The major flaw of atheism

[Ryan Rudolph]

The major flaw of modern atheism is that atheists commonly get egotistically involved in the accumulation of knowledge, and a absolute belief in knowledge as a means to derive a sense of egotistical security and knowing.

IE: a belief that a theory explains everything, and leaves nothing unexplained, or no sense of unknowing within the mind.

this common cognitive error can lead to an atheist that is just as close minded as a theist.

[Cory Duchesne]

That isn't a major flaw in Atheism, but rather a flaw in the person who craves such psychological security in knowledge.

Atheism is simply an argument, and if it's flawed, the flaw lies in the logic of the argument itself. The point that the argument can be misused for egotistical reasons can be applied to just about anything, even the position of uncertainty.

Agnosticism assuages the ego just as effectively as using logical deduction to disprove specific definitions of God. Most humans don't want to take a stand on any issue with much strength, as the ego likes neutrality and uncertainty, it relieves the stress of having to actually define terms, be logically consistent, think rigorously and ultimately know.

To be fair though, like you said, knowing can be gratifying, but that's not the fault of the knowledge, but rather it's the fault of the person who can't help but to preoccupy himself with petty things.

[Dan Rowden]

What definition of "atheism" are we working with here?

[Robert]

Judging by the bit hitters that are currently making the most noise on the subject on YouTube these days, I'd say the most common definition of atheism is in reality more accurately defined as agnosticism, since an actual consistent definition of God never reaches consensus, nor does it seem ever likely to for the reasons Cory highlights.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

Atheism is simply an argument.

You could define atheism in that manner, but I tend to think of it as a movement of people, a movement of intellectuals who tend to think very similar, in the same manner as American conservatives, liberals, who any other group that identifies with a label, and conforms to the ideas associated with that label.

Just as I tend to think of postmodernism as a movement that consists of a group of people that share similar ideas.

You can deal strictly with the ideas, but people tend to distort the ideas psychologically in very similar ways.

As Dan says, it depends on how you define atheism, some think of it as more of a set of arguments, others as an intellectual movement. How the two factors intermingle psychologically is where things get interesting.

[Alex T. Jacob]

From the above, I would gather there is a host of 'flawed' (or potentially flawed) positions:

• An agnosticism that assuages the ego.
• Failure of the ego to take a stand (and to remain in neutrality/uncertainty).
• Logical thinking, rigorous thinking and 'knowing'.
• An egotistical accumulation of knowledge.
• Use of logical deduction to disprove specific definitions of God.
• Desiring or needing psychological security.

What is the right attitude to take?

[Pye]

Defining 'atheism' depends upon how one defines what one is going against ("a"-theism)

And defining theism/God has always depended upon whether one sees the existence of the universe as intentional or not.

If existence is thought of as a matter of intention, then this presupposes something with an intention to create it. And intention also presupposes a beginning (First Cause).

And, First Cause is highly problematic. If one's logic of cause-and-effect suddenly jumps its own ship to declare a First Cause, then this First Cause has only 2 ways of existing: it either created itself (something from nothing), or it has simply always existed (eternal). Both something-from-nothing and eternality appear to exceed all we understood from the logic of cause-and-effect to begin with, hence they beg the qualities of the "divine" (non-earthly).

Logic tells us that something cannot come from nothing; hence, existence was either 'divinely' created (came from nothing), or it came from something the precedes it: intentional creator.

Most atheists I know deny there is this intentional creator (something-from-nothing by something!) and define their atheism suchly. In the matter of the logic of cause and effect, one then has few other options than to declare the universe itself eternal. Otherwise, one would have to come back and grapple with a beginning (First Cause).

The only (apparently logical) way out is to declare universe itself (totality) as always being here (eternal). Hence, universe itself is God.

Or, one could just drop 'God' as an expression of this altogether.

Existence is.

Redundant, that.

