Purpose, plain and simple

[Wulfgar]

Wow, I come back to the thread I started and I find four pages of discussion. I am surprised that my topic was that interesting.

 

[Wulfgar]

It depends upon how you conceive the notion of purpose. Certainly we can say that the purpose of eating is to maintain life and health, but why maintain life and health? Because we want to, because it feels good to do so; but why do we want to? Why does it feel good? We don’t know - it just does. Most living things carry the instinct of self-preservation (except for those organisms in which this is outweighed by the reproductive instinct!). Why? As far as we can tell, they just do - there is no reason for life other than the continuation of life, so it becomes rather a circular justification.

As to this being an objective conclusion reached by nonbelievers, well, there’s no evidence, no suggestion beyond the human propensity for storytelling that any other reason exists than “just because”. Humans are notorious for making up stories and inventing purposes to give subjective meaning to our actions - stories about gods and other supernatural phenomena are, considered in a coldly objective manner, nothing more than an extension of our subjective desire for significance in a world that clearly does not - indeed, cannot - care about our welfare.

I don’t know how many other believers experience this, but I actually find it quite liberating to consider that my life has no transcendent, eternal purpose governed by a universal overlord. Why should it? Who do I think I am, really? Purpose, as a philosophical concept, is a very human - and very localised - construction. Life, just on our planet, Earth, has existed for many, many millennia, and will probably continue to exist after the extinction of humans, without any philosophical concept of purpose. At the end of the “why” questions is, as far as we can presently discern, an acceptance that some things just are, whether these phenomena make sense to us or not.

But doesn’t the belief that there is no purpose require as much faith as believing that there is purpose? It’s essentially a new “religion” (not in organized sense, of course, but nonetheless it is a view that isn’t more justified than the view of believers, as is often assumed).

I’m not implying that religion is irrational, simply saying that unbelief in purpose has an element of faith as well (though many unbelievers deny they have faith).

I also take issue with stopping at the idea that things “just are”, for logical reasons. Why stop applying our logic of cause and effect there? Without assuming the validity of Christianity or other religions, I don’t see why it is rationally wrong to conclude that there is some final cause to all causes; whether or not we can properly define said ultimate cause without the use of religion is irrelevant. Again, it’s all a matter of whether or not a cause exists.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But doesn’t the belief that there is no purpose require as much faith as believing that there is purpose? It’s essentially a new “religion” (not in organized sense, of course, but nonetheless it is a view that isn’t more justified than the view of believers, as is often assumed).

Depends on if you are talking about the absence of a positive brlief or the presence of a negative belief. From the outside looking in these positions may be indistinguishable at a glance. But one of them makes truth claims. The other is a form of the null hypothesis.

 

[Wulfgar]

Depends on if you are talking about the absence of a positive brlief or the presence of a negative belief. From the outside looking in these positions may be indistinguishable at a glance. But one of them makes truth claims. The other is a form of the null hypothesis.

There’s some merit to that, that positive assertions usually hold the burden of proof. Since it’s difficult to apply our basic, everyday notions of cause and effect here, there are (at the risk of stating the obvious) two options: either there is a Creator*, and thus a “purpose”, or end goal (related directly to the first cause, the Creator); or, there is an endless chain of causes and effects, which has a problem. The first position says logic doesn’t apply outside the universe; the second assumes there is nothing creating the universe from without. So both require support, and both are truth claims (the second needing to show why natural things need causes, but the universe - the sum total of nature and thus having “natural” qualities - doesn’t).

The point is, the atheist needs to demonstrate why logic applies in some cases and not in others. Thinking about it in this manner, I don’t consider it a null hypothesis since it shows an inconsistency in applying a logical process, rather than asserting a negative without an implied breach in logic.

*Whether personal or impersonal is beside the point for this particular argument; the point is, if there is a Creator - whether the Judeo-Christian God, the deist’s God, or some unknown natural, physical law [and where would THAT law have come from, being natural and thus adhering to the logic of cause and effect?] - then the implication is that there is some end goal/purpose due to there being a first cause.

 

[tonyrey]

Depends on if you are talking about the absence of a positive brlief or the presence of a negative belief. From the outside looking in these positions may be indistinguishable at a glance. But one of them makes truth claims. The other is a form of the null hypothesis.

If a null hypothesis has no positive foundation it is meaningless!

 

[tonyrey]

But doesn’t the belief that there is no purpose require as much faith as believing that there is purpose? It’s essentially a new “religion” (not in organized sense, of course, but nonetheless it is a view that isn’t more justified than the view of believers, as is often assumed).

I’m not implying that religion is irrational, simply saying that unbelief in purpose has an element of faith as well (though many unbelievers deny they have faith).

I also take issue with stopping at the idea that things “just are”, for logical reasons. Why stop applying our logic of cause and effect there? Without assuming the validity of Christianity or other religions, I don’t see why it is rationally wrong to conclude that there is some final cause to all causes; whether or not we can properly define said ultimate cause without the use of religion is irrelevant. Again, it’s all a matter of whether or not a cause exists.

Only a materialist rejects the reality of intangible causality!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There’s some merit to that, that positive assertions usually hold the burden of proof. Since it’s difficult to apply our basic, everyday notions of cause and effect here, there are (at the risk of stating the obvious) two options: either there is a Creator*, and thus a “purpose”, or end goal (related directly to the first cause, the Creator); or, there is an endless chain of causes and effects, which has a problem.

I see an opportunity for ambiguity here.

I think that two definitions of purpose are being blended here. One definition of “purpose” is about intent. Another definition deals with causation. When one expresses a view that the universe is without purpose it may bring better understanding of her position to see which definition she is using. While intent entails causation, causation doesn’t necessarily entail intent. It’s possinle that one that is stating that something is “without purpose” may be saying that something is without intent. For example, a pile of rocks at the bottom of a hill may be without intent-purpose, but not without causation.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Wulfgar]

The first position says logic doesn’t apply outside the universe; the second assumes there is nothing creating the universe from without.

I highly doubt anyone is reading this right now, but I was browsing through some old threads and I may have to take back this statement. I don’t think God’s nature to exist without cause is “illogical”, but merely a different form of logic, perhaps. I’m not too sure, but nonetheless I hold to my original position that atheism/agnosticism is NOT a justifiable null hypothesis.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I highly doubt anyone is reading this right now,…]

I’m sure your comment will be scene since those involved in this thread probably have not unsubscribed from it.

 

[polytropos]

I highly doubt anyone is reading this right now, but I was browsing through some old threads and I may have to take back this statement. I don’t think God’s nature to exist without cause is “illogical”, but merely a different form of logic, perhaps.

I don’t really think it is a matter of logic. The proof, in my understanding, proceeds by necessity. All material things have causes, which (under the assumption that infinite regress is impossible) implies that there must be a cause to the universe, which is often taken to be the sum of all material things. Therefore there is something nonmaterial that caused the universe from without.

Its quality of being uncaused is not illogical nor of a different form of logic; it’s just being of a different, nonmaterial nature. We conclude that its nature would have to be such that it is uncaused and external to the universe because we have demonstrated by contradiction that everything cannot be caused (as material things are) and material (part of the material universe).

Sort of sloppy and incomplete, but I’m not really submitting a full proof.

 

[inocente]

nonetheless I hold to my original position that atheism/agnosticism is NOT a justifiable null hypothesis.

Not sure about that. Four hypotheses:

1. The world exists.
2. The world exists and was created by a deity.
3. The world exists and was created by the Abrahamic God.
4. The world exists and was created by the Abrahamic God as told by [insert name of church].

The simplest hypothesis, the one everyone can agree on, is the first while the others make additional claims.

Which is fine by me, we Christians have faith after all, although the last hypothesis beloved by fundamentalists was satirized by the writers of the Simpsons, who had Reverend Lovejoy say “We’re here to bring you back to the one true faith: the Western Branch of American Reform Presby-Lutheranism”.

 

[Wulfgar]

Not sure about that. Four hypotheses:

1. The world exists.
2. The world exists and was created by a deity.
3. The world exists and was created by the Abrahamic God.
4. The world exists and was created by the Abrahamic God as told by [insert name of church].

The simplest hypothesis, the one everyone can agree on, is the first while the others make additional claims.

