Replies

Thank you for your reply! From your previous post at 1788:

What Dawkins meant, I think, was the evolution gives one a credible explanation for most of the world as we observe it. It gives us the 'how'. 'How?' is almost always a good question. Many people are looking for an answer to 'why?'; most atheists, I think, think the 'why' is meaningful only if there is a volition; and if you deny a deity, then there is no volition to puzzle about.

This line of thinking is an example of the ideology to which I was speaking. My remarks were not intended to be personal, from post 2200:

How can one be “fulfilled” when he sees himself as an epiphenomenon of his physical brain? What is there to fill for him but his skull with a few more brain cells? And what is the point of seeking recognition at all if the man really thinks he is just an epiphenomenon of the brain? IMHO, by denying God and Spirit the true atheist life is both shallow and meaningless.

My hope is that you two will pursue the debate as to why "fulfilled atheist" is an oxymoron - or not.

My hope is that you two will pursue the debate as to why "fulfilled atheist" is an oxymoron - or not.

I'm game, Alamo-Girl!

RWP writes: "if you deny a deity, then there is no volition to puzzle about."

This "volitional business" is not as simple as it looks, IHMO. For one thing, presumably most atheists would readily acknowledge that they have volition. So volition is fact. Thus I gather they just think that there is no volitional God. And therefore, the only rational question is "How?" because "Why?" is an idiotic question if there is no God. Thus utility becomes god-king, and questions of meaning have no rational basis.

Certainly I agree with the conclusion that if there is no God, then questions of meaning have no rational basis: Ratio is the measure of something in terms of a universal standard. Without God, what could constitute the universal standard?

If atheists say "there is no God," then it seems to me they are hoist on the same petard as their "banished" God; for such an assertion renders not only God meaningless, but also the atheist as well. And everything else in the world for that matter, especially including human reason.

And to say that man and everything else is meaningless seems to be the statement of a blind man. For you just have to walk around in the world to see that men are motivated by what is meaningful to them. If there is no meaning, then all men are thus deluded and delusional. (Including atheists -- that is, if they deliberately choose to pursue activities that are important, i.e., meaningful to them.)

Maybe we need to ask whether we can even get to a "How?" without first asking a "Why?" Why would one worry about "How?" if there is no "Why?" -- i.e., a reason for doing something? "How?" is how we actualize our plans and desires; but why would we do anything at all if there is no reason for doing anything? Reasons come from "Why?", techniques come from "How?" It seems to me the latter necessarily is subordinated to the former.

Further, without meaning, then human free will is pointless, and with it moral responsibility.

For all these reasons I think Dawkin's celebrated statement that he is "an intellectually fulfilled atheist" is oxymoronic in form.

Anyhoot, that's what the problem looks like to me, FWIW. I'd be glad hear from opposing views.

Thank you so much for writing, Alamo-Girl!