You've simply stated a series of your favorite conclusions from the premise, and alsmost all of them are entirely subjective.
You have provided no logical progression at all, just a bunch of your own subjective assertions.
Not at all.
We are products of a mindless universe.
This is what Darwinism concluded. It's an objective statement based on that.
We have no purpose. We just happen to be here.
This is also an objective conclusion from Darwinism.
We can think up purposes of our own, but of course this is something we just make up. No purpose is any better than any other purpose--because we make it up.
For instance we can think that because we might have some impact on future events that that confers signficance. But while it may confer subjective significance for some who like thinking this way, it doesn't confer objective significance. It makes no difference in the great scheme of things at all whether we have some impact or not as long as we are basically purposeless beings in a mindless universe. Things can be endlessly rearranged and affected by all kinds of things we do without any of it mattering in any ultimate objective sense. Like a rockslide or a flood rearranges the terrain there's an impact but the impact is meaningless in itself.
We live for awhile and then we cease to exist.
This too is the objective conclusion from the Darwinist / atheist point of view.
We are of no more importance than the wind that blows across the Texas plains.
Ditto. Or a rock slide or a flood or a forest fire.
During this time we struggle trying to figure out what we should do, how we should live. We never figure it out. The reason is there is no answer to that question. It doesn't matter what we do or how we live. A hundred years from now it's all the same. We are of no more significance than a roach crawling across the floor.
Absolutely objectively true within the framework of science-defined humanity -- and in fact consciously embraced by many.
In particular, the bit about what we do, not having significance is simply wrong on it's face. We may die, but what we do now can impact future events. In fact, I would say that this is inevitable.
But this is irrelevant to the point RR is making. His point is about an objective or intrinsic or ultimate significance to human life, as defined especially by Darwinism. The idea that impacting future events confers significance is your own subjective interpretation. Objectively speaking, impacting future events confers no significance whatever on a being that has no intrinsic worth or significance in the great scheme of things.
Just because you may feel like you've wasted your life and couldn't figure it out doesn't mean that everyone else has, or couldn't.
He'd have to explain further I suppose, but the impression I get is that although one could have fulfilled all kinds of subjective purposes in one's life just fine, he's alert to the overarching fact that there is no ultimate objective purpose to any of it, and this is what leads him to the judgment that it's all a waste no matter how successful he may have been with the subjective purposes.
This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2006 10:11 AM
™ Version 4.2
