Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
A long read, but what else you got to do today? If you got the time, and are the least bit interested in philosophy... it's definitely worth the read.
The main difference between religious and atheistic philosophy is much more fundamental than just the existence of god or gods. A religious philosophy suggests the existence of objective meaning, purpose, and design. Every thing that happens has a reason why it happened, this reason being in the future - each occurrence is a step toward a future goal. Every thing that happens has a purpose, which relates to the main, objective purpose. Nothing happens that isn't related to this central meaning and purpose. In addition, things have objective values - they are good or bad. Atheism, if properly anchored in naturalism, rejects these ideas due to a lack of evidence, and a severe incompatibility with what we do observe in nature.
Imagine a universe that consists of just one rock. Nothing ever happens in this universe except the rock existing. Does it have a purpose in existing? No. Is there meaning to its existence? No. Is charity good in this universe? This is a meaningless question. There is no value to any action in this universe, and no objective meaning or purpose.
Now add three more rocks. Nothing changes. Add three billion more. No change. Add some bacteria. No change. Even bacteria, which are living organisms, do not add meaning, purpose, or value to this universe. Is the purpose of this universe to allow bacteria to exist? No. Is the purpose of the rock to allow bacteria to live on it? No. Does the bacteria itself have a purpose in existing? Objectively, no. Subjectively, if you ask each bacteria, their purpose is to stay alive and reproduce by splitting in two. There is no meaning in this. It isn't good or bad. If you're a bacteria, staying alive is good, except you don't know that it's good because you lack the ability to evaluate this. If you're a rock, the bacteria staying alive is not good or bad, it's meaningless.
Now add some plants and more intelligent animals like lions and zebras. Do their lives have any more of an objective purpose or meaning than the bacteria's? No. They too want to stay alive and reproduce. A lion eating a zebra is not a good thing for a zebra, nor a bad thing, for a lion. We cannot define a lion eating a zebra to be objectively good or bad. When a lion eats a zebra, we understand the cause - survival requires eating. This cause is in the past - "the lion was hungry, so it's now feeding itself". The cause is not in the future - "the lion knows it'll need energy for hunting later, so it's feeding itself now". The lion doesn't plan, it's reacting. Some animals seem to plan. Dogs and squirrels hide food in the ground or trees for tough times. Birds build nests in which they later lay eggs. Bears put on weight before hibernating. This isn't planning, it's instinct. The animal doesn't understand WHY it's driven to these actions. We understand instinct to be the result of evolution. The animal is reacting to an instinctive drive (the reason is in the past) rather than planning ahead. Humans can plan, but are also instinctive. When you touch a hot metal, your hand is removed from the metal by your muscles before the pain is registered in your brain. This is a reflex. When a baby is born, it immediately knows it needs to nurse, and how. this knowledge is already in the brain at birth as a result of evolution. the baby doesn't know it needs milk for energy and raw materials for future development. You don't think "oh oh, I'm going to burn my hand, I'd better remove it from the heat now". The reason for the action is in the past, not the future.
When a zebra is killed and eaten by a lion, it is not more meaningful than when a blade of grass is killed and eaten by a zebra. We, as observers, may empathize with the zebra more than with the blade of grass, because we relate to the zebra's ability to be scared, to feel pain, to want to survive, and of its relatives to miss it after it's dead. (which zebras can't do, but elephants, apes, and whales can.)
If we add humans to this universe, all we're changing is the intelligence of the participants. So far, the existence of this universe does not show any signs of an objective purpose, meaning, or any objective values. As the intelligence of the inhabitants increases, it seems to have more meaning, but it only has meaning TO THEM, if they are cognitively capable of understanding meaning. Does this mean that an objective meaning does exist, and most animals just can't be aware of it? It's not impossible, but there is no reason to think so. To suggest a purpose exists in a universe with only zebras and lions in it, and they simply are not aware of this purpose, is like suggesting a purpose exists in a universe with only one rock in, and the rock is simply not aware of the purpose. There is no logical reason to make this suggestion. The same is true for a universe with humans in it, capable of understanding purpose. It is much more logical to suggest that humans have a psychological need to find purpose and meaning, and are therefore creating their own purposes and meanings, and assigning those to the universe. Evidence for this is the fact that different people, different cultures, different religions, find different purposes and meanings.
