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

[Seax]

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?

I am not talking about a personal observer, or consciousness in the sense in which animals are conscious. I am saying that the laws of nature, and the direction in which they cause the universe to evolve, exist for a purpose, not the purpose of an external God, but for the purpose of the universe itself. For the universe is God.

The gods of all the various world religions are human attempts at understanding this. Because they had not the understanding we have of naturalistic processes, primitive man saw nature as the work of personal deities. He created in his mind anthropomorphic persons of great power directing nature. Eventually these religions became increasingly complex and developed beautiful, though fanciful, stories about these gods. But there is some truth in these old polytheistic religions—they were right to see the divine in nature and to revere it, though they may have been wrong in the details.

Eventually many of them realised this themselves, or at least came very close to it; the Neoplatonists & Stoics in Europe, some schools of Hindu philosophy in India and some Chinese thinkers had it pretty much figured even before the birth of Christ. It was Judaism and its offshoots, with the revelations of their prophets (though I suspect Christ's original message might have been pantheistic before it was corrupted by Paul), that have obscured this truth. But even in these religions, there are pantheistickish elements, because pantheism is an unavoidable truth for anyone that genuinely searches for God through the natural world without being led astray by the dogma of the prophets.

By God I mean mere the universe; nature, and by God's Will I mean the purpose inherent in nature. Why call that God? Because that is what all the other religions are grasping at when they talk about God.

[arewethereyet]

@Seax
Tell us how you are smarter than the atheists here. I think I missed that part.

[brewer]

By God I mean mere the universe; nature, and by God's Will I mean the purpose inherent in nature. Why call that God? Because that is what all the other religions are grasping at when they talk about God.

Then say universe, not god. Calling it god because other religions use the word god is just silly.

Actions/interactions are inherent in nature, not purpose.

[Seax]

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?

Excellent questions! The short answers are yes, no and the final question is really two. 'Are we accepting a natural, as opposed to supernatural view of the universe,' and 'Does understanding that nature is God change anything about how we should view the world?' Yes and yes.

There have always been men that want to put themselves above the rest of nature to satisfy their egos (nowhere is this more apparent than in the creationist objection to man's natural origin as a primate). This is not a natural and universal instinct, and I suspect it is probably learned. In Ancient Greece Plato found man's bipedalism & featherlessness more distinctive than his mind, as although the Greek philosophers believed in a fixed (as opposed to an evolving) universe, they saw no fundamental separation between humans and animals. It was only after Diogenes showed Plato a plucked chicken that he thought to include intellect in his definition of man.

In their quest to elevate themselves above the natural world, this natural purpose in nature was turned into an external, anthropomorphic god with a special love for mankind and a consciousness and personality of the kind we have. Man created in his mind a man to rule over the natural world. This personal monotheistic 'God' is a egotistical parody of the true God; the universe.

Why call nature God? Because that is what all the other theologies are grasping at when they talk of God.

[Angrboda]

Actually, according to Diogenes, the academy added the qualifier "with broad flat nails" upon receipt of this challenge.

[Seax]

Actually, according to Diogenes, the academy added the qualifier "with broad flat nails" upon receipt of this challenge.

That just makes my point even better.

[Angrboda]

Diogenes talked a lot of smack. That's probably why I like him.

[Nay_Sayer]

Burp.

Quick guess, You argue with people frequently that all the stickers on your truck are for your love of viking culture.

FSM has xis hands full with this one.

[Ravenshire]

Hello new entity.

Can I interest you in an introduction thread so that we can get to know you better.

At this point all I know is that you believe that you are smarter or better than the rest of us lowly heathens. And that you and I seem to have a difference of opinion regarding what is rational.

You want argument, I reject your conclusion that the laws of nature are "Gods will". You have provided no concrete evidence that a god(s) exists, therefore no gods will exists. Attempting to argue a god into existence is a waste of my time.

Is an introduction thread mandatory? I'd rather not, to be honest.

I am not talking about some anthropomorphic deity, that is just a spook. I am talking about the purpose inherent in nature.

(my bold)

Care to present some evidence for your claim? Testable, verifiable evidence, please. We thrive on evidence here and you (and all the others claiming the same shit) have utterly failed to present any.

[Ryantology]

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. 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.

Why must we make this assumption? And why must that assumption result as you insist it does? 

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!

The problem I have with this is that you are describing what may be one of countless possible explanations for how existence works, then you are asserting that you know your explanation is correct, and I just do not see how you can justify coming to that conclusion. Your entire argument rests on a foundation that a deterministic universe can only be an expression of God's will, supported by an understanding which can't be demonstrated and I do not find convincing, and for that reason, it fails.