Flann wrote:You have to explain where matter itself and the cosmos with it's laws originate.
No, you don't. Because as soon as you require such an answer, people start creating answers. Is it really so hard to accept the idea that there is knowledge beyond us? We cannot know how the laws of nature came to be. Maybe some day we'll figure it out. But starting with an answer and working backwards is the best way to build a false worldview.
If you've ever heard me say the theists worldview is arrogant, it's related to this. Theists claim to have knowledge that I believe is impossible. They claim to hold the answer to the most important answer in the universe. What started it all? Have some humility and admit we don't know. Sure, it's okay to speculate. But don't use that speculation to support any other beliefs. That's backwards.
Flann wrote:So from inanimate particles and chemicals all biological life supposedly sprang culminating in humans with intelligence,purpose, and a moral nature with the ability to think of abstract moral concepts such as justice. Add to that creativity,language and emotions and many other faculties such as vision etc.
This is what I was asking, yes. Why do you think these things must have been created by an intelligent being?
Reading between the lines, your statements have something of an appeal to incredulity. It's as if you cannot imagine how such amazing things as purpose and morality could exist unless they were created by an intelligent being. But we're back to the same question - why?
I'm going to speculate here, so don't hold it against me. I think when we're younger, we come to certain conclusions a bit earlier than we should. Grand conclusions. And as we learn more, all throughout life, each and every new bit of information we plug into our brains is indexed and categorized based on those earlier conclusions. These early conclusions form the framework for future learning. So throughout your whole life, all your experiences and learning have been plugged into a worldview where god is responsible for many things. You "use" the idea of god to explain many things, and this grows into a complex web of interdependent knowledge. So when you try to think like an atheist and remove god from the equation, a great deal of what you know no longer makes sense. All those millions of associations that hide in the shadows of conscious processing are now broken associations. So you respond with appeals to incredulity, without having any truly good reason. You "feel" the dissonance, but can't quite pinpoint it.
I know there's no words that work, but for what it's worth, trust me that the naturalist worldview makes sense from top to bottom. Whatever appears to not work, from your perspective, is due to the incompatibility of your web of knowledge.
Flann wrote:If we grant there is real functional design in human bodies,systems and brains you have to explain such complex and seemingly purposeful design as the product of ultimately inanimate,mindless and purposeless matter.
You admit life appears to have function, and it seems to have some sort of direction. I agree with both of these. But function is not the same as purpose. As you say, purpose is an expression of thought. Purposeful design, then, is the same thing as function except that it's created by an intelligence. Yet you still haven't given a reason why there must be an intelligence behind the way life evolved. Your use of the word "purpose" indicates you believe that, but why don't you use the word function instead? It's all the same, in every way. Nothing changes, with the sole exception that you believe an intelligence is the cause, rather than merely the laws of nature. You add the idea of intelligence to the concept of function. But why? Function fits.
Backpedaling a few years here, I've seen evolutionary biologists use the term "purpose", as a shorthand way of explanation. But when pressed, they admit their use is technically incorrect. I will try to find the few articles I read on this. They admit that the proper term is "function", because purpose assumes intelligence.
As for direction, consider all the different parts of the environment. There is a set of environmental variables that are mostly overlooked. The amount of radiation, in all it's forms, from the sun. The specific amount of gravity exerted. The ratio of oxygen and nitrogen and other gasses in the air. The ratios and abundances of various elements and prebiotic compounds on the Earth's surface and in oceans. The nuclear forces. The impact of the moon's gravity and night light.
Most of the time when we think of the environment, we think of all the things that frequently change. Yet many environmental factors are relatively stable across the entire globe, so we should expect to see the emergence of similar phenotypes scattered in amidst all the diversity.