Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

[Satyr]

The problem with Dawkins and with all the other atheists like the late Hitchens, is that they are humanists...a secular form of the same "logic" which Christianity comes from.
When confronted with a moral question or with the cosmological question as to how something-from-nothing is possible, they crumble.

Religious fanatics get some points when their opponent shares the same basic principles with them: "morality= good", "love will save us", "all deserve salvation or 'rights'", "the universe begins and ends".

Take one of the last Hitchens debates against Craig.
Craig scored points simply by allowing the idea that the universe started to become his foundation.
Hitchens could not respond because he shared in this myth.

The idea that morality requires an external standard and agency is ridiculous.
Morality evolves as a survival tool. Only social species have it to one degree or another.
Have you seen the vid of a dog risking its neck to drag another dog from the middle of a busy highway?

The "Golden Rule" is the basis of morality...not God.
God is simply a projection of the Ideal Man - the top dog...the absent absolute.

The Golden Rule is founded on a pragmatic, evolutionary, cost/benefit evaluation where the individual helps an other so as to be helped in some future date.
It requires a larger brain to develop.
Later this evolves to a projection: the individual projects upon the other, focusing on the others similarities and ignoring the differences, his own identity.
He empathizes.
This requires a transference of identity: imagination.
In social creatures the identity becomes tied to the group...particularly in less sophisticated minds with less of a sens of self.
Also why 'ego' becomes an insult.
We see this in humans and how they identify with abstractions like God or Nation or Tribe, or Sports Team.

The exaggeration of similarities and the ignoring of differences becomes paramount in producing this transference.
Man, for example, can identify more with a dog than a fish...because the similarities are more and so the differences could be dismissed more easily.

This is also why in modern systems the focus on what binds as as similar is considered "moral" while focusing or even mentioning the differences, such as those of race, sex, culture, is considered destructive and "evil".
The mediocre mind when confronted with differences recoils in fear. It intuitively senses that its own well-being in under threat...and so it can only understand someone who makes it a point to perceive and understand divergences - particularly amongst humans - as this being a product of illness...or an alternative motive or rage.
For an individual with less of a sense of self (ego) its identity is dominated by the communal one; it is a part of something bigger. Its insecurity is assuaged by becoming a part of a group and disappearing within it.
When it seeks to be noticed it is always through the group's permission, the group's permitted behavior, the group's standards.
The more numerous the group is the more wide it potentials become, since its entire sense of self and the world is contained by the concept of the group.
For such a mind quantities have superseded qualities. The only qualities it can understand are the ones that bind more and more individuals within the group it belongs to; therefore the least- common denominator becomes its symbol of self - in modernity in the west this has turned from a shared surrender to a God to the less abstract notion of humanity.

[Grendel]

To put it differently, the question as to 'why we are here' is not the same kind of question as 'why do mountains exist'.

No they're not the same questions.

'Why do mountains exist', is the same as, 'why do we exist', and, 'why are mountains here', the same as, 'why are we here', though.

'Why do mountains exist' is as you say best answered with geology. 'Why do we exist' is best answered with evolution. 'Why are mountains here' is best answered with a slap in the face. Why are we here? That's more difficult, catholicism would imply some kind of teleological plan deviswed by a guiding diety, the physicialist pure random chance from gazillions of genes evolving this way, the postmodernist would point out we come into the world a blank slate and can use our rational faculties to create our own meaning to life.

[Grendel]

The problem with Dawkins and with all the other atheists like the late Hitchens, is that they are humanists...a secular form of the same "logic" which Christianity comes from.
When confronted with a moral question or with the cosmological question as to how something-from-nothing is possible, they crumble.

Religious fanatics get some points when their opponent shares the same basic principles with them: "morality= good", "love will save us", "all deserve salvation or 'rights'", "the universe begins and ends".

Take one of the last Hitchens debates against Craig.
Craig scored points simply by allowing the idea that the universe started to become his foundation.
Hitchens could not respond because he shared in this myth.

The idea that morality requires an external standard and agency is ridiculous.
Morality evolves as a survival tool. Only social species have it to one degree or another.
Have you seen the vid of a dog risking its neck to drag another dog from the middle of a busy highway?

