And meaningless.
First of all this is not a world which is neutral morally. This is a world which is amoral.
the deepest type of pure evil.
Second, we need to ask ourselves, does the universe support and encourage life, esp. human life? The answer is Yes, or we would not be here. If the universe gave us life and sustains it, the HOW can it be Evil or without meaning?
Third, we need to ask ourselves, is the universe rational? Can we understand it our using our brain? Again, the answer is Yes. That being the case, then the universe must have meaning and purpose, because humans cannot understand that which has no meaning or purpose.
Dawkins has decided that there is no God, so there is no Creation, rather than the other way around. Symmetry is definite evidence of Creation and needs to be recognized as such.
She was quoting Dawkins.
I think you contradict yourself. If the world is amoral, how can you make a moral statement about it. (āAmoral: Lack or absence of morality.ā)
Hi Roger!
Itās been a long time since I looked at what I had posted, but I think I remember this was a segment from a longer quote from the Podcast. Ard was quoting and discussing Dawkins.
Iām not sure how you make the logical connections that lead.to your conclusions.
Maybe you would be willing to go through the steps of your thinking.
Thanks
It is! And this is not the first one.
The nice thing is: fortunately, there is morality. And this is really a problem for Dawkins. He relies on morality which he denies to exist. The importance of the presence of morality is nicely explained by CS Lewis: Mere christianity and by the atheist Thomas Nagel: Mind and Cosmos.
When I was a student, I read the book The selfish genes: I had a bad time. If that was true: We are only the slaves of our genes. Nothing more. Free will is an illusion. There is no real altruism. Absolute dystopia.
1 Like
Thatās a good start. There is hope.
I was agreeing with you up to here. Of course we can understand some of the vast, rich relationships which make up the cosmos. But do we really know enough to say it is understandable entirely on the basis of rationality alone. There are many atheists who would agree with you but Iām not among them. There is much more to the cosmos than we ever can understand and much more to us than rationality.
It certainly isnāt understandable with anything else other than rationality and that only goes so far.
Well thatās certainly true if rationality is the essence of our entire humanity. So we disagree. Your position as the gate keeper of the rational is shutting you out from that which cannot be made explicit. I know, not a loss youāll lose any sleep over.
2 Likes
It certainly isnāt understandable with what passes for ātheologyā round here.
Skeptical theism doesnāt pass as any kind of theology around here to some, and it should. (Thanks, Mike @heymike3. ;Ā -Ā )
With my bolded insertion Iād agree with you though I find notable exceptions for whom understanding seems to be firing on all cylinders. But when it comes to the revelation of the implicit, I donāt expect universal agreement in understanding. As with understanding the meaning of a play, our understanding of the sacred is dependent on life experience, education and the dispositions which those lead us to acquire.
Iām not well educated in Christianity but I donāt think convergence of understanding in theology is a substitute for getting to the bottom of a true understanding of all that is implicitly true of our humanity. That isnāt achievable by any direct, rational approach. I suspect the narratives, iconography and music which imbue its practices are the evolved carriers of meaning. I find much of it rich in meaning and evocative of the sacred probably because it is a strong background influence in the wider culture we share that includes we secular. For those embedded in the Christian tradition, the implicit meanings their practices carry get distilled explicitly into doctrine which inevitably will lead to greater confusion for some as well as greater understanding for others but that too has a purpose: the knitting together of society. That benefits us all though not perfectly of course.
One cannot really prove a negative, but if all events are random, then there are no connections between events. If we look at a chart such as a tidal chart, we see a lot of numbers, which by themselves do not mean anything, but assume meaning when they represent the high and low tides at a particular place at particular times and date. The numbers have meaning because they are not random. They represent real events which are not random.
At the end of his
RD wrote a book, River Running out of Eden (Basic Books,1995) in which he depicted his āDarwinian View of Life.ā. By calling it Darwinian he claims it to be scientific as Darwinian evolution is scientific.
RD chooses to discuss an actual event, a serious school bus accident in England in which a significant number of young Catholic school children died. An article in the Sunday Telegraph quoted a priest, who did not try to explain the accident, but said, āBut the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe were electrons, there would be no problems of evil and suffering.ā River, p. 132. The meaning of the accident is not directly based on the existence of God, it is on the meaning and value of human life.
