Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What do you like about Dawkins books?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 16 of 20 (523275)
09-09-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 8:05 AM


Re: purpose and meaning
My answer to this is, "so what".
The sky is blue, so what? How about a little more context for one of the quotes?
Dawkins writes:
A female digger wasp not only lays her egg in a caterpillar
(or grasshopper or bee) so that her larva can feed on it but,
according to Fabre and others, she carefully guides her sting
into each ganglion of the prey's central nervous system, so as
to paralyse it but not kill it. This way, the meat keeps fresh. It
is not known whether the paralysis acts as a general anaesthetic,
or if it is like curare in just freezing the victim's ability
to move. If the latter, the prey might be aware of being eaten
alive from inside but unable to move a muscle to do anything
about it. This sounds savagely cruel but, as we shall see, nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. 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 callousindifferent to all suffering, lacking all
purpose.
We humans have purpose on the brain. We find it hard to
look at anything without wondering what it is "for," what the
motive for it is, or the purpose behind it. When the obsession
with purpose becomes pathological it is called paranoia
reading malevolent purpose into what is actually random bad
luck. But this is just an exaggerated form of a nearly universal
delusion. Show us almost any object or process, and it is hard
for us to resist the "Why" questionthe "What is it for?"
question.
The desire to see purpose everywhere is a natural one in
an animal that lives surrounded by machines, works of art,
tools and other designed artefacts; an animal, moreover,
whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own personal
goals. A car, a tin opener, a screwdriver and a pitchfork all
legitimately warrant the "What is it for?" question. Our
pagan forebears would have asked the same question about
thunder, eclipses, rocks and streams. Today we pride ourselves
on having shaken off such primitive animism. If a
rock in a stream happens to serve as a convenient steppingstone,
we regard its usefulness as an accidental bonus, not
a true purpose. But the old temptation comes back with a
vengeance when tragedy strikesindeed, the very word
"strikes" is an animistic echo: "Why, oh why, did the cancer/
earthquake/hurricane have to strike my child?" And
the same temptation is often positively relished when the
topic is the origin of all things or the fundamental laws of
physics, culminating in the vacuous existential question
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Mike writes:
One dog might die, one might get lucky, should we judge "purpose" based on these facts. If good results favour Dawkins and bad results favour Dawkins, then what can I say? What can I offer, if he won't allow any facts to "show" purpose.
I can show the purpose of a motorbike. It isn't Dawkins' fault that this is not possible with the universe. The chapter is called God's Utility function and it goes as such:
Dawkins in A River out of Eden writes:
"Utility function" is a technical term not of engineers but
of economists. It means "that which is maximized." Economic
planners and social engineers are rather like architects and
real engineers in that they strive to maximize something. Utilitarians
strive to maximize "the greatest happiness for the
greatest number" (a phrase that sounds more intelligent than
it is, by the way). Under this umbrella, the utilitarian may
give long-term stability more or less priority at the expense of
short-term happiness, and utilitarians differ over whether
they measure "happiness" by monetary wealth, job satisfaction,
cultural fulfilment or personal relationships. Others
avowedly maximize their own happiness at the expense of the
common welfare, and they may dignify their egoism by a philosophy
that states that general happiness will be maximized
if one takes care of oneself. By watching the behaviour of individuals
throughout their lives, you should be able to reverse engineer
their utility functions. If you reverse-engineer the
behaviour of a country's government, you may conclude that
what is being maximized is employment and universal welfare.
For another country, the utility function may turn out to
be the continued power of the president, or the wealth of a
particular ruling family, the size of the sultan's harem, the stability
of the Middle East or maintaining the price of oil. The
point is that more than one utility function can be imagined.
It isn't always obvious what individuals, or firms, or governments
are striving to maximize. But it is probably safe to
assume that they are maximizing something. This is because
Homo sapiens is a deeply purpose-ridden species. The principle
holds good even if the utility function turns out to be a
weighted sum or some other complicated function of many
inputs.
