Bad News for Creationists: Plausible Abiogenesis Path Found

[_JohnStuartMill]

Seriously -- there's no selection in the 747/junkyard scenario. The analogy would be much more apt if parts got locked together once they were in the right place, but even then it would have insurmountable flaws.

Um, you're right, and that's the whole point of the analogy. Thank's for illustrating the point that critics here don't even understand the analogy to begin with. But I don't expect that should stop them from pretending to have refuted it. No selection you say? Well of course not. And guess what? There's no selection going on during abiogenesis either! That's what makes the anaolgy so beautiful and effective. Your problem is that you assume the mechanisms of evolution are at work, but these can only take place when life already exists. In this instance, we're talking about pre-life events.

It is demonstrably false that the mechanisms of evolution can only take place when life already exists. Evolution is not substrate-specific. It can occur in computer programs, for instance (see Arthur Samuels' world-beating checkers program).

But you're right that there's no biological selection in abiogenesis. I was thinking of the original purpose of the tornado/junkyard analogy, which was to disprove evolution, not abiogenesis. Your adaptation of the argument threw me a little.

The problem with using Hoyle's analogy to refute abiogenesis is that its proponents don't define "life" with the same specificity as the 747. Until you unequivocally state what you believe constitutes the first life form, there's no way to have a fruitful discussion about the possibility of abiogenesis.

The dogma of naturalism supposes that life came about by the blind forces of nature.

Kevin, naturalism does not preclude God. If God existed, He'd be part of the natural world, which naturalism surveys.

Somehow, somewhere, at some time, some liquid got mixed in with some gases (they can't seem to make up their minds which liquids or which gases), which received a shot of lightning and perhaps a dose of radiation from a solar flare or whatever.

Which is all completely implausible, of course. Oh, wait -- no, it isn't. Especially compared to the hypothesis you promulgate.

Who knows, maybe there was a ful moon too. This is the quintessential Frankenstein hypothesis. But we can't call it what it is because that sounds more fictional than scientific!

Actually, Frankenstein's monster was intelligently designed. Its creation mirrors your explanation for life on Earth much more closely than mine. Way to saw off the branch you're sitting on, Kevin.

Naturalism supposes that "whatever it was," that happened, life naturally appeared from non-life. People don't generally understand how ridiculous this is because they don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it. So the analogy puts it all into perspective for us. And this is why the atheists hate it so much. They can't refute it and it makes them look just as silly as any religious nut. It reveals just how much blind faith they have in naturalism. It would be more intellectually honest if they just said they don't know. But they insist they do know. It happened by natural forces (wind, rain, comets, solar flares, llghtening).

This is a brazen strawman. A few weeks ago, you were mocking Richard Dawkins for admitting the precise logical opposite of what you're currently putting into his mouth. Dawkins is representative of naturalists when he says that he doesn't know how abiogenesis happened, then goes on to describe the most plausible theories.

So fine, that complaint is easy to remedy. So let's just suppose a million tornados hitting the same spot over the course of three billion years. Doesn't have to be a junkyard. It could be a sea containing every element there is. That should be enough material and enough time. But there is still no reason to suppose it would produce a Jumbo Jet. So why would we suppose it would produce the first living cell?

A million tornadoes isn't nearly a big enough number for it to be analogous to the factors that effected abiogenesis. The Earth is a big place. There were many, many more chemical interactions on the planet -- trillions, at least -- before the first organic molecule appeared.

If we think about it, this analogy is really way off because it is too generous. Why? Because the simplest living cell is infinitely more complex than the most technologically advanced aircraft.

Sure. But NOBODY believes that the molecule that kicked off the procession toward life was a fully-functioning cell. How many scientists working on abiogenesis-related topics are trying to figure out how to throw common chemicals together randomly to get a living cell? Answer: none of them.

