I think it overstates the case to say that atheists always reject intention. We know that living organisms, like human beings, act with intention. We also know that assuming, what philosopher Daniel Dennett calls, an intentional stance can be a useful survival strategy.

For example, the rustling in the tall grass next to you may be caused by something totally harmless or by a charging carnivore. It’s probably safer to assume the latter and get out of harm’s way than it is to wait and see and possibly wind up as something’s dinner.

The assumption of the intentional stance may be one reason we humans are programmed by our own evolution to attribute purpose and intention to inanimate objects and impersonal forces of nature.

Most atheists reject the idea of intention when it comes to the inorganic natural phenomena we can investigate because there does not appear to be any agent that could supply it. The universe does not intend anything. It did not intend us.

As far as we can tell, all natural phenomena are the result of undirected (or unintentional) processes.

Posted: May 21st 2009

See all questions answered by George Ricker

For me, it’s because I’m at root a naturalist.

I’e always been fascinated by science, and by how much science is able to figure out about how the universe works.

For example, there are Cepheid variable stars, which allow astronomers to determine how far away specific astronomical objects are (quite unbelievably far).

Or, to pick another example, Einstein’s explanation of the precession of Mercury.

What I’ve found is that over the years, science has been very good at finding answers to factual questions.

I’ve also spent some time studying philosophy. If you do this, you will study the ancient greeks, which illustrates that there really is nothing new in philosophy – the roots are thousands of years old, and a lot of the questions asked in those times are still asked now.

Or, to put it another way, philosophy has’t been very successful in generating much useful information.

So, I haven’t seen any examples of intention, and know enough history to know that a lot of things that used to be considered intentional (weather, earthquakes, etc.) have scientific explanations.

Or, as Laplace said when asked about God, “I have no need for that hypothesis”...

Posted: May 20th 2009

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

I’m glad you’ve gotten something out of the site. We don’t get a lot of feedback.

I wonder why you’ve continued to use the watch analogy even after being “destroyed”. Do you understand the objections atheists have given you?

Perhaps it would help you to consider the watch analogy more carefully. We all see intent and design in a watch, but why? What is it about the watch that suggests these things? Not its complexity, not its usefulness, but its artificiality. The die-cast, machine-tooled metal, the polished glass, the numbers painted on in a human language are all well beyond anything natural processes alone could produce. There was a maker with an intention that could not be achieved without going beyond nature and applying craft, and art.

Contrast this with life forms. They’re complex and they perform many functions, but we understand the natural processes by which they came about: gestation and maturity in the short term, evolution in the long term. Life forms themselves have intentions (e.g. “that shark probably intends to eat me”), but we don’t appear to have been built. Besides simply surviving and procreating, we are not obviously the means to any particular end. We don’t seem intended for anything, by some external entity.

This coincides with a common hole in the major religions: the god’s own goal or “plan” is always a mystery. The physical and mental nature of human beings does not tell us what ultimate task a god might have prepared us to perform. Thus, even the religious can’t really see divine intent. They assume it’s there because the god must want something, but they can’t place it.

One final point: consider the difference between what a thing is able to do, and what it is meant to do. The word “purpose” applies to both, but the word “intent” does not.

Posted: May 19th 2009

See all questions answered by SmartLX

Non-believers accept intention (when there is evidence that it exists).

I suspect your focus is more on why atheists do not see any intention in terms of a supernatural being targeting us, bringing us into existence. The simple answer is that there is no evidence for the supernatural, or for any interaction with earth by a personalized, theistic god. There is a much better explanation of how we became humans and that is evolution. And evolution, though not random because of natural selection, is an entirely unintended process.

As humans, we have evolved the attribute of seeing intention which helps us to be alert and aware: is that just the wind or a stealthy, powerful, wild animal rustling leaves intent on having us for dinner? This attribute is also found in atheists. Atheists, however, are aware of this propensity, and we try very hard not to fall into the trap of seeing intention when there is no evidence for it or if an better explanation exists. Religion is hijacking this inclination of ours.

I am very pleased that you see this site as a resource for you to become familiar with the reasons why atheists have no god belief.

I suggest you read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Perhaps, you will be able to understand that design need not be intended.

Posted: May 19th 2009

See all questions answered by logicel