[gumpzilla]

[ 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?