The "Golden Rule" is the basis of morality...not God.
God is simply a projection of the Ideal Man - the top dog...the absent absolute.

The Golden Rule is founded on a pragmatic, evolutionary, cost/benefit evaluation where the individual helps an other so as to be helped in some future date.
It requires a larger brain to develop.
Later this evolves to a projection: the individual projects upon the other, focusing on the others similarities and ignoring the differences, his own identity.
He empathizes.
This requires a transference of identity: imagination.
In social creatures the identity becomes tied to the group...particularly in less sophisticated minds with less of a sens of self.
Also why 'ego' becomes an insult.
We see this in humans and how they identify with abstractions like God or Nation or Tribe, or Sports Team.

The exaggeration of similarities and the ignoring of differences becomes paramount in producing this transference.
Man, for example, can identify more with a dog than a fish...because the similarities are more and so the differences could be dismissed more easily.

This is also why in modern systems the focus on what binds as as similar is considered "moral" while focusing or even mentioning the differences, such as those of race, sex, culture, is considered destructive and "evil".
The mediocre mind when confronted with differences recoils in fear. It intuitively senses that its own well-being in under threat...and so it can only understand someone who makes it a point to perceive and understand divergences - particularly amongst humans - as this being a product of illness...or an alternative motive or rage.
For an individual with less of a sense of self (ego) its identity is dominated by the communal one; it is a part of something bigger. Its insecurity is assuaged by becoming a part of a group and disappearing within it.
When it seeks to be noticed it is always through the group's permission, the group's permitted behavior, the group's standards.
The more numerous the group is the more wide it potentials become, since its entire sense of self and the world is contained by the concept of the group.
For such a mind quantities have superseded qualities. The only qualities it can understand are the ones that bind more and more individuals within the group it belongs to; therefore the least- common denominator becomes its symbol of self - in modernity in the west this has turned from a shared surrender to a God to the less abstract notion of humanity.

someone's read Straw Dogs.

[Jonathan.s]

Why do we exist' is best answered with evolution.

...if you're an evolutionary scientist, that is.

To quote Abraham Maslow, "If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."

In this case, the requirement to exclude 'purpose' from scientific theorizing, is used to support the (entirely different) argument that 'there is no purpose' or that such questions are meaningless.

the postmodernist would point out we come into the world a blank slate and can use our rational faculties to create our own meaning to life.

Perhaps it is true that 'meaning' is something individuals need to generate or create. But even so, it is not necessarily something that is simply 'personal' or 'inside our minds' or 'socially constructed'.

[chaz wyman]

The distinction between 'rational beings' and 'inanimate objects' is not a hard one to make. The inability to make such distinction would not bode well for subsequent philosophical analysis, in my view.

But it is you, not Dawkins that is failing in that distinction.

We might be rational beings, and animate, but that is not to say that we, or any conscious being had a hand in the origin of humans or any other species. THAT is why the questions and answers about the ANTECEDENT purpose of inanimate objects and humans is not different. It is not a question that has meaning.

[Satyr]

someone's read Straw Dogs.

"Straw Dogs"?

Link please. I might be interested in reading it.

[Grendel]

someone's read Straw Dogs.

"Straw Dogs"?

Link please. I might be interested in reading it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Dogs ... er_Animals

[chaz wyman]

Why do we exist' is best answered with evolution.

No, how we exist is best answered with the theory of evolution.

[The Voice of Time]

Why do we exist' is best answered with evolution.

No, how we exist is best answered with the theory of evolution.

Agree with Chaz. Evolution is "how" not "why". Why implies that something which can conceive a purpose by itself is laying that purpose. The question is in other words inspired by theology and a poorly made philosophical question.

The best answer is always: whatever fits you, as it is essentially you that make your reason for existing.

[Grendel]

Evolution is not just 'how' but 'why' too. We are a random collection of genes, no more. For a random collecton of genes there is no meaning, no teleologoy, Evolution clearly answers the 'why' question, there is no 'why'. To ask 'why' you must first presume evolution is not true.