Charity among people is good, and among zebras it would be good if they were intelligent enough to understand the effect of their actions on other zebras. They are not, so charity is as meaningless to zebras as it is to rocks. It's meaningful to people, first because we can empathize, and second because we can project the results of our actions into the future - we can plan. This is a function of intelligence. Killing an innocent zebra is not a wrong or bad thing to do if you're a lion, but killing an innocent stranger is wrong if you're a human, because if you project this action into the future, if it's ok for you to kill a stranger, tomorrow some stranger could kill you. Even if you don't know the killer or the victim, if it's acceptable to kill, the society you live in is degraded - its not safe, and in the future this could affect you, and your family, tribe, society, country, and species. This is projected knowledge. Over generations, this knowledge became encoded in a cultural instinct - a way to know that killing a stranger is wrong without having to sit down and think about how this will affect society in the future. We can call this 'gut feeling', or 'value', or 'moral', and we can attribute it to laws, to religion, and to imaginary beings in the sky, but it remains an instinct, based on generations of experience. No different from a bear putting on weight before winter.
to say that killing a stranger is not a good idea because it's against the law, or against a religious ideal, is backwards - the law and the religious ideal of not killing a stranger exist BECAUSE it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea because it degrades our well being as a society, although we don't think about that, we know "instinctively" (a cultural instinct, or moral) that it's "wrong". It isn't OBJECTIVELY wrong, nor is an individual able to decide that for them it isn't wrong. The wrongness is assigned by the culture. Our morals do not come from our courts, nor from our bibles. The bible and the law are written to reflect our morals.
Purpose, meaning, and values are created by animals intelligent enough to be able to create and understand them. They do not exist independently of intelligence. They do not exist objectively. There is no purpose to "life", but there can be a purpose to YOUR life, if you choose or create one for yourself. Many of us are taught at an early age that there IS an objective purpose. This may be true, if I'm wrong, or if I'm right, then this teaching is exactly the creation of a purpose I'm talking about, except that a child allows an adult to create this purpose for her. If you believe the purpose of life is to be good, or to serve god, or to help others, ask yourself if this isn't simply a purpose you selected for yourself, or allowed someone to select for you. If purpose was indeed objective, wouldn't we all have the same purpose?
If you're tempted to think objective meaning or purpose does exist, just think of the universe with one rock. This universe does not have a purpose. The rock is not concerned by this. Only people ask "why am I here", rocks and zebras do not, as far as we know. I'm suggesting that purpose is based on someone being able to think about purpose, and is therefore subjective. The same applies to values. Nothing is good or bad if you're a rock. Good or bad refers to the help or harm something causes to someone capable of understanding help and harm. There can be conflicts - something can be good for me and bad for you, or good for you but bad to society as a whole. These conflicts are resolved by trial and error over generations. This process teaches us, for example, that while it's good for me to keep the wallet I found, or shoplift a loaf of bread if I'm hungry, it's bad for society in the long run. The 'bad' value in this example transcends the individual level, so it's tempting to call this transcendence 'objective'. But it isn't objective because it wouldn't still be considered 'bad' if only lions, zebras, and rocks existed. The 'bad' value is subject to the existence of intelligence capable of understanding consequences.
So it seems nature doesn't have an objective meaning, purpose, or values. Nothing in nature (excluding intelligent beings) is good or bad or meaningful or purposeful. Nature doesn't plan. There isn't a single example of planning in nature, other than by animals intelligent enough to plan. If nature doesn't plan and has no purpose, then things aren't designed. In nature, everything happens for a reason, but that reason is in the past, not in the future.
Based on this philosophy, we can easily answer the tough questions other philosophies attempt to answer using unsupported ideas. Why are we here? we are here as a result of countless past events, some of which were inevitable, others could theoretically have happened differently. There is no future reason why we are here. What's the meaning of life? Life has no meaning, but you are free to assign meaning to your life. What's the purpose of our existence? There is no future purpose for our existence, only past causes. You are free to assign purpose to your existence. Why should I be good? because we are social animals, and if everyone is good, life is better for everyone. The only way to expect others to be good is to treat others as you would like to be treated. Doesn't thinking like this take away the "specialness" of being human? on the contrary, only humans are capable of thinking like this, and that is what's truly special about us.
