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.
Speaking as an atheist, I believe that citizens demand that we preserve human life because humans are moral actors. Humans are moral actors in the way that we are because it is advantageous to our genes for us to be this way. Genes that are better at self-propagation tend to exist and genes that are not tend not to because of simple physical laws.
Humans have a sense of purposefulness because past humans who didn’t were less likely to have children. We can carve out pockets of the universe filled with order and purposefulness, but at a cosmic sense there is no purpose, just existence
"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.
Could you explain what's haunting about this for Atheists? Here is one Atheistic answer: "Nothingness" (whatever that means), is metaphysically impossible. It's likely that something has to exist. There was never a state of "nothingness" that "something" had to come from.
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.
Speaking as an atheist, I believe that citizens demand that we preserve human life because humans are moral actors. Humans are moral actors in the way that we are because it is advantageous to our genes for us to be this way. Genes that are better at self-propagation tend to exist and genes that are not tend not to because of simple physical laws.
Humans have a sense of purposefulness because past humans who didn’t were less likely to have children. We can carve out pockets of the universe filled with order and purposefulness, but at a cosmic sense there is no purpose, just existence
"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.
"Why something, why not nothing?"
Could you explain what's haunting about this for Atheists? Here is one Atheistic answer: "Nothingness" (whatever that means), is metaphysically impossible. It's likely that something has to exist. There was never a state of "nothingness" that "something" had to come from.
Yup; shallow and angry.