Be it atheists or theists, many may feel human life may be purposeless or untenable; i.e. a never ending search or a "why" question that's perhaps not worth asking.

I think there's a viable alternative to especially the "purposeless" based outlook, with the introduction of a recent concept called "teleonomy", which is an atheistic/scientific way to describe nature in purpose driven language. (In fact, as seen on Wikipedia/teleonomy, Richard Dawkins; recently introduced the treatments “archeo” and “neo” purpose. See his video/speech "the purpose of purpose".)

Anyway, for example, using the laws of thermodynamics, we can try to objectively discover non-trivial goals that humans may undertake, as far as nature goes. (i.e. grand purposes for the human species, that reasonably transcend the desires of individual humans, while seeking to be objective, much like how Science tends to follow the evidence, aiming to describe what the cosmos actually is, rather than what people may want the cosmos to be.)

Note: One may reasonably grasp an understanding of the summaries below, without clicking on the associated wikipedia etc sources. One may however get an even more wholesome understanding, by toggling the links conveniently provided throughout the summaries.

Hypothesis A - An atheist PhD psychologist named Michael Price, hypothesizes that future humans are probably supposed to replicate universes [2017]: "Michael's variant of Cosmological Natural Selection I":

The original version of CNS I stems from a concept called Cosmological Natural Selection by physicist Lee Smolin.

  1. Cosmological Natural Selection, posits that our universe likely stemmed from a process that like evolution or biological natural selection, spun many universes; where the best universe instances emerge from universes that possess excellent replication abilities/properties, through the utilization of blackholes. Intelligent life is said to be an accidental by-product of this replication process
  2. Cosmological Natural Selection I (CNS I), additionally posits that intelligent life is a viable factor for replicating universes.
  3. Michael Price’s variant of CNS I, additionally posits that intelligent life is a likely core influence on the successful generation of replicating universes, where Michael surmises that human intelligence is the most “improbably complex” outcome of the cosmos thus far. Michael ranks modern humans to be a step in the direction towards future human intelligence, that will be able to create non-arbitrary universes. Thereafter, Michael expresses that the scientific purpose of humans is reasonably, ultimately to replicate universes like ours.

Hypothesis B - An atheist computer scientist named Jordan Bennett, hypothesizes that a grand human purpose is probably to create Artificial General Intelligence [2015]: "Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artificial general intelligence?"

  1. In understanding Jordan's hypothesis, one may imagine entropy as a currency in an economy.
  2. Agents/organisms that get work done (access to activities) in nature, must pay up some entropy, you don't do work or have access to activities, without paying up some entropy.
  3. Highly Intelligent things (like humans) reasonably pay more entropy, compared to less intelligent things or non intelligent things, because humans do more work i.e. many cognitive tasks (thinking about science, doing scientific stuff) compared to lesser intelligences or non intelligent things.
  4. In a similar way, chimps may pay more entropy than say less intelligent things, because they do more work, or have access to more complicated activities. (More access to activities result from more access to stuff called "macrostates" in the OP's second hypothesis regarding Artificial General Intelligence.)
  5. Likewise, Artificial General Intelligence[AGI] or Artificial Super Intelligence[ASI] when built, will have access to more cognitive activities, and they'll get more work done than humans. So, they'll reasonably pay more entropy to the thermodynamic system that is nature.
  6. This means there is reasonably a pattern, nature is finding more and more ways to extract more and more entropy from activities done (i.e. entropy maximization), and nature reasonably does this by building smarter and smarter things. Humans thus likely won't be the last thing nature finds to derive entropy from work; there will likely be AGI or ASI or whatever smarter thing that follows humans. (Laws of physics permits smarter things than humans overall)

Crucially, Science can reasonably describe how organic life began (namely, via evolutionary principle etc) and also, reasonably where human life perhaps seeks to go (again, via evolutionary principle etc, as described in the hypotheses above.)


  1. An atheist PhD psychologist hypothesizes that future humans are probably supposed to replicate universes [2017]: "Cosmological Natural Selection, Cosmological Evolution and the Futu...".
  2. An atheist computer scientist hypothesizes that a grand human purpose is probably to create Artificial General Intelligence [2015]: "Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artifici...?"
  3. Video summary:


Views: 513

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Your words:

"Blue you have failed to be consistent which leads me to believe the issue of free will is not something you had delved into. I agree with Harris. But you have backtracked. Your original words were as follows:

Humans are clumps of atoms, whose configurations give rise to free will. The laws of physics reasonably permits also, inorganic clumps, not only organic human clumps, to yield free will.

See it? There is no obfuscation or ambiguity. You simply accept free will. I on other hand take it as a matter of course that free will is impossible. You seem to have expertise in AI and i had not read or heard anybody tackle the issue of whether AI might attain free will where it is clear to me free will is impossible in the organic. 

