Intelligent Design

Being an Atheist Makes You Stupid

Spread the love

Next in my “things that make you stupid” series (see here, here and here), is the gobsmacking stupidity of the atheists quoted in this article.  The lack of intellectual honesty on display is astounding.  Atheists of the world accept where the logic of your premises takes you.  Stop spouting self-contradicting pseudo-profundities.  It’s embarrassing.

 

HT:  Heartlander

30 Replies to “Being an Atheist Makes You Stupid

  1. 1
    OldArmy94 says:

    What a sad article. Trying to deny your meaningless existence while denying the Meaning-Giver is the height of pitiful absurdity.

  2. 2
    ppolish says:

    “I didn’t ask to be born here”

    Well excuse me your majesty Susan Blackmore. Come on, you’re a speck on a speck circling a speck embedded in a speck among specklessness – and you expect to be asked? You have a pretty high opinion of yourself being a speck and all.

  3. 3
    OldArmy94 says:

    Reminds me of Job 38 when God responds to Job’s questions.

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Incredibly sad and incredibly stupid — and lots of arrogance and hubris, of course. I could only read a little – it was too embarrassing. Over-educated materialists telling everyone how they’re able to please themselves and ignore their own self-contradictory brain deadness – it’s painful.

    Some choice quotes:

    — I do feel that life is ultimately pointless, but I honestly don’t care.

    — I find [it] incredibly liberating. It means that I am free to do as I want

    — Whatever the situation, though, my dog has the most ridiculous fun ever, and being a part of that little moment of joy is what it’s all about.

    — Physically filling yourself with the food you love really does fill the emptiness you may feel inside.

    Thus we see mind-set of materialism in all its glory.

  5. 5
    ppolish says:

    Afterlife is almost always (always?) a nothingness to an Atheist. An eternal dreamless comfy nap is the opiate of Atheism.

    “I choose the nap”. Well, Atheist, at least you can’t use the “I wasn’t asked” excuse.

  6. 6
    Box says:

    Barry Arrington: The lack of intellectual honesty on display is astounding. Atheists of the world accept where the logic of your premises takes you. Stop spouting self-contradicting pseudo-profundities. It’s embarrassing.

    They attempt to concoct explanations that other more gullible people may accept. I don’t believe for a moment that they are being truthful — not even to themselves.

    Susan Blackmore: I find that comforting, to say to myself that there is no point, I live in a pointless universe.

    Definition of comfort:
    1
    : strengthening aid:
    a : assistance, support [accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy]
    b : consolation in time of trouble or worry : solace
    2
    a : a feeling of relief or encouragement
    b : contented well-being
    3
    : a satisfying or enjoyable experience
    4
    : one that gives or brings comfort [all the comforts of home]

  7. 7
    evnfrdrcksn says:

    Yikes Barry. I can’t even imagine how you get through a day. All these conspiracies in your head. Get some help.

  8. 8
    PeterJ says:

    Something that never ceases to amaze me is how absolutely childish some of the greatest minds become when asked to give an account of their atheism.

    Stephen Hawking, professor Higgs etc, outstanding people with it comes to science etc, but when it comes to the question of God, within minutes they become like rambling fools.

    It trully is amazing.

  9. 9
    Axel says:

    “It says in the Bible that, ‘When I was a child I played with childish things, and when I became a man I put away those childish things.’ And one of those childish things is the superstition that there’s a higher purpose.”

    Well done, Jerry! Take a quote from the Bible, which is itself entirely predicated on a higher purpose, to lend authority to your definition of a belief in a higher purpose as superstition!!!!! Some mothers do have ’em. Go to the top of the class, there’s a good chap.

    Susan Blackmore:

    “The pointlessness of life is not a thing to be overcome. It’s something to be celebrated now, because that’s all there is.”

