Atheism, evolution, and purpose

This outline attempts to show that the evolutionary theory, based on naturalistic principles, leads to purposelessness.

Purpose is indicative of a purpose giver, a designer.  I propose that God gives us purpose.  Also, with this outline, I am trying to show that the best the naturalist position can offer is an illusion of purpose.

Premise--from an Atheistic Perspective.

  1. The universe exists.
  2. The universe has principles and laws inherent in its properties of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc.
    1. Any derivative principles based upon the laws must be consistent with the inherent laws.
  3. These inherent natural laws cannot be violated.
    1. Any apparent violation of these laws is only a display of our lack of understanding of all the laws and is consistent with more complex inherent laws.
  4. Life is the product of these inherent natural laws of the universe.
    1. That is, due to the properties of matter and energy, life necessarily arose since we exist.
  5. Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe.
  6. Life is limited to and governed by these inherent principles since life is a product of the inherent laws and cannot violate them.
  7. Therefore,
    1. Human existence, thoughts, feelings, etc., are merely the end result of the inherent universal laws and principles of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc., that has resulted in life.

Question: From an atheistic point of view, what purpose does Mankind have for existence?

  1. Since the laws of the universe are immutable and cannot be violated, any reason given by an atheist for claiming purpose in existence can be properly attributed to be the result of chemical reactions in his/her brain leading him to say he has purpose.
    1. The atheist, therefore, is nothing more than the product of your environment and naturals laws.
      1. He is guided and led by these laws; he reacts, plots, hopes, and wills only in agreement with these laws.
      2. Any purpose thus offered is still nothing more than the product of natural laws of matter, chemistry, and energy flow.  In other words, the atheist is nothing more than the result of natural laws inherent in the natural universe.
    2. If the atheist admits that his mind is the derivative product of these natural laws, but that his mind and will have "risen above" these laws and he is now able to escape the limitations of the natural laws and give himself purpose . . .
      1. Then it can still be asserted that his reasoning is nothing more than the result of chemical reactions in his brain causing him to say and believe this.
      2. Then he has violated principle 5 above which is.
        1. Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe.
    3. If the atheist states that the natural laws are not exhaustively known and that they can produce truly "free-will" creatures,
      1. Then he is making his point based upon what we do not know about the natural laws and stating that since we do not know what they can do, therefore, I am free to not be bound by the natural laws.
      2. Then it is, essentially, an argument from silence.
    4. Therefore, from the atheist's perspective, he is not independent or autonomous nor does he possess a free will.

Conclusion

  1. Therefore, the Concept of "Having a Purpose" becomes meaningless because
    1. The atheist has no purpose beyond the programming inherent in himself.
      1. Therefore, he has no independence and no free will.
    2. If he claims he is thinking in harmony with the limitations imposed by natural laws, and that the sum of his evolution is greater than those individual natural laws, then he has again violated principle 5 above.
      1. Principle 5: Life can only develop in harmony with the inherent laws in the universe.
        1. If life only develops in harmony with the laws, then it is restricted to those laws and cannot exceed them.
      2. Also, it can still be said that the atheist's claim of independence is nothing more than the chemical reactions in his brain.
  2. If the atheist says he has purpose not derived from, or that is beyond, the mere derivation of life from the original inherent natural laws, then . . .
    1. This implies the existence of the supernatural.
      1. If the supernatural exists, then it is certainly possible that God exists.
    2. The atheist is denying the principles from which evolution is derived.
      1. This would mean that evolution is not true and/or
  3. If the atheist acknowledges that his mind, will, hopes, desires, etc., are nothing more than the product of the natural universe, then . . .
    1. He has no self-determined purpose.
    2. He has no will other than that which is governed by the natural laws and programmed within him.
    3. He serves nothing more than natural laws.
  4. Therefore, the atheist has no freely chosen, self-intended purpose for existence.
  5. If there is a God, then I have purpose since I have a will and my purpose is given to me by God.
    1. Since I claim to have a purpose not derived from natural laws, it follows that I claim there is a God.
      1. To claim purpose outside the natural is to conclude that purpose is derived from something beyond the natural.
  6. Since I determine I have a purpose and I deny the limitations of the boundaries set by natural laws, it is reasonable to assume I believe in God, and that there is a God.
    1. Otherwise, we are merely bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli.  I believe man is more than that.

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison