Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

[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.

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.

This ducks the question. I've said there is 'no why', instead of saying there is a 'why' and this is it, you've said there is 'not no why'. Your example even moves from evolution to the sky and is unrelated. The example needs to be 'how do we exist' and 'why do we exist' or something similar. We exists because gazillions of particles formed into a universe creating our planet on which gazillions of gene mutations formed us. What s the 'why' question in pure chance?

[Grendel]

We are painters, pipers and prisoners, seers of visions riding a steel breeze and asking awkward questions like "why?"

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.

Are you presuming we have free will?

An ant is a soldier, a worker, a queen. Are they more than just their breeding? Are they making conscious rational decisions as individuals, are aesthetically appreciating the architecture the build?

Lets imagine we take away rationality from humans and they like ants act on pure evolutionary instinct, what would they do. I would suggest we would arrive at exactly the world we have now. We act on evolotion alone, and when we act on an evolutionary urge we cover it with a facade of reason. We killed for bloodlust and pretend it's justifiable, we fuck for pure physical pleasure and disguise it with notions of sexual liberation, we gain power over and crush other people out of ego and hide it with political reason.

Your 'why' is a Christian lie, a facade to hide from yourself if you hard enough in a mirror all you'll see a monkey staring back.

[Notvacka]

Are you presuming we have free will?

Good question. It pops up rather often. For your benefit I'll quote myself from another thread on the topic of free will:

As a concept, free will is intrinsically linked to the concept of identity.

Free will and identity are core concepts of the human experience. Both may be mere illusions, but we all experience them, which makes them important.

Who am I? My identity is defined by circumstances and by my actions. Circumstances determine me, but I determine my actions. You could exclude me from the equation and conclude that circumstances determine my actions. But that would be to deny my existence as a human being.

Free will does not exist in a strictly objective sense. Neither do I. (I'm not talking about my body, which could probably be objectively verified to some degree. )

Without free will, we don't exist. And in some perversely objective way, we don't. But that's not how we experience it.

Free will and identity are what we experience between circumstances and actions.

On a purely subjective level, free will is experienced as having alternatives to choose from. On the same subjective level, identity is experienced as being the one doing the choosing.

My point being that the subjective experience is perhaps more important than any objective reality. We don't live in reality anyway, but rather in a collectively constructed and shared illusion.

Concepts that don't relate to anything in reality can still be very important.

Lets imagine we take away rationality from humans...

Why rationality? Why not take away the irrational side of humanity? Taking away some aspect of humanity in order to study what remains isn't feasible even as a thought experiment.

...and they like ants act on pure evolutionary instinct, what would they do. I would suggest we would arrive at exactly the world we have now. We act on evolotion alone, and when we act on an evolutionary urge we cover it with a facade of reason. We killed for bloodlust and pretend it's justifiable, we fuck for pure physical pleasure and disguise it with notions of sexual liberation, we gain power over and crush other people out of ego and hide it with political reason.

I don't think you understand evolution properly. What is an "evolutionary urge?" And if there is a "facade" of reason (or unreason for that matter) is that not also a product of evolution?

Your 'why' is a Christian lie...

How do you figure that? What makes the question a lie, and what makes it Christian?

[Grendel]

What is an "evolutionary urge?

Gazelles stand up moments after they are born. I don't think this is by chance, nurture or reason, it's something they have evolved as a survival mechanism and their brains are now hard wired to do it. Unless you have another explanation?

if there is a "facade" of reason (or unreason for that matter) is that not also a product of evolution?

Most likely, but this observation in know way challenges the point.

What makes the question a lie, and what makes it Christian?

You answer the question yourself partly in your explanation of free will.

Without free will, we don't exist. And in some perversely objective way, we don't. But that's not how we experience it.

Free will and identity are what we experience between circumstances and actions.

In eastern religions we don't exist. The individual and free will are Christian inventions accepted without understanding of origin by atheists. Atheists who use arguments based on these christian premises are accepting Christian premises, like it or not.

[Notvacka]

Gazelles stand up moments after they are born. I don't think this is by chance, nurture or reason, it's something they have evolved as a survival mechanism and their brains are now hard wired to do it. Unless you have another explanation?

Animals have instincts, yes. I thought you meant something else by "evolutionary urge". It sounded almost teleological, you know.

So, you think humans might have instinctively come up with things like money, religion, poker, democracy, aeroplanes and Youtube? Is that your point? And if so, so what? We still experience identity and choices. Human life consists of experiences, whether these experiences relates to something in reality or not.

The individual and free will are Christian inventions accepted without understanding of origin by atheists.

I think you give Christianity too much credit here. I'm pretty sure people of all cultures through history have experienced the common illusion of identity and choice. You do it too. Knowing that it's an illusion doesn't help.

Still, the fact that science can't answer a question doesn't make the question a lie.

[Jonathan.s]

We exist because gazillions of particles formed into a universe creating our planet on which gazillions of gene mutations formed us.

The atomic model has had great utility, but it fails as an ultimate explanation, because fundamental particles have been proven to be neither ‘fundamental’ nor ‘particles’. Appealing to this model to ‘explain’ why there is something rather than nothing is a just-so story - a myth, in the true sense of the word.

And as I noted before, the proposal that something as complex as life ‘just happened’ does not amount to an explanation of any kind. It too is a just-so story.

You can't defend anti-philosophy with more anti-philosophy.

In eastern religions we don't exist.

Not so. Eastern philosophy lays great importance in the concept of agency and the consequences of actions (karma) over many lifetimes. The ego is something to be transcended but this doesn’t amount to the simple assertion that ‘we don’t exist’.

if you [look] hard enough in a mirror all you'll see a monkey staring back.

The idea that humans are no different to animals is another myth, and a very curious one. I often wonder what the utility of this idea is, because I have learned that challenges to it are treated scornfully. I *think* the appeal is that it actually solves what Erich Fromm called 'the fear of freedom'. Humans are moral agents, who are responsible for their actions, and must choose their values. So the idea that we are 'really just animals' absolves us of that responsibility.

[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.

This ducks the question. I've said there is 'no why', instead of saying there is a 'why' and this is it, you've said there is 'not no why'. Your example even moves from evolution to the sky and is unrelated. The example needs to be 'how do we exist' and 'why do we exist' or something similar. We exists because gazillions of particles formed into a universe creating our planet on which gazillions of gene mutations formed us. What s the 'why' question in pure chance?

You are confused

[chaz wyman]

What is an "evolutionary urge?

There is no such thing.
Evolution is an outcome not a cause.

if there is a "facade" of reason (or unreason for that matter) is that not also a product of evolution?

Humans tend to think that everything is purposeful. There have been times in the evolution of society when this has provided an advantage. Any fool can see that right now the disadvantages of this fallacy far outweigh the advantages.
At the heart of all religion this fantasy lies.

[John]

And as I noted before, the proposal that something as complex as life ‘just happened’ does not amount to an explanation of any kind. It too is a just-so story.

You don't mean that it's an invalid explanation you just mean that you can't accept it as an explanation.

[chaz wyman]

And as I noted before, the proposal that something as complex as life ‘just happened’ does not amount to an explanation of any kind. It too is a just-so story.

It is a far cry from a just-so story. It is based on the assembled knowledge of thousands of years of study and thought.

When answers are not available, and can never be available it is wise to use the most probable hypothesis to see if it works.

The hypothesis that Life was the design of an intelligent creator is without merit for several reasons.
It does not provide any kind of answer as you still have all your work to do in trying to explain the origin of that creator
The only reason you have this idea is through tradition.
It does not help in any sense in assisting us to understand the physical mechanisms by which life emerged.
The thing that creates is more complex then the thing created. It is not evident that the universe started with maximal complexity, as the god hypothesis suggests. In fact it is absurd given the facts of the universe.
QED there is no creation. All the evidence points to an increase in complexity culminating in higher mammals (not with standing other alien species).

The notion that life happened is a necessary outcome of years of study of the physical processes that are in place which can be observed daily by which new species form and well understood is the natural physical mechanisms by which life emerged from inanimate matter - none of which requires the attention of a personal, volitional, mindful or creator god. In fact observations only lead to the conclusion that the only sense we could ever make of a god hypothesis is the impersonal, unintentional unconscious organising nature of matter and energy. God is Nature. It does not give a rat's arse who your sleep with or if you eat pork or not.

[Jonathan.s]

I have said nothing in this thread about 'God' or an intelligent designer. What I have said is that the assumption that life is something that originates fortuitously and evolves without any kind of purpose, save for those understood by the biological sciences, does not amount to any kind of explanation of the nature of human existence. And it doesn't. I think that the role that evolutionary philosophy plays in modern secular society is descended from the religious account that preceded it, for historical reasons. It has assumed many of the same roles, but it cannot fulfil them in the same way, because it lacks any kind of moral dimension or any sense of purpose, other than 'purpose' in the instrumental sense that the natural sciences can understand. It has become a kind of secular faith, but with some of the attributes of the Christianity from which it descended, inverted.

In the quote I gave from Dawkins, he agrees that the Darwinian view of life is a very poor basis for philosophy or social policy, or anything of the kind. But if you examine Dawkins books, or ask him what he believes in, he has nothing to offer except for popular science, or what amounts to scientism. He goes on about 'the wonder of life', from the viewpoint of being a kind of naturalist. There's nothing the matter with that, but it doesn't provide the basis for for ethical principles or a way of life. And he demonstrates no comprehension of the poverty of his own philosophical views, something which has been remarked upon by many commentators. That is why I have called him an anti-philosopher.

[Bernard]

I don't get why some people think that life had a beginning.

[Jonathan.s]

It is a far cry from a just-so story. It is based on the assembled knowledge of thousands of years of study and thought.

When answers are not available, and can never be available it is wise to use the most probable hypothesis to see if it works.

The hypothesis that Life was the design of an intelligent creator is without merit for several reasons.

There are two different kinds of explanation being confused here. You don't have to dispute the scientific account of the origins of life, to question the interpretation of the meaning of evolution, how the phenomenon of life can be interpreted as a whole. I have always understood the evolutionary account of life to be factually correct. But I don't think that the idea that the development of life is purely fortuitous, as proposed by evolutionary materialism, is actually part of that evidence. That is a cultural belief based on the perceived antagonism between religion and science.

Materialists generally subscribe to the idea of abiogenesis. A-bio means 'non-living', so 'abiogenesis' literally means ' the origin of life from non life'. This is often associated with Darwin's musings on the idea of the 'warm little pond'. Research into abiogenesis consists largely of speculation and recreations of the kinds of environments that might have produced the types of complex molecules that characterize living cells.

But I think there is a contradiction in this idea. If you believe there is no kind of 'reason' or 'purpose' underlying the development of life, then the search for abiogenesis is looking for an explanation, in the absence of a reason. It is asking a question very much like this: 'why did life develop - for no reason'?

There are scientists who have written on this topic without any kind of ID bias. See for example Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life by Robert Rosen; Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life Hubert Yockey; and Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe.

[Notvacka]

I don't get why some people think that life had a beginning.

Well, the only life we know of is life here on earth, an the earth itself has a finite history. How do you suppose life exists here now, unless it began at some point? Or are you talking about life in some other sense?

[Grendel]

Still, the fact that science can't answer a question doesn't make the question a lie.

Are you saying there's something more than the purely material in reason we are here?