tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post3668940172290832037..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: There is only one worldRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-6178676351475698392009-06-26T00:55:31.411+10:002009-06-26T00:55:31.411+10:00Either: it's all ameaningless accident, or it ...<i>Either: it's all ameaningless accident, or it was created for a purpose. Again, to avoid the atheistic abyss of nihilism, I choose to believe the later.</i><br /><br /><i>However, I can definitively show that atheism is inherently and inescapably nihilistic.</i><br /><br />(Sorry about the slow reply - I've been sick).<br /><br />You seem very concerned about nihilism. Why? If atheism, or anything else, is nihilistic, does that make it wrong? You might not like nihilism, but "like" has nothing to do with reality.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't think you're correct. What is it about a "created" universe gives it meaning? Volition? The intellect of the creator?<br /><br />First, my creation was by intent: that of my mother and father. Second, if the intellect of an apparently imaginary being can imbue my life with meaning, why can't my own intellect do the same?<br /><br />What does god have that I and my mum don't? If he can justify my existence, why can't I?<br /><br />...and if I *can't*, so what? If my free will is an illusion, yadda and so on, how does that change anything? I will continue to act as I act, as will you. We can't tell the difference, can we?<br /><br />Why do you need an imaginary friend to validate you? How is "faith" different from wishful thinking?<br /><br /><i>Both theism and atheism are unsubstantiated claims.</i><br /><br />Did you read what I wrote? A rock is an atheist. It doesn't believe in god. You haven't disputed this. Can a rock MAKE A CLAIM? No it can't. Atheism is not a claim, substantiated or otherwise.<br /><br />As I wrote in my first post, the usual "claim" is a linguistic. That was part of the post you apparently ignored...<br /><br /><i>There are only two answers to the question "Why is there anything?" Either: it's all ameaningless accident, or it was created for a purpose.</i><br /><br />Only two answers? Really? What about: we don't know. Or: why not? What if it was created for NO purpose?<br /><br />Why are accidents meaningless? Who can give them meaning? Why not us? If I accidentally burn my house down, that has meaning.<br /><br /><b>How does god, if it exists, answer your question? Was he "created" for a purpose? Or is he a meaningless accident?</b><br /><br />...and with either answer, how then does he have any greater ability to imbue my life with meaning than I do?Magpienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46183555360171385672009-06-23T23:39:11.472+10:002009-06-23T23:39:11.472+10:00And you leave without answering my question:
How ...And you leave without answering my question:<br /><br />How does a mere illusion lacking in free will create meaning?<br /><br />Good day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-68560435225042566232009-06-23T23:04:43.870+10:002009-06-23T23:04:43.870+10:00When humans appeared, they did not find a big sign...When humans appeared, they did not find a big sign at the North pole saying 'Hey guys, this one is "North"'. That was our label. Our convention.<br /><br />Also, do you know there are several "North" poles? The Earth is not as simple as you think.<br /><br />We would still be able to find our way around if the field flipped direction (as it often does).<br /><br />But at least I now understand what you are thinking of in terms of intrinsic morality and meaning. Some kind of field that pervades space.<br /><br />When you have built a detector for it, drop me a line. You can find me on richarddawkins.net quite often.<br /><br />As I have said, all supernatural ideas become hilarious when examined in detail.<br /><br />It has been fun.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-2173177091235498752009-06-23T22:47:15.058+10:002009-06-23T22:47:15.058+10:00"North and South" are not inherent in th...<i>"North and South" are not inherent in the universe.</i><br /><br />In appropriate comparison. While the terms themselves are arbitary, positive and negative magnetic poles are universal. The "north" of magnet from the Andromeda galaxy will repel the "north" end of a magent here on earth. Arbitrary human desigations and societal agreement have nothing to do with it.<br /><br />Without these universal values as a foundation, our directional system would have no meaning. As such you would find yourself wandering around blindly lost, like a hiker in the woods lacking a compass.<br /><br />Subjective directions, like subjective values, are an oxymoron. A value is objective, or it is not (by definition) a value.<br /><br /><i>is software real? ... The mind is no more an illusion than software is.</i><br /><br />So you are in disagreement with Dennet, Dawkins, Blackmore et al who claim the mind and free will are nothing but illusions? Either way you're analogy is false as you are ingoring the requirmeent for self awareness. Software isn't self aware, and can never hope to be. But then neither is the illusion we call the Mind, now is it? And since you really didn't answer my question I'll ask it again:<br /><br />How pray tell does a mere illusion lacking in free will create meaning?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-19104476294567682602009-06-23T22:13:10.683+10:002009-06-23T22:13:10.683+10:00I will try for the last time
.
