robinrohan writes:
In the same interview he was asked if there was any purpose in humans. He said that of course there is purpose: to propagate our genes
That could hardly be called a "purpose."
I think it could be called a purpose with the same justification with which Dawkins calls genes "selfish". Of course genes are not conscious entities, and in that sense they cannot be said to be selfish or to have a purpose in mind for the bodies they reside in. But in the same vein as saying that there is design in nature, we can say that genes are selfish and that they have a purpose in mind for us.
Taking that stance - an intentional stance, as Dennett calls it - we can say that our purpose, the purpose of a human body, is to make more genes. The chicken is just the egg's way of making more eggs, that sort of stuff.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2
