A Potential Argument from Purpose Against Atheistic-Naturalism

Here is a quick, interesting but still undeveloped reductio ad absurdum argument against atheistic-naturalism that I have rolled around in my head.

Premise 1:  If atheistic-naturalism is true, then, objectively-speaking, all purposes and goals are equal; essentially, all purposes and goals are as equally good and as equally valid as any others, for, on atheistic-naturalism, human beings have no objective purposes or goals, and thus no subjectively-chosen purpose or goal can be objectively better than any other.

Premise 2:  But it is obviously absurd to claim that the purpose and goal of ‘playing video games until my fingers fall off’ or ‘eating until I am obese’ is equal to the purpose and goal of ‘curing cancer’ or ‘writing a timeless novel’. Indeed, it is obvious that ‘curing cancer’ or ‘writing a timeless novel’ is an objectively better purpose and goal than ‘endlessly playing video games’ or ‘eating until I am obese’ is.

Conclusion: Therefore, a key and unavoidable component of atheistic-naturalism—namely, the subjectivity and thus the equality of all human purposes and goals—is absurd, and so atheistic-naturalism is absurd. Ergo, atheistic-naturalism is false.

Anyway, something to think about.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s