Skip to comments.Richard Dawkins' Meaningful Meaninglessness
Posted on 03/12/2009 7:41:17 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
Alas, poor Richard. Ever since being thrashed by Ben Stein in Expelled he's just gotten more and more nonsensical. Then, it was that there is no intelligent design of life, except of course maybe alien-directed intelligent design. Now, it seems he has decided to follow some recent sage advice and avoid using the d word. And, hes scrapped his previous idea of using designoid as a replacement.
Then Dawkins got to the essential framework of the rest of his talk, making a distinction within purpose between the purpose that comes about as adaptation via natural selection, which he called archi-purpose, and the purpose that comes about through the intent of a planning brain, which he called neo-purpose. Archi-purpose, then, resembles an intentional purpose, but is not such: the resemblance is an illusion. Neo-purpose, as Dawkins views it, is itself an evolved adaptation. Now it looks like hell just go with purpose instead. You can have unintentional design, or instinctual design, or whatever you want to call it spiders webs, snowflakes, etc. But you cant have unintentional intention, or unpurposeful purpose. It seems that purpose is less of an illusion even than design is.
So, what do Lewis Carroll and Richard Dawkins have in common? They both taught at Oxford and they both spouted nonsense (but only in one case intentionally).
"You are old, Father Williams," the young man said, "And your hair has become very white; and yet you incessantly stand on your head. Do you think, at your age it is right?"
"In my youth," Father Williams replied to his son, "I feared it might injure the brain; But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none, Why, I do it again and again." (Lewis Carroll)
"But you cant have unintentional intention, or unpurposeful purpose. It seems that purpose is less of an illusion even than design is."
Richard Dawkins is still alive? Wow!
Sounds *exactly* like Weston's description of "The Force" or "Life-Force" in Out of the Silent Planet.
New generations, same old errors.
Ummmm..., what?! Is Dawkins writing his biography now?
Ah yes. All "evolutionists" are Richard Dawkins.......
Refer to my, “Whipped Puppy” theory on the previous evolution post...
Pictures perfect! Good catch.
Word of advice... You shouldn’t make your side’s methods so obvious. Someone’s bound to catch on.
Or maybe you should talk to some of your evolution buddies who seem to share all the same methods. It’s like having to pay more for car insurance because your kid’s younger than 25. He may be a great driver but all the rest of the 16-25 year old’s give him a bad name.
I'm counting on them figuring it out. That's why I keep giving them that infomation.
This point of Dawkins, however, has been successfully established as fact. For example, finding and eating food, would be a "archipurpose" to Dawkens, and is historically referred to a a basic drive in the parlance of biology. And in that quest for food, knowing what is edible and proper to eat is what Dawkin's would call "neopurpose," and which biologists and animal behaviorists term, "learned behavior." Both the ability to benefit from such learned behaviors (neopurpose) and the expression of basic drives (eating when hungry) have been well- demonstrated adaptive advantages in the evolutionary sense.
While I know what you say is true it hasn’t stopped many evolutionists and especially the media hitching a ride on his shooting star - so they can all crash and burn with him and if other evolutionists have to suffer through that then tough.
Many Evolutionists have long used stupid or dead arguements used by some ill informed Christians to lampoon anyone who may be a creationist - now you may be getting some backlash from that - not nice and very frustrating isn’t it.
A normal person might lack faith and assume that religous faith is mere superstition; but a normal person doesn't launch a vendetta against people whose views simply differ in ways which make no difference to his life.
I don't believe in aliens from other planets visiting earth. I think those who claim to have been abducted by them are deluded. But I feel no reason to hate them and attack them in public.
So maybe some atheist can explain, believe what you will, but why the anger and logical contortions?
It certainly is humorous to see how frequently the language of design and intent is used to deny that there is design or intent.
It’s as if the evolutionists have not evolved language to carry their thoughts.
But for some of us, it at least provides comic relief.
Well no. Some believe God used an unintended process to arrive at the intended and purposed a purposeless process to arrive at a purposed end.
I'd consider it a cheap shot to portray all Christians as Jim Jones or Fred Phelps.
I don't believe I've ever heard anyone express those beliefs.
There are mixes within the 2 points of view that hardliners for both sides don't like. I am certainly believe in creation but it doesn't necessarily have to be a young earth for me.
A lot of Liberal scientists seem to have a problem with Christianity in the first place and use science to condemn creationists as unthinking morons and they have leftie followers who use their rants to deride and attack Christian's not just on Scientific grounds but on moral and ethical grounds also (like they are the ones taking the higher road). My main point was that now you will know how some Christians feel.
I agree, but I don't think the answer to deplorable tactics is to adopt them ourselves.
I don’t but I am not going to apologise for those who do! I can understand how those who have suffered at others hands may want to have a dig. Not nice really and certainly not in the Christian spirit of things!
Anyway it’s nice to be agreeing on some things. Polite discourse can help us all at least understand why each side places such weight on what they believe to be true and that may help for better discussion in the future at least from those whose agenda is not so urgent!
“So maybe some atheist can explain, believe what you will, but why the anger and logical contortions?”
You offend me with logic... I’ve been asking them this question in different ways for a few days and have yet to receive a direct answer on anything from any of them.
Seriously, I appreciate the time you took here. What you did to is make me rethink what it is I’m fighting here. I stress over the fact someone would post their stupidity just to take faith to task but that’s probably a waste of time and energy. There are too many things worth fighting for and too many constructive ways to fight for them.
You, my friend have offered common sense on a stick. That is something no one will receive from arguments with the anti-religionists.
“I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone express those beliefs.”
I haven’t either... I’ll have to think that one through but right offhand I don’t get it.
Let’s see if we can find some points to agree on... please read this if you get a chance and let me know what you think (and yes, I am inviting brutal honesty with no recourse).
We are free citizens of a self-governing, Constitutional republic. It is our civic duty to involve ourselves in that process - that is what we owe Ceasar.
I have no doubt. And I’m happy to discuss what we disagree on. I honestly love the debate...
I’ll always answer questions honestly if the questions not just purely antagonistic. I can’t learn a blamed thing cooped up in my own mind all the time; Of that I’m sure.