Dawkinsā response is clear. āOn the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune.ā, River. p.132
The priest said that there must be more to life than the physical. RD said, No, there is not, so everything is random. and meaningless. Usually, we think in terms of Western dualism, mind and body, materialism or idealism.
We know that both ideas and things are real, but we have no cogent system of understanding our world, so RD gets away with saying that only that only the physical is real.
For Dawkins based on evolutionism the meaning of life is DNA. He ends the chapter thusly: āDNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.ā River p. 133
If DNA just is, then it replaces Being as the Absolute, because the Absolute is defined as just that, that which Just Is and is independent of all limits and relationships, that is, it does not care. Of course if DNA is Absolute it would violate Einsteinās Theory of Relativity and Noetherās Theorem, so it would stand outside the realm of the natural and enter the realm of the supernatural.
Furthermore Dawkins states that we human beings are not in control of our own lives, but are dependent on our DNA. We might think that we are rational and are able to make decisions based on objective considerations, but according to him what we think and do is based on our DNA manipulating us to ensure its own survival. Thus human beings are controlled by memes, not by thinking.
Dawkins states that living things have the appearance of design or meaning, but this is the result of irrational natural selection, not the product of rational design or meaning. While he states that āhomo sapiens is a deeply purpose driven species,ā River p. 104 there is no āreverse engineeringā to explain why natural selection endowed humanity with the profound drive for purpose and meaning. As we have seen this drive cannot be fulfilled though nature, since nature per Dawkins and other evolutionists has no meaning or purpose, only uncaring indifference to all forms of life, including humanity. This is declared to be true even though nature has produced and painstakingly nurtured life on our planet for millions of years.
Let us examine the obvious answer to the Why? that does not appear to contradict the evolutionist view. Since evolution speaks of survival of species and DNA, why isnāt it true that the meaning of life is survival? In other words the purpose of life is living. For many people that is obvious and clear, because they understand that life is good, but for Dawkins life is not good or bad, unless human existence is supernatural and is not a part of the natural universe, which as we have seen is callously indifferent to human existence. If life is not good, if our lives have no purpose or meaning, it is irrational to survive for no rational reason.
Hi Roger,
Iām not entirely sure, if youāre replying to me so much as responding to RDās part of the quote I had quoted from Ard Louis, who was commenting on one well-known phrase of RDās. I think the latter is the case.
However, since you did direct your reply to me, rather than the topic, and I believe I have something to say about part of it, I will reply, just to this.
There are a few things I would like to address here:
One. āIf all events are random, then there are no connections between eventsā
This reflects an erroneous conflation of randomness and chaos. Randomness regularly takes place within systems and parameters. If one is tossing a traditional 6-sided die, no one expects to roll a 20. 20 is not available within the system. Rolling a 20 isnāt random; thatās chaotic or even absurd.
Likewise, there is room for randomness in tidal changes, which are connected to other events. The height of any particular wave. for example, is random within the system that affects the tide on any particular occasion. There are many factors involved that lead to the random production of any individual wave or any particular dayās tide, however, but within the parameters of what can happen with sea water affected by wind, weather, gravity, etc.
Two. Numerals and meaning
You mentioned the numbers on tidal charts in connection to meaning.
Numerals, i.e.the symbols we use to represent the concept of numbers, as well as all other forms of symbolic language, serve to represent meaning because a culture agrees on the what the symbolic language will represent to them and continues to use the symbols consistently over time. Although that use can evolve as well.
Symbols themselves contain no meaning. The choice of any particulary symbol (written, signed, uttered, etc.) and assignment of it to what it signifies are ultimately random and inconsistent between symbolic systems.
Additionally, there is no meaning inherant in the symbols. They only represent the meaning assigned to them by the culture that uses them.
Three. Numerals on tidal charts and meaning
No. The numerals have meaning, because we say they do. There is no direct connection between the numerals on the chart and nature.
Within our culture the numerals on the tidal charts carry a variety of meanings that you mentioned: tidal measurements and dates. But even the information they represent is not the same as the actual events they describe. The measurements are descriptors of concepts that make sense to certain groups of humans. Others may conceptualize differently and therefore describe them differently, if at all.
The point I am trying to make here is that the symbolic language on the tidal charts is not equivalent to the events they describe, and does not reflect whether those events are random or not.
Four. Connection between real events and randomness.
