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.
Systems that adapt based on the consequenses of their actions invite "Why" questions, even if they are fully determinisistic. Human behavior adapts to its consequenses, even if the adaptation is subtle and elusive. Populations also adapt to the consequenses of changes in the genomes of their individual members.
You wrote: “Questions of meaning with respect to the natural world external to humans have no basis.” I’m having some difficulty understanding why you would say that the natural world is external to humans. How can that be, since humans are themselves “parts” of the natural world, actually quite embedded in it? I mean, when it rains, we get wet. Perhaps it could be argued that humans aren’t part of the natural world because they can build shelters against the rain. But then, the rain could cause their shelters to tumble down hillsides. Man is a part of nature and cannot extricate himself from this condition except in his own imagination.
If I’m following you, you say that although questions of meaning pertain to humans, they are irrelevant to the natural world. Even though this appears to be a well-founded statement, I find it a tad superficial. For the natural world and man’s intimate and vital connections with it is what prompts man to formulate questions of meaning in the first place. Eric Voegelin has referred to this “prompt” as man’s “primary experience of the cosmos.” This experience is alleged to be universal, at least among thoughtful people of all places and times. Man, in his search for meaning, embeds meaning into the natural world precisely because he is a part of it. Indeed, human meanings can have profoundly transformative effects for the natural world. So I wouldn’t say that questions of meaning are “irrelevant with respect to the natural world.” It “shapes” us, and we “shape” it.
Me: “If atheists say ‘there is no God,’ then…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, … including reason itself.”
You: “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.”
These are not my statements, RWP. Indeed, I strongly disagree with both of them. I do not think that “why?” questions are the same as “how?” questions, ever. Why questions pertain to the original elucidation of meaning by the human mind in its “confrontation” by/with Nature; how questions refer to the implementation of the meanings found. And this finding makes the human person the most meaningful entity in all of Nature.
In his confrontation with Nature, man observes its regularities. He is able to do that because Nature has regularities to start with, coupled with the fact that the human mind has the native ability to recognize them. Thus one hypothesizes that man and Nature have a common arche or logical root – which could not, on logical grounds, be the production of either Man or Nature. This is the common insight of the classical Greeks and of Christian theology, et al. This insight states that the ultimate principle of the Universe is not in the universe, but in “the divine realm” (i.e., a meta-physical realm) – and historically, humans have called this ultimate principle God, irrespective of how much the various particular historical traditions have differed from one another in details.
Since I can confirm this insight (I think you would call it a “myth,” and you would be right on technical grounds to do so) from my own observations and experience, I proposed that if you “kill” God, man himself is fatally undermined. (Including atheists.) If you “kill” God, then you “kill” logic – and logic is the ultimate principle of human reason, by which the relations obtaining in Nature may be understood. Without some eternally valid universal source external to itself, logic would be just another contingent existent of the Universe. If that were to happen, Nature and the Universe would lose their intelligibility; man would be fatally incapacitated in his ability to understand the world, to form questions of meaning, thus any ability to implement the “how” strategies that allow man to keep his balance and preserve his existence in Nature while at the same time harnessing it to human purposes.
The so-called “Cartesian split” notwithstanding, I think the Universe ineluctably consists of both material and spiritual factors. We all know to what the former refers. The latter doesn’t get much attention nowadays. But it seems to me the “spiritual” definitely includes such things as laws and principles and theories; human intelligence/consciousness/soul; and the meanings, purposes, and goals towards which human beings strive.
Jeepers, I hope we aren’t “talking past each other” again, in this present exchange….
Thanks again, RWP, for your thoughtful reply.