Can an Atheist Answer These?

[SonofMonica]

*Why *not?

Because to use the concept of “why” the way you are using it, it is only when a rational actor (usually limited to humans, or a deity of some sort, if it pleases you) makes a decision that it makes sense to ask “why.” Because only rational actors have “reasons.” Thus, one can say there is no “reason why” the sky is blue, only an explanation of “what causes” it to be blue. There need be no purpose, only cause and effect. Humans act with purpose (or at least seem to and think themselves to be doing so), giving rise to the question “why.”

 

[SonofMonica]

To put it another way, it comes down to this. It only makes sense to ask a question like “Why are we here?” if you presume that some actor, making a conscious decision, had a “reason” for us to be here. You can, however, ask “How did we come to be here?” without presuming the existence of a deity or other creating entity(s).

 

[Leela]

I tend to agree that these things can be explained naturalistically. But what is the explanation for evolutionary theory?

Evolutionary theory is a historically and culturally contingent product of millions of years of evolution.

This is a very old question, by the way, that was asked long before Darwin. In its original form, it goes: why do living things seek to stay alive? I do not say that theism is the only possible answer to this question, but the theist does have an answer.

You seem to be proud that theism has an answer, but some of us don’t even have this question. Whhat is your answer, by the way?

I do think I understand what you are getting at here. When we say that Darwin explained evolution as “survival of the fittest” this is a mere tautology. It amounts to “survival of the survivors,” and we are still left to ask “why survive?” The simple answer I have given before is that animals try to survive because they want to survive. That see survival as better than death. You probably take this answer to be too simple and not a real answer, but I take your question to be so obvious that it is not really a question.

As I mentioned earlier, what I think you are really interested in is the question of why animals *ought *to or should want to survive which presupposes the answer has to come from outside of themselves and begs the question of whether there is such a thing as a Moral Law out there that animals, rocks, trees, and people have a duty to conform to. I am not convinced that any such Law exists or that we have any duty to such a Law.

Best,
Leela

 

[Spock]

But why stop there? If the (state of) mind is an emergent property of the brain, then why not say that the psychological gestalt (wholeness) of a person is the emergent property of the mind? Why not say that society’s gestalt is the emergent property of individual’s gestalt? Why not say that “the human experience” is the emergent property of the social gestalt? Why not say that the transcendent experience is the emergent property of the human experience? Why not say that the God – *as He is known through nature *-- is the emergent property of the transcendent experience?

Why not, indeed? At least to a certain degree. Psychological wholeness is particular state of the mind - not over and beyond the mind. Societies wholeness is very much dependent on the individual’s wholeness, I agree. A society composed of disgruntled people is much less efficient. Now, human experience is also a state of the mind. And - easy to anticipate - transcendant experience is something I don’t understand.

Religion can be completely naturalized, without using any form of reductionism. The fact that God would be manifest in completely natural processes does not, in any way, argue that He doesn’t exist.

It certainly would not. Why should God not manifest himself in a natural way? The trouble is that this notion will immediately get bogged down in “cherry picking.” A beautiful sunset will be attributed to God, while a horrible plague will not.

We encounter the individual gestalt in psychology, the social gestalt in cultural mythology (popular literature & preoccupations), the human experience in true culture (literature & music), the transcendent experience in the boundaries of culture (prayer, dance, music), God in revelation. In the understanding of emergent properties, we encounter the conjunction of the sciences with the humanities.

When we consider that the experiences of music and literature are no less real than scientific truths, this might lead us to consider that they must be rooted in some reality. Just as H and O don’t explain the wetness of water, brain processes do not explain the affective experience of human beings. I agree that they “arise out of brain processes” – but does that really explain anything?

What should it explain? Take music, for example. The same music is beautiful to one person, and a cacophony to the next. As a matter of fact, music is not about sounds - contrary to popular misconceptions. Music affects the brain, creates special brain-states.

 

[tonyrey]

Saying that a person is composed of atoms is different from saying that a person is just a bunch of atoms. You keep accusing others as saying the latter whenever they mention the former.

My precise words were “the theory that a person is composed solely of atomic particles” - which is precisely what you believe, is it not?

Where we may disagree is that I think biological evolutionary theory and meme theory does a good job at explaining how one level emerges from another without resorting to postulating some extra-added divine ingredient that plants have more of than rocks do, and animals have more of than plants do, and humans have more of than animals.

