Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

[Jonathan.s]

You ask what remains? You lack imagination! What remains is your confusion based on a false assumption that the human race is not capable of finding its own pathways. The fact that there has never been a guiding and over riding purpose to life has never before stopped humans from deciding upon their own.

Please do not acuse me of confusion, when you have not demonstrated by argument any confusion on my part.

Darwin does in fact say there is a guiding and over-riding purpose, that purpose around which his entire theory is organised. That purpose is 'to survive', and those organisms which succeed at so doing, continue to exist. From the viewpoint of determining the proliferation of species, this is a splendid principle. When, however, it is advanced as a replacement for religion and philosophy, then not so.

Humans have, collectively and individually, decided upon 'their own purposes' for millenia. The historical texts of religion are some of the results of those decisions. Now here we have the suggestion that this has all been superseded by a superior theory - albeit one that proclaims that there really is no 'why'.

You are indeed correct in saying there is a lot of work to be done.

[Jonathan.s]

By making the point that we are now free to reject the divine purpose hypothesis as utterly false we will be better placed to forge ahead with our own purposes

Not thy will be done, oh Lord, but mine!

[chaz wyman]

You ask what remains? You lack imagination! What remains is your confusion based on a false assumption that the human race is not capable of finding its own pathways. The fact that there has never been a guiding and over riding purpose to life has never before stopped humans from deciding upon their own.

Please do not acuse me of confusion, when you have not demonstrated by argument any confusion on my part.

Darwin does in fact say there is a guiding and over-riding purpose, that purpose around which his entire theory is organised. That purpose is 'to survive', and those organisms which succeed at so doing, continue to exist. From the viewpoint of determining the proliferation of species, this is a splendid principle. When, however, it is advanced as a replacement for religion and philosophy, then not so.

...And so here, once again is your confusion. Evolution is a consequence, an outcome, an effect. It is not a cause. It is NOT purposeful.
QED - you are confused.
For this you can be forgiven - it is a common enough problem and is the consequence of Darwin being used as a replacement for a god driven evolution.
Survival drives evolution is it not its purpose. That is the shocking and subtle ramification of Darwinian evolution.
Until you realise this you will continue with your fallacy as so many do.

[chaz wyman]

By making the point that we are now free to reject the divine purpose hypothesis as utterly false we will be better placed to forge ahead with our own purposes

Not thy will be done, oh Lord, but mine!

As there is no easily discernible divine will, then your words are empty.
The will of humans has always been done, this is the case even when channelled through claims of divine inspiration.

[chaz wyman]

It would seem I am under a misapprehension then. I will look into it further. Thanks.

Let us know what you find!
RE:
One of the many arrows in the quiver of Philosophy is the ability to define, undermine, unpack and reveal what are the differences between the objective and the subjective.

The first thing we learn is that objective is not the same as 'true', OR 'unbiased'.
The second is that there is rarely (maybe never) a completely subjective point of view, as we all derive our thinking and knowledge from the world around us.

The objective is not a line to the ultimate truth, it is more to do with the agreement of your peers - an objective criterion is nothing more than a standard that is agreed upon by the experts in the particular field we are looking at. These standards change over time. In a meaningful sense all objective claims are intersubjective - or as I prefer to call them collectively subjective; they are based on the agreement within a language community.

I'm not sure how you get to the formulation; philosophy is defined by objective and logical questions. I don't think it is. Its more to do with using rational means to understand the universe and how we are to live our lives in that knowledge. Whilst this might include logic and consideration of objective claims, it is not defined by them.

[Jonathan.s]

..And so here, once again is your confusion. Evolution is a consequence, an outcome, an effect. It is not a cause. It is NOT purposeful.
QED - you are confused.
For this you can be forgiven - it is a common enough problem and is the consequence of Darwin being used as a replacement for a god driven evolution.
Survival drives evolution is it not its purpose. That is the shocking and subtle ramification of Darwinian evolution.
Until you realise this you will continue with your fallacy as so many do..

