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!
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.
Questions of meaning with respect to the natural world external to humans have no basis. Obviously, since humans are volitional, questions of meaning have a basis.
Contrast 'why did you do that?', which is completely different from 'how did you do that?'; but 'why did the earthquake occur?' really means little more than 'how did the earthquake occur?'.
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.
Let's follow the course of the fallacy as it develops, boys and girls. Here we transition from a reasonably well-formed statement
questions 'why' pertaining to the natural world have no meaning, or are really questions 'how'
to
a person has no meaning.
Of course a person is not a question, and so this is an unwarranted generalization from the specific category of questions to (at least) questions+ human beings. And of course, if we move to specific instances, the speciousness is transparent. What is the meaning of Howard Dean?
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.)
Step two of the fallacy. First generalize from questions to questions + people, and now narrow from people to 'questions of people'. It's not a warranted or logically justified extension either, but it's necessary, because otherwise the claim that 'questions about people's motivation are meaningless' would be simply a naked assertion.
The rest, following from the above analyzed piece of logical legerdemain, is specious, because it rests on specious assumpmtions. I do not assert that 'why' is a meaningless question when it applies to human action; nor do I claim that humans are not volitional. In both instances I claim the opposite. And if one wants to show that these two statements follow from my original statement, one will have to do better than this.