@wynn, I think this is your flagship post with a good summary of your arguments, so I will begin here.
As I said elsewhere and was quoted for it -
Try to really, seriously, believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.
Hmm... Sensationalisation much? Could have saved it for the punchline. Well, here goes -
'chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational'
Seriously? Is the reproductive cycle or the development biology of an embryo fitting with any of them? Maybe the emergence of living processes makes room for some leeway there, but how about, say, the orbits of the planets, the beautiful synergy of ecosystems? None is chaotic or unpredictible, it is merely variant within recognisable values due to the butterfly effect.
'that there is no one in charge'
What of the poetic god of einstein or hawkins, where the conceptual framework of the processes of the universe is the only think similiar of any notions of god? And why fall prey to our evolutionary tendencies to agenticity and flase positives? Does a rainbow have a painter? Does a beach have a sculpter? Then, unless demonstrated otherwise, why take it for grant that the conceptual workings of the universe have a designer too?
'and that everyone and everything is simply subject to aging, illness and death'
Is your biological impuse of self-preservation and care-reception really strong enough to push you to irrationality, gross generalisations and inaccurate sensationalisations? Yes, indeed everything is, on a large basis, subject to entrophy and degeneration, but this does not indicate an objectively bad thing, merely an unfavorable one for a living being driven by the will to survive.
The only people who seriously believe the above are in mental institutions in constant stupor (that is not drug-induced).
And correctly so! They would have to incredibly misinformed, stupid, irrational or all of the above.
Even the staunchest rationalist or atheist does not actually believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.
Seeing as how most rationalists and naturalists indeed dont belong in an asylum, that is hardly a surprise, much less a valid point in this discussion.
Consequent atheism, consequent chaotism, consequent materialist/empirical reductionism may seem fine enough in theory, especially when trying to defeat the "softer" and "spiritually inclined."
No they dont. If the last century has brought something to light, it is the importance of emergence. It is a naturalistic way of replacing mystical 'holistic' views and it has good merit so far. Perhaps as with chemistry and alchemy, emergence will indeed prove a worthy halfway mark between reductionism and spirtual holistic ideas. This is yet a space to watch, so no much can be asserted at present.
But even those chaotists, atheists and reductionists do not actually believe the arguments they use to defeat the "softer" and "spiritually inclined."
Oh, waiting for it. The strong assertion with a weak base. And here it is. A heavy assertion indeed wynn. Hope you can hold it up.
You yourself prove that you don't actually believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.
You prove that by using a computer, by getting out of bed in the morning, by eating etc. etc.
Ok, so the 'if no purpose, why live?' argument. No really strong enough to hold up your assertion, is it? The first reason is because we are driven to survival and those things are essential in that regard. Maybe a heartless action on a forced course is a consequence granted that the said rationalist be a realist, cynic/pessimist and not be an ecclectic or opitimist. But very few people actually fit that category.
As I said before, the value and importance of life is much greater for many non-believers than it is for some believers. Yet, if someone does fit that description and does indeed {in your own words}
When people become convinced that there is no purpose to life, or when they arrive at an answer that doesn't make them hopeful about the future, or when the search is long and continually proves futile -
they kill themselves, or live a life of quiet (and sometimes not so quiet) desperation.
i.e. when they actually match your generalisations and simplifications, I would readily suggest a healthy serving of his favourite religion [buddhism recommended] with yoga on the side.