I am almost certain that there are a handful of people who would not subscribe to even the first hypothesis. For the rest of us who are sane, however, my point was that it’s ludicrous to claim things have causes, but then claim that the universe (or multiverse) - merely the sum total of natural phenomena - doesn’t need a cause. How can the system itself be self-existent when it is nothing more than a bunch of dependent “stuff”? I think you need to add a hypothesis 1.5 into your list: The world exists, and because it is simply the sum total of natural things, its very existence necessitates the existence of an uncaused cause, something that would have had to exist outside the realm of nature in order for nature to have been created in the first place.

The notion of a deity, a conscious creator-being, seems to result from hypothesis 1.5. My best reason for this is simply the order of the world. Things actually work. Why would unconscious matter be able to sustain its own order? Why would an unconscious supernatural cause be able to create order if it’s just another “thing” with no will, purpose, or goal?

I’m curious as to what the response to this would be, given that the argument from the order of the universe (not the aesthetic component, but the simple idea that the system happens to work) tends to be fairly common to support the existence of God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am almost certain that there are a handful of people who would not subscribe to even the first hypothesis.

Solipsist and those experiencing an extreme form of the egocentric predicament are among such people. But such people don’t seem to have much motivation to convince the people that may or may not exist outside themselves of these propositions.

For the rest of us who are sane,

The above dispositions are not necessarily an indication that one’s mental health is compromised. Some one could have the philosophical position of solipsism without having the psychological state of solipsism syndrome. But that’s another topic…

however, my point was that it’s ludicrous to claim things have causes, but then claim that the universe (or multiverse) - merely the sum total of natural phenomena - doesn’t need a cause. How can the system itself be self-existent when it is nothing more than a bunch of dependent “stuff”? I think you need to add a hypothesis 1.5 into your list: The world exists, and because it is simply the sum total of natural things

There have been those both within and outside of a religious context that seem to attribute some of the same attributes that have been applied to a “prime mover” to the universe itself (yes, there have been religions in which god(s) came into existence from an "eternal substance). In modern I’ve seen this most often take the form of conjecturing that the prime mover might not be “personal” or have a mind and that it may be part of nature that we’ve not observed (not my own disposition, but one that I’ve encountered many times). For some one of this disposition whether or not the cause of the universe was “natural” may be a matter of semantics since “outside nature” is not easily defined or demonstrated. I think the less ambiguous disagreement occurs when the concept of a “mind” is applied to this cause.

The notion of a deity, a conscious creator-being, seems to result from hypothesis 1.5. My best reason for this is simply the order of the world. Things actually work. Why would unconscious matter be able to sustain its own order? Why would an unconscious supernatural cause be able to create order if it’s just another “thing” with no will, purpose, or goal?

I’m curious as to what the response to this would be, given that the argument from the order of the universe (not the aesthetic component, but the simple idea that the system happens to work) tends to be fairly common to support the existence of God.

There was a conversation last year on this topic. One response was that all of the order and patterns in the universe may be the result of a very small and limited set of behaviours of some basic entities from which more complex behaviour emerges. Conway’s Game of Life has been used in several threads within these forums as an example of such a system. In the Game of Life system there are only 4 rules. But the complexity that emerges from these 4 rules has been a topic of interest and study in computer science for the past 40 years. But the response went on to say that our universe may be similar in that a small set of behaviours may be behind much of the order that we observe.

 

[inocente]

I am almost certain that there are a handful of people who would not subscribe to even the first hypothesis. For the rest of us who are sane, however, my point was that it’s ludicrous to claim things have causes, but then claim that the universe (or multiverse) - merely the sum total of natural phenomena - doesn’t need a cause. How can the system itself be self-existent when it is nothing more than a bunch of dependent “stuff”? I think you need to add a hypothesis 1.5 into your list: The world exists, and because it is simply the sum total of natural things, its very existence necessitates the existence of an uncaused cause, something that would have had to exist outside the realm of nature in order for nature to have been created in the first place.

The notion of a deity, a conscious creator-being, seems to result from hypothesis 1.5. My best reason for this is simply the order of the world. Things actually work. Why would unconscious matter be able to sustain its own order? Why would an unconscious supernatural cause be able to create order if it’s just another “thing” with no will, purpose, or goal?

I’m curious as to what the response to this would be, given that the argument from the order of the universe (not the aesthetic component, but the simple idea that the system happens to work) tends to be fairly common to support the existence of God.