Incidentally, your argument here IS Intelligent Design:

I will now discuss how I view the future prospects of a theory of intelligent design. I see them as very bright indeed. Why? Because the idea of intelligent design has advanced, not primarily because of anything I or any individual has done. Rather, it’s been the very progress of science itself that has made intelligent design plausible. Fifty years ago much less was known about the cell, and it was much easier then to think that Darwinian evolution was true. But with the discovery of more and more complexity at the foundation of life, the idea of intelligent design has gained strength. That trend is continuing. As science pushes on, the complexity of the cell is not getting any less; on the contrary, it is getting much greater.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1205

And this analogy only addresses its structure, whereas a cell has not only structure, it also has "life."

What is a cell's "life" except its structure? You might as well be talking about elan vital.

Now Tarski sympathizes with people like Daniel Dennett who are functionalists and suppose things like machines, zombies or computers are as much "alive" as organisms snce they move around and serve a function. I'm really hoping that is how most atheists end up arguing.

Why would a zombie be less alive than a jellyfish? What's the significant difference between the two? The thinking you deplore here is actually pretty standard. Even the theistic Descartes described animals as nothing more than very complex machines.

[_huckelberry]

Kevin, yes I noticed the original article said nothing about which stage of life fragments actually start reproducing in a way that survival of the fittest would start its nondirected design processing. Without that reproduction effect life fragments are a long long ways away from life. Of course the article was just a sensation report without much science reported. I suppose there could be science not included in the report showing which fragments are likely to randomly occurr and would reproduce themselves becoming many with variations. It may be that that interesting specific is not yet specified in the theory.

[_EAllusion]

To calculate the probability of life developing, you need to know something about the probability of the chemical reactions in a given environment that would lead from life to non-life. We don't even know approximately the answer to that kind of question as we haven't a good grasp what happened. The problem with "tornado in a junkyard" reasoning is that it targets a strawman. It calculates the probablity of of a specific monomers coming together to form one particular biopolymer complex with each combination having an equiprobable chance. This is wrong for a number of reasons. Sure, one is that we're talking about trillions of simultaneous trials. Another is that monomer string formation isn't equiprobable. Some polymers are just inherently more likely to come together than others in given conditions, as anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry would know. The properties of physical chemistry guide what kind of reactions are more and less likely in a given solution. Another is that the polymer targets are invariable too complex. No one suggests that a bacterium (for instance) just came together and abiogenesis certainly doesn't require that. See an incremental theory like the RNA world hypothesis this thread is about for something more plausible. Another is that it is likely that multiple polymer strings can accomplish the same functions because of how nucleic acids/proteins function, so you really are likely looking at multiple acceptable targets. Targets we don't know enough about to calculate their likelihood of developing. These problems make the calculations occur meaningless. "Tornado in a junkyard" is so well known to be wrong that accusing someone of reasoning in that way is to accuse them of being wrong.

When you just use a "tornado in a junkyard" as a loose analogy, the problem there is that things we'd describe as complex order arise via from natural processes all the time (such as tornados) and there's nothing inherently improbable about that occurring.

Finally, it is logically fallacious to conclude is not possible from the mere fact that it is unlikely, even if it is. And if you want to argue, like I quoted Kevin doing, that one conclude life was designed on the alleged impossibility of mindless processes leading to it, the onus is on you to establish that it is impossible, not unlikely.


--------------

As far as whether natural selection can operate without living things, the answer is yes. Evolutionary programs like Avida are a good example of this, but this is also true of prebiotic chemistry. In order for natural selection to operate what you need is

1) A population of something that reproduces
2) Differences in the characteristics of individuals within the population that have differing likelihoods of realizing progeny that will propagate through time
3) A means for those traits to be passed on from parent to offspring

That's it. It is possible for something not to be alive but have this. Heck, there's still a debate in biology over whether viruses are technically alive, and they quite clearly are shaped by natural selection

[_Some Schmo]

I'm still chuckling to myself about the "lots of tornados through lots of junkyards" comment. If that doesn't demonstrate his fundamental lack of understanding, nothing does. hehe

Uh, it is our analogy and it is obviously you who doesn't understand its point.