"Intention" and "beginnings" are highly anthropomorphic experiences, projected upon an indifferent universe - indifferent to whether it has life to witness it or not.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Creation Myths

From the above, under Buddhism:

"Buddhism itself generally ignores the question regarding the origin of life. The Buddha regarding the origin of life has said "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."[37], and in regard to ignoring the question of the origin of life the Buddha has said "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me."[38]. The Buddha also compared the question of the origin of life - as well as many other metaphysical questions - to the parable of the poison arrow: a man is shot with a poison arrow, but before the doctor pulls it out, he wants to know who shot it (arguing the existence of God), where the arrow came from (where the universe and/or God came from) why that person shot it (why God created the universe), etc. If the man keeps asking these questions before the arrow is pulled out, the Buddha reasoned, he will die before he gets the answers. Buddhism is less concerned with answering questions like the origin of life, and more concerned with the goal of saving oneself and other beings from suffering by attaining Nirvana (Enlightenment). However, the Kalachakra Tantra, a scripture of Tibetan Buddhism, deals with the formation and functioning of reality. Modern day Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama don't perceive a conflict between Buddhism and science and consider they are complementary means of understanding the world around us.[39]"

[Kunga]

i think the major flaw of atheism.. that it cannot discern truth...is because natural intuition has been disrupted or destroyed.

[Kunga]

Creation Myths

From the above, under Buddhism:

"Buddhism itself generally ignores the question regarding the origin of life. The Buddha regarding the origin of life has said "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."[37], and in regard to ignoring the question of the origin of life the Buddha has said "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me."[38]. The Buddha also compared the question of the origin of life - as well as many other metaphysical questions - to the parable of the poison arrow: a man is shot with a poison arrow, but before the doctor pulls it out, he wants to know who shot it (arguing the existence of God), where the arrow came from (where the universe and/or God came from) why that person shot it (why God created the universe), etc. If the man keeps asking these questions before the arrow is pulled out, the Buddha reasoned, he will die before he gets the answers. Buddhism is less concerned with answering questions like the origin of life, and more concerned with the goal of saving oneself and other beings from suffering by attaining Nirvana (Enlightenment). However, the Kalachakra Tantra, a scripture of Tibetan Buddhism, deals with the formation and functioning of reality. Modern day Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama don't perceive a conflict between Buddhism and science and consider they are complementary means of understanding the world around us.[39]"

What is taught to the masses and what is taught to a few selected individuals is quite different......for the effectiveness of Truth( like gold)...it should not be spread out so thin....vast amounts of truth spoken to a few can have a more powerful effect... than small amounts given to many.

There is another parable of how a teacher might think of a students qualifications to discern truth....students can be compaired to a vessel :

Upside down (can't absorb the teachings)
Has a crack in it (teachings will leak out )
Dirty inside (the teachings will be contaminated)

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

Atheism is simply an argument.

You could define atheism in that manner, but I tend to think of it as a movement of people, a movement of intellectuals who tend to think very similar, in the same manner as American conservatives, liberals, who any other group that identifies with a label, and conforms to the ideas associated with that label.

I didn't actually mean to define Atheism there, I was only pointing out the fact that it is an idea (or a category of varying arguments), and that all ideas can potentially assuage the ego and create large scale social movements. In other words, there's no sense in saying one particular ideology is flawed because it leads to security when all other ideologies offer a similar means to security.

Your attempt at defining atheism: "a movement of people who tend to think very similar" applies to any group: Agnostics, Christians, Harley Davidson enthusiasts, Justin Bieber fans, etc, the list goes on and on. Your definition of Atheism is so vague it applies to any belief system or world view out there. You are stripping the meaning out of the word. Important too is the fact that people who all agree on an idea's validity can drastically differ in how they think, so there's that.

Consider when you said:

The major flaw of modern atheism is that atheists commonly get egotistically involved in the accumulation of knowledge, and a absolute belief in knowledge

Any leading Atheists in the mainstream secular community I can think of, whether it's James Randi, Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens are not absolutists about their atheism. Atheists generally adhere to the scientific method, meaning they base their view on evidence, aware that the facts could change. It's only in rare cases that someone arrives at the position of Atheism through logical deduction, becoming absolutist, and when this happens they are often only denying very specific definitions of God.

You can deal strictly with the ideas, but people tend to distort the ideas psychologically in very similar ways.