See how easy and liberating this is?
The main difference between religious and atheistic philosophy is much more fundamental than just the existence of god or gods. A religious philosophy suggests the existence of objective meaning, purpose, and design. Every thing that happens has a reason why it happened, this reason being in the future - each occurrence is a step toward a future goal. Every thing that happens has a purpose, which relates to the main, objective purpose. Nothing happens that isn't related to this central meaning and purpose. In addition, things have objective values - they are good or bad. Atheism, if properly anchored in naturalism, rejects these ideas due to a lack of evidence, and a severe incompatibility with what we do observe in nature.
Imagine a universe that consists of just one rock. Nothing ever happens in this universe except the rock existing. Does it have a purpose in existing? No. Is there meaning to its existence? No. Is charity good in this universe? This is a meaningless question. There is no value to any action in this universe, and no objective meaning or purpose.
Now add three more rocks. Nothing changes. Add three billion more. No change. Add some bacteria. No change. Even bacteria, which are living organisms, do not add meaning, purpose, or value to this universe. Is the purpose of this universe to allow bacteria to exist? No. Is the purpose of the rock to allow bacteria to live on it? No. Does the bacteria itself have a purpose in existing? Objectively, no. Subjectively, if you ask each bacteria, their purpose is to stay alive and reproduce by splitting in two. There is no meaning in this. It isn't good or bad. If you're a bacteria, staying alive is good, except you don't know that it's good because you lack the ability to evaluate this. If you're a rock, the bacteria staying alive is not good or bad, it's meaningless.
Now add some plants and more intelligent animals like lions and zebras. Do their lives have any more of an objective purpose or meaning than the bacteria's? No. They too want to stay alive and reproduce. A lion eating a zebra is not a good thing for a zebra, nor a bad thing, for a lion. We cannot define a lion eating a zebra to be objectively good or bad. When a lion eats a zebra, we understand the cause - survival requires eating. This cause is in the past - "the lion was hungry, so it's now feeding itself". The cause is not in the future - "the lion knows it'll need energy for hunting later, so it's feeding itself now". The lion doesn't plan, it's reacting. Some animals seem to plan. Dogs and squirrels hide food in the ground or trees for tough times. Birds build nests in which they later lay eggs. Bears put on weight before hibernating. This isn't planning, it's instinct. The animal doesn't understand WHY it's driven to these actions. We understand instinct to be the result of evolution. The animal is reacting to an instinctive drive (the reason is in the past) rather than planning ahead. Humans can plan, but are also instinctive. When you touch a hot metal, your hand is removed from the metal by your muscles before the pain is registered in your brain. This is a reflex. When a baby is born, it immediately knows it needs to nurse, and how. this knowledge is already in the brain at birth as a result of evolution. the baby doesn't know it needs milk for energy and raw materials for future development. You don't think "oh oh, I'm going to burn my hand, I'd better remove it from the heat now". The reason for the action is in the past, not the future.
When a zebra is killed and eaten by a lion, it is not more meaningful than when a blade of grass is killed and eaten by a zebra. We, as observers, may empathize with the zebra more than with the blade of grass, because we relate to the zebra's ability to be scared, to feel pain, to want to survive, and of its relatives to miss it after it's dead. (which zebras can't do, but elephants, apes, and whales can.)
If we add humans to this universe, all we're changing is the intelligence of the participants. So far, the existence of this universe does not show any signs of an objective purpose, meaning, or any objective values. As the intelligence of the inhabitants increases, it seems to have more meaning, but it only has meaning TO THEM, if they are cognitively capable of understanding meaning. Does this mean that an objective meaning does exist, and most animals just can't be aware of it? It's not impossible, but there is no reason to think so. To suggest a purpose exists in a universe with only zebras and lions in it, and they simply are not aware of this purpose, is like suggesting a purpose exists in a universe with only one rock in, and the rock is simply not aware of the purpose. There is no logical reason to make this suggestion. The same is true for a universe with humans in it, capable of understanding purpose. It is much more logical to suggest that humans have a psychological need to find purpose and meaning, and are therefore creating their own purposes and meanings, and assigning those to the universe. Evidence for this is the fact that different people, different cultures, different religions, find different purposes and meanings.