    We all know the saying: ‘Sometimes, less is more, but ‘celebrating the pointlessness of life, because that’s all there is’ seems a particularly laughable non sequitur.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Being an atheist means coming to grips with reality.”
    – Jerry Coyne

    And just which reality is Jerry Coyne, an atheistic Darwinian materialist, supposedly coming to grips with?

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms –
    Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015
    Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/re.....t-confirms

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    as to:

    “The pointlessness of life is not a thing to be overcome. It’s something to be celebrated now, because that’s all there is.”
    – Susan Blackmore

    Actually, the ‘party like its 1999’ strategy only ignores, and perhaps numbs, the belief that life is completely pointless. Moreover, it retards any real motivation for doing anything of truly noble, self sacrificial, purposes. And thus robs people of living a life that could attain truly noteworthy goals.

    1 Corinthians 15:32
    If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

    as to:

    “A meaningless universe does not mean we live our lives without purpose.”
    Dr Adam Rutherford

    Living your life AS IF your life had purpose, if you are an atheist, is not the problem. The problem is that, given atheistic materialism, there is no purpose to be had for life period.

    In other words, the problem for atheistic materialists is not that they live their lives AS IF they had purpose. The insurmountable problem for atheists is that it is impossible for atheists to live consistently within their materialistic worldview as if their lives truly had no purpose whatsoever.

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    Moreover, since it is impossible for anyone to live consistently within an atheistic/materialistic worldview, then that is rock solid proof that the atheistic worldview cannot be the correct description of reality:

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Verse and Music:

    John 10:10
    The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

    Newsboys – Your Love Never Fails (Lyrics)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgQ6vWEhH5E

    Supplemental note:

    Shroud Of Turin – Photographic Negative – 3D Hologram reveals solid oval object with the words “The Lamb” written on it – video
    http://www.tunesbaby.com/watch/?x=5664213

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    What is meant by “meaning” in this context? To me, it sounds like a purpose conceived in the mind of an intelligent being, in this case God.

    So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless?

    So, a question, why should you only have value or worth or meaning if it exists in the mind of another intelligence. What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself? After all, if God has a purpose, why can’t you?

  12. 12
    Box says:

    Seversky: What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself?

    Nothing, but not under materialism!
    Under materialism, our freedom, control, rationality, existence and consciousness are unreal.
    The fact that blind particles in motion are in charge guarantees that they are unreal.
    What is the purpose, value, worth and meaning of something that is unreal?

  13. 13
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    What is meant by “meaning” in this context?

    By meaning is meant, Ultimate Meaning, Ultimate Purpose. “What does it matter?” “What does my life mean?”

    It’s the bigger issues.

    To answer those issues, a person needs to know why they exist. If you exist due to a blind, unintelligent, accidental event that doesn’t know or care that you ever were alive — then the Ultimate Meaning is Nothing. It’s just pointless. Your life doesn’t matter in an ultimate sense. That’s what we read in the OP. People just openly say their lives are pointless, without meaning or purpose.

    To then say … “Ok, but I made up my own meaning” is absurd. Whatever meaning the person made up, they know it is ultimately pointless, it doesn’t matter. One guy says his “meaning” is watching his dog have fun.

    Another guy says his meaning is killing all the Jewish people. So what? None of it matters. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose. He will be gone, the Jewish people will be gone and everybody who didn’t like him will be gone. He chose his own meaning. Not one person knows if he is right or wrong.

    So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless?

    It’s not merely another intelligent being.
    Ultimate meaning comes from origins. “What was it created for”?

    What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself? After all, if God has a purpose, why can’t you?

    Because we did not create ourselves. We were created by God, so therefore God knows the meaning and purpose of our existence – since it originated with Him. We discover that meaning and purpose through an understanding of God.

    Otherwise, sure, we can make up any purpose we want but it’s entirely arbitrary. That exercise itself (making up a purpose for oneself) is ironically an exercise in pointlessness. It’s assigning meaning to a thing which, in its nature is meaningless.