Let us return to living bodies and try to extract their utility
function. There could be many but, revealingly, it will eventually
turn out that they all reduce to one. A good way to dramatize
our task is to imagine that living creatures were made
by a Divine Engineer and try to work out, by reverse engineering,
what the Engineer was trying to maximize: What was
God's Utility Function?
...
It is as though
cheetahs had been designed by one deity and antelopes by a
rival deity. Alternatively, if there is only one Creator who
made the tiger and the lamb, the cheetah and the gazelle,
what is He playing at? Is He a sadist who enjoys spectator
blood sports? Is He trying to avoid overpopulation in the
mammals of Africa? Is He manoeuvring to maximize David
Attenborough's television ratings? These are all intelligible
utility functions that might have turned out to be true. In fact,
of course, they are all completely wrong. We now understand
the single Utility Function of life in great detail, and it is
nothing like any of those
And in concluding the chapter:
Dawkins writes:
To return to this chapter's pessimistic beginning, when
the utility functionthat which is being maximizedis
DNA survival, this is not a recipe for happiness. So long as
DNA is passed on, it does not matter who or what gets hurt
in the process. It is better for the genes of Darwin's ichneumon
wasp that the caterpillar should be alive, and therefore
fresh, when it is eaten, no matter what the cost in suffering.
Genes don't care about suffering, because they don't care
about anything.
If Nature were kind, she would at least make the minor
concession of anaesthetizing caterpillars before they are eaten
alive from within. But Nature is neither kind nor unkind. She
is neither against suffering nor for it. Nature is not interested
one way or the other in suffering, unless it affects the survival
of DNA. It is easy to imagine a gene that, say, tranquillizes
gazelles when they are about to suffer a killing bite. Would
such a gene be favoured by natural selection? Not unless the
act of tranquillizing a gazelle improved that gene's chances of
being propagated into future generations. It is hard to see why
this should be so, and we may therefore guess that gazelles
suffer horrible pain and fear when they are pursued to the
deathas most of them eventually are. The total amount of
suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent
contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose
this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive;
others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others
are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites;
thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst
and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty,
this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population
until the natural state of starvation and misery is
restored.
Theologians worry away at the "problem of evil" and a
related "problem of suffering." On the day I originally wrote
this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a terrible
story about a bus full of children from a Roman Catholic
school that crashed for no obvious reason, with wholesale
loss of life. ..."The simple answer is that we do not know why there
should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the
horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we
live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the
universe was just electrons, there would be no problem of
evil or suffering."
On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and
selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this
bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally
meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither
evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of
any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people
are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason
in it, nor any justice. 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...
DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance
to its music.
I appreciate the quotes are kind of long but that is necessarily so. There is a bit in the middle of the Chapter about sex ratios, male displays, pleitropy and aging which while interesting and on point isn't necessary. I of course, recommend reading it for yourself (I have read that chapter, but not the book).

Can we define purpose at this stage then? If function in an organism is not purpose then philosophically, "why" does an organism bother to eat at all? The only answer to this I've heard from Dawkins, is that the alternative is death.
Purpose: "For some defineable end". A motorbike's purpose includes transporting humamns.
The purpose of life is to create more life (in short). It bothers to eat because this is necessary to the creation of more life.
It seems that stating tautological things is supposed to impress me.
If you think it is tautological that the universe looks exactly as it would if it had no purpose, no good and no evil - then go right ahead. I don't think it is - I think it requires observing the universe which makes it empirical not tautological. If we observed that the universe was built as a containment facility or overflow area, then that would be a purpose. If we observed the universe having some preference towards certain moral choices, that might be evidence that there is good/evil. Maybe if we saw some of the merciful ideas of Dawkins - an anaesthetic for animals that are being eaten alive, for example, that serves no other purpose other than to reduce suffering as its own end.
But we don't. Things look exactly as if there were no purpose to the universe and no good or evil either.
This is the problem for me Mod - that essentially you are seeing "things" from a very particular type of reasoning.