As Dan says, it depends on how you define atheism,

I would hope Dan would also say that some definitions are poorly thought out.

some think of it as more of a set of arguments, others as an intellectual movement. How the two factors intermingle psychologically is where things get interesting.

I will agree that Atheism can really stir up emotions quite dramatically, and troubled people who are angry at life can find a lot of "coherence" in Atheism, and breaking out of confusion into coherence can produce positive emotions, even if that coherence has painful elements. However, relatively happy people can find security in agnosticism as this world view helps people to not think and to get on with their mindless life. I was just talking to a girl the other day about God and as I attempted to present arguments, she backed away from any meaningful in-depth discussion announcing she was agnostic and felt that you just can't know. End of discussion. It turned out she wanted to talk about her visit to a psychic medium, so I listened to her story about how the psychic totally knew all about her past, knowing full well she wouldn't appreciate my thoughts on the technique of cold readings and the way psychics employ generalizations that sound impressive on the surface but in fact could apply to anyone.

-

[jupiviv]

"Intention" and "beginnings" are highly anthropomorphic experiences, projected upon an indifferent universe - indifferent to whether it has life to witness it or not.

So are non-intention and non-beginnings, actually. Calling the universe "indifferent" is also a projection. Things are just what they are, and unless this truth is fully understood, a person can't be considered to be an atheist.

But people have different definitions of atheism, and as Cory pointed out, it's not the fault of atheism that this is so.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

Your definition of Atheism is so vague it applies to any belief system or world view out there. You are stripping the meaning out of the word. Important too is the fact that people who all agree on an idea's validity can drastically differ in how they think, so there's that.

yes, that is one of my points. Some of the pillars of atheism are agreed upon. for instance: No personal god or savior, not believing something as probable without evidence (scientific method), realizing that theories are ever-changing, incomplete, the use of logic and all the rest of it. However, atheism as a movement tends to only attack the gross delusions of religion, and other superstitions, but it is is incomplete as an ideology because it ignores much of the wisdom central to psychological clarity. It tends to only refute the ideas that are in direct opposition with its aims, which is the advancement of scientific theory in the natural world, but not so much, the human mind.

Any leading Atheists in the mainstream secular community I can think of, whether it's James Randi, Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens are not absolutists about their atheism. Atheists generally adhere to the scientific method, meaning they base their view on evidence, aware that the facts could change. It's only in rare cases that someone arrives at the position of Atheism through logical deduction, becoming absolutist, and when this happens they are often only denying very specific definitions of God.

yes, but the maturity of some of these individuals you mention are rare exceptions in this movement, most of the athesists I have had conversations in the academic world are quite limited when it comes to logic and psychological insight. They can comfortably apply logic to the natural world, but not themselves. They are followers of basic secularism, but not true wisdom. That is my main point actually. The leaders of the secular movement gave a false impression of the global maturity level. People selectively listen and take in what they want to. They may laugh at the deniers of evolution, but maintain all sorts of mental blocks themselves.

As far as agnosticism is concerned, the same thing happens as you say, but a different manifestation. the ego becomes comfortable with the idea that they cannot know for certain. Basically, the mind is circumventing being challenged or pushed to see something contrary to how it sees it.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

Your definition of Atheism is so vague it applies to any belief system or world view out there. You are stripping the meaning out of the word. Important too is the fact that people who all agree on an idea's validity can drastically differ in how they think, so there's that.

yes, that is one of my points. Some of the pillars of atheism are agreed upon. for instance: No personal god or savior, not believing something as probable without evidence (scientific method), realizing that theories are ever-changing, incomplete, the use of logic and all the rest of it. However, atheism as a movement tends to only attack the gross delusions of religion, and other superstitions, but it is is incomplete as an ideology because it ignores much of the wisdom central to psychological clarity.

Ok sure, if you modify your argument to say that many secularists are caught up in common animal concerns (desire for intimacy, acceptance, children, marriage, material things, knee jerk egalitarianism), then I would agree. But that's not really what you said. You said in your OP that they don't value a sense of "unknowing".

What do you mean by that?

[Athiesm] tends to only refute the ideas that are in direct opposition with its aims, which is the advancement of scientific theory in the natural world, but not so much, the human mind.

