Dear readers, Since many of your comments are more insightful than those from this Average Joe, I decided to post a recent comment as the lead. Plus, the last thread was getting long, although it’s fine to keep it going or continue it here. Kenneth Huebel presents the following challenge to naturalistic thinking:
Naturalists are always ready to challenge the logic of faith-based reason. So I offer the same challenge to the naturalist. I would be interested in getting a better understanding of naturalistic logic from someone with a naturalistic perspective.
I don’t know how someone who rejects the idea of this being a creation of God to fulfill God’s purpose, can see life’s purpose from anything other than a selfish standpoint. Self-fulfillment, self-satisfaction, self-needs, self-gratification.
If you are an accident of nature, why would there be a need for life to be about anything other than you and the satisfaction of your needs? Logically, it seems to me, emotion and feelings and even reason are nothing more than evolutionary concepts to cope with survival—your survival and possibly the continuation of the species; they would not be anything more than that. Other people’s survival is only going to be important with respect to how it affects your own and some built-in naturalistic coded need to preserve the species.
Even previous discussion arguments that naturalism can be moral are only true from a premise that morality is necessary for survival (though hard for some of us to swallow, based on the fact that life survived quite well for millions of years before a concept of morality came into being). All I see from a naturalistic paradigm is to fulfill selfish needs. I see no logical reason for anything else.
If someone doesn’t accept the logic of that, then how would they accept the notion that life is simply the result of a naturalistic evolutionary process and nothing more?