At last you have let the metaphysical cat out of the bag! You clearly believe physicalism is true because you reject the need for any other ingredient apart from particles. And of course your interpretation of evolution is NeoDarwinistic because you reject outright the possibility that it is the result of Design.

Past generations have thought that priests have more of this ingredient than men do and men have more of it than women do and whites have more of than blacks do. I don’t find this extra-something to have any explanatory power and instead see it as a tool of subjugation.

I don’t know where on earth you found this extraordinary idea? Is it a hypothesis of your own? If so on what is it based?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I do think I understand what you are getting at here. When we say that Darwin explained evolution as “survival of the fittest” this is a mere tautology. It amounts to “survival of the survivors,” and we are still left to ask “why survive?” The simple answer I have given before is that animals try to survive because they want to survive. That see survival as better than death. You probably take this answer to be too simple and not a real answer, but I take your question to be so obvious that it is not really a question.

As I mentioned earlier, what I think you are really interested in is the question of why animals *ought *to or should want to survive which presupposes the answer has to come from outside of themselves and begs the question of whether there is such a thing as a Moral Law out there that animals, rocks, trees, and people have a duty to conform to. I am not convinced that any such Law exists or that we have any duty to such a Law.

Best,
Leela

Evolution is not about survival, it is about reproduction. For example in the eyes of evolution an animal that lives to 1 and reproduces 10 times is more successful than an animal that lives to 200 and reproduces 5 times.

The will to survive increases the chance of reproduction and therefore that trait is retained in the gene pool. Those with a stronger will have a greater chance to reproduce, so the trait is not only retained, but evolves.

This has been explained to tonyrey countless times but he/she chooses to ignore anything that explains away the need for magic man.

 

[tonyrey]

The will to survive increases the chance of reproduction and therefore that trait is retained in the gene pool. Those with a stronger will have a greater chance to reproduce, so the trait is not only retained, but evolves.
This has been explained to tonyrey countless times but he/she chooses to ignore anything that explains away the need for magic man.

It is delightfully ironic that neither Charles Darwin nor any other NeoDarwininist in the entire world can explain either how the will to survive originated or the mechanism by which it operates! But that is all part of their blind faith that the magic of science will ultimately explain everything… even how purposeful activity has emerged from purposeless processes!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

It is delightfully ironic that neither Charles Darwin nor any other NeoDarwininist in the entire world can explain either how the will to survive originated or the mechanism by which it operates! But that is all part of their blind faith that the magic of science will ultimately explain everything… even how purposeful activity has emerged from purposeless processes!

Ah, we going back to the god of the gaps again?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Evolution is “survival of the fitted” not the “fittest”.

 

[tonyrey]

Ah, we going back to the god of the gaps again?

Ah, we going back to the science of the gaps again?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

It is delightfully ironic that neither Charles Darwin nor any other NeoDarwininist in the entire world can explain either how the will to survive originated or the mechanism by which it operates! But that is all part of their blind faith that the magic of science will ultimately explain everything… even how purposeful activity has emerged from purposeless processes!

I have explained, it is an emotion that increases the reproductive success of an animal and therefore it is retained in the gene pool. Emotion as in, caused by chemical reactions in the brain.

If you are looking for purpose then the “purpose” of life is to reproduce. This is not something that emerged but is something that has been the in very nature of the DNA/RNA molecules stretching right back to the very first RNA molecule. In other words one the first self replicating molecule synthesised, by is very nature it couldn’t do anything BUT reproduce. All we are is a very complex descendant of that molecule which has been shaped to optimism reproduction.

It seems to me that you create problems that don’t actually exist then justify your believe because you don’t understand that answer to the non existent problems you created. This seem to be a common trend amongst the religious, and goes along way to explain why religious belief is lower amongst the scientifically educated.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Ah, we going back to the science of the gaps again?

Eh? You are trying to claim that there are areas that science can’t explain and we therefore need god. Do you understand what the god of the gaps argument is? I would of though you would have since you use it so frequently.

 

[tonyrey]

Eh? You are trying to claim that there are areas that science can’t explain and we therefore need god. Do you understand what the god of the gaps argument is? I would of though you would have since you use it so frequently.