I don't think the majority of secularists have a problem with applying science to the mind, as the fields of neuroscience and psychology can attest. Some of them do get upset when a theory rocks the "egalitarian boat" (e.g., theories related to gender, racial and IQ differences tend to upset many secularists, as does the notion that nature is more powerful than nurture). It's tough to say what percentage of the secularist community is like that, I know many of them are ok with such controversy.

But Atheism is not to blame, but rather, it's just a natural human instinct to get upset over anything that makes people feel inferior, or over things that challenge the hindbrain too much, it's pretty much universal.

They can comfortably apply logic to the natural world, but not themselves. They are followers of basic secularism, but not true wisdom. That is my main point actually. The leaders of the secular movement gave a false impression of the global maturity level. People selectively listen and take in what they want to. They may laugh at the deniers of evolution, but maintain all sorts of mental blocks themselves.

Well sure, secularists aren't perfect, they are still very much animal rather than fully human, no argument there.

As far as agnosticism is concerned, the same thing happens as you say, but a different manifestation. the ego becomes comfortable with the idea that they cannot know for certain. Basically, the mind is circumventing being challenged or pushed to see something contrary to how it sees it.

Yes, the prerogative is to minimize stress. Sheer intellectual capacity is important, but even if you are very smart, you have to be able to handle stress, if you can't, you're going to cling to a limited ideology that ties you to a larger group, and ignore large swaths of information that highlights your own weakness or undermines the egalitarian elements in your philosophy. You will also engage in typical animal rituals: intimacy, binge eating, emotional child rearing, hoarding objects, etc.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

You said in your OP that they don't value a sense of "unknowing".

What do you mean by that?

Their mind has ever touched emptiness. Their questions are born out of egotistical boredom, rather than a geniune interest in knowledge that has scope or vision.

Basically, They're religion for the most part is knowledge, no matter how irrelevant or trivial. So their quest for knowledge is not rooted in any sort of higher vision or scope. Their questions of what they do not know arise from really lame knowledge that they do know.

But Atheism is not to blame, but rather, it's just a natural human instinct to get upset over anything that makes people feel inferior, or over things that challenge the hindbrain too much, it's pretty much universal.

I agree with that, but I just want to clarify that I'm critcizing the atheism movement, more than just the collection of all its arguments. And yes, there is a certain amount of limitation in each group, but athesim as a momvent has been coined as the most rational, and I don't see it as that much more clear-minded than many other intellectual movements out there, such as postmodernism.

I don't think the majority of secularists have a problem with applying science to the mind, as the fields of neuroscience and psychology can attest.

But both fields are incredibly limited in trying to understand oneself though. You will gain very little insight into the nature of the self by studying either discipline, especially neuroscience. psychology will give you some, but it is so watered down so that it doesn't hurt too many people's feelings. You have taken university psychology, so you know this as well.

[Robert]

[...] I just want to clarify that I'm critcizing the atheism movement, more than just the collection of all its arguments. And yes, there is a certain amount of limitation in each group, but athesim as a momvent has been coined as the most rational, and I don't see it as that much more clear-minded than many other intellectual movements out there, such as postmodernism.

Ryan, I think it would be fairer to say that you're criticizing the 'New Atheists' and their movement and influence (the big names like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett etc) more than atheism itself. Like I said before, I don't really consider their definition of atheism as completely justified for the reasons you give about their context, or lack of, in terms of vision and scope (although Harris may be an exception), but at the same time I'm not sure how much the label 'New Atheists' was coined by those who aren't actually involved in it, and probably more of a journalistic/marketing/public relations invention (it doesn't sound as pompous as The Brights at least).

[longsincedead]

The major flaw of modern atheism is that atheists commonly get egotistically involved in the accumulation of knowledge, *) and a absolute belief in knowledge as a means to derive a sense of egotistical security and knowing.

IE: a belief that a theory explains everything, and leaves nothing unexplained, or no sense of unknowing within the mind.

this common cognitive error can lead to an atheist that is just as close minded as a theist.

*) You need to see the faulty usage here.