GPS is a great exa...I will try for the last time<br />.<br /><br />GPS is a great example of what I am talking about.<br /><br />"North and South" are not inherent in the universe. They are human constructions. They are meaning we impose on the universe, not that it imposes on us. Latitude and Longitude are not objective in the sense of being built-in to the universe. When humans evolved they did not find lines built into the structure of the Earth. And yet, they are now objective in that we have a common reference we have come up with.<br /><br />Morality is exactly the same. There is no inherent morality built into the fabric of the reality, but as thinking beings we can negotiotate a morality that can then become agreed on by a society to the point where it can seem universal, even though it really isn't.<br /><br />Atheism no more leads to nihilism than the lack of intrinsic direction means we all wander around blindly unable to find the shops.<br /><br />As for the mind.. is software real? It is merely patterns in memory chips. There are only electrons. But it still makes sense to talk about "Microsoft Windows" running on a computer. The mind is no more an illusion than software is.<br /><br />Finally, Plantinga. He makes interesting mistakes in his philosophical arguments with deal with evolution. Those mistakes indicate a profound lack of understanding of how evolution works. It is equivalent to a mathematician including a division by zero deep in a proof. The thing is, such flaws in an argument can be hard to find sometimes. But once you have found them, it does make one question the rest of that author's work. It encourages scepticism, to put it mildly.<br /><br />I do have to thank you. The 'GPS' argument is a useful one to illustrate how morality can arise as a human construct and yet seem objective to some.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22707066158825013782009-06-23T20:40:14.615+10:002009-06-23T20:40:14.615+10:00Anyway, I tried to Google you to find any papers y...Anyway, I tried to Google you to find any papers you may have written. Didn't find any published works but I do understand now why your militant atheism is so dogmatic and uncompromising.<br /><br />And personal.<br /><br />It also became clear as to why you are so virulently opposed to the concept of objective morality. No doubt you find it to be intolerably oppressive.<br /><br />In the meantime, my basic argument remain standing:<br /><br />Atheism inescapably leads to nihilism. <br /><br />Whithout a God, existence is but a meaningless (if fortunate) accident. <br /><br />Without a soul, consciousness and the Self are merely an illusions incapable of free will or volition necessary to create meaning. <br /><br />Furthermore, all actions in an inherently meaningless universe, no matter how devoted or passionate, are themselves meaningless gestures in a cold indifferent universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-15506747001936024142009-06-23T11:50:31.386+10:002009-06-23T11:50:31.386+10:00You do understand that GPS is tied to an objective...You do understand that GPS is tied to an objective grid system called latitude and longitude?<br /><br />What does Plantinga's statement on evolution (good or bad) have to do with his philosophical statement on meaning?<br /><br />Oh and I did meet your challenges, or more specifcially CS Lewis did. Backed into a corner you described his response as mere word play. I would think that someonme with a PhD could come up with an actual argument.<br /><br />So Dr. Zara, how exactly does a "whopping great illusion" create meaning and purpose?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63148450117359661702009-06-23T10:58:51.637+10:002009-06-23T10:58:51.637+10:00Anonymous-
You are like an addict trying to justi...Anonymous-<br /><br />You are like an addict trying to justify their next fix.<br /><br />You come up with absurd analogies, such as the North Star being an absolute standard. I hope you realise that it moves? So even your desperate attempt to present some standard fails.<br /><br />If you use a satellite navigation system, or a map, you are using subjective relative standards to deal with everyday activities. As with geography, so with morality.<br /><br />My qualifications are a Ph.D. in biology. Call me Dr Zara. I know vastly more evolutionary theory than Plantinga. Plantinga has attempted to deal with evolution, and has made himself look a fool.<br /><br />As have you. You have not met any challenges. You have not shown any way that any inherent standards can influence our thoughts.<br /><br />As David Hume showed centuries ago, you, and your arguments, can be dismissed as a waste of time.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-50360419268644049032009-06-23T10:41:53.272+10:002009-06-23T10:41:53.272+10:00don't get me started on Plantinga"