Charity among people is good, and among zebras it would be good if they were intelligent enough to understand the effect of their actions on other zebras. They are not, so charity is as meaningless to zebras as it is to rocks. It's meaningful to people, first because we can empathize, and second because we can project the results of our actions into the future - we can plan. This is a function of intelligence. Killing an innocent zebra is not a wrong or bad thing to do if you're a lion, but killing an innocent stranger is wrong if you're a human, because if you project this action into the future, if it's ok for you to kill a stranger, tomorrow some stranger could kill you. Even if you don't know the killer or the victim, if it's acceptable to kill, the society you live in is degraded - its not safe, and in the future this could affect you, and your family, tribe, society, country, and species. This is projected knowledge. Over generations, this knowledge became encoded in a cultural instinct - a way to know that killing a stranger is wrong without having to sit down and think about how this will affect society in the future. We can call this 'gut feeling', or 'value', or 'moral', and we can attribute it to laws, to religion, and to imaginary beings in the sky, but it remains an instinct, based on generations of experience. No different from a bear putting on weight before winter.
to say that killing a stranger is not a good idea because it's against the law, or against a religious ideal, is backwards - the law and the religious ideal of not killing a stranger exist BECAUSE it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea because it degrades our well being as a society, although we don't think about that, we know "instinctively" (a cultural instinct, or moral) that it's "wrong". It isn't OBJECTIVELY wrong, nor is an individual able to decide that for them it isn't wrong. The wrongness is assigned by the culture. Our morals do not come from our courts, nor from our bibles. The bible and the law are written to reflect our morals.
Purpose, meaning, and values are created by animals intelligent enough to be able to create and understand them. They do not exist independently of intelligence. They do not exist objectively. There is no purpose to "life", but there can be a purpose to YOUR life, if you choose or create one for yourself. Many of us are taught at an early age that there IS an objective purpose. This may be true, if I'm wrong, or if I'm right, then this teaching is exactly the creation of a purpose I'm talking about, except that a child allows an adult to create this purpose for her. If you believe the purpose of life is to be good, or to serve god, or to help others, ask yourself if this isn't simply a purpose you selected for yourself, or allowed someone to select for you. If purpose was indeed objective, wouldn't we all have the same purpose?
If you're tempted to think objective meaning or purpose does exist, just think of the universe with one rock. This universe does not have a purpose. The rock is not concerned by this. Only people ask "why am I here", rocks and zebras do not, as far as we know. I'm suggesting that purpose is based on someone being able to think about purpose, and is therefore subjective. The same applies to values. Nothing is good or bad if you're a rock. Good or bad refers to the help or harm something causes to someone capable of understanding help and harm. There can be conflicts - something can be good for me and bad for you, or good for you but bad to society as a whole. These conflicts are resolved by trial and error over generations. This process teaches us, for example, that while it's good for me to keep the wallet I found, or shoplift a loaf of bread if I'm hungry, it's bad for society in the long run. The 'bad' value in this example transcends the individual level, so it's tempting to call this transcendence 'objective'. But it isn't objective because it wouldn't still be considered 'bad' if only lions, zebras, and rocks existed. The 'bad' value is subject to the existence of intelligence capable of understanding consequences.
So it seems nature doesn't have an objective meaning, purpose, or values. Nothing in nature (excluding intelligent beings) is good or bad or meaningful or purposeful. Nature doesn't plan. There isn't a single example of planning in nature, other than by animals intelligent enough to plan. If nature doesn't plan and has no purpose, then things aren't designed. In nature, everything happens for a reason, but that reason is in the past, not in the future.
Based on this philosophy, we can easily answer the tough questions other philosophies attempt to answer using unsupported ideas. Why are we here? we are here as a result of countless past events, some of which were inevitable, others could theoretically have happened differently. There is no future reason why we are here. What's the meaning of life? Life has no meaning, but you are free to assign meaning to your life. What's the purpose of our existence? There is no future purpose for our existence, only past causes. You are free to assign purpose to your existence. Why should I be good? because we are social animals, and if everyone is good, life is better for everyone. The only way to expect others to be good is to treat others as you would like to be treated. Doesn't thinking like this take away the "specialness" of being human? on the contrary, only humans are capable of thinking like this, and that is what's truly special about us.
See how easy and liberating this is?