Then explain to me, what is the purpose of the universe - and what properties does it have that indicate that it is not a universe with no purpose?
But my problem is - sure, he might think those things, but again, so what? If there is no sound syllogism which deductively proves his assertions to be true, then as a practical honest person, I can say that I have no reason to believe those things, because they are seen only when you wear a certain pair of glasses.
You can't rely on syllogisms for all your knowledge Mike.
1) Any entity that is observed to have the properties we would expect if it had no purpose is an entity which we can say has the properties we would expect if it had no purpose.
2) The universe is observed to have the properties we would expect if it had no purpose.
3) Therefore, we can say the universe has the properties we would expect if it had no purpose.
If you don't think it is interesting that the universe has all the properties we might expect in something that was pitilessly indifferent, amoral, purposeless - then so be it. I can't force you to find it interesting, or surprising, or thought-provoking.
--- Believe it or not, I believe death and suffering, and pot-luck, does favour a random system. If this doesn't mean that it is a Godless system, we have no problems here mod.---
I can't speak to whether a universe without purpose, morality or pity is a godless system or not.
So now mikey has provoked a reductio ad absurdum-moment. Does Mod glean anything "more". Does Mod, believe this way of looking at things has any God-consequences?
Depends on the deity in question. If it was a deity that created a universe with purpose and morality, then the consequence of our observation is that said deity kept it very well hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 8:05 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 11:03 AM Modulous has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 20 (523286)
09-09-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Modulous
09-09-2009 9:29 AM


Re: purpose and meaning
Thanks, i will read the quotes later (I really will don't worry, they interest me.)
You give me a little more to chew on. I think logically, the point about an anaesthetic is a good one. Apparently a high adrenaline rush can lead to such an effect but I am not completely sure that's the case. I do know that from reports, people have not felt pain while in the situation where they are close to death.
It's a can of worms, because as you have stated, if there is an "end" then there is a purpose. Therefore the roles of organisms on this planet, are purposeful. Symbiosis for example, might be an example of a harmonious world. It seems that the "chance" game is dependent upon the situation. for example, all of the animals in my house are harmonious.
Since, as a bible-believing Christian, I believe that God does not necessarily "care" for an individual animal, and suffering is supposes to be the result of a fallen world, then I think those answers might infact give us another conclusion.
This is why I mention this "present" universe. Afterall, the example of the cruelty of life is only looking at one planet, over a certain period of time. One might look at the order of design, the order of the universe, and almost come to a paradoxical position.
This is why there are two main philosophical problems for the two positions of Theism and Atheism. Atheism has the problem of design, and Theism has the problem of evil, or "death and suffering".
While Dawkins shows a consistency in a world that would have no innate purpose, as I previously said, this circumstancial consistency, is favourable in a tenuous capacity albeit relative, because you still have to see it from a certain angle. A certain angle of time, and an assumption that the universe is filled with violence, and always has been.
the prime purpose for lifeforms, is more explicable as those being to fill the earth. This is so. Death occurs, and suffering, but the purpose of life goes on, even "through" this suffering. This can be seen as a "contingency" for a cursed world. An evil God? No - a God who would preserve species, rather than individuals, if animals do not have an eternal meaning, or eternal relevance. In this scenario you would choose to see the "purpose", as filling the earth, to be a living creation. This "purpose" has not ceased.
So it's not like you have to see it Dawkins' way.
Ofcourse, I admitt that you would have to assume bible-truth, but that's another way of looking at it, is it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2009 9:29 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 09-09-2009 12:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2009 1:19 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 18 of 20 (523302)
09-09-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 11:03 AM


Re: purpose and meaning
mike,
So it's not like you have to see it Dawkins' way.
Ofcourse, I admitt that you would have to assume bible-truth, but that's another way of looking at it, is it not?
You can make anything up & "see it that way", but if you want an evidence based view, it's Dawkin's.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 11:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 20 (523316)
09-09-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 11:03 AM


Re: purpose and meaning
You give me a little more to chew on. I think logically, the point about an anaesthetic is a good one. Apparently a high adrenaline rush can lead to such an effect but I am not completely sure that's the case. I do know that from reports, people have not felt pain while in the situation where they are close to death.