Oh, p...<i> don't get me started on Plantinga"</i><br /><br />Oh, please do.<br /><br />According to his Wiki entry:<br /><br />In 1980, Plantinga was described by Time magazine as "America's leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God."[1] He was portrayed in that same article as a central figure in a "quiet revolution" regarding the respectability of belief in God among academic philosophers. Plantinga has delivered the prestigious Gifford Lectures on three separate occasions. He is also a proponent of Molinism in the debate over divine providence, despite growing up in the Dutch Reformed tradition. Plantinga is currently the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.<br /><br />Your accomplishments are what exactly?<br /><br />Your critique of his scholarship is what exactly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-44172089355035278352009-06-23T10:33:11.066+10:002009-06-23T10:33:11.066+10:00You know, you keep responding to my points with ni...You know, you keep responding to my points with nihilistic claims. Over and over again you keep proving my point for me. So why don't you just nut up and admit to being a nihilist?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57497836404413436602009-06-23T10:31:31.866+10:002009-06-23T10:31:31.866+10:00Feelings and thoughts are not illusions.
I'm ...<i>Feelings and thoughts are not illusions.</i><br /><br />I'm afraid that they are, and if the Mind isn't a real thing unto itself then nihilism is inescapable, even at the personal level. Atheists like to make the argument that even though God doesn't exist and the universe has no inherent meaning and purpose, we as individual excreting our mind and will can carve out little pockets of meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence. <br /><br />However, the only valid explanation of consciousness under these circumstances is that it is big illusion created by the brain's wiring. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Susan Blackmore, Steve Pinker, etc. have come to the logical (based on a purely materialistic world view) conclusion that the Self is merely an illusion. Dawkins has adopted this position after following Blackmore's lead. Let the following quotes illustrate this: <br /><br />"In a recent joint lecture, Dawkins asked his colleague Steven Pinker: "Am I right to think that the feeling I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a society of mind?" Pinker answered affirmatively that "the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit . . . that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction." That hypothetical circuit is all that remains of the illusion of a free-acting self." [The Dawkins-Pinker exchange is available at www.edge.org] <br /><br />And from a recent interview: <br /><br />"Stangroom: One final question about hard determinism. I think at the end of The Selfish Gene you said that one of the important things about human beings is that they are able to choose to act otherwise than perhaps their selfish genes would have them. Obviously, however, for a hard determinist the choices we make are themselves determined. In an interview with The Third Way www.csis.org.uk/Articles/Intrview/interv1.htm) you indicated that you had some sympathy with Susan Blackmore's view that ". <b>The idea that there is a self in there that decides things, acts and is responsible.is a whopping great illusion. The self we construct is just an illusion because actually there's only brains and chemicals.".</b> Is your position then that statements about consciousness or selfhood will ultimately be reducible to statements about neurons and chemicals? <br /><br />Dawkins: I suppose that philosophically I am committed to that view because I think that everything about life is a product of the evolutionary process and consciousness must be a manifestation of the evolutionary process, presumably via brains. So I think that has got to mean that consciousness is ultimately a material phenomenon." <br /><br /><i>Stop with all the 'objective' nonsense.</i><br /><br />Hate to break this to you but "subjective standards" is an oxymoron. <br /><br />Standards that are not objective are meaningless. What yardstick or guideline does an inherently meaningless universe provide you so that you can judge whether or not your individual actions and thoughts are meaningful ("...in an absurd world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless. Enter nihilism.") <br /><br />When navigating its helpful to have a north star or magnetic north pole, or at least a map, to guide your movements. Your human created meaning (with everyon ehaving their own individual north poles) is an attempt to navigate through life blindly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73295487670742866852009-06-23T04:33:08.364+10:002009-06-23T04:33:08.364+10:00How can mere Illusions make justice or meaning?