Seriously -- there's no selection in the 747/junkyard scenario. The analogy would be much more apt if parts got locked together once they were in the right place, but even then it would have insurmountable flaws.

Um, you're right, and that's the whole point of the analogy. Thank's for illustrating the point that critics here don't even understand the analogy to begin with. But I don't expect that should stop them from pretending to have refuted it. No selection you say? Well of course not. And guess what? There's no selection going on during abiogenesis either! That's what makes the anaolgy so beautiful and effective. Your problem is that you assume the mechanisms of evolution are at work, but these can only take place when life already exists. In this instance, we're talking about pre-life events.

Once again, we see that dart can't remember what he says from one post to the next. Here's a little reminder (bolding mine):

And speakng of Hoyle's analogy, you must be really naïve if you think the atheist apologists have refuted it. I've read the so called "refutations" and the primary objection is that the tornado takes place in one event whereas evolution takes place in gradual steps over the course of thousands of years. Well, no analogy is perfect, but to neutralize this objection a simple modification can be made. So instead of one tornado in one event producing a Boeing 747, lets say a million tornados over a thousand years. You still wouldn't get a Jumbo Jet.

Who the hell are you trying to kid? How many people have to explain to you that abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing? Evolution makes no attempt to explain the beginning of life, just the diversity. You keep conflating the two, and amazingly, seem to appear dumber every time you do it.



But please, keep telling yourself you understand and I don't. I'm sure it helps protect your incredibly fragile ego.

lol

[_mikwut]

Hello John,

Mikwut, I want to start out by saying that I appreciate your sincerity. Your framing of the question of God shows honesty and maturity, and I don't want to treat it flippantly. But there's a lot to disagree with here.

Thank you. And yes, there is always room for disagreement.

Why do you think life be more profound if there were life after death? I realize that many people believe this, but I haven't yet seen a reason why.

Nihilism presents to the secular humanist a problem of evil as well John. I agree with Camus and Kierkegaard, that there is a basic and fundamental disjunction in man. We inherently drive for order, purpose and meaning in life but the universe is indifferent to us and meaningless. This absurdity is one of the things I meant by truth seekers "get" this. Although Camus saw life after this one also as absurd I disagree with him on that point, but in answer to your question, he certainly sees the harmony that purposefulness that a transcendent world would bring and add. So did the Greeks, Shakespeare, and a laundry list of the World's greatest thinkers. I think all us have these moments of nihilistic despair where Nietzsche explains our evaluations are interpretations, and not reflections of the world, as it is, in itself, and, therefore, all ideations take place from a particular perspective. You have your perspective, which I respect, of the self forming of meaning within you, I simply, with respect, doubt that comes untainted with doubts. You must keep the demons of nihilism out somehow, your only human just like me. This is why Heidegger like Neitzsche before him saw the potency of nihilism without God. Whether what I say has merit or not is one issue John, but with all due respect to you I believe simple self reflection will answer to you why people believe life after death adds a more profound layer to life and meaning. It can certainly be cartoonish and I invite your clever sword of cynicism to do its best against such articulations. But it isn't necessarily so.

Personally, I don't see much of a difference in meaning between living for 80 years on Earth, and living forever in heaven. My suspicion is that an eternity in heaven only sounds good to people now because they haven't actually experienced it.

Oh you are probably right about that. I used the word profound, not gleeful. I don't know what heaven 'is'.

In fact, they can't experience it, at least on Earth, which renders aspiration for heaven the ultimate "grass is always greener" phenomenon.

I am certain your right about this, again our pyche's allow for disjunction almost everywhere. But, the grass isn't necessarily greener for our pyche's in annililation either. That can be a place for head in the sand enjoyment and arrogant thoughts as well.

Human beings are naturally dissatisfied; I'm skeptical that heaven would put dissatisfaction to a rest once and for all.