I can see you're making an effort here, and I appreciate that. But I assure you, I am not in the least confused, nor is the fallacy of my creation. To recapitulate what is at issue in all this: the question I would ask of Dawkins is: if even by his own admission, Darwinism makes for a lousy philosophy, then what can be used as the basis for principles and 'the good life'?

The answer appears to be: there isn't anything. There is no scientific basis for values, as such, and no way of ascertaining whether the Universe is in any sense meaningful. Evolution is not understood as a purpose-driven process, and doesn't provide any basis for values, principles or ethics.

Yet Dawkins, and others, appears to want to elevate evolutionary theory as 'a replacement for a god driven evolution', as we both agree.

I don't think that a Dawkins actually understands the implications of his own words. It leads straight to nihilism. As it happens, Dawkins is a pretty nice guy, and not really malicious.

But that is not by virtue of anything in his books.

See Evolution as Religion: Strange Hopes and Even Stranger Fears, The Case for God, Karen Armstrong, and Why Us: How Science Re-discovered the Mystery of Ourselves. All of these are detailed, secular critiques of many of the ideas found in the books of Dawkins, et al, on making a religion out of evolution.

[Bernard]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

Go to 7:25




Also a link to Dawkins&Kraus interview that Dawkins refers to in the Q&A interview http://ideas.sydneyoperahouse.com/2012/ ... ce-krauss/

[Grendel]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

Go to 7:25


Also a link to Dawkins&Kraus interview that Dawkins refers to in the Q&A interview http://ideas.sydneyoperahouse.com/2012/ ... ce-krauss/

Dawkins makes the point we shouldn't organise society based on how evolution works, but he doesn't address the problem, is this even possible? We are both a products of evolution and still part of it, how can we make a decision to organise society detached from what we are? In fact we seem to have done the exact opposite. In evolution creatures compete to become apex predators, acheive it, form a hierarchy based on strongest first, deplete all the resources in the environment, suffer a rapid population reduction and perhaps die off to be replaced by a better adapted predator. Sound familiar?

[Jonathan.s]

Good points.

The answer lies in the direction of the 'evolution of consciousness'.

One of the Huxleys - T H H Huxley was 'Darwin's Bulldog', but in this case it was his descendant Julian Huxley - said that 'we are evolution become conscious of itself'. This is a very profound observation, in my view. I don't think that many of the people promoting evolutionary materialism really get this idea.

[Bernard]

Its an interesting view of both men. Seeing Pell talk was quite eerie as three of my Father's brothers became priests and would have went to the same seminary as Pell - the same lackadaisical and laconic way of thinking, happy to be pulled along church lines, but good hearted and cheery for the most.

Dawkin's atheism and idea of 'nothing' are revealing: neither are pure. He allows himself a safety line or question mark with his atheism that only seems to be in place as a matter of convenience, or almost as deference to theists, which seems disingenuous. But it is a good practising scientists question mark that he leaves there for himself.

The question of how the universe can come from nothing is very similar to the Zen koan "Where were you before you were born?" The only difference between the question of one's own personal historical non-existence and the historical non-existence of the universe, is that we know that we were not particularly missed for not existing. We don't see this of the universe: we seem to say that when the universe didn't exist nothing existed. I don't get this stance, as we only have evidence that if one thing in particular isn't in existence it makes very next to no difference to the integrity of existence: one less ant equals what? one less galaxy equals what? The only other thing in human thinking that holds this same podium is God, ie; without God there is nothing. We need to accept the evidence that existence is about infinite individual forms that are never one-off and that are involved in infinite cycles of beginning, growing and replacing.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

Go to 7:25




Also a link to Dawkins&Kraus interview that Dawkins refers to in the Q&A interview http://ideas.sydneyoperahouse.com/2012/ ... ce-krauss/

[ForgedinHell]

..And so here, once again is your confusion. Evolution is a consequence, an outcome, an effect. It is not a cause. It is NOT purposeful.
QED - you are confused.
For this you can be forgiven - it is a common enough problem and is the consequence of Darwin being used as a replacement for a god driven evolution.
Survival drives evolution is it not its purpose. That is the shocking and subtle ramification of Darwinian evolution.
Until you realise this you will continue with your fallacy as so many do..