Your 1.5 makes a set of fantastical claims: 1. That there’s some unknown and unknowable thing beyond nature, something that is there but which we can never detect. 2. That this invisible unnaturalness has no cause, unlike absolutely everything else. 3. That this uncaused invisible unnaturalness produced all the matter for billions of galaxies out of nothing.

So actually 1.5 is “The world exists and was created by magic”.

A simpler alternative, call it 1.3, is “The world exists and always has”. For instance there could have been an infinite series of big bangs. But that too is disputable, so 1. “The world exists” remains the most secure hypothesis since it doesn’t claim anything beyond what we can all agree.

That means we can never be certain the world even has a purpose, because to assign a purpose we have to use a more complicated and therefore disputable hypothesis.

 

[tonyrey]

Your 1.5 makes a set of fantastical claims: 1. That there’s some unknown and unknowable thing beyond nature, something that is there but which we can never detect.

How do you detect your mind? With scientific instruments?

1. That this invisible unnaturalness has no cause, unlike absolutely everything else.

Christians don’t usually believe God is natural or visible…

1. That this uncaused invisible unnaturalness produced all the matter for billions of galaxies out of nothing.

In that case there is no Creator…

So actually 1.5 is “The world exists and was created by magic”.

Then the alternative is that the world just exists by magic

A simpler alternative, call it 1.3, is “The world exists and always has”. For instance there could have been an infinite series of big bangs. But that too is disputable, so 1. “The world exists” remains the most secure hypothesis since it doesn’t claim anything beyond what we can all agree.

Is universal agreement your main criterion of what is true?

That means we can never be certain the world even has a purpose, because to assign a purpose we have to use a more complicated and therefore disputable hypothesis.

In that case there is no guarantee that any of your statements have a purpose…

 

[inocente]

How do you detect your mind? With scientific instruments?

Cogito ergo sum

Christians don’t usually believe God is natural or visible…

Wulfgar’s hypothesis 1.5 doesn’t mention God. My hypothesis 3 does.

In that case there is no Creator…

Wulfgar’s hypothesis 1.5 doesn’t mention a deity. My hypothesis 2 does.

Then the alternative is that the world just exists by magic

You’re on fire today.

*Is universal agreement your main criterion of what is true? *

Not even a criterion. But consider that if you disagree the world exists then you disagree CAF exists and so win or lose you are arguing with yourself.

In that case there is no guarantee that any of your statements have a purpose…

“Nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music.
Nothing is accomplished by playing a piece of music.
Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music.
Our ears are now in excellent condition.”

“The highest purpose is to have no purpose at all.”

• John Cage

 

[tonyrey]

How do you detect your mind? With scientific instruments?

A non-scientific fact.

Christians don’t usually believe God is natural or visible…

Wulfgar’s hypothesis 1.5 doesn’t mention God. My hypothesis 3 does.

In that case there is no Creator…

Wulfgar’s hypothesis 1.5 doesn’t mention a deity. My hypothesis 2 does.

Then you are inconsistent.

Then the alternative is that the world just exists by magic

You’re on fire today.

A personal and irrelevant response. The alternative is still that the world just exists by magic

Is universal agreement your main criterion of what is true?

Not even a criterion. But consider that if you disagree the world exists then you disagree CAF exists and so win or lose you are arguing with yourself.

If universal agreement is not a criterion of what is true there is no point in asserting that it is** the most secure hypothesis** since it doesn’t claim anything beyond what we can all agree.

In that case there is no guarantee that any of your statements have a purpose.

…
“Nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music.
Nothing is accomplished by playing a piece of music.
Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music.
Our ears are now in excellent condition.”

“The highest purpose is to have no purpose at all.”

• John Cage

One man’s opinion is not a valid argument.

 

[inocente]

A non-scientific fact.

Correct.

Then you are inconsistent.

Nope, they are different hypotheses.

A personal and irrelevant response. The alternative is still that the world just exists by magic

It was entirely relevant. You were responding to me saying “So actually 1.5 is ‘The world exists and was created by magic’”, so we are at one on that one.

If universal agreement is not a criterion of what is true there is no point in asserting that it is* the most secure hypothesis*** since it doesn’t claim anything beyond what we can all agree.

You’re missing the fact that it must be true if “we” exist, since otherwise we don’t exist and only you exist, and if only you exist then please argue it out with yourself.

One man’s opinion is not a valid argument.

There is no guarantee that any of our statements have a purpose.