Dawkins on "Why we are here"

[chaz wyman]

In Aristotle's taxonomy of explanations in terms of 4 basic kinds of cause, evolution ticks three out of four boxes. It provides a material, formal and efficient cause of why we are here. However, as others have pointed out, it fails to consititute a final cause because it does not explain our aim or purpose. Dawkins misses this because he never engages with the history of philosophy. He does philosophy without doing Philosophy.

The fourth cause was bogus then, and it is still bogus.
It can only reside in the design of the intentional mind.
We can all have our own purpose, but it is only existential angst and fantasy that impels us to see it in the material world.

[chaz wyman]

While I agree with the 'how' posts, I would put it more precisely:

Why (for us now)= how.

The explanation which asks 'how' effectively supplies the 'why' part of our current reality. It is merely a discursive distiction, not a functional distiction; The function for supplying us reality is the same

That would all depend on who you mean by "US".
I do not like to include myself in the majority of humankind who still fail to make the distinction.
Why does it rain?
Why is the sky blue?
Why do people ask stupid questions which have no answer?

[keithprosser2]

"Why are there 13 stripes on the American flag?" is a perfectly valid question, and the answer does not rely on those stripes having a teleological purpose. The reason why there are 13 stripes lies in the past, not the future.

In the same way the reason 'why are we here' is also in the past. We are here because the properties of matter are such that 'we' are, if not an inevitable consequence of those properties, at least a possible outcome of them. The 'why' of our existence (the fact it follows from the nature of matter) is amplified by describing the 'how' our present existence is connected to the properties of matter. Evolution is explicit about the 'how', but it is also implicit about the 'why'.

But that is only one sense of 'why we are here'. The other sense is the "teleological" sense. That sense can be paraphrased by asking "given that we do exist, what do we do now?". I think that is a very good question, and like all good questions, it seems to have no simple answer!

[chaz wyman]

"Why are there 13 stripes on the American flag?" is a perfectly valid question, and the answer does not rely on those stripes having a teleological purpose. The reason why there are 13 stripes lies in the past, not the future.

You are missing the point, and the meaning of teleology. The purpose of the 13 stripes is to indicate that the US started with 13 British colonies, that IS teleology. The end of the stripes is to indicate that.

In the same way the reason 'why are we here' is also in the past.

No, Darwin tells us HOW we came to be here. The flag was an INTENTIONAL choice. It was consciously decided. The emergence of the human species is by the necessity of cause and effect - that discludes purpose and teleology.

We are here because the properties of matter are such that 'we' are, if not an inevitable consequence of those properties, at least a possible outcome of them.

That is HOW we are here.


The 'why' of our existence (the fact it follows from the nature of matter) is amplified by describing the 'how' our present existence is connected to the properties of matter. Evolution is explicit about the 'how', but it is also implicit about the 'why'.

There is no REASON or design therefore there is no WHY.

But that is only one sense of 'why we are here'. The other sense is the "teleological" sense. That sense can be paraphrased by asking "given that we do exist, what do we do now?". I think that is a very good question, and like all good questions, it seems to have no simple answer!

There is no reason, nor 'why we are here'. 'Given that we are here, what do we do now.' IS the teleology of man's existence.
You are living in the pre-Darwinian past by maintaining the illusion of evolutionary telos.

The answer to that question is simple enough. It is up to you, and each one of us.

[keithprosser2]

The answer to that question is simple enough. It is up to you, and each one of us.

As we agree everything that matters, I won't argue over minor semantic quibbles. Which is not to say I think I got anything wrong, but there are more important things to debate!

As I said in an earlier post:

How convenient if our 'why' was implied by the laws of biology and physics! But it isn't, and we have to take responsibility for our destiny, whatever we choose it is to be.

As I said, we don't disagree.

[chaz wyman]

The answer to that question is simple enough. It is up to you, and each one of us.

As we agree everything that matters, I won't argue over minor semantic quibbles. Which is not to say I think I got anything wrong, but there are more important things to debate!

As I said in an earlier post:

How convenient if our 'why' was implied by the laws of biology and physics! But it isn't, and we have to take responsibility for our destiny, whatever we choose it is to be.

As I said, we don't disagree.