If you can not express yourself with perspicacity and consistency then i would rather drop it. The issue of free will is indeed interesting but it has been beaten to death. 

In terms of your asking the relation to the OP i note that this is an informal setting. It is not academia. Furthermore, digression is the oxygen of intelligence."

My response:

Please recall the the laws of physics [which I had initially mentioned in relation to free will] are not separate from reasonable limitations amongst organisms, which I later spelt out clearly, long before your apparent accusation of my supposed claim of complete free will.

However, it is up to you whether you wish to:

  1. Ignore that my initial words concerned free will, particularly within the limits of the laws of physics.
  2. Ignore that there are variants of free will, not merely the one type of "complete free will meaning" that you seemingly seek to bound or distort my initial intentions amidst. Some variants align with item 1 above.  [See Wikipedia/Free_will]

What is the scientific purpose of the human species? What is the scientific purpose of a disease germ? Who was the first disease germ and did it have a mate?

So much for scientific purpose. Somewhere the truth is in there. Things happen.

a temporarypost


Where/what was human purpose “before it was stuck in the realm of religion”?

Science seems an attempt to escape the realm (the swindles) of religion, so what preceded religion?

An answer:

Before religion, some people provided for themselves better than others and some people communicated better than others.

The Communicators needed to persuade the Providers to share. Thus religion.

Another Q:

The above Hypotheses A and B?


They are respectively Michael Price’s and Jordan Bennett’s attempts at purpose.

"Where/what was a human purpose 'before it was stuck in the realm of religion'?"

There was no human purpose to life; evolution does not require a purpose.

"what preceded religion?"

Community, kinship, the need for protection from predators. 

"Michael Price’s and Jordan Bennett’s attempts at purpose."

OK, I am now going over to read your recommendations and then will return and answer your questions agains. 

Slow down, Joan.

Watch Blue Gray’s Brain Episode 1 video above. The words “stuck in the realm of religion”  are between 2:45 and 3:10 in the 5-minute video.

You wrote “There was no human purpose to life;....”

Try “There was no purpose to human life;....”

Human purposes included getting food and water, along with community and the need for protection from predators.

And, if a need for protection from predators preceded religion, predators also preceded religion.

Good advice, Tom, "Slow down." Yes, I have gone back to the original Blue Grey Brain's discussion point and trying to make sense of a field in which I have little talent. I should be able to grasp the ideas, or reject them, if I claim to be a behavioral scientist. I guess I have to rethink that claim. 

So far, I am having trouble with Wilson's Evolution Biology Lecture because he uses as an illustration the effect a beaver has on an environment. I forget the word he used but it implied that because the beaver selects trees of one variety leaving the forest full of coniferous trees, poisoning the groundwater. 

My perception is that the beaver changes the components of the environment, but does not ruin it. A beaver usually finds a wet area with seeping water to build a dam. The beaver is selective in which kind of trees he kills and eats or uses for a dam, leaving behind a different forest. The groundwater does change as plant life changes. the Mycocizal enzimes of one kind of tree is different than the enzimes of another tree. The new forest is an evolved forest, not a ruined one.

I seem to not be able to get beyond that statement as I listen to Wilson's lecture. I guess I will have to stop there and figure it out before I go on.   

As a behavioral scientist, Joan, you are able to grasp or reject the ideas in Blue’s discussion, or you are able to suspend judgment.

So you can imagine the universe coming from nothing, multiverses, strings, dark matter, black holes, et cetera, but without empirical evidence you suspend judgment, don’t you?

Yes, I suspend judgment because I have no understanding of what is real and what is imagination. I also know that the flat-earth people did not believe the round-earth people because they could not see the bigger picture. Remember seeing Earth from space the first time? I was transfixed! What a beautiful sight! And! I saw no political boundaries! What! The Earth isn't divided into large and small nation states? I'll be darned. Nations are constructs, human constructs! Also, there are no boundaries of black, white, yellow, or red-skinned human beings! Race exists because of human constructs and human migration! 

Hello! I am so  grateful to find your forum. Few days ago I received a task to write essay for my college by the topic of religions, when I started my research I found the forum and today I have got my access here and also I get my essay from . So now I can write my own essay with information you post here, it is soo useful, thank you one more time!

Something doesn't make sense. You have a college assignment o write a paper on religion and you use in order to submit a paper you are supposed to write. 

Excuse me for being nosey, but why are you using for a college paper? Don't you write your own work? 

You have not answered my question. Am I to assume you have a good reason and do not want to share the reason, or you do not have a good reason and do not want to reveal that fact? 




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service