I will give you a quick summery I what I made so you can understand what I mean.My argument from Phenomenology desire(An argument against naturalism)Naturalistic Atheism (as a general term) purposes that the universe and existence as a whole, is "meaningless". And any supposed meaning which you experience is either emergent/epiphenomenal property's which exist relative to the existence of sentient life (a conscious agent). And conscious agents are a product of a process which is a fundamentally random process of evolution which is at aimed at survival.Where this certainly an explanation of life (conscious agents). It fails to explain human desire.Desire like beauty within things, goddess, truth, etc.If naturalism is true then desires for such things mentioned above would be secondary/subservient factors to survival and we would only have such desires because it can either help us survive or it doesn't get in the way of survival itself.The problem is, is that human life tends to originate itself for desire such beauty, goodness, etc. And that we only desire survival so long as we can experience the desires of love, beauty, etc. Hence putting our desires for such transcendentals as primarily desires and our desire for survival secondly/lesser desires. This is most seen within people like scientists and philosophers which endure suffering for the sake of truth and also risk their life (and in some cases die) for the sake of truth And activists which fight for justice and goodness, even when it leads to imprisonment, suffering, or death.This orientation of our desires would be more likely under a world which is itself fundamentally meaningful. And or is the product of an agent which exists as and or is orientated towards such transcendental goods As if goodness, beauty, etc, are fundamentally to reality. Then our minds being products of this reality would naturally be orientated to such desires rather than survival.[1/2]
>>18426564"Well actually, I believe naturalism is more ordinated to truth rather than survival, so such desires would be compatible with naturalism"Well the issue with this claim is that under evolutionary naturalism, our cognitive faculty not orientated to truth but rather survival.As what we believe and perceive is primary related to what allows us to survive; rather than what actually reflects reality If what is true allows for survival, then it is kept. Additionally, if what is false allows us for survival, then it is kept. It ultimately doesn't matter under naturalism so long as it lets us surviveAn example could be an organism that believes "everything that moves is deadly and is out to kill me.". This belief is not true Because not everything which moves is a fret. But the organism will run away more often, avoid more predators and survive longer. Where there could be the same organism that believes "not everything that moves is dangerous, instead let me carefully analyse them". Even if this belief is more true the organism may hesitate, miscalculate and eventually be eaten. So the false the belief that everything which moves is dangerous would we selected for because it increases the length of survival.So even if you claim that naturalism is ordinated towards truth, the process being evolution do not guarantee this. At best it may give us beliefs that are useful rather than trueTherefore desires like goodness, beauty and truth cannot be grounded under a process which our very mind is shaped around survival rather than truth[2/3] (mb)
>>18426565conc:Most atheistic accounts of naturalism fail to explain our primary transcendental desires such as goodness, beauty, truth, etc. Due to the process of naturalistic evolution, favouring survival above anything else - rather than other desires mentioned above-. Additionally such desires would be more probable under a reality which itself is fundamentally meaningfully and or is a creation of an agent which exists as and or is ordinated towards such transcendental goodssources: https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/HoffmanSPIEPaper2013https://wmit-pages-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/283/2022/06/16130225/plantingaeaan.pdfThe Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss by David Bentley Hart. Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel[3/3]
>>18426564>I will give you a quick summery I what I maderemove the "I what", sorry
>>18426564Since we are here and not extinct, it's clear that our desires were not selected against.There, that's your entire argument debunked lmao.
>>18426576Anon, truly you are too smart for this board, truly
>>18426577Yeah yeah I know. But it's true. The argument hinges on the idea that our desires have a net negative selective cost, but that is empirically not the case because if it were, we wouldn't be here because our early ancestors would've been selected out.
>>18426586burh that completely misses the point. My original argument isn’t about whether these transcendental desires can exist under naturalism. but rather it was about whether naturalism can adequately explain the nature of our desires.Under atheistic evolutionary naturalism, our minds are shaped for survival, not truth. So even if these desires persist, we’d expect them to be instrumental and subordinate to survival meaning assisting with survival. But in experience, they appear intrinsic, authoritative, and often override survival. people pursue truth, goodness, or beauty even at risk of their survival.Saying “they didn’t get selected out” doesn’t explain why they present themselves as higher-order goods rather than useful by-products. Again, naturalism may allow these desires, but it doesn’t convincingly explain why they have the normative weight and priority they clearly do.
>>18426598You said this about naturalism:>And conscious agents are a product of a process which is a fundamentally random process of evolutionUnder that paradigm, why would you expect every trait that isn't net negative to have an "adequate explanation" in the first place? "Random bullshit go -> net neutral mutation -> no selective pressure against it" is an internally consistent model. You can reject it presuppositionally, but then you're tossing your original argument in the bin lol.
>>18426564From the atheist materialistic view point it isn't a guarantee that an organism is perfectly adapted to survival. Us desiring transcendtal things might just be a (fortunate?) accident.
>>18426636Not necessarily like how op presented the organisms An example could be an organism that believes "everything that moves is deadly and is out to kill me.". This belief is not true Because not everything which moves is a fret. But the organism will run away more often, avoid more predators and survive longer. Where there could be the same organism that believes "not everything that moves is dangerous, instead let me carefully analyse them". Even if this belief is more true the organism may hesitate, miscalculate and eventually be eaten. So the false the belief that everything which moves is dangerous would we selected for because it increases the length of survival.It’s not so much how we’ll adapted they are, all what matters is if you can survive and pass down your genesIt’s not survival of the fittest, it’s survival of the fit enough
>>18426636Oh also for your second claim this source https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/HoffmanSPIEPaper2013 actually proves that evolution is not ordinated towards truth but rather survival so such an hierarchy of desires is not expected under naturalism but is more probable under theismOps argument is actually really good, he just needs to improve his wording.
>>18426576I was about to write a lengthy refutation that boiled down to that, thanks.
>>18426678>Ops argument is actually really good, he just needs to improve his wording.OP please
>>18428203
