Is this Statement Correct in Your View?

[RedDragon94]

Atheism ignores the why [of how we got here] and only looks at the how. They do not care if there is a why, how we got here is all that matters. For instance, there is no inherent meaning in the universe to the Atheist. (Am I right?)

Please discuss.

 

[Rival]

If you go with the Dawkins view then yes, as he says "The why question is just a silly question," to him. I know he doesn't represent all atheists, but to me 'why' does seem redundant in an atheistic worldview.

 

[RedDragon94]

If you go with the Dawkins view then yes, as he says "The why question is just a silly question," to him. I know he doesn't represent all atheists, but to me 'why' does seem redundant in an atheistic worldview.

I don't know how somebody can be so certain their doubts are correct. The fact that the why question even exists tells me that people have at least a desire for something greater than the mundane. Not saying that I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[HonestJoe]

No. Atheism describes the state of not believing in the existence of any god or gods. It doesn’t automatically infer any other belief, opinion or philosophical position. Obviously people who are atheists all have further beliefs and opinions but they’ll vary massively and aren’t part of atheism itself.

Atheism is the opposite or theism and is just as minimal in its definition and diverse in its application. I’d suggest that any time you feel the urge to make a generic statement about what atheism is or atheists do, first consider whether a similarly generic statement about all theists could ever be valid. It might give a little needed context.

 

[RedDragon94]

No. Atheism describes the state of not believing in the existence of any god or gods. It doesn’t automatically infer any other belief, opinion or philosophical position. Obviously people who are atheists all have further beliefs and opinions but they’ll vary massively and aren’t part of atheism itself.

Atheism is the opposite or theism and is just as minimal in its definition and diverse in its application. I’d suggest that any time you feel the urge to make a generic statement about what atheism is or atheists do, first consider whether a similarly generic statement about all theists could ever be valid. It might give a little needed context.

So you don't agree with Dawkins?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wouldn't use such blanket statements, as atheist themselves do not adhere to any centralized tenants, dogma, or policy; the only thing that unifies them is they do not believe in any sort of god concept.

I don't know how somebody can be so certain their doubts are correct.

I doubt it will warm up to a pleasant warmness outside within a few months. I doubt I could tolerate living again as I was. I doubt 2+2 will ever equal anything other than 4. Doubts can be easily assured to be correct when we have evidence to prove the contrary, or even strongly suggest the contrary.

The fact that the why question even exists tells me that people have at least a desire for something greater than the mundane.

I don't think the question of why is related to anything of "something greater," but, rather, a very obvious question that probably even some of our pre-homo sapien ancestors pondered because we do seem drawn to questions, curiosities, and mysteries.

 

[RedDragon94]

I doubt it will warm up to a pleasant warmness outside within a few months. I doubt I could tolerate living again as I was. I doubt 2+2 will ever equal anything other than 4. Doubts can be easily assured to be correct when we have evidence to prove the contrary, or even strongly suggest the contrary.

No, you know those things. You use the word doubt subjectively in those statements.

I don't think the question of why is related to anything of "something greater," but, rather, a very obvious question that probably even some of our pre-homo sapien ancestors pondered because we do seem drawn to questions, curiosities, and mysteries.

The mysteries are greater than us.

 

[HonestJoe]

So you don't agree with Dawkins?

Not very often, no. I agree with him on some things (though even then I often disapprove of the way in which he presents them) and disagree on others. It’s actually a good example of my point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, you know those things. You use the word doubt subjectively in those statements.

No, I doubt those things. This is Indiana. I could potentially reach 50 degrees tomorrow and be a pleasant day, but I doubt that. I don't actually know that living as I was would be intolerable, but it is a reasonable assumption to doubt it given past misery and present improvements. As for 2+2=4, there is nothing subjective about that, making it very doubtful that will ever change. Much like I doubt it will ever change that we no longer view DNA as the cornerstone of reproduction, evolution, and the development of all life.

The mysteries are greater than us.

A mystery is only a mystery. Nothing greater or lesser than us, nothing greater or lesser about it at all. The answers to a mystery may be greater than us, but I see no reason to assume such. It could just be the ingredients for life hitched a ride a comet, combined with what was here, got a good jolt, and here we are today. Maybe the "primordial ooze" was dropped off by aliens conducting an experiment?
To me, it matters not and makes no difference since it is very probable that we'll never know, at least not during any of our life times.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For instance, there is no inherent meaning in the universe to the Atheist. (Am I right?)

Absolutely. Biology gives meaning to life. Sex, children, raising the children.