F...<i>How can mere Illusions make justice or meaning?</i><br /><br />Feelings and thoughts are not illusions. Our relationships with others are not illusions.<br /><br /><i>Haven't you heard, the Mind and the Self don't exist.</i><br /><br />The mind is the function of the brain. It is real, unlike the self.<br /><br /><i>An even if Illusions could do so, what objective standards would they use to create justice and meaning?</i><br /><br />Did my words about 'North' and 'South' sink in at all? Stop with all the 'objective' nonsense.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28389844933328271812009-06-23T04:03:39.251+10:002009-06-23T04:03:39.251+10:00We are free people. We make our own justice.
How ...<i>We are free people. We make our own justice.</i><br /><br />How can mere Illusions make justice or meaning? Haven't you heard, the Mind and the Self don't exist. An even if Illusions could do so, what objective standards would they use to create justice and meaning?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-53272691477086293822009-06-23T03:51:43.040+10:002009-06-23T03:51:43.040+10:00I did refute your logic, with the 'zero' e...I did refute your logic, with the 'zero' example.<br /><br /><i>On what basis, then, does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust?</i><br /><br />I don't. However, I believe that people can act in ways that I consider wrong, unfair and unjust. <br /><br />Stop trying to make this into a 'natural world' thing. We are free people. We make our own justice.<br /><br />And please, please, don't get me started on Plantinga.<br /><br />Honestly, I do find this need for intrinsic crutches rather sad. Humanity needs to grow up!Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-78961697810043811542009-06-23T03:50:48.664+10:002009-06-23T03:50:48.664+10:00I don't. You have set up a false dichotomy. In...<i>I don't. You have set up a false dichotomy. Inherent meaning or none at all. There is another option. Meaning we make for ourselves.</i><br /><br />That would not be logically possible in a universe devoid of inherent meaning.<br /><br />A short hand version of the argument can be found in the internet encyclopedia of philosophy article on "Nihilism": <br /><br /><i>"In the twentieth century, it's the atheistic existentialist movement, popularized in France in the 1940s and 50s, that is responsible for the currency of existential nihilism in the popular consciousness. Jean-Paul Sartre's (1905-1980) defining preposition for the movement, "existence precedes essence," rules out any ground or foundation for establishing an essential self or a human nature. When we abandon illusions, life is revealed as nothing; and for the existentialists, nothingness is the source of not only absolute freedom but also existential horror and emotional anguish. Nothingness reveals each individual as an isolated being "thrown" into an alien and unresponsive universe, barred forever from knowing why yet required to invent meaning. It's a situation that's nothing short of absurd. Writing from the enlightened perspective of the absurd, Albert Camus (1913-1960) observed that Sisyphus' plight, condemned to eternal, useless struggle, was a superb metaphor for human existence (The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942). </i><br /><br /><i>The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible. Their answer was a qualified "Yes," advocating a formula of passionate commitment and impassive stoicism. In retrospect, it was an anecdote tinged with desperation <b>because in an absurd world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless.</b> Enter nihilism."</i> <br /><br />In other words, in a world that is inherently nothing more than a meaningless accident, no amount of individual effort will result in true meaning or purpose. All such attempts will be in vain. The best one can hope for is a derivitive of solipcism where "meaning" exists only in your own mind.<br /><br />But even that door is closed to you. As I have noted before, if the Soul does not exist then Mind and Self are but illusions. How can illusions create meaning?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9861473617856654252009-06-23T03:39:36.485+10:002009-06-23T03:39:36.485+10:00It is just silly word games.
