Richard Dawkings says ....
 

Here

[ QUOTE ]

This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, how can a man of Dawkins' undoubted intelligence apply a word like "purpose" to inanimate things?

[ QUOTE ]

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the universe has no purpose? Is that intelligible? When applied to the universe?

BTW, if this is what it's like, why bother defining morality?

I also wonder since he thinks there's no design why he thinks there's order(as he's a scientist I'm guessing he believes in the order of the universe)? If the universe is undesigned, would we expect order? Isn't that what we find?

Re: Richard Dawkings says ....
 

I feel like I'm in a timewarp [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, the universe has no purpose? Is that intelligible? When applied to the universe?

BTW, if this is what it's like, why bother defining morality?

I also wonder since he thinks there's no design why he thinks there's order(as he's a scientist I'm guessing he believes in the order of the universe)? If the universe is undesigned, would we expect order? Isn't that what we find?


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think Dawkins means by purpose in this context?

Surely you don't again what to go into why things have meaning to us even if the universe has no purpose.

and yes, if the universe is an undesigned load of stuff happening at random we would still expect order.

chez

Re: Richard Dawkings says ....
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, how can a man of Dawkins' undoubted intelligence apply a word like "purpose" to inanimate things?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, to say that they lack it? Are you seriously trying to accuse him of granting intentionality to inanimate objects (I don't see where he specifically talks about inanimate objects in that paragraph, either, but that's a different story - since I didn't read the link, perhaps it is clear from context) when it seems pretty clear that his point is exactly the opposite?

[ QUOTE ]

Again, the universe has no purpose? Is that intelligible? When applied to the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't, which of course makes what he's saying vacuously true. Is quibbling about language like this the best you can do in terms of disagreeing with him?

Re: Richard Dawkings says ....
 

[ QUOTE ]

What do you think Dawkins means by purpose in this context?


[/ QUOTE ]

Chance is ultimate.

[ QUOTE ]

Surely you don't again what to go into why things have meaning to us even if the universe has no purpose.


[/ QUOTE ]


No. I wanted Dawkins to.

[ QUOTE ]

and yes, if the universe is an undesigned load of stuff happening at random we would still expect order


[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself.

Re: Richard Dawkings says ....
 

[ QUOTE ]

Are you seriously trying to accuse him of granting intentionality to inanimate objects


[/ QUOTE ]

No, neither he nor I mentioned intentionality. He said purpose.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see where he specifically talks about inanimate objects in that paragraph,


[/ QUOTE ]

Things? Universe?

[ QUOTE ]

Is quibbling about language like this the best you can do in terms of disagreeing with him?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. Language and definitions are silly.

Re: Richard Dawkings says ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and yes, if the universe is an undesigned load of stuff happening at random we would still expect order



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Speak for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've done the rest to death but are you saying that if a load of stuff was happening at random you would expect after a long period of time for it still to look like a load of stuff was happening at random.

chez

Re: Richard Dawkings says ....
 

[ QUOTE ]

Things? Universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Things is also used colloquially to mean such things as a state of affairs, and can certainly in such a context include events, which I wouldn't describe as inanimate objects.

To say that it is senseless to talk about "things" lacking purpose reinforces his point; to assign the concept of purpose to vague "things" doesn't make much sense, and for that reason we can say that the same "things" lack purpose. As I commented before, it's a vacuous truth, like saying "No members of the empty set are prime." This is a true statement, but it's also kind of silly.

Re: Richard Dawkings says ....
 

Sometimes I wonder if part of your problem is that you don't realize that standard deviations converge faster than means. Thus chance does bring order.

Re: Richard Dawkings says ....
 

[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes I wonder if part of your problem is that you don't realize that standard deviations converge faster than means. Thus chance does bring order.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about probability applied immanentistically.

Re: Richard Dawkings says ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here

[ QUOTE ]

This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, how can a man of Dawkins' undoubted intelligence apply a word like "purpose" to inanimate things?

[/ QUOTE ]

from dictionary.com,

pur·pose ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrps)
n.
The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal:

so clearly the concept of purpose can be applied to inanimate things. all dawkins means by the universe lacking purpose is that there is no ultimate person/cause for which the universe exists, e.g., a god.

[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder since he thinks there's no design why he thinks there's order(as he's a scientist I'm guessing he believes in the order of the universe)? If the universe is undesigned, would we expect order? Isn't that what we find?

[/ QUOTE ]

define order (in the sense of "order within the physical universe"), and explain why a theistic account does a better job of explaining it than a naturalistic one.