Indeed it can - but this has a gene survival related purpose - it stimulates the mind/body in an attempt to flee or fight whatever is causing the imminent death. Its effects are temporary - so if the animal does survive but is mortally wounded it gets to die a slow and very painful death. In addition - the pain numbing effects are often only slight as anybody who has had a major injury will attest.
It's a can of worms, because as you have stated, if there is an "end" then there is a purpose. Therefore the roles of organisms on this planet, are purposeful.
Yes - there are roles for organisms, and there is a purpose for their existence. Dawkins says as much. But organisms are not nature. Be careful of the fallacy of composition.
Symbiosis for example, might be an example of a harmonious world.
It might, and if all species mutually worked together for each other's comfort and happiness you might have a point. But normal symbiotic relationships seem to benefit the genes of the species that engage in it above all else.
It seems that the "chance" game is dependent upon the situation. for example, all of the animals in my house are harmonious.
No doubt. Not getting into fights that might result in reducing ones chances to procreate is a big motivation. Added to the fact that the animals in your house are probably domesticated, which means that the strategy for survival is generally friendliness since that increases your chances of being bred from. Angry, hostile and aggressive animals tend to not be bred from, and may even be put down. So the gene mixtures that cause aggressiveness are lost and the gene mixtures that are friendly and 'harmonious' are kept.
If your animals are mammals there is a reasonable chance they have non-wild colourings. The evidence seems to suggest that coat colouring and adrenaline genes are related so that affecting adrenaline genes (which would impact aggression) could result in unusual coat colourings.
Since, as a bible-believing Christian, I believe that God does not necessarily "care" for an individual animal, and suffering is supposes to be the result of a fallen world, then I think those answers might infact give us another conclusion.
What's the other conclusion? It seems to be basically the same one.
Afterall, the example of the cruelty of life is only looking at one planet, over a certain period of time. One might look at the order of design, the order of the universe, and almost come to a paradoxical position.
How's that? I look up and see a bunch of rocks and gas that does not care whether I get a promotion or get eaten by a bear. I look at the order of a washing machine and still conclude it also doesn't care. I might work out what purpose it serves, based on what it seems to be most efficient at doing as per the Utility Function. Obviously it could be a door stop, but the plumbing system, the rotating drum, soap tray and various programs lead to me to the conclusion that it's purpose is to wash clothes.
So...what features of an orderly universe lead you to conclude what its purpose is?
This is why there are two main philosophical problems for the two positions of Theism and Atheism. Atheism has the problem of design, and Theism has the problem of evil, or "death and suffering".
Atheism doesn't have a problem of design. You might suggest that naturalism has a problem of design. But science has shown us over and again that just because something looks designed by an intelligent being it doesn't mean it is which can be explained by human's hyperactive agency detection systems, which in turn can be explained in evolutionary terms.
Theism, does not have a problem of 'death and suffering'. Though some religious views that posit a benevolent all-powerful deity do have this problem.
While Dawkins shows a consistency in a world that would have no innate purpose, as I previously said, this circumstancial consistency, is favourable in a tenuous capacity albeit relative, because you still have to see it from a certain angle. A certain angle of time, and an assumption that the universe is filled with violence, and always has been.
Not really - the universe is mostly not filled with violence. I don't need to assume that the world is filled with violence or that it always will be in order to conclude that it looks like nature is indifferent to my life or indeed to any life.
the prime purpose for lifeforms, is more explicable as those being to fill the earth. This is so. Death occurs, and suffering, but the purpose of life goes on, even "through" this suffering. This can be seen as a "contingency" for a cursed world. An evil God?
If you like. But we don't disagree that there is a purpose behind organisms, and we aren't significantly in disagreement over what that is. The world could be explained by a benevolent god with mysterious properties or some 'greater good' explanation etc, or a malevolent one against whom we occasionally prevail. These hypotheses are all well and good - but that doesn't change the fact that the properties of the universe are consistent with a universe that doesn't care. If you want to posit a god, the properties of the universe are also consistent with the idea that it doesn't care either.