[Jonathan.s]

Evolution is not just 'how' but 'why' too. We are a random collection of genes, no more. For a random collecton of genes there is no meaning, no teleologoy, Evolution clearly answers the 'why' question, there is no 'why'. To ask 'why' you must first presume evolution is not true.

This is pretty self-contradictory, isn't it? The second sentence contradicts the first one. The 'why' is 'no why'.

Where else in science is the idea that 'something happens for no reason' regarded as 'an explanation'?

I am not and have never been interested in creationism or any of that kind of thing. I studied pre-historic anthropology as an undergraduate and have studied evolutionary history all my life. I have no doubt that the basic outlines established by evolutionary science are factually correct. But the idea that life occurs 'by chance' or through the fortuitous combination of elements is neither science nor philosophy. It's just a reaction against the previous religious account. But it also underwrites a lot of other attitudes that a floating around in the popular culture. There is a lot of investment in it. That is why if you criticize it, it raises people's hackles.

[Grendel]

But the idea that life occurs 'by chance' or through the fortuitous combination of elements is neither science nor philosophy.

Yes it is science and philosophy.

[Jonathan.s]

But, it's not! Think about the history of the subject. Science and philosophy all began with the search for explanations - the underlying patterns that could be used to understand the apparently random occurrences of existence. The principle of natural selection is one such law, but it only acts on a certain level of explanation. The complicating factor is that, due to historical circumstances, it has become the de facto 'theory of everything'. It has been slotted into the place formerly occupied by the Creation Myth. There, you had intention and purpose. Here, we have no intention and no purpose. But this is exactly the way that evolutionary materialism has become a quasi-religious outlook in liberal society.

[chaz wyman]

Evolution is not just 'how' but 'why' too. We are a random collection of genes, no more. For a random collecton of genes there is no meaning, no teleologoy, Evolution clearly answers the 'why' question, there is no 'why'. To ask 'why' you must first presume evolution is not true.

If you cannot make the distinction between how and why, I suggest that you look into this a bit more deeply.
Maybe you should start with Aristotle's four causes. How encompasses the first 3, whilst the 4th is the answer to why.

If there is no teleology then the 'why' is not answered.
Your answer seems to suggest that evolution is a why, and concludes by contradicting yourself.

There is a linguistic confusion in hows and whys in English. Philosophers tend to make a distinction between the two for clarity. Most scientists are too dull and stupid to see how this is useful.
The best thing to do in the case of a confusion it to ask yourself whether or not any question answered by why is not better answered by how.

eg. Why is the sky blue?
You can answer this in terms of wavelength of light and the human perception. But it also includes god makes things beautiful and other such "purpose". Obviously there is not a purpose to the sky being blue, so why answer why?
The question 'How is the sky blue' is a more scientifically precise formulation which jettisons the implied purpose. That is how 'how' questions are best applied to scientific questions.
All scientific 'why' questions ought to be able to be rearranged in this way, else they are not really scientific questions at all.

Not why are we here, but how did we evolve, how did the earth get like this, how did the oceans form etc...
If you ask why then you leave open the possibility of design and purpose.
Evolution is all about HOW.

[Notvacka]

Evolution is not just 'how' but 'why' too. We are a random collection of genes, no more. For a random collecton of genes there is no meaning, no teleologoy, Evolution clearly answers the 'why' question, there is no 'why'.

The problem is that the answer "there is no why" is totally unsatisfactory. It does not answer the question so much as dismiss it. From the perspective of your answer, the question is irrelevant. But from the perspective of the question, your answer is irrelevant.

To ask 'why' you must first presume evolution is not true.

Not at all. Scientific "truths" and religious "truths" have little in common but the use of the word "truth".

Let' take a closer look at your statement:

We are a random collection of genes, no more.

The "no more" part is clearly ridiculous on any level but the most reductionistic. We are painters, pipers and prisoners, seers of visions riding a steel breeze and asking awkward questions like "why?" Besides, our collection of genes is not random; it's the product of a very long selection process indeed.

For a random collecton of genes there is no meaning, no teleologoy.

True. But we are not asking "why" as random genes; we are asking as existential beings reflecting upon ourselves and the universe. As humans we demand meaning and purpose. If we can't find it, we invent it.