Indeed.
I think the 'quibble' is an important one, as the lack of observance of this distinction continues to fuel a teleological assumption about "creation", or a over-riding truth or logic behind what should be seen as a necessary and determined course that has no reference to purpose or intention. But even for the materialist failing to recognise this simple truth leads them to examine nature for cues on how to behave - which is damaging and dangerous - such misconceptions have led to eugenics, racist and the justification for war, and the domination of weaker cultures.

[keithprosser2]

I don't think we disagree about the non-teleological nature of evolution, although we might about the number of stripes on Old Glory!

I think you are right that the mistaken belief that evolution had us (or at least WASP versions of us) as its goal is as dangerous as are creationist fallacies and so on. Rest assured I am not infected by that error.

[chaz wyman]

I don't think we disagree about the non-teleological nature of evolution, although we might about the number of stripes on Old Glory!

I think you are right that the mistaken belief that evolution had us (or at least WASP versions of us) as its goal is as dangerous as are creationist fallacies and so on. Rest assured I am not infected by that error.

In what way would we disagree about the number of stripes on the American Flag?

[Cerveny]

We are silly if we think we understand to everything :(
There is certain under-sense communication between all live creatures that purpose is not known at all.
(: who does not have appropriate experience see http://www.sheldrake.org/B&R/booksuk/index.html :)
Frankly, we understand to the nothing:
See a regular elementary particle for example:
It has some Quantum numbers... Where is the information about its movement (velocity, direction) saved?
There is nothing around it (by the TR) :(
Then how such particle knows where is its the next position? What is it orienting by?
Do you know the appropriate quantum numbers?..
How do two "total snapshots" of the same elementary particles moving by the other directions differ?
Where are appropriate differences? - It must be saved in surrounding space. - Elementary particle is part of the space; it must be a space defect….
.
.
.

[keithprosser2]

In what way would we disagree about the number of stripes on the American Flag?

I think about whether its an example of teleology. But I'm not going to argue about it.

[chaz wyman]

In what way would we disagree about the number of stripes on the American Flag?

I think about whether its an example of teleology. But I'm not going to argue about it.

You can loose an argument anyway you like - refusing to argue is the cowardly way.

[keithprosser2]

lose, not loose.

Well, if you insist, I would say that the number of stripes on Old Glory is not teleological because the intent was not to create a future in which there are thirteen original states. It may have a sort of teleological purpose in reminding people in the future that there were 13 original states, but the fact that there are 13, (not 12 or 14) stripes depends on a past fact, not a future goal.

[Thundril]

Definition of TELEOLOGY Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
1
a : the study of evidences of design in nature b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
2
: the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
3
: the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena
— tel·e·ol·o·gist noun

Origin of TELEOLOGY
New Latin teleologia, from Greek tele-, telos end, purpose + -logia -logy —
First Known Use: 1740

Doesn't seem to say anything about human manufacture or future oriented purpose.
Looking thru the wrong end of the teleology, Keith?

[keithprosser2]

No, it's definitely the right end.
Perhaps I should have made it clearer at the beginning - I wrote:

"Why are there 13 stripes on the American flag?" is a perfectly valid question, and the answer does not rely on those stripes having a teleological purpose. The reason why there are 13 stripes lies in the past, not the future.

I wanted to imply :

"Why are there 13 (ie not 12 or 14) stripes on the American flag?" is a perfectly valid question, and the answer does not rely on the number of stripes having a teleological purpose. The reason why there are 13 (not 12 or 14) stripes lies in the past, not the future.

I think can see how I caused the confusion. The presence of the stripes - in fact the whole design has a teleological purpose. But the fact that there are the number of stripes there are (and not some other number) does not entail a teleological purpose - it is fixed by the past fact that there were 13 original states, not by the goal there being 13 original states at some time in the future.

Q: Why are there stripes on the US flag? A: Each stripe represents a state of the original US and the designer wanted to show how many there were for future generations to know. (A teleological answer)
Q: Why are there 13? A: Because there were 13 original states. (not teleological).

Next time I must chose a clearer example of a 'why' questions that does not demand a teleological answer!

[chaz wyman]

lose, not loose.

Well, if you insist, I would say that the number of stripes on Old Glory is not teleological because the intent was not to create a future in which there are thirteen original states. It may have a sort of teleological purpose in reminding people in the future that there were 13 original states, but the fact that there are 13, (not 12 or 14) stripes depends on a past fact, not a future goal.

And now you are contradicting yourself