It might be the case that there is a god and it does care (either hates us or loves us or something else), but that doesn't change that the universes properties are consistent with an uncaring existence.
So it's not like you have to see it Dawkins' way.
Nope. Nobody suggested you do. But you have seemingly agreed that he is right with regards to the issue at hand.
Ofcourse, I admitt that you would have to assume bible-truth, but that's another way of looking at it, is it not?
You don't need to assume bible-truth. You can assume a generic god with generic properties to see the universe as having a purpose and so on. That doesn't change the fact that the properties of this universe are still consistent with an uncaring universe.
Mike - if I let go of a helium balloon and it floats away, I could say that this is consistent with the idea that helium is lighter than air so the air sinks underneath it, pushing the balloon up.
You could then say - but I believe that some balloons are lifted to the heavens by angelic messengers and that is another way of looking at the same thing.
And I would say that, yes Mike, it is. But that doesn't change the fact that the helium balloon acts for all the world like it contained a gas that was lighter than air and that this is why it is floating away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 11:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 20 of 20 (523325)
09-09-2009 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 8:43 AM


Re: Science & prose
So the statement is actually true, but vacuously. Sorry if it appearred I was attacking you, I just thought your attack was a bit personal.
As for ad hominem. That just means you attacked Syamsu instaed of his argument, by expressing that he had a lack of biology knowledge.
...and sorry if you thought i was personally attacking Syamsu - i don't like personal attacks either - one should always concentrate on the argument.
So where i was coming from with Syamsu's first post is that he effectively was saying "I can't see any merit in Dawkins work it doesn't sound like science to me - oh and by the way i don't understand the science anyway." (the bit about Syamsu's lack of science is easily inferred from his text).
Now that is pretty arogant to be honest. You may not like Dawkins but the man has studied his subject intimately for many years and does know his science backwards - so to write him off by saying he doesn't sound scientific when Syamsu clearly isn't, is grossly unfair.
If Syamsu had said "I don't understand what people see in Dawkins and i'd like some inside info from those who do understand his work" then that would have been totally different. And by the way i do commend Syamsu for reading Dawkins work - many non-scientists don't even try to bridge the gap!
As regards the universe and purpose then i'm sorry to say the evidence (with which the material world at our fingertips is all we have to work with), favours Dawkins stance - pitilessly indifferent is exactly the way nature works. And by nature i mean all the material laws from stellar formation upwards. There is absolutely no evidence of any guiding creator whatsoever and Occam's Razor is very much of value here.
That doesnt' mean it's wrong to believe in a God. That is personal preference and faith. I'm not knocking you or anyone else for doing that - all I am saying is that there is no evidence for it and belief in something without evidence is irrational...mind you falling deeply in love can be irrational and where are we without love?
And although there is no evidence of purpose in the construction of the universe - there most certainly is purpose in each and every one of us. I love, laugh, cry, enjoy and strive just as the next person - in fact as an atheist i find the time i have on this planet to be highly precious, seing as i don't believe there's anything for me once its over. You would probably see that as sad - but to me i'd just rather have a wonderful inspired life now full of meaning in the world i do know exists than spend too much of it worrying over tiny details like am i pleasing an all-powerful diety enough to be 'rewarded' in some afterlife. Somehow that seems all too petty and mean to me.
Back to Dawkins, i've read most of his books and seen him on TV a few times. Yes he is an atheist and yes he doesn't care for the 'effects' he thinks religion can promote, but in all the reading and TV appearances i've seen of him he comes across to me as actually a passionate man full of empathy for both his felllow man and for the nature around him...he seems well in tune with his environment - it is only the philosophy of religion and the way it can often warp minds that worries him. It's sad he has drawn this vitriol for i don't think he wants that legacy particularly.
It's amazing what passions can stir in people isn't it....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 8:43 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024