The absurdity of atheism

[tonyrey]

The typical atheist makes the following assumptions:

1. Only the physical universe exists.
2. The physical universe is purposeless.
3. The physical universe is valueless.
4. The physical universe is meaningless.
5. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
7. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
   purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

Are these propositions consistent?

 

[bobzills]

The typical atheist makes the following assumptions:

1. Only the physical universe exists.
2. The physical universe is purposeless.
3. The physical universe is valueless.
4. The physical universe is meaningless.
5. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
7. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
   purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

Are these propositions consistent?

Can you give a reference to where an atheist has stated that: “All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.”
|Or where an atheist has said that: “The physical universe lacks consciousness.”

 

[punkforchrist]

Some atheists will make those claims, but others won’t. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, for example, is both an atheist and a moral realist. The two positions may very well be inconsistent, but he wouldn’t claim that there’s no meaningful activity. Maybe atheists should make those claims in order to be more consistent, but that’s another matter.

Victor Reppert has defended C.S. Lewis’ argument from reason. The gist of the argument is that if our minds evolved from non-rational substances, then there’s no reason to accept our own minds as providing rational inferences about ourselves and the world. But, since we obviously trust our minds (to a significant extent), it follows that we shouldn’t accept the claim that our minds evolved only by non-rational substances.

This is basically an indirect way of defending the teleological argument. It makes sense for us to trust our cognitive faculties as long as they were designed by an intelligence.

 

[tonyrey]

Can you give a reference to where an atheist has stated that: “All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.”
|Or where an atheist has said that: “The physical universe lacks consciousness.”

Steven Weinberg has stated that “*The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.” *If the universe is pointless all activity must be **ultimately **purposeless, valueless and meaningless and lack consciousness. I haven’t come across an atheist who believes purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is a fundamental aspect of reality, have you?

 

[tonyrey]

Some atheists will make those claims, but others won’t. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, for example, is both an atheist and a moral realist. The two positions may very well be inconsistent, but he wouldn’t claim that there’s no meaningful activity.

 

[liquidpele]

The typical atheist makes the following assumptions:

1. Only the physical universe exists.
2. The physical universe is purposeless.
3. The physical universe is valueless.
4. The physical universe is meaningless.
5. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
7. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
   purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

Are these propositions consistent?

#2,#3,#4 - I think this depends on you interpretation of meaning, purpose, and value.

#5 - we are concious… so clearly the universe doesn’t lack that… did you mean something else?

#6 - I would say anyone claiming it is proven is deluded. Most atheists simply show what they feel is a absence of any proof for these things being defined by some all love all knowing deity. Remember, atheism is defined as the non-belief in Gods, not by any particular beliefs about the universe.

#7 - value, purpose, and meaning matter to us. I would guess very few atheists would claim what you wrote there.

 

[hansard]

I know an atheist who believes that all things are ultimately meaningless; i.e. in zillions of years, the universe (as we understand it) will either die a heat death (collapse) or an extinguished death (endless expansion and decay).
Yet, the same person believes in the value of the here and now. He behaves with a greater sense of morality and decisiveness than your typical part-time Christian, because he knows that time is short and he has an obligation to try to make things better in his (hopefully) eighty or so years of life.

Some atheists haven’t actually rejected God; in many cases, they simply have not had the opportunity (or the calling, dare I say) to find him.

 

[buffalo]

The Irrational Atheist

 

[tonyrey]

*The typical atheist makes the following assumptions:

1. Only the physical universe exists.
2. The physical universe is purposeless.
3. The physical universe is valueless.
4. The physical universe is meaningless.
5. The physical universe lacks consciousness.
6. It can be proved that these assumptions are true.
7. All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.

#2,#3,#4 - I think this depends on your interpretation of meaning, purpose, and value.

Is the physical universe purposeful, valuable, meaningful or conscious in **any sense **of these terms?

#5 - we are conscious… so clearly the universe doesn’t lack that… did you mean something else?

I stated that the physical universe lacks consciousness, i.e. **the **physical universe not a being in the universe.

#6 - I would say anyone claiming it is proven is deluded. Most atheists simply show what they feel is a absence of any proof for these things being defined by some all love all knowing deity.

The dogmatism of many atheists gives the impression they **know **God does not exist.

#7 - value, purpose, and meaning matter to us.
I would guess very few atheists would claim what you wrote there.

If you reject #7 you need to explain the origin of purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity.

 

[liquidpele]

The Irrational Atheist

Skimming over about half that book, the chap appears to be a level headed individual at least. His “irrational atheist” is more directed at Dawkins and the like, which are considered even by most atheists as being annoyingly certain of themselves even if they bring up interesting points.

 

[tonyrey]

Yet, the same person believes in the value of the here and now. He behaves with a greater sense of morality and decisiveness than your typical part-time Christian, because he knows that time is short and he has an obligation to try to make things better in his (hopefully) eighty or so years of life.

In an absurd universe the concepts of value and obligation are arbitrary - like the rules of a game. Many atheists regard morality as simply a human convention.

