As a student of St. Thomas, I always transpose philosophical statements into statements about the use of language. Aquinas would ask, in what sense do you mean "purpose?" The purpose of the oxygen mask over staged above your head on the airplane is to provide oxygen in the event there is a loss of cabin pressure. From the higher perspective of the airline, oxygen masks are provided for the purpose of meeting regulatory requirements. Yet higher, congress enacts regulatory requirements to preserve human life. Higher yet, citizens demand we preserve human life in order to honor the dignity and worth of persons in a Christian society.
As we go higher in the analogical senses of the word "purpose", atheists get queasy. They are uncomfortable crossing over into the nature of persons, and certainly the idea that persons share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity. The atheist might go as far as to admit regulatory requirements are the purpose of the oxygen masks. The rest? It's just psychology. Neurons. Superstition. A social agreement to act as if persons have intrinsic dignity which they do not.
Speaking as a psychologist, I find that a cop out.
"Why something, why not nothing?" This seems to be a haunting question for atheists. On the one hand they know it's a valid question that could dash their worldview. Yet, on the other, they instinctively know it can't be disproved as frivolity under a microscope.
The biggest problem, however, in conversing with an atheist on such matters is the length of time needed to convince them of innate purpose in nature. On too many of these conversations, when the conclusion of demonstrating the presence of purpose starts to become apparent, they flee.
Perhaps atheists have become accustomed to an immoral lifestyle which prevents them from exploring the existence of purpose. I've noted many atheists will start bringing up moral questions when they start to see the inevitable consequence of natural purpose requiring the presence of a mind.
I have such acquaintances to whom I can only pray for their predicament.
"The New Biology" by Stanciu/Argros seeks to show nature as being more cooperative than it is competitive. Corollary: cooperation as such requires a mind.
As a student of St. Thomas, I always transpose philosophical statements into statements about the use of language. Aquinas would ask, in what sense do you mean "purpose?" The purpose of the oxygen mask over staged above your head on the airplane is to provide oxygen in the event there is a loss of cabin pressure. From the higher perspective of the airline, oxygen masks are provided for the purpose of meeting regulatory requirements. Yet higher, congress enacts regulatory requirements to preserve human life. Higher yet, citizens demand we preserve human life in order to honor the dignity and worth of persons in a Christian society.
As we go higher in the analogical senses of the word "purpose", atheists get queasy. They are uncomfortable crossing over into the nature of persons, and certainly the idea that persons share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity. The atheist might go as far as to admit regulatory requirements are the purpose of the oxygen masks. The rest? It's just psychology. Neurons. Superstition. A social agreement to act as if persons have intrinsic dignity which they do not.
Speaking as a psychologist, I find that a cop out.
"Why something, why not nothing?" This seems to be a haunting question for atheists. On the one hand they know it's a valid question that could dash their worldview. Yet, on the other, they instinctively know it can't be disproved as frivolity under a microscope.
The biggest problem, however, in conversing with an atheist on such matters is the length of time needed to convince them of innate purpose in nature. On too many of these conversations, when the conclusion of demonstrating the presence of purpose starts to become apparent, they flee.
Perhaps atheists have become accustomed to an immoral lifestyle which prevents them from exploring the existence of purpose. I've noted many atheists will start bringing up moral questions when they start to see the inevitable consequence of natural purpose requiring the presence of a mind.
I have such acquaintances to whom I can only pray for their predicament.
"The New Biology" by Stanciu/Argros seeks to show nature as being more cooperative than it is competitive. Corollary: cooperation as such requires a mind.
Yup; shallow and angry.