    I can claim that a certain mud puddle is the most important thing on planet earth. I declare that is the most meaningful thing in the universe. Why not?

  14. 14
    Popperian says:

    Box

    Under materialism, our freedom, control, rationality, existence and consciousness are unreal.
    The fact that blind particles in motion are in charge guarantees that they are unreal. What is the purpose, value, worth and meaning of something that is unreal?

    You seem to be saying that life only has meaning to you if you think it actually reflects the common sense view of freedom, control, rationality, existence, etc., as we conceived of them in the past, and some supernatural being decided they should be that way. You’re literally saying that, If we can be wrong about these things, then life has no value. How is this any different? How is this not a value judgment on your part?

    Nor is it clear how this is even a rational response, as it’s unclear how you could even expect us not to be mistaken about those things in significant ways. In fact, we already know we know our common sense views are significantly mistaken.

    For example, we now know that we do not actual touch anything, as the strong force repels us before we actually make contact. Nor does our sensations of touch actually come from our fingers. All they transmit are electrical crackles which generate a sensation of touch in our brains. So we literally do not experience anything for what it really is. That common-sense idea of touch is mistaken.

    If our sense of touch is “unreal”, in that we do not actually touch anyone, does touch have no meaning?

    What about knowledge? If our common sense idea of knowledge is mistaken, in that we only start out with guesses that only become less wrong and is independent of a knowing subject or anyone’s belief, does that mean there is no knowledge?

    IOW, this view seems to be saying: if things are not “as they seem”, then everything is hopeless because since either things are “as they seem” or we have no way of knowing anything. If that could be wrong, then life has no meaning.

    But that, in of itself, could be mistaken. And it’s based on philosophical view about knowledge, etc. As such, it’s unclear how you would be making any less of a value judgement than those “stupid” atheists.

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    When an atheist says life is pointless — it’s an insult to everyone.

    “Your life is meaningless to me”.
    “It doesn’t matter if you ever were born”.

    That’s what atheism says.

    Some will object — “No, I find meaning in others”.

    Ok, then this: “I can assign your life some kind of meaning, because I declare many things to have meaning, otherwise you have none”.

  16. 16
    Virgil Cain says:

    Seversky- Without Intelligent Design there wouldn’t be any people to find any meaning.

    So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless?

    I am sure we could find some shallow and mundane meaning. But it would all be pointless without and overall purpose.

  17. 17
    Box says:

    Popperian #14,

    Popperian: You seem to be saying that life only has meaning to you if you think it actually reflects the common sense view of freedom, control, rationality, existence, etc., as we conceived of them in the past, and some supernatural being decided they should be that way.

    No, I’m not hung up on ‘common sense view’ simply because it is the ‘common sense view’. Not at all.
    What I’m saying that if there is e.g. no freedom — because blind particles are in control of everything — then there is no value to our ‘fake choices’. Similarly, if there is no rationality — because blind uncomprehending unaware particles in motion are in control of our reason — then there is no value to our ‘fake rationality’.
    And so forth.

  18. 18
    Popperian says:

    @box

    The dichotomy that we either have dualism or blind particles is based on a common sense view, which rejects emergence.

    The dichotomy that I must either be justificationist, or a disappointed relativist is also based on the common sense view, which rejects critical preference.

  19. 19
    velikovskys says:

    SA:
    When an atheist says life is pointless — it’s an insult to everyone.

    How so? The existence of God does not mean life is not pointless, only the existence of certain type of God.

    That’s what atheism says.

    Atheism is just the non belief in God, just because you require a subjective belief in an external source of validation for the purposefulness of your life, do not assume others require the same. Some people like to work without a net.

  20. 20
    velikovskys says:

    VC:

    I am sure we could find some shallow and mundane meaning. But it would all be pointless without an overall purpose

    What is that overall purpose that keeps your life from being shallow and mundane?