As I said above, there is no direct connection between the numerals on the tidal charts and events, random or not. The numerals represent number concepts, which may lead us to recognize patterns, but within those patterns, there is variation that reflects randomness in nature.
You said:
It seems as if you see these statements as steps in a proof, demonstrating the impossibility or non-existance of randomness. But they donāt demonstrate it. They are not really even connected except by reference to randomness.
The tidal charts (really any record of natural processes) will show patterns and tendencies of tidal behavior but with variations that reflect randomness acting within the system.
I say all of this without reference to RD. He is of no interest to me. Rather, I am interested in understanding the logical steps that lead you to believe that randomness in nature is an impossibility. That may also require that you explain your understanding of randomness itself.
Thanks,
Kendel
1 Like
Kendel, could you make clear that things that appear to us to be random are random in reality? Randomness might simply be an implication of our lack of knowledge of the factors involved?
Hello, Erik!
Oh, probably not. Well, at least in regard to nature. I am not a scientist (and donāt pretend to be) I understand that some people regard natural processes as (nearly) determinedā¦if we could only account for every possible factor within a system. If that were possible, then maybe, randomness would be off the table. I think, though, that the concept of randomness is a pragmatic tool for helping us understand some aspects of our world.
However, if one hopes to see God directing the movement of every atom, the particular placement of every leaf, the movement of every air molecule, the margin of every spot on every ladybug, and the like, then I can understand why the idea of randomness would feel like a declaration that all is meaningless. I donāt see it that way and find no need to look for alternatives to randomness, nor do I find that the existence of randomness would imply meaninglessness.
In regard to language and symbol, I am more confident in my assertion that randomness is the rule (with a very few exceptions). [Editing later: I also want to add in āabritrarinessā as well, which I should have done earlier.] Of course people will always bring up examples that seem not to be random or abritrary. For example the Chinese symbols for 1, 2 and 3:
or the history of the development of a particular symbol/sign/character. Often the story is told to fit the symbol; itās a form of mythology.
However, when one considers the vastness of the body of meaning-assigned symbols humans use, it becomes clear quickly that the choice of symbol is far less important than the cultural agreement on what that symbol means within that culture. So we have with symbolic language a randomness (a different kind than in natural processes to be sure) that has been assigned meaning. And then that meaning is maintained by us.
I find this grasp of randomness demonstrates that there is nothing good or bad about it. It can exist alongside us, with us, and we can make use of it, rather than be concerned about it.
To be sure, at least in regard to natural processes. However, I donāt know that we can ever account for every possible factor, much less measure them all in every instance.
What are your thoughts on randomness?
2 Likes
Amen! Hallelujah! Right on!
Aw shucks, Mark.
āpreferredā does not mean āconfined to.ā
Therefore idea is incorrect ā demonstrably so. Furthermore it is demonstrable in mathematics that simple iterative processes can produce infinite complexity. Evolution is a simple iterative process.
Because they are foolish. When science explains what it previously did not explain then the argument is shown to be ridiculous.
I think the problem is that you do not understand what a God of the gaps argument consists of. It only applies to gaps which are currently not explained by science but where we have no reason to presume science will never explain it. Not gaps are of this nature. There are also two other types of gaps.
- Gaps which are due to the nature of scientific methodology. For example science can only speak to things which are testable. If it is not testable then it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
- Gaps which are discovered by science itself. For example there is the finding that there are no hidden variables to determine the results of some measurements.
Arguments based on these other two types of gaps are not subject the flaw in god-of-the-gaps type arguments.
The first of these is a gap of type 1 above and thus you are correct to believe that science cannot close such a gap. But the second of these is neither of type 1 or 2, and an argument based on this is most assuredly a god-of-the-gaps argument and therefore rather foolish.
Because it is testable. We have absolutely no reason to think we cannot demonstrate how particular conditions can give rise to the self-organization of biological molecules and processes. We have in fact already demonstrated this for many such biological molecules and processes.
Do you then feel free to add whatever you want to the text of the Bible? Or are you writing another fantasy story like that of Narnia? Perhaps I will enjoy such as entertainment but I will never accept this as an addition to the text of the Bible.
However, what IS in the text of the Bible is Paulās explanation of 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrected body is not a physical/natural body made of the stuff of the earth but a spiritual body made of stuff of heaven.