I am glad we find agreement with part of our natural condition. I wouldn't expect a transcendent or different metaphysical place after death to come without skepticism or dissatisfaction at times as well.

Let's say that it does, though: if heaven really is the recognized universal optimum of happiness, it would render hope (i.e., a wish for a higher state of happiness) impossible. Do people really want to live in such a world? I'm not sure that I do.

I am not defining it for characterization into such a box, again I don't want unmitigated gleefulness. I want to live in a more profound existence yes. But I don't say that in total despair and disregard of this one.

My fundamental disagreement with you, mikwut, is on the idea that meaning can be foisted on humanity by a superhuman force.

Then you don't have a fundamental disagreement with me. I don't think it can. God "entails" more profound meaning, God "entails" life after this one. God doesn't necessitate the foisting of meaning, at least the God I hope for which is a God of Love.

Let's do a thought experiment: what if it were discovered that we were created by a superintelligent alien race, who knew that our wars would provide them with gladiatorial entertainment? Would that imply that war is the meaning of our existence?

No, it wouldn't imply it. If you prefer a meaning that is inherent to you and not only self imagined (which I think necessary ultimately). And, given that meaning is inextricably connected with purpose and the purpose found in your experiment is expressly stated as to what the purpose of our lives and creation is then gladiatorial entertainment isn't implied my good man, it is expressly stated as so.

I reject that conclusion; I believe that we can create meaning for our existence apart from our creators' purpose.

I understand I respect a role for this thought in my own, and I respect your Schopenhauerian raging against the machine, I just find it to find its way still into the realm of the absurd, like Camus.

analogously, I believe that if the Mormons are right that God put us on this Earth to fulfill the plan of salvation, then it doesn't follow that celestial procreation is the meaning of our existence. Ditto for every other conception of God.

Let us enjoy our moments of agreement together.

In a nutshell: the meaning of one's existence can only be created by the self. "Meaning" created by anything else isn't really meaning.

Your answering the question, what is the meaning of my life. And we overlap with some agreement on that subject. But your thought experiment itself answers the question what is the meaning of life. In Secular Humanist thought (a wonderful philosophy) the promotion of the common good for all people is inextricably connected to the happiness of the individual person and is then inextricably linked to the well-being of humanity as a whole. If all the philosophy answers is an individualized and relative 'meaning' society can be placated for a while (movies, media etc..) but eventually nihilism will overcome it, because you cannot ultimately disconnect the one with the whole. "Thus spoke Zarathrustra".

My best regards John, I do enjoy your clever wit and thought, it is a pleasure to have discussion with you,

mikwut

[_JohnStuartMill]

Nihilism presents to the secular humanist a problem of evil as well John. I agree with Camus and Kierkegaard, that there is a basic and fundamental disjunction in man. We inherently drive for order, purpose and meaning in life but the universe is indifferent to us and meaningless. This absurdity is one of the things I meant by truth seekers "get" this.

I suspect that you're conflating all secular worldviews with nihilism, because nihilism is the only worldview that says that the entire universe is meaningless. That the rest of the universe is indifferent to us -- that's a more precise formulation than the one you gave, I think -- is entirely consistent with the idea that there is meaning on Earth. Moreover, both are consistent with a secular worldview. Therefore, you have not described a "problem of evil" in anything that resembles the theological use of the word.

Although Camus saw life after this one also as absurd I disagree with him on that point, but in answer to your question, he certainly sees the harmony that purposefulness that a transcendent world would bring and add. So did the Greeks, Shakespeare, and a laundry list of the World's greatest thinkers. I think all us have these moments of nihilistic despair where Nietzsche explains our evaluations are interpretations, and not reflections of the world, as it is, in itself, and, therefore, all ideations take place from a particular perspective. You have your perspective, which I respect, of the self forming of meaning within you, I simply, with respect, doubt that comes untainted with doubts. You must keep the demons of nihilism out somehow, your only human just like me.