  21. 21
    Box says:

    Popperian #18,

    I fail to see how emergence solves materialism’s problem of accommodating e.g. rationality.
    Emergence or not, under materialism blind uncomprehending unaware particles in motion are in control of our reason. Whatever emerges from blind particles cannot cut itself loose from its source and ‘self-create’ an unrelated rational world.

  22. 22
    Popperian says:

    under materialism blind uncomprehending unaware particles in motion are in control of our reason. Whatever emerges from blind particles cannot cut itself loose from its source and ‘self-create’ an unrelated rational world.


    Yes, Box. The “common sense view” is that particles and atoms cannot do what you described because, in “the common sense view”, there are no explanations that are genuinely emergent.

    Note: when I say “emergent” I’m referring to a particular kind or mode of explanation, not using emergence as a explanation, per-se.

  23. 23
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Vel

    How so?

    It reduces and devalues everyone’s life.

  24. 24
    Box says:

    Popperian,

    Popperian: Yes, Box. The “common sense view” is that particles and atoms cannot do what you described because, in “the common sense view”, there are no explanations that are genuinely emergent.

    “Genuinely emergent”, as in ‘not reducible to the properties of particles in motion involved’, won’t change the fact that blind uncomprehending unaware particles in motion are in control of our reason. An irreducible layer on top of those particles, which is still fully produced / controlled by those uncomprehending particles, doesn’t solve the problem for materialism.

    It’s quite obvious what materialism needs in order to ground rationality …

    But I don’t think anyone is willing to propose that by “genuinely emergent” is meant that property X emerges from blind particles, cuts itself loose from its source and self-creates an unrelated rational world, right?

    Not so much because such a proposal is contrary to ‘common sense’, but because it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

  25. 25
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic @ 13

    By meaning is meant, Ultimate Meaning, Ultimate Purpose. “What does it matter?” “What does my life mean?”

    It’s the bigger issues.

    Whether the issues are big or small, “meaning” or “purpose” are concepts that exist in the conscious mind of an intelligent agent. The claim is that this Universe and us can only have meaning if we exist in fulfillment of some – possibly inscrutable – purpose conceived in the mind of God. Without His purpose, we have no point, no meaning.

    To then say … “Ok, but I made up my own meaning” is absurd. Whatever meaning the person made up, they know it is ultimately pointless, it doesn’t matter. One guy says his “meaning” is watching his dog have fun.

    And where’s the harm in watching your dog – or cat – have fun? If it sounds trivial, how is having a loving relationship with a beloved pet much different from God only wanting a loving relationship with His creatures? Is that really all there is to the Ultimate Meaning or Ultimate Purpose?

    Another guy says his meaning is killing all the Jewish people. So what? None of it matters. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose. He will be gone, the Jewish people will be gone and everybody who didn’t like him will be gone. He chose his own meaning. Not one person knows if he is right or wrong.

    Right or wrong according to whom?

    Hitler and the Nazis believed they were right to kill millions of Jews and other groups. I’m pretty sure most of those that were killed thought that was wrong. Most of the rest of the world agreed and, although it reacted too slowly to prevent the Holocaust, destroyed that hideous regime and devastated much of Germany in the process. Was all that right or wrong?

    The Stalinist regime in the Russia is thought to have killed even more of its own people that the Nazis did in Germany. The Red Army itself committed some terrible atrocities as it overran the eastern part of Europe and Germany, although it was hardly surprising considering what Russians had suffered at the hands of the Nazi invaders. Stalinist Russia survived unpunished. Was that right or wrong?
    Of course, when it comes to genocide, Hitler or Stalin or Chairman Mao were amateurs compared to the God of the Old Testament. He is supposed to have wiped out almost all life on Earth save for a fortunate few chosen ones in The Great Flood. That was mass killing on a scale the those human dictators could only have dreamt of. Was that right or wrong?

  26. 26
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    Whether the issues are big or small, “meaning” or “purpose” are concepts that exist in the conscious mind of an intelligent agent. The claim is that this Universe and us can only have meaning if we exist in fulfillment of some – possibly inscrutable – purpose conceived in the mind of God. Without His purpose, we have no point, no meaning.