That aside, you try to make an argument about the flaw in "atheism", by attacking those who are not theist thusly: "commonly get egotistically involved in the accumulation of knowledge"
My question to you is: do you understand what ad hominem is?
Normally it is used against an individual to undercut their argument. You are using the same strategy against an alleged group of individuals. I admire you ambition.

[Animus]

But both fields are incredibly limited in trying to understand oneself though. You will gain very little insight into the nature of the self by studying either discipline, especially neuroscience. psychology will give you some, but it is so watered down so that it doesn't hurt too many people's feelings. You have taken university psychology, so you know this as well.

Is that true? I'm skeptical because I've studied both quite a lot and feel that they have aided my philosophy and introspection. It may not be useful for the university student, who's mind is geared towards credits and accumulation of facts. But for someone who is interested in it for self-evaluation, psychology and neuroscience can be powerful tools.

This is just an hypothesis of mine and something I've experimented with a bit, but I think that one can gain a better handle on one's own mind through the use of signifiers. Perhaps a name or word ultimately comes to represent the mental state, but on a primitive level it is ambiguous. The name calls out the ambiguous state, acting as a trigger. People actively watching MRI data of their brains can alter their own brain patterns instantly. They can learn to flex parts of their brains. And this is something they would otherwise find difficult to do. Now, if you have a model and set of terminology for dealing with your own mind such as psychology or neuroscience often provides then you have a much better shot at affecting your own mind. Granted, wisdom isn't really the field of either one of them, so the reader must do some extra work applying it.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Animus,

People actively watching MRI data of their brains can alter their own brain patterns instantly. They can learn to flex parts of their brains. And this is something they would otherwise find difficult to do. Now, if you have a model and set of terminology for dealing with your own mind such as psychology or neuroscience often provides then you have a much better shot at affecting your own mind. Granted, wisdom isn't really the field of either one of them, so the reader must do some extra work applying it.

yeah, I'm not sure that would work in real life. For instance: it is the pain of making a cognitive error that changes activation patterns, rather then seeing it on some fMRI scan. From the courses I took, neuroscience only seemed useful for people with serious brain injury or impairement, as it looks at "where" in the brain activation occurs during a certain type of mental activity. Such a discipline has serious limitations on what it can do in a philosophical context. In my opinion, I don't believe most people have the power to alter their own brain activity merely by looking at a fMRI scan, even if they do associate the where with the what. You would have to be looking to change your behavior in the first place, and there's no reason why logic and just a simple analysis of your behavior and its effects wouldn't be able to accomplish the same end, and it would be easier, with less technology, and harmful tests.

General psychology seems more powerful than neuroscience for philosophical growth because it at least examines personality types, disorders, sexuality, fight-flight mechanisms, and all the rest of it. general psychology can be useful if the individual is looking to mature psychologically, and not just looking to analyze as if it only applies to someone else, or just for credits, without introspection, as you say.

[Ryan Rudolph]

longsincedead,

That aside, you try to make an argument about the flaw in "atheism", by attacking those who are not theist thusly: "commonly get egotistically involved in the accumulation of knowledge"
My question to you is: do you understand what ad hominem is?
Normally it is used against an individual to undercut their argument. You are using the same strategy against an alleged group of individuals. I admire you ambition.

I don't believe it is an ad hominem, I'm merely attempting to criticize some of the common mental blocks with those individuals who enjoy using the label "atheist" to describe their own world view.

In the academic community, using the term atheist gains immediate respect and I wanted to point out that this group of individuals have just as many mental blocks as many other groups out there. Individuals hide behind some of the major arguments in order to circumvent any real psychological growth. Almost any thinker can deduce that there is no sky daddy in the clouds answering our prayers, but the atheists tend to get hung up on their attacks of religious groups, and maybe some of that energy could be used to mature humanity in more subtle ways.

That's not to say attack on flawed logic of religious groups has no place, because I think it does, but I find the typical atheist selects the easy targets too often, and strays away from the targets that may hit home a little too hard.

[guest_of_logic]

The major flaw of modern atheism is that atheists commonly get egotistically involved in the accumulation of knowledge, and a absolute belief in knowledge as a means to derive a sense of egotistical security and knowing.

IE: a belief that a theory explains everything, and leaves nothing unexplained, or no sense of unknowing within the mind.

this common cognitive error can lead to an atheist that is just as close minded as a theist.

