God, Morals, and Atheists (page 14)

UnDisfellowshipped

BurnTheShips said:

"I perceive the problem for the atheist/materialists is believing that unguided, evolved, biological intelligence is capable of comprehending the fundamental nature of reality. Can they believe what they perceive? Why would that be the case? The problem is the assumption itself. It is an act of faith. It appears tautological to say that we randomly evolved to be capable of understanding enough of fundamental reality to get by. But a useful illusion has survival value also. Why do atheist/materialists need to believe that biological intelligence is capable of understanding the entire fundamental nature of reality? They have no choice, do they? That is the major problem. It must suck to be mentally stuck in the single eigenstate of a universal wave collapse."

Outstanding comment BTS!

If, as we are told by Atheists/Naturalists/Materialists, unguided evolution and unguided natural processes are the only causes of our existence and our thoughts, then why should we even believe that our thoughts about the world are accurate, and why should assume that our reasoning is sound?

Why should we expect to be able to know the truth about anything?

If Naturalism says that all of our thoughts are the results of blind natural forces and natural causes, and one thought does not actually cause another thought, and hence we cannot actually perform rational inference or reasoning, then why should anyone try to make logical arguments for anything, and why should anyone believe anyone about anything?

Shouldn't we accept a worldview which explains and accounts for our reasoning, logic, and rational inference, instead of a worldview which rules out these things, and by so doing, destroys the very foundation science and philosophy are built upon?

drwtsn32

Here we go....

How can you theists claim your view of reality is any better than ours?

quietlyleaving

undisfellowshipped

"Every morality is, as opposed to laisser allez, a bit of tyranny against nature, but this is in itself no objection" Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (188)

Fadeout

If, as we are told by Atheists/Naturalists/Materialists, unguided evolution and unguided natural processes are the only causes of our existence and our thoughts, then why should we even believe that our thoughts about the world are accurate, and why should assume that our reasoning is sound?

I'm not sure why there would be an assumption that "unguided natural processes" should not be capable of producing reasoning, self-aware beings. Where is that rule written? That's just it; there are no rules written. It's a marvelous universe, with infinitely more questions than answers.

As far as "unguided" evolution, we must clarify that we mean 'unguided by a supernatural intelligent force,' since the principle of natural selection in conjunction with natural physical laws serves to guide living things into adaptable forms for long-term survival and replication.

An observer may see a river and reason that the cohesion and constant course of the water particles demands an intelligence at work, when in reality the very nature of water and the surface over which it flows determines its pattern.

UnDisfellowshipped

Fadeout said:

"An observer may see a river and reason that the cohesion and constant course of the water particles demands an intelligence at work, when in reality the very nature of water and the surface over which it flows determines its pattern."

I agree. We have to carefully examine all of the evidence before we make claims about causes and effects. We should always examine any possible natural causes and not automatically claim a supernatural cause.

However, even in the example you gave, I believe it would make more sense, based on the data I've looked at, that there was an Original Designer who "wound up the clock," so to speak, and established the "Natural Laws", and that is why everything works so well according to "Natural Laws."

With that said, there are some things which seem much more obviously than others to have a supernatural (beyond nature) cause. (The beginning of the Universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the existence of objective morals, and the existence of rational inference)

To me, saying that those things have a purely natural or physical cause is just like saying that Mount Rushmore had a purely natural (non-human) cause.

UnDisfellowshipped

drwtsn32 said:

"How can you theists claim your view of reality is any better than ours?"

I tried, in this thread, to give some reasons why the Theist worldview would make more sense of reality than the Atheist worldview. I will try to explain more soon.

Nathan Natas

Moo

UnDisfellowshipped

drwtsn32 said:

"Here we go.... How can you theists claim your view of reality is any better than ours?"

1a:) The Theistic view of reality provides a grounding and explanation for human morals and the human conscience. Morality and Conscience were formed by a Moral Law-Giver and Judge whom we will all answer to.

1b:) The Atheistic view of reality says that human morals and consciences are formed only by natural laws, processes, evolution, environment, human standards to get along with each other, etc. In this worldview, there is no absolute reason why anyone should be obligated to follow any morals or laws or their consciences. There is no neutral basis for saying that anyone else is evil or wrong.

2a:) The Theistic view of reality provides a plausible explanation for the Big Bang and the origin of life, which naturalistic evolution alone does not.

2b:) The Atheistic view of reality provides no solid explanations for the Big Bang or the origin of life.

3a): The Theistic view of reality provides a solid basis and explanation for determining what is right and wrong, and what is evil and what is good.

3b:) The Atheistic view of reality does not do this. In fact, in a completely consistent Atheistic worldview, there is NO good or evil, NO right or wrong. Everyone just does whatever actions they do because of the natural laws, processes, evolution, their environment, etc.

UnDisfellowshipped

By the same token, would any Atheist like to explain why their worldview is better than the Theist's worldview?

bohm

Undisfellowshipped:

1a:) The Theistic view of reality provides a grounding and explanation for human morals and the human conscience. Morality and Conscience were formed by a Moral Law-Giver and Judge whom we will all answer to.

..which is: GOD deside what is good and bad.

1b:) The Atheistic view of reality says that human morals and consciences are formed only by natural laws, processes, evolution, environment, human standards to get along with each other, etc. In this worldview, there is no absolute reason why anyone should be obligated to follow any morals or laws or their consciences. There is no neutral basis for saying that anyone else is evil or wrong.

The societies/tribes which did not have moral laws hard coded into them from birth would either die out, or be out-competed by those who had. Thats why you and I have morals hard-coded into them.

2a:) The Theistic view of reality provides a plausible explanation for the Big Bang and the origin of life, which naturalistic evolution alone does not.

...which is: GOD did it, which untill recently was the theistic explanation for illnesses, lightning and pretty much everything else.

2b:) The Atheistic view of reality provides no solid explanations for the Big Bang or the origin of life.

Yet. But it has sure cured a hell of a lot more illnesses than the former thestic explanation.

3a): The Theistic view of reality provides a solid basis and explanation for determining what is right and wrong, and what is evil and what is good.

You get to read it in a book, or hear it from a preacher. Funnily enough, what is right and wrong coincide with what the preacher or author think is right and wrong, which is why the bible never tell us slavery is wrong, or that women and men are equal, and God often command people to go out and rape and kill others. Wonder what the theistic explanation for that is, because us atheists sure has an easier time explaining that mystery.

3b:) The Atheistic view of reality does not do this. In fact, in a completely consistent Atheistic worldview, there is NO good or evil, NO right or wrong. Everyone just does whatever actions they do because of the natural laws, processes, evolution, their environment, etc.

bah, simply not true. So your telling me im a bad atheist because i think rape is 100% wrong? As i allready explained, Evolution WOULD give us morals, because morals has enourmeous UTILLITY.

God, Morals, and Atheists

Share this