Why should there be any logical connection between these things? Do you mean to imply by your photo essay that man's endless capacity for unspeakable atrocity is somehow proof of the existence of a beneficent god who will provide us with an explanation in the afterlife? Is this the meaning and purpose you seek? Better a cosmic accident (and thus gods of a sort ourselves) than the mere playthings of some other god whom we have imagined into existence as a premature explanation for things we do not yet understand.
"How does an impersonal accident lead to personhood, with the attributes of worth, dignity, significance, etc.? That is the question." -- Diamond
It just does. You may as well ask how does rain fall or why is the sky blue or why hydrogen and oxygen react to form water. We are here for the very same reasons that these other things occur. Nature deems it so.
"Tell me, why should a man have hope? Hope in what? What is the basis for your hope? What is your ultimate purpose? If the universe is a cosmic accident, what basis does one have for even distinguishing between cruelty and kindness?" -- Diamond
A man hopes that he will live as a man and bequeath a better world to his children. It is to this end that he struggles. The best properties of our anthropomorphic imaginary god are derived from our ability to form a monogamous pair bond with our mate and to develop a paternal bond with our children. These bonds are the product of evolutionary processes acting on our unique life cycle requirements. These bonds, strong and life long, make us capable of purpose. In the end our only purpose is to live and reproduce. We think we are unlike other animals because we have some ability to choose how we shall live and even if we should live. This is how things are. Everything else is mere speculation.
If by chance there should be something beyond the grave, the honest man makes no effort to ingratiate himself to an imaginary god in anticipation of a reward. This would be dishonest and display an appalling lack of trust.
"A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." -- Solomon
Pessimism is how religion is sold to the slaves. Obedient, long suffering slaves hope to be rewarded when their miserable lives have ended. The masters impose the religion with thoughts like those while yet enjoying this life to its fullest. The masters further disparage riches and prosperity so that the slaves will disdain to compete for these things and can assuage their desire for revenge against the masters by believing that "it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." Solomon's arguments are ignored by the masters who live as happily as they are able.
Why should there be any logical connection between these things?...
That is a very, very significant question. Simply put, it is reasonable to believe in the law of cause and effect. If human beings have any real personhood, dignity, worth, purpose, and significance, there must be efficient cause. In my opinion, an impersonal cosmic accident is not a sufficient cause.
Do you mean to imply by your photo essay that man's endless capacity for unspeakable atrocity is somehow proof of the existence of a beneficent god who will provide us with an explanation in the afterlife?
No. I was attempting to say, using pictures instead of a thousand words, that there is no philosophical basis for even defining or understanding such events as 'atrocities' based on a presupposition of pure naturalism. A gigantic, impersonal source provides no rational foundation for distinguishing between cruelty and kindness. So I feel the same way about irrational hope that you do about imaginary gods (an opinion I share, by the way.)
"How does an impersonal accident lead to personhood, with the attributes of worth, dignity, significance, etc.? That is the question." -- Diamond
It just does. You may as well ask how does rain fall or why is the sky blue or why hydrogen and oxygen react to form water. We are here for the very same reasons that these other things occur. Nature deems it so.
But if I were to ask you why there is rainfall or why the sky is blue you would be able to provide rational, scientific explanations that would cohere and make sense, utilizing the law of cause and effect. In the same way, it seems no less natural to seek a rational explanation of the cause of some of the characteristics of human nature that we know intuitively such as personhood, with its attendant attributes of worth, dignity, meaning, significance, good, evil, hope, etc.
In the end our only purpose is to live and reproduce. We think we are unlike other animals because we have some ability to choose how we shall live and even if we should live. This is how things are. Everything else is mere speculation.
That's pretty much what I said in #108 - If the human organism's only goal or purpose is to survive and reproduce, at the species (not individual) level, then there is no such thing as personal worth and dignity, and it is irrational to live as if there were. If after a person is dead he just rots into nothingness, what difference does it make to HIM then whether he has reproduced or not? None whatsover. There is ultimately no point to any of it. (As a sidebar, I wonder what the ethical effect would be if "in the end our only purpose is to live and reproduce." What would happen if a person actually lived that ethic consistently?)
So, not to beat a dead horse anymore to death here, but my major point has been that the premise offers no coherent explanation for certain features of our common human experience, and nothing but despair when taken to its logical conclusion. But I leave you the last word, if you want it. I have enjoyed our conversation, and I hope you have, too.
Cordially,