Ryan, have you applied this type of thinking to yourself?

[longsincedead]

longsincedead,

That aside, you try to make an argument about the flaw in "atheism", by attacking those who are not theist thusly: "commonly get egotistically involved in the accumulation of knowledge"
My question to you is: do you understand what ad hominem is?
Normally it is used against an individual to undercut their argument. You are using the same strategy against an alleged group of individuals. I admire you ambition.

1) I don't believe it is an ad hominem, I'm merely attempting to criticize some of the common mental blocks with those individuals who enjoy using the label "atheist" to describe their own world view.

In the academic community, using the term atheist gains immediate respect and I wanted to point out that this group of individuals have just as many mental blocks as many other groups out there. 2) Individuals hide behind some of the major arguments in order to circumvent any real psychological growth. Almost any thinker can deduce that there is no sky daddy in the clouds answering our prayers, but the atheists tend to get hung up on their attacks of religious groups, and maybe some of that energy could be used to mature humanity in more subtle ways.

That's not to say attack on flawed logic of religious groups has no place, because I think it does, but I find the typical atheist selects the easy targets too often, and strays away from the targets that may hit home a little too hard.

1) Then you should have titled your argument: "Flaw with some atheists"
2) You need to elaborate

[Animus]

Animus,

People actively watching MRI data of their brains can alter their own brain patterns instantly. They can learn to flex parts of their brains. And this is something they would otherwise find difficult to do. Now, if you have a model and set of terminology for dealing with your own mind such as psychology or neuroscience often provides then you have a much better shot at affecting your own mind. Granted, wisdom isn't really the field of either one of them, so the reader must do some extra work applying it.

yeah, I'm not sure that would work in real life. For instance: it is the pain of making a cognitive error that changes activation patterns, rather then seeing it on some fMRI scan. From the courses I took, neuroscience only seemed useful for people with serious brain injury or impairement, as it looks at "where" in the brain activation occurs during a certain type of mental activity. Such a discipline has serious limitations on what it can do in a philosophical context. In my opinion, I don't believe most people have the power to alter their own brain activity merely by looking at a fMRI scan, even if they do associate the where with the what. You would have to be looking to change your behavior in the first place, and there's no reason why logic and just a simple analysis of your behavior and its effects wouldn't be able to accomplish the same end, and it would be easier, with less technology, and harmful tests.

General psychology seems more powerful than neuroscience for philosophical growth because it at least examines personality types, disorders, sexuality, fight-flight mechanisms, and all the rest of it. general psychology can be useful if the individual is looking to mature psychologically, and not just looking to analyze as if it only applies to someone else, or just for credits, without introspection, as you say.

Control over brain activation and pain learned by using real-time functional MRI
R. Christopher deCharms†,‡, Fumiko Maeda§,¶, Gary H. Glover∥, David Ludlow††, John M. Pauly‡‡, Deepak Soneji††, John D. E. Gabrieli§,§§, and Sean C. Mackey††
Abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18626

Learned regulation of spatially localized brain activation using real-time fMRI
R. Christopher deCharmsa, , , Kalina Christoffb, Gary H. Gloverc, d, John M. Paulyd, Susan Whitfielda and John D. E. Gabrielia
Abstract: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.041

Seems to work

[jufa]

What is the major flaw of atheism is the major flaw of any belief. Should this not be correct, then someone, of Buddhism, Moslem, Muslim, Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, etc., etc., can tell what is the difference in the belief system used by any of the participants of these organizations.

Never give poser to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://www.theillusionofgod.com

[Animus]

Calling the universe "indifferent" is also a projection.

A much overlooked truth. Indifference is just part of the difference<->indifference duality.

More to the point though, I think, is that the idea of a purposeful universe issues in accordance with our own inner sense of purposefulness, but this inner sense of purposefulness in many respects assumes an non-causal agency. Since such an agency does not exist, the idea that we are purposeful in the sense of originating from a non-causal agency is flawed. It may in-fact be the case that the genuine kind of purpose that we do have, which does not include non-causal agencies, is no different than the kind of purpose owed to say a hammer.