I don't see why nihilism should pose such a problem for me. If I simply recognize that my values are just that -- mine, not the universe's -- then I can happily retain my values without the specter of meaninglessness haunting me. I enjoy life as it is; I have music, love, good food, wine, and LOLcats. I don't see why I'd need to conjure up a Plan of Salvation to keep myself from despair.

This is why Heidegger like Neitzsche before him saw the potency of nihilism without God. Whether what I say has merit or not is one issue John, but with all due respect to you I believe simple self reflection will answer to you why people believe life after death adds a more profound layer to life and meaning. It can certainly be cartoonish and I invite your clever sword of cynicism to do its best against such articulations. But it isn't necessarily so.

Well, then we are at an impasse, because I have self-reflected, and still see no reason to believe that life after death makes life more profound. I even used to believe that it would. That I don't and you do amounts to nothing more than "He said, she said".

Personally, I don't see much of a difference in meaning between living for 80 years on Earth, and living forever in heaven. My suspicion is that an eternity in heaven only sounds good to people now because they haven't actually experienced it.

Oh you are probably right about that. I used the word profound, not gleeful. I don't know what heaven 'is'.

How can you know that heaven is brings profundity if you don't know what it is? Is heaven simply defined as something that effects profundity? That's not very careful thinking. I suspect we're dealing with a "magic walnut" here.

In fact, they can't experience it, at least on Earth, which renders aspiration for heaven the ultimate "grass is always greener" phenomenon.

I am certain your right about this, again our pyche's allow for disjunction almost everywhere. But, the grass isn't necessarily greener for our pyche's in annililation either. That can be a place for head in the sand enjoyment and arrogant thoughts as well.

Sure, but you're going to have to explain a little more why this matters.

Human beings are naturally dissatisfied; I'm skeptical that heaven would put dissatisfaction to a rest once and for all.

I am glad we find agreement with part of our natural condition. I wouldn't expect a transcendent or different metaphysical place after death to come without skepticism or dissatisfaction at times as well.

If that's really the case, then I fail to see what makes heaven special.

My fundamental disagreement with you, mikwut, is on the idea that meaning can be foisted on humanity by a superhuman force.

Then you don't have a fundamental disagreement with me. I don't think it can. God "entails" more profound meaning, God "entails" life after this one. God doesn't necessitate the foisting of meaning, at least the God I hope for which is a God of Love.

Calling it a God of Love doesn't do any legwork. There's no reason to think that a God of Love could not foist meaning on us, unless such a God's meaning is congruent with the meaning we would have ascribed to our existence anyway. In that case, a God would be moot.

Let's do a thought experiment: what if it were discovered that we were created by a superintelligent alien race, who knew that our wars would provide them with gladiatorial entertainment? Would that imply that war is the meaning of our existence?

No, it wouldn't imply it. If you prefer a meaning that is inherent to you and not only self imagined (which I think necessary ultimately). And, given that meaning is inextricably connected with purpose and the purpose found in your experiment is expressly stated as to what the purpose of our lives and creation is then gladiatorial entertainment isn't implied my good man, it is expressly stated as so.

Mikwut, you're a charitable guy. I hope that you're willing to grant me that I did not "expressly state" what you said I did. If you believe that the conditions of my thought experiment would lead to the inescapable conclusion that war is the meaning of our existence, then your "No, it wouldn't imply it," is not correct, because I was using 'imply' in its sense as a logical operator.

The confusion here is apparently arising because I think there is a difference here between the words "meaning" and "purpose", while you don't. Maybe we're just using "meaning" in different ways. I think that for the purposes of this discussion, "meaning" should be construed as something like "significance". It's true that "meaning" can also mean "purpose", but I think that usage obfuscates the real meat of the discussion here by begging the teleological question.

I reject that conclusion; I believe that we can create meaning for our existence apart from our creators' purpose.

