Some Reasons Why Atheists/materialists/physicalist/naturalists Are Delusional

Maybe we are all delusional to some degree?  I think the biggest problem is not which side of the fence we stand on but the certainty with which we defend our position.

Hmmm, well if even crystals are signs of design it would be hard to give an example.

I don't know if the elegance of physics equation is really a sign of intelligent origin? On the other hand there is the general efficacy of mathematics, as Wigner noted in his brilliant essay:

A lot of great scientists (especially of older generations) have agreed with Sir James Jeans: 

"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter.  .... The Universe can be pictured, although still very imperfectly and inadequately, as consisting of pure thought, the thought of what for want of a wider word, we must describe as a mathematical thinker."

Surely you don't think the intricate and elegant and complex system of physical laws consisting of at this time the Standard Model and quantum mechanics and relativity, and the extremely exact fine tuning of this for a universe to exist that allows life as we know it to develop, is all the result of blind random meaningless purposeless forces? For such would be the case with no intelligent origin, and that would still beg the question of how even these forces originally came about. Nothing comes from absolutely nothing.

 Nothing comes from absolutely nothing.

Neither matter nor intelligence.  One or the other or something else that became one or the other has to have existed without beginning.

Surely you don't think the intricate and elegant and complex system of physical laws consisting of at this time the Standard Model and quantum mechanics and relativity, and the extremely exact fine tuning of this for a universe to exist that allows life as we know it to develop, is all the result of blind random meaningless purposeless forces? For such would be the case with no intelligent origin, and that would still beg the question of how even these forces originally came about. Nothing comes from absolutely nothing.

I think what Typoz and I are wondering if any & every pattern must come from design?

As Typoz notes fine tuning relates to life's existence being dependent on constants with little room for error...whereas crystals/QM/relativity/etc are artifacts of the universe existing in a particular way.

That said I do agree that an intelligible universe does suggest a divine hand. As per Feser's Magic vs Metaphysics:

But to operate in a way that is ultimately unintelligible in principle -- as the atheist arguably has to say the fundamental laws of nature do, insofar as he has to say that they are “just there” as a brute fact, something that could have been otherwise but happens to exist anyway, with no explanation -- just is to be “magical” in the objectionable sense.  In fact it is only on a theistic view of the world that the laws of nature are not “magical”; and the Mackie/Russell position is (as I argue in the post linked to above) ultimately incoherent for the same sorts of reason that magical thinking in general is incoherent.  As is so often the case, the loudmouth New Atheist turns out to be exactly what he claims to despise -- in this case, a believer in “magical powers.” 

I suppose the atheist would counter that God would also be a kind of brute fact, but whether that's an acceptable argument is part of the ongoing contention between atheists and theists.

I think what Typoz and I are wondering if any & every pattern must come from design?

As Typoz notes fine tuning relates to life's existence being dependent on constants with little room for error...whereas crystals/QM/relativity/etc are artifacts of the universe existing in a particular way.

Of course every pattern of matter and energy does not come at least directly from design. For instance the crystal structures I referred to. These were not directly designed by some intelligence. But my point was that they are indirectly from design in that they are the ultimate outworking of the laws of physics and mathematics, which do very clearly (at least to me) seem to be the creation of intelligence.

I think most people don't think of things that way. My guess is if pressed many atheists would say there's some kind of objective morality, or at least mathematical truths might be Eternal/Platonic.

How would this line of thinking work Sci?  I understand the definition of atheist (I think!) which seems to overlap almost entirely with materialism/physicalism.  So from where does objective morality come for someone of this worldview?

How would this line of thinking work Sci?  I understand the definition of atheist (I think!) which seems to overlap almost entirely with materialism/physicalism.  So from where does objective morality come for someone of this worldview?

Well I don't think most people worry about these metaphysical issues, anymore than people who believe in a soul worry overmuch about where the soul is in relation to the body.

But atheism is just an opinion regarding the existence of gods, though one could say it is a leap of faith. My guess is most atheists simply feel there's no gods and feel there's no evidence to believe such beings exist. So in their opinion they're apportioning their belief with the lack of evidence.

IIRC Roger Penrose is an atheist but he's also a Platonist, and has suggested the Platonic Realm from which we gain mathematical truth also could hold aesthetic & moral values. Platonism regarding mathematics is usually defended by the necessity of mathematical truth to achieve evidential progress in science.

Thanks Sci.

I guess I probably need to read up on Platonism as it relates to this issue.  I've found Atheistic explanations to support objective moral truth/ethics to be convoluted and unsatisfying (e.g., Sam Harris).  If there are objective truths on morality/ethics/right vs wrong, that screams design to me as the easiest explanation.  Otherwise, they are just things that sprung into existence somehow?

Thanks Sci.

I guess I probably need to read up on Platonism as it relates to this issue.  I've found Atheistic explanations to support objective moral truth/ethics to be convoluted and unsatisfying (e.g., Sam Harris).  If there are objective truths on morality/ethics/right vs wrong, that screams design to me as the easiest explanation.  Otherwise, they are just things that sprung into existence somehow?

Yeah Harris cheats when he talks about the "Obvious Good". He got it from Nagel, anyway, and Nagel is much more humble IMO about the metaphysical mysteries of Reason and Morals.

I think objective morality is a complicated thing, even for those like myself who do think there is some universal standard. After all do we think "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is written into the fabric of the universe, applying even to the parent taking from a well-to-do bakery so their children don't starve?

From Plato we know that Divine Command, that what is Good because some god says so, is just a non-starter. And from Hume we have the Is-Ought distinction, that simply describing Nature does not get us to a moral standard.

I've said this before, but the best explanation I've heard for the idea is that rather than a series of rules with if-then caveats what is Objective is the feeling of love/compassion that directs our morality. This leaves the question of Justice unanswered, but it seems to at least be a step in the right direction. This might also seem a bit "mushy", leaving it all to one's "feels", but our satisfaction with mathematical truth is also a feeling so the gap between the mathematical and the moral might not be so wide.

"We stood across from each other like two libertines.

 I think it was then that I told him truly why I was not on his side.

 Because the Good was more of an adventure."
  -R. Calasso, Ruins of Kasch

the best explanation I've heard for the idea is that rather than a series of rules with if-then caveats what is Objective is the feeling of love/compassion that directs our morality.

I know I get myself into an infinite regress here, but (again) where does this come from if not from nature?