I can see you're making an effort here, and I appreciate that. But I assure you, I am not in the least confused, nor is the fallacy of my creation. To recapitulate what is at issue in all this: the question I would ask of Dawkins is: if even by his own admission, Darwinism makes for a lousy philosophy, then what can be used as the basis for principles and 'the good life'?

The answer appears to be: there isn't anything. There is no scientific basis for values, as such, and no way of ascertaining whether the Universe is in any sense meaningful. Evolution is not understood as a purpose-driven process, and doesn't provide any basis for values, principles or ethics.

Yet Dawkins, and others, appears to want to elevate evolutionary theory as 'a replacement for a god driven evolution', as we both agree.

I don't think that a Dawkins actually understands the implications of his own words. It leads straight to nihilism. As it happens, Dawkins is a pretty nice guy, and not really malicious.

But that is not by virtue of anything in his books.

See Evolution as Religion: Strange Hopes and Even Stranger Fears, The Case for God, Karen Armstrong, and Why Us: How Science Re-discovered the Mystery of Ourselves. All of these are detailed, secular critiques of many of the ideas found in the books of Dawkins, et al, on making a religion out of evolution.

Part of the irony is that despite Dawkins being a professor in Evolutionary Biology, he doesn't understand how it has produced altruistic behavior. When he stated that he would be against a Darwinian world, he conceded way too much. It's just another example, among many, showing how Dawkins makes for a poor debater on behalf of atheism, and secularism. Edward Wilson would disagree with Dawkins's assessment of evolution and morality, as would many others.

[Jonathan.s]

Wilson and Dawkins are having the mother of all battles at this very moment. Quite apart from the specifics of the debate, the vituperative tone is an interesting reflection of the politics of evolutionary science.

[ForgedinHell]

Wilson and Dawkins are having the mother of all battles at this very moment. Quite apart from the specifics of the debate, the vituperative tone is an interesting reflection of the politics of evolutionary science.

Thanks for the citation. I didn't know they were having a dispute, but I knew their theories conflicted. What's interesting about Dawkins's position is that he fails to mention that his hero, Darwin, stated pretty much what Wilson is now stating. In fact, that's who originated the current idea. I've always thought Dawkins was overrated.

It will be, however, interesting to see how the dispute works out over the coming years.

[Notvacka]

Deleted double post.

[Notvacka]

Well I for one cannot be included in those who believe that what we have here is the only life we know of.

Fine. (The words "believe" and "know" emphaiszed by me.)

The sun, all those planets, stars and galaxies are beings in possession of, what is to us, extreme forms of consciousness and awareness that are unspeakably different from our own, yet which have all the same markers as our own: experience of self, mortality, wellbeing, etcetera - but not as we experience those things at all. The universe - whatever it is - is itself, I believe, a conscious being.

Fine. (The word "believe" emphasized by me.)

But I also believe in the recycling of consciousness via the phenomena of death and conception. I don't believe that consciousness can just kick start from nothing; it has been forever, and will be forever, through the infinite replacement of living forms.

Fine. (The word "believe" emphasized by me.)

...we seem to say that when the universe didn't exist nothing existed. I don't get this stance...

As far as science is concerned, nothing existed "before" (outside) the universe, because science only deals with the observable. We can't make any observations outside the universe, so speculations about "before" (outside) are purely metaphysical. Anything might exist outside the universe, including God and other universes. You are of course fee to speculate and believe whatever you want (I do) but as long as it can't be observed, it remains "nothing" to science.

We need to accept the evidence that existence is about infinite individual forms that are never one-off and that are involved in infinite cycles of beginning, growing and replacing.

Where do you find this "evidence" that we "need" to accept?