I understand I respect a role for this thought in my own, and I respect your Schopenhauerian raging against the machine, I just find it to find its way still into the realm of the absurd, like Camus.

Well, until you provide some reason for me to believe that it would absurd, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

In a nutshell: the meaning of one's existence can only be created by the self. "Meaning" created by anything else isn't really meaning.

Your answering the question, what is the meaning of my life. And we overlap with some agreement on that subject. But your thought experiment itself answers the question what is the meaning of life. In Secular Humanist thought (a wonderful philosophy) the promotion of the common good for all people is inextricably connected to the happiness of the individual person and is then inextricably linked to the well-being of humanity as a whole.

Depending on how you define secular humanism, I'm not a secular humanist. I don't think there is a "meaning of life" any more than there is a "meaning of the solar system". Nor do I think there's anything missing in that scenario.

If all the philosophy answers is an individualized and relative 'meaning' society can be placated for a while (movies, media etc..) but eventually nihilism will overcome it, because you cannot ultimately disconnect the one with the whole. "Thus spoke Zarathrustra".

I think you're imputing something to me that I do not hold. I believe it's possible and desirable that humanity as a whole could have a meaning. The difference between me and the typical theist is that I believe that this meaning would be created from the bottom-up, by ourselves, and not dictated from a higher being.

My best regards John, I do enjoy your clever wit and thought, it is a pleasure to have discussion with you,

mikwut

You as well, mikwut. I appreciate the careful thought and congeniality you're putting into this conversation.

[_Sethbag]

Mikwut, thanks for your comments. I read what you wrote carefully, and I read your exchange with JSM. I won't comment on what you said extensively, since you're already talking about it with JSM. I appreciate your discussion and for responding to my post with the things you posted. Thanks for that.

One thing I did want to discuss is your hope vs. nihilism. You seem to believe that nihilism is inevitable unless some other meaning exists, and you seem to have agreed with JSM that this meaning is largely self-recognized. You have a hope for something after death, for Heaven in some vaguely-defined form, and that there is some purpose to life. It looks to me like you have avoided nihilism by consciously accepting your hope, and subsequent self-recognition of a purpose that you recognize for your life.

If you can avoid nihilism by choosing to hope for some higher purpose, and then accepting as axiomatic that some higher purpose exists, why can't atheists avoid nihilim by choosing to hope for something else, such as humanistic ideals or whatever? Yours is a conscious act, why can't our conscious decisions do likewise?

Are you arguing some fundamental property of supernaturalism which avoids a problem that non-supernatural concepts and ideas cannot avoid?

In fact I would reply that what you are doing is exactly the very thing you say the naturalists are doing: you are avoiding nihilism simply by asserting a personal belief in something else. If you can do it, why can't Richard Dawkins and I?

Anyhow, I think I understand where you're coming from. I hope for a non-nihilistic universe on the basis of humanistic views and values, and accept that these are created by us. It's entirely possible that the rest of the universe doesn't give a rat's ass about us. Oh well. If that's the way it is, then that's the way it is, and I don't think that imagining it to be otherwise really helps the underlying situation.

I thank you for this exchange, and I want to point out that what I am doing is not superior to what you are doing. Both of us are choosing a non-nihilistic view of our purpose in life. Yours is supernatural, and relies on assumptions that you hope for, but cannot know to exist. Mine relies on the simple fact that humanity exists, and we do hope and aspire for things in this life, and we do feel compassion for others, and I believe it's possible to live what I regard as a "good" life, and improve the lives of those we interact with, even as we improve our own.

But my assumption and acceptance of some purpose is no less consciously chosen than yours.

[Guest]

Mikwut would then argue that if the atheist accepts such a "hope" argument, they've then accepted that a theist's basis for god-belief is reasonable.

