from proteins, and the ever upward development, through struggle, of life from these early proteins to complex, highly advanced lifeforms like men has been predetermined by the very laws of nature themselves. Nature then is not meaningless, without purpose, but has goals and ends. The laws of nature themselves are an expression of God.

Alot to unpack. 

I'd have to ask why we would assume the rise of life or ever upward development of life on the basis of determinism.  Deterministically, the universe could be in such a state or the local area could be in such a state as to deterministically prevent either, right?  As it seems to be in so much of the universe, for example.  

There may be such a thing as a natural teleology, but why would this..then(if true)... be some description or expression of a god?   

Think about it! You know that the Hebrew account of a God apart from nature creating everything is nothing but a fairy tail, yet you persist in the Judeo-Christian error of denying the obvious purpose and meaning in nature. To the Christian nature is nothing but a sideshow God created as a backdrop to his moral obstacle course for souls. You know that's not true, you know that man is himself a part of nature, that the universe is in motion, constantly evolving towards higher and higher states & that everything that is is a product of nature. Yet you refuse to overcome Christian nihilism towards nature, to accept that these natural processes are not meaningless or without purpose or direction. Nature; the universe, is directed by Divine Will. That is what the laws of nature, whether they be the laws of gravity, chemistry or biology, are; the Will of God!

I do love to burn soul forges to the ground!  It's not hard work, they're set to run hot and if you just add a little extra kindling........

I think that here, maybe, you're assuming things about atheists that atheism doesn't really describe and isn't concerned with.  Atheists can and do believe that there is purpose and meaning in life (and in nature) - they just don't believe that there are gods such that utterances like...

"expression of God"
or
"Divine Will/Will of God" 

....refer to meaningful/factual content, let alone content about whatever purpose or meaning there may be.  You're taking poetic license with these terms, I suspect? When we say the will of the divine or the will of god in that context, we're not talking about a conscious personal observer with a vested interest in specific outcomes.....right?