 

[George-ananda]

Atheism ignores the why [of how we got here] and only looks at the how. They do not care if there is a why, how we got here is all that matters. For instance, there is no inherent meaning in the universe to the Atheist. (Am I right?)

Is this Statement Correct in Your View?

Not really. I think atheists are interested in knowing if there is a 'why' but consider it unknowable (at least at this point in science). I would agree more with your last sentence, that they find no inherent meaning in the universe so they create meaning, e.g. Humanism.

 

[Kirran]

I think the 'how' applies to scientific understanding, and 'why' is outside its purview.

The fact that atheism and scientism often coincide does not mean they are the same thing.

An atheist just doesn't have a belief in any deities, or anything they consider a deity.

 

[Acim]

Atheism ignores the why [of how we got here] and only looks at the how.

Given what others have said, and what I imagine what more might say, atheism doesn't even look at the how. An atheist might, atheism does not. So ignores it would be accurate.

They do not care if there is a why, how we got here is all that matters. For instance, there is no inherent meaning in the universe to the Atheist. (Am I right?)

Please discuss.

Can't give them the credit for how and call that atheism. When all you have is lack of belief, then that is all you have.

 

[Laika]

Atheism ignores the why [of how we got here] and only looks at the how. They do not care if there is a why, how we got here is all that matters. For instance, there is no inherent meaning in the universe to the Atheist. (Am I right?)

Please discuss.

This depends on who you ask and the nature of atheism is easily one of the most controversial subjects on RF. You will hear both Yes and No coming from atheists on the forum because its quite a diverse community.

Speaking purely for myself as an atheist, the "why" is very important. But the term "atheist" is inadequate if it treats the question of gods existence in isolation from questions about the nature of reality, the limits of knowledge and truth and the origin of beliefs. How those questions are answered has a direct effect on the question of "why" because it determines if a person's understanding of atheism is or is not related to materialism, scientism or nihilism as underpinning our understanding of the "why we are here".

 

[Reggie Miller]

Atheism ignores the why [of how we got here] and only looks at the how. They do not care if there is a why, how we got here is all that matters. For instance, there is no inherent meaning in the universe to the Atheist. (Am I right?)

Please discuss.

That's not true for all atheists so I would say, "No."

 

[Jumi]

Asking why in any meaningful way is a more complex question than how. If we ask why a person grew up to be the way they are, they should be willing to honestly look at the how of it. Regarding the why and how we get here, I look at things in terms of circumstances that already happened. It's not as exciting at first as claiming that we are gods gift to the planet, souls incarnating into matter to evolve or that aliens created us as an experiment. But if you think about it, the events that have happened for us to be alive or mind-boggling. Our parents had to meet, probably even eating certain foods or being conceived at a certain time, have sex and we won out of all the genetic possibilities to make us possible. We had to survive to be born, though thanks to modern science that's much easier than it used to.

Before that our ancestors survived many almost impossible circumstances like wars, slavery, famine, terrible winters through grit, willpower and luck. And how long has that had to continue for us to be here? Uncountable generations of humans and other ancestors before that... finally examining it, it's a greater story the deeper we look into it.

Not much changed after I stopped being atheist in that regard and I don't think it ever will. I still don't know why or how, only some of the circumstances that lead to what is now. I'm more interested in what exists now, though history and evolution is fascinating.

 

[dust1n]

I don't know how somebody can be so certain their doubts are correct. The fact that the why question even exists tells me that people have at least a desire for something greater than the mundane. Not saying that I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Human desire for something to exist is the usually the main reason something exists, if that something isn't actually a physical object that can be touched.

 

[RedDragon94]

Human desire for something to exist is the usually the main reason something exists, if that something isn't actually a physical object that can be touched.

What I don't understand is why atheism assumes that nature can be completely figured out. You're not going to solve every mystery out there. Science can't give you advice on metaphysics.

 

[RedDragon94]

Given what others have said, and what I imagine what more might say, atheism doesn't even look at the how. An atheist might, atheism does not. So ignores it would be accurate.

No, I believe in evolution. I just think there's something more to it than materialism.

Can't give them the credit for how and call that atheism. When all you have is lack of belief, then that is all you have.

It is possible to be a skeptic and a rational being. A person like that is probably a philosopher.

 

[RedDragon94]

Not really. I think atheists are interested in knowing if there is a 'why' but consider it unknowable (at least at this point in science). I would agree more with your last sentence, that they find no inherent meaning in the universe so they create meaning, e.g. Humanism.

That also may be existentialism.