The assertion that lacking meaning the objective, teleological sense leaves us with nihilism in the traditional sense of the term is simply not sustainable. JSM is right to suggest that teleological purpose is only something we care about if and when that "objective" meaning corresponds to our subjective desires. So if God created us with the goal of having us burn in hell forever or aliens designed us to slave in the spice mines of Acturus 8 forever, we wouldn't be glad that our life was filled with this "meaning." To the extent we talk about wanting to have meaning, we already are just talking about wanting to have fulfillable aims. But more to the point, meaning - in the sense of purpose - exists so long as a subject has motives, drives, desires, and so on, and you don't have nihilism simply from their lacking a rule writ onto the fabric of reality that you are supposed to be or do X,Y, or Z.

Sometimes people argue that the common atheist view that life is finite (though note that atheism doesn't require such a view) is what entails nihilism. If you can't live forever, then what's the point? To that, I'd just note that not being alive in 600 years doesn't mean you aren't an entity today that has meaningful aims, including ones that extend out into the future when you will not exist. Meaning doesn't fail to exist because it is ephemeral anymore than one can say an ice cube never existed because it melted.

[_Sethbag]

Mikwut would then argue that if the atheist accepts such a "hope" argument, they've then accepted that a theist's basis for god-belief is reasonable.

There is a difference. The atheist would be choosing something like humanism knowing full well that they were embracing an idea that was human-created. The theist would not admit that, even if that were in fact the case.

Mikwut has actually pretty much admitted that his idea is consciously chosen, but seems to differentiate an idea that is hoped for in a religious sense from those simply accepted consciously as worthwhile aims for human beings living on Earth. I see a distinction without much of a difference. His choice is no less a choice for hoping that it corresponds with the will of some supernatural being who might or might not exist.

The assertion that lacking meaning the objective, teleological sense leaves us with nihilism in the traditional sense of the term is simply not sustainable. JSM is right to suggest that teleological purpose is only something we care about if and when that "objective" meaning corresponds to our subjective desires. So if God created us with the goal of having us burn in hell forever or aliens designed us to slave in the spice mines of Acturus 8 forever, we wouldn't be glad that our life was filled with this "meaning." To the extent we talk about wanting to have meaning, we already are just talking about wanting to have fulfillable aims. But more to the point, meaning - in the sense of purpose - exists so long as a subject has motives, drives, desires, and so on, and you don't have nihilism simply from their lacking a rule writ onto the fabric of reality that you are supposed to be or do X,Y, or Z.

Well said.

[_Gadianton]

In Secular Humanist thought (a wonderful philosophy) the promotion of the common good for all people is inextricably connected to the happiness of the individual person and is then inextricably linked to the well-being of humanity as a whole. If all the philosophy answers is an individualized and relative 'meaning' society can be placated for a while (movies, media etc..) but eventually nihilism will overcome it, because you cannot ultimately disconnect the one with the whole. "Thus spoke Zarathrustra".

That's fantastic, Mikwut, because then all my "secular humanist" friends need to do is break off whatever contact they have with "American Athiests" and study for about 3 weeks and then say they are Marxists. No one has lamented the "disconnection with the whole" and scrutinized the follies of humanism more extensively than Marxists, and, a true Marxist is an athiest's athiest. I mean, these MoFo's make American Athiests look like Pentacostals. And the irony is that they, in this weird way that make "mature theists" like you happy, are 'mystics' at a very low level given that they are ultimately indebted to neoplatonism and weirdo's like Gia. Vico for holism. And Mormon intellectuals seem to be increasingly attracted in this general direction. So it's not that secular humanists have this huge gap in their life, they just need to forget about arguing with Christians for 3 weeks and study a little more widely. Then they can catch up with die-hard liberal intellectualism as it exists on the other side of the world, and smile as Morman intellectuals gradually -- just read the Yale conference summaries and SMPT abstracts -- gravitate towards this style themselves. Which was invented by "atheists".

I'm glad that you are your own man though, Mikwut, and haven't been won over by the apologists. That's refreshing for this forum. And for that, I extend my hand in friendship.