 

[liquidpele]

Is the physical universe purposeful, valuable, meaningful or conscious in **any sense **of these terms?
I stated that the physical universe lacks consciousness, i.e. **the **physical universe not a being in the universe.
The dogmatism of many atheists gives the impression they **know **God does not exist.
If you reject #7 you need to explain the origin of purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity.

If I apply purpose, value, and meaning to it, then yes.

Why would the universe have conciousness? I’m confused. Are you implying rocks can think?

“God does not exist” is more of a simplification for most people. It’s like saying “Unicorns do not exist”… technically neither is proven, but for all practical purposes you can make the statement.

Well, considering we are the smartest animal on the planet and we are the top of the food chain, I’d say being so advanced is quite the evolutionary advantage. Why can’t value, meaning, and purpose be defined by us instead of by some ultimate creator being?

 

[tonyrey]

Skimming over about half that book, the chap appears to be a level headed individual at least. His “irrational atheist” is more directed at Dawkins and the like, which are considered even by most atheists as being annoyingly certain of themselves even if they bring up interesting points.

I take it that you regard agnosticism as more reasonable than atheism.

 

[liquidpele]

I take it that you regard agnosticism as more reasonable than atheism.

Generally yes. I actually very much agree with the Author’s section saying that so called “weak atheists” are really just Agnostic. However, I view Agnosticism as a little more towards atheism than most theists probably view it… like a deist but without the faith that there really is “something” out there.

 

[buffalo]

Skimming over about half that book, the chap appears to be a level headed individual at least. His “irrational atheist” is more directed at Dawkins and the like, which are considered even by most atheists as being annoyingly certain of themselves even if they bring up interesting points.

The new atheists do not even have an intellectual foundation as the atheists of the past have had. However, the “old” atheists have pretty much been debunked and no longer relevant to modern philosophers.

 

[liquidpele]

The new atheists do not even have an intellectual foundation as the atheists of the past have had. However, the “old” atheists have pretty much been debunked and no longer relevant to modern philosophers.

Your post is comical. While I know you’re probably serious, I can’t help but chuckle at your gross generalizations.

 

[buffalo]

Your post is comical. While I know you’re probably serious, I can’t help but chuckle at your gross generalizations.

Quite serious, but chuckle away. If you take the time to query today’s philosophers you will see it.

 

[tonyrey]

If I apply purpose, value, and meaning to it, then yes.

But the universe itself is not intrinsically purposeful, valuable, meaningful or conscious.

Why would the universe have consciousness? I’m confused. Are you implying rocks can think?

There have been theories that the universe is conscious, e.g. Leibniz’s theory of monads and some varieties of pantheism.

“God does not exist” is more of a simplification for most people. It’s like saying “Unicorns do not exist”… technically neither is proven, but for all practical purposes you can make the statement.

You mean that it is highly unlikely but the possibility cannot be ruled out altogether.

Well, considering we are the smartest animal on the planet and we are the top of the food chain, I’d say being so advanced is quite the evolutionary advantage.

These facts still do not explain the origin of purpose, values and consciousness.

Why can’t value, meaning, and purpose be defined by us instead of by some ultimate creator being?

. They are not arbitrary definitions but facts about Ultimate Reality.

 

[liquidpele]

But the universe itself is not intrinsically purposeful, valuable, meaningful or conscious.

There have been theories that the universe is conscious, e.g. Leibniz’s theory of monads and some varieties of pantheism.
You mean that it is highly unlikely but the possibility cannot be ruled out altogether.
These facts still do not explain the origin of purpose, values and consciousness.
. They are not arbitrary definitions but facts about Ultimate Reality.

Intrinsically? Well, now you need to define purpose, value, and meaning Skipping that, I’ll just get to the point. Atheists (from my experience) typically see the universe as having these qualities, but as defined by us as opposed to being defined by a god. Those ideas are words and thoughts created by man afterall, is it not suitable for us to define the universe we live in? Without something to think up and apply those ideas, the ideas of value and meaning themselves don’t exist… the universe just “is”… at least from what our senses tell us.

I had to google this monad theory… it sounds kind of like the Jedi Force! Yes, I would agree with you that atheists think the universe is not concious in this respect (although I do wish I could be a Jedi).

Correct. Highly unlikely, but can’t be ruled out 100%.

It explains conciousness (the ability to think). Purpose and Value are ideas we define and label things with. Food has value to me, and I have a genetic purpose to reproduce for instance.

You label them as facts about Ultimate Reality, don’t confuse your definition with some kind of law.

 

[tonyrey]

Without something to think up and apply those ideas, the ideas of value and meaning themselves don’t exist… the universe just “is”… at least from what our senses tell us.

Exactly - from the atheist’s point of view the universe is purposeless, valueless and meaningless - and human beings invent purposes, values and meaning to suit themselves. The right to life, for example, does not exist objectively. It is simply an idea we can choose to ignore or reject. It doesn’t really matter if you kill some one…

You label them as facts about Ultimate Reality, don’t confuse your definition with some kind of law.

It’s not a law but an explanation. It is more intelligible to regard them as ultimate facts than as products of blind forces…