You obviously don’t understand what the “science of the gaps” argument is. It is very simple: it is based on the assumption that science can in principle explain everything. If something cannot be explained by science the disciple of Science always replies: “We don’t know the answer yet but that does not prove God exists”. Of course the fact that the question is beyond the scope of science makes not the slightest difference because he has **absolute faith **in its power to explain everything and ultimately produce “a theory of everything”!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You obviously don’t understand what the “science of the gaps” argument is. It is very simple: it is based on the assumption that science can in principle explain everything. If something cannot be explained by science the disciple of Science always replies: “We don’t know the answer yet but that does not prove God exists”. Of course the fact that the question is beyond the scope of science makes not the slightest difference because he has **absolute faith **in its power to explain everything and ultimately produce “a theory of everything”!

“We don’t know the answer yet but that does not prove God exists”. This is 100% correct . I don’t follow. Are you trying to say if we don’t know the answer to something that means god did it???

 

[AnAtheist]

Why not say that the God – *as He is known through nature *-- is the emergent property of the transcendent experience?

Yes, one could say that. Gods do exist at least in our minds, and following the philosopher Karl Popper, things, even imaginary, that have influence on us are - in a way - real. (I recommend reading about his 3-world-theory.)
That applies to any god of course not just the Christian one.

 

[tonyrey]

“We don’t know the answer yet but that does not prove God exists”.

Of course it is correct but it does not stop there - as you will see…

Are you trying to say if we don’t know the answer to something that means god did it?

No, I am not. If you keep saying “I don’t know” to important questions your belief that everything is physical becomes very weak. It becomes obvious that belief in spiritual reality is a more adequate explanation because it corresponds to the way people live and regard one another, not as advanced animals but as persons…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Of course it is correct but it does not stop there - as you will see…
No, I am not. If you keep saying “I don’t know” to important questions your belief that everything is physical becomes very weak. It becomes obvious that belief in spiritual reality is a more adequate explanation because it corresponds to the way people live and regard one another, not as advanced animals but as persons…

How so, there is not one single shred of evidence to support anything spiritual. So anything posited about things we don’t know is utterly pointless. The intellectually honest mind says we don’t know, then leaves it at that. If we have nothing to go on then **no explanation is adequate. **

 

[tonyrey]

How so, there is not one single shred of evidence to support anything spiritual.

There is not one single shred of evidence that **everything **is material. There are many realities that are intangible. Can you see, weigh or measure your thoughts, emotions and decisions? Where is truth? Inside your head? Please describe exactly where it is located…

So anything posited about things we don’t know is utterly pointless.

I agree - and neither you nor anyone else knows the ultimate nature of reality.

The intellectually honest mind says we don’t know, then leaves it at that.

You are contradicting yourself. You insist dogmatically and categorically that there is **not one single shred of evidence **to support anything spiritual! You are presuming that you do have insight into the ultimate nature of reality, i.e. that it is material. So you are not being, to use your own words, intellectually honest …

If we really don’t know, have nothing to go on then **no explanation is adequate. **

“If” is the key word. How do you determine what we have to go on?
By experiment?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

There is not one single shred of evidence that **everything **is material. There are many realities that are intangible. Can you see, weigh or measure your thoughts, emotions and decisions? Where is truth? Inside your head? Please describe exactly where it is located…
I agree - and neither you nor anyone else knows the ultimate nature of reality.You are contradicting yourself. You insist dogmatically and categorically that there is **not one single shred of evidence **to support anything spiritual! You are presuming that you do have insight into the ultimate nature of reality, i.e. that it is material. So you are not being, to use your own words, intellectually honest …
“If” is the key word. How do you determine what we have to go on?
By experiment?

I’m afraid this is simply incorrect. We have evidence that shows emotions and decisions are directed by the brain. We have no evidence that shows there is something spiritual, if you have some please present it (and i mean real evidence).

I have never claimed i know everything is physical or material. However until we have solid evidence that there is anything else to speculate is utterly pointless. I like to base my beliefs on evidence, not wild speculation. So i actually presuming nothing, I’m not sure where you got the idea that i claimed to know everything is physical but you are incorrect. I just make no claims about that which we don’t know.

 

[shoewindow3000]

Are you trying to say if we don’t know the answer to something that means god did it???

Well, we know that God did it, regardless of whether or not scientists know the answer to something.

I feel my thread has gotten* way* off topic…