    There is a significant difference between ultimate meaning and temporal meaning. But either of these are impossible in the materialist view. “What is the meaning for this thing to exist”? That question has to be answered from the origin of things. In materialism, there is no purpose for anything at all.

    And where’s the harm in watching your dog – or cat – have fun?

    The harm is in claiming that there is some kind of purpose – whether ultimate purpose or temporal purpose in doing that.

    We keep in mind, these claims of purpose are measured against:
    1. The claims of materialism which is nihilistic
    2. The claims of religion which are universal in human culture.

    When we say “my ultimate purpose is in watching my dog”, not only this this a trivialization of the achievements of human civilization, but it’s shallow thinking. It has not taken the claims of religion seriously. What happens to us after death? Does our bond with those we love continue in a real way? What is the meaning of suffering? What is self-sacrifice and heroism — do those things have ultimate value?

    If it sounds trivial, how is having a loving relationship with a beloved pet much different from God only wanting a loving relationship with His creatures? Is that really all there is to the Ultimate Meaning or Ultimate Purpose?

    I don’t understand this, the way your worded it. There are some signfiicant differences between a dog and a human being, obviously. A dog is lacking the capability to make a self-surrender of love. The relationship of a human and dog is not a peer-to-peer. There’s no reciprocity. That’s why we can buy and own dogs and we can put them to death. They’re not persons, possessing a freedom and will and self-identity. They’re not capable of committing sins or taking responsiblity – thus they’re not capable of charitable acts either. Where there’s no possiblity of moral blame, there’s no moral merit.

    The situation is quite a lot different between God and His creatures. There is a true relationship of love there — with free beings able to give and receive from the Other. There’s a spirit of gratitude, understanding life as a gift. So, no – that’s not all there is to Ultimate Meaning or Purpose. These are things that have to be discovered – they’re unique for each person. The search for God needs to be taken seriously by everyone.
    Our purpose is to grow and choose righly to become morally better people — that makes us more like God, thus improving the relationship.
    1. To know God as much as possible. Knowing an infinitely good, intelligent being is a life’s work in itself.
    2. To love God – love whatever is good. We see partial goods in the world and anything good needs to be respected. Human beings are a great good — they’re sacred in that sense, so appreciating them for what they are is part of it.
    3. Serving God — is making free choices to grow in virtue and do as much good for God’s sake as we can.

    So, there’s a lot to purpose. It’s not just being nice to a dog. And God’s relationship with us is not limited to our condition on earth, since there is the potential for unending life with God.

    Right or wrong according to whom?

    Isn’t that the challenge for the atheist view? If we don’t know who the moral authority is, or in fact, if there is no authority, then Hitler just does what he does.

    I’m pretty sure most of those that were killed thought that was wrong. Most of the rest of the world agreed and, although it reacted too slowly to prevent the Holocaust, destroyed that hideous regime and devastated much of Germany in the process. Was all that right or wrong?

    From an evolutionary atheistic perspective? There isn’t any right or wrong. Hitler did things. Like any organism competing for reproductive advantage. Some people didn’t like it, others did. But if Hitler had won and the world became dominated by a violent dictatorship, that’s just whatever evolution does. Things happen.

    There cannot be any right or wrong in that worldview. This is something we repeat quite often here. I can understand why it’s not a pleasant thing to accept, but materialism offers that. There are benefits to atheism, and we read about them in the OP. “I can do what I want”, one guy said. There is no God calling people to a moral accountability. Others said clearly they enjoyed the “freedom” that a pointless life gives. They don’t have to think about ultimate issues because there is no ultimate meaning.

    Those are some of the benefits and advantages to atheism.

    But we have to be honest about the drawbacks and disadvantages. The key one, is that there is no right or wrong. That just needs to be admitted. Hitler just did what he wanted to do. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

    The Stalinist regime in the Russia is thought to have killed even more of its own people that the Nazis did in Germany.