Translation: It'...<i>It is just silly word games.</i><br /><br />Translation: It's alogical argument I can't counter, therefore I have to denigrate it with the equivalent of an ad hominem.<br /><br />Lewis recognized that modern objections to God are based on a sense of fair play and justice. People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on the death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak. These things are all perfectly natural. On what basis, then, does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust? <br /><br />The nonbeliever in God doesn't have a good basis for being outraged at justice, which, C.S. Lewis points out, was the reason for objecting to God in the first place. If you are so sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural, or supernatural, standard by which to make your judgment. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga said it like this:<br /><br />"Could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness [if there were no God and we just evolved]? I don't see how. There can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obligated to live... A [secular] way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort... and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness [...and not just an illusion of some sort], then you have a powerful... argument [for the reality of God]."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-52122546049731352242009-06-23T03:12:17.823+10:002009-06-23T03:12:17.823+10:00If the whole universe has no meaning, we should ne...<i>If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning</i><br /><br />Nonsense. It is just silly word games. It is like saying that 'zero' of something can't exist because we have a word for 'zero'.<br /><br /><i>I must admit though, I am curious as to why you believe that existence in without meaning or purpose.</i><br /><br />I don't. You have set up a false dichotomy. Inherent meaning or none at all.<br /><br />There is another option. Meaning we make for ourselves.<br /><br />There is no universal 'left' or 'right' or 'North' or 'South', but we define our own local directions. Just because the universe has no intrinsic North does not mean we can't celebrate when someone reaches the North Pole by foot, or pogo stick.<br /><br />Such simplistic thinking. Typical of C.S.Lewis I am afraid.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-12257333613339480412009-06-23T03:03:49.443+10:002009-06-23T03:03:49.443+10:00If there is 'inherent meaning' then it mus...<i>If there is 'inherent meaning' then it must somehow influence mental activity </i><br /><br />Why? How exactly would it do so? You assume that we are all equally capable of discerning or even inferring meaning. As for the preception of meaning, CS Lewis provides an admirable response:<br /><br />"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. <b>Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning:</b> just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."--C.S. Lewis<br /><br /><i>What I have been trying to get you to understand is that there must be some mechanism for this to happen. </i><br /><br />Why? Teleos has nothing to do with mechanical action, only purposeful intent. Besides, your denial of inherent puprose already paints you into a corner as a nihilist. You keep proving my point for me.<br /><br />I must admit though, I am curious as to why you believe that existence in without meaning or purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73341081233417052962009-06-23T02:17:44.424+10:002009-06-23T02:17:44.424+10:00You just don't seem to get it.
If there is &#...You just don't seem to get it.<br /><br />If there is 'inherent meaning' then it must somehow influence mental activity so that we think 'Ah! There is Inherent Meaning'.<br /><br />What I have been trying to get you to understand is that there must be some <i>mechanism</i> for this to happen. It presumably does not happen by magic.<br /><br />The only way we can investigate inherent meaning as something that is <i>true</i> is to see if there is something that influences our thoughts.<br /><br />I have asked you how this could happen, this influence. You have come up with nothing.<br /><br />Because of that, your idea of inherent meaning can be rejected.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61312628464578767172009-06-23T00:35:27.873+10:002009-06-23T00:35:27.873+10:00BTW, teleological claims are NOT claims of existen...BTW, teleological claims are NOT claims of existence. They are claims of meaning.<br /><br />See, you really don't have any idea what teleos means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-21013538650603783102009-06-23T00:33:29.149+10:002009-06-23T00:33:29.149+10:00Both theism and atheism are unsubstantiated claims...Both theism and atheism are unsubstantiated claims. They are equally untestable, un-falsifiable and un-scientific. They are BOTH unscientific faith claims.<br /><br />As such I cannot prove or disprove atheism, anymore than you can prove or disprove theism. Neither claim can be substantiatied even in principle. However, I can definitively show that atheism is inherently and inescapably nihilistic.<br /><br />And with your help, I've succeeded.<br /><br />Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17744980373635183342009-06-22T20:14:28.109+10:002009-06-22T20:14:28.109+10:00Anon-