    That’s true and for various reasons that part of the story is not as well known as Hitler’s part — but that’s a different topic.

    The Red Army itself committed some terrible atrocities as it overran the eastern part of Europe and Germany, although it was hardly surprising considering what Russians had suffered at the hands of the Nazi invaders. Stalinist Russia survived unpunished. Was that right or wrong?

    As above, that’s a great question in one sense, but more to the point — it wasn’t right or wrong. In fact, your use of the term “terrible atrocities” doesn’t fit either. Stalin thought those actions were necessary for the defense of communism. So, killing millions of people was a very good thing to do. In the evolutionary perspective, Stalin was merely responding as organisms do, to changes in the environment and then trying to enhance his survival and reproductive advantage.

    Of course, when it comes to genocide, Hitler or Stalin or Chairman Mao were amateurs compared to the God of the Old Testament. He is supposed to have wiped out almost all life on Earth save for a fortunate few chosen ones in The Great Flood. That was mass killing on a scale the those human dictators could only have dreamt of. Was that right or wrong?

    From the atheist perspective? Since God, in that view, doesn’t exist then the question doesn’t make sense.

    However, if you’re looking for theistic answers to these issues, that’s quite a lot different. That’s where purpose and meaning come in. When we accept that life on earth is merely one stage of a journey that continues on in the future, then we have to judge events on earth with that in mind.

    So, that’s the biggest problem for the atheist view, in my opinion. First, it’s fully accepting that there is no way to determine any human act as right or wrong. Second, there’s no way to understand claims about God’s actions without being open and sympathetic to the idea that God does exist.

  27. 27
    Popperian says:

    Box wrote:

    “Genuinely emergent”, as in ‘not reducible to the properties of particles in motion involved’, won’t change the fact that blind uncomprehending unaware particles in motion are in control of our reason.

    But then wrote:

    It’s quite obvious what materialism needs in order to ground rationality …

    When you talk about the need to “ground rationality” you..

    01. Commit to a specific philosophical position of justificationism.

    02. Illustrate that you’re either unwilling to actually take the idea of emergent phenomena seriously for the purpose of criticism, or you do not understand it.

  28. 28
    Box says:

    Popperian,

    If grounding rationality is indeed a problem for materialism, for reasons highlighted by the argument from reason, if an account of cognition in physicalist terms indeed fails to cause reasoning in the way that reasoning must be caused if it is worthy of the name, then I don’t see how emergence attempts to solve that problem.
    Like I said, adding “an irreducible layer on top of those particles, which is still fully produced / controlled by those uncomprehending particles, doesn’t solve the problem for materialism.”

  29. 29
    Popperian says:

    Box:

    If grounding rationality is indeed a problem for materialism….

    Your argument implicitly assumes that “being grounded” is a problem for anything, let alone materialism. But that is a one of many philosophical views about truth, knowledge, rationality, etc., which you haven’t argued for. Apparently, you think everyone knows this and the question is completely settled.

    Why is grounding is necessary for everything but God? Let me guess, you have to stop someone, otherwise you’d have an infinite regress. So, it might as well be God? But why there, rather than somewhere else? Stopping with God is arbitrary choice, which is one of the primary criticism of this philosophical view.

    Like I said, adding “an irreducible layer on top of those particles, which is still fully produced / controlled by those uncomprehending particles, doesn’t solve the problem for materialism.”

    That’s like saying someone who was defeated by a computer in a game of chess was defeated by atoms because computers are made of atoms. It’s a gross misunderstanding of the issue at hand.

  30. 30
    Barry Arrington says:

    Box,

    When your opponent says something as screamingly stupid as Popperian’s comment in 29, it is time to give up on move on. I mean when a materialist has stooped to questioning whether rationality itself must be grounded, there is literally nothing more you can say to him.

Leave a Reply