I know perfectly well the meanings of the te...Anon-<br />I know perfectly well the meanings of the term I use. What you need to realise is that claims of existence need to be demonstrated. When asked how any inherent meaning can exist and interact with our minds, you have failed. You have failed to provide a physical framework for this and you failed to achieve this via logic. So, your statements about lack of inherent meaning can be dismissed.<br /><br />Also, rejecting your unsubstantiated claims does not make someone a nihilist.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-70501315198119056042009-06-22T19:58:15.317+10:002009-06-22T19:58:15.317+10:00Of course science can address issues of meaning an...<i>Of course science can address issues of meaning and purpose.</i><br /><br />You really have no idea what teleos means do you? If you did, you would understand that questions of meaning and purpose are neither testable nor falsifiable - and therefore unscientific.<br /><br /><i>At that point, all the silly ideas of inherent meaning should finally vanish.</i><br /><br />Inherent meaning is "silly" only to a nihilist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-37854119719950167002009-06-22T08:34:22.276+10:002009-06-22T08:34:22.276+10:00No, just occupying separate spheres. Science deals...<i>No, just occupying separate spheres. Science deals exclusively in mechanos the "how" of things. It is incapable of adressing (pro or con) issues involving teleos, meaning and prupose. These are simply not scientific issues and can only be addressed by faith.</i><br /><br />Your posts are useful. You are proceeding through just about every common misunderstanding of science and rationality.<br /><br />Of course science can address issues of meaning and purpose.<br /><br />When you write the terms 'meaning' and 'purpose' you are using your brain. That writing has come from neural activity (we know that because of the way brain lesions remove such functionality).<br /><br />It is, in principle, possible to follow neural activity to figure out what is happening in someone's head when they have the feeling of experiencing meaning, or purpose. We can't do this in any detail yet, but it is only a matter of time.<br /><br />Imagine sometime in the not-too-distant future, when a simulated mind says 'life has a purpose'.<br /><br />At that point, all the silly ideas of inherent meaning should finally vanish.<br /><br />Having the experience of meaning is a function of a biological organ - the brain. It can be as much studied by science as any other function of any organ, be it the biochemistry of the liver or the beating of the heart.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-10962806501994919592009-06-22T08:30:39.152+10:002009-06-22T08:30:39.152+10:00Nichole - How have you got the balls to argue agai...Nichole - <i>How have you got the balls to argue against evolution? </i><br /><br />I never have, evolution isn't even a matter of belief - it's an established fact. But then I'm not an ignorant Fundy (or a nihilistic atheist). <br /><br />Besides, a literal interpretation of Genessis is contray to Christian tradition beginning with St. Augustine. From a review of Augustine's philosophy as expressed in his book, "The <br />Literal Meaning of Genesis": <i>"In the beginning there were created a few species of beings which, by virtue of intrinsic principles of reproduction, gave origin to the other species down to the present state of the existing world. Thus it seems that Augustine is not contrary to a moderate evolution, but that such a moderate evolution has nothing in common with modern materialistic evolutionist teaching." </i>Given his lack of fossil evidence and the tools of the scientific method, it would be too much to expect him to express a modern theory of evolution — though he was on the right track. <br /><br />It is wrong (and a discredit to faith) for faith to make claims concerning mechanos. OTOH, for scientist like Dawkins to state that life and existence has no meaning and purpose because science can find none is a logical fallacy. When Dawkins describes the world as one of "pitiless indifference", or when Weinberg states that the universe in "pointless", they are (and others like them) making unscientific claims of teleological nature beyond the limits of science to comment or critique. Perhaps these books should include warning labels to the effect that "Here be metaphysics". Science is not capable of commenting on teleological subjects such as morals, ethics, meaning and purpose. Dawkins is in error when he claims science can do so. He is being intellectually dishonest when he palms off his metaphysical speculations as if they were scientific conclusions. Science has nothing to say, good or bad, about teleology. <br /><br />IMHO the only sensible thing is to adhere to Gould's Non-Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA). Which the people on this site are treating as a heresy, showing yet again a point of commonality between Atheists and Fundies.<br /><br /><i> And regarding atheism and religious fundamentalism: I don't think you could have got it more wrong if you were getting it wrong on purpose.</i><br /><br />I'm sure a Communist would have been just as apalled to be compared to a Fascist. But really, what were the practical differences? Atheists and fundamentalists both strike me a half blind individuals, each blind in a different eye, and forever arguing over which is the better eye to see with. You are both equally dogmatic and close minded, two sides of the same intolerant coin.<br /><br />Nobody on the planet is as dogmatic as the so-called "New Atheists".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com