Re: Way OT (was: Re: Cyrillic alphabet on RISC OS)

On 29 Dec, in message <4de0ec92c5john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John M Ward <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> I really cannot understand this determination by so many to remain in
> the gloomy darkness, just because they do not wnat to face up to the
> sheer /challenge/ of "going beyond" the clinically obvious and finding a
> true purpose for existing. Without that, they might as well be ants,
> as they have no real purpose.

The "gloomy darkness" is only gloomy in your opinion.

I find the light of full, unfettered inquiry far better than hiding in
the shadows of religious superstition where some assumptions are not
to be challenged.

If you aren't willing to even consider the possibility changing your
position, I don't see how you can know how dark or light it is elsewhere
compared to where you are.

[We seem to be going round in circles on this point, so I suggest we
agree to differ]

On the question of ants, they are not able to interpret their
surroundings or consciously comprehend the world in which they exist in
the same way as humans can and do. Humans are capable of differentiating
between possible future states, and thus can be purposeful in ways that
ants cannot.

I know that was probably not the sense of 'purpose' you meant, but I see
no reason to suppose that humans or ants have a purpose in any
other sense.

(Although, if you believe that the earth, and all life upon it,
including humans, was created by a creator who knew what they were doing
(as opposed to an experimenting creator trying something to see what
happens), then both humans and ants were created for a reason, so to say
that ants have no real purpose is to assume something about the creator
you believe in.)


On the question of meaning in general, science is frequently accused of
answering the what and the how, but not the why.

Why has two senses, one of which is synonymous with how (why did the
brick fall to the ground?), and one of which is concerned with
intentions or motivations (why did you paint the wall green?).

The latter sense, is what is generally considered lacking from the
scientific explanation, but as far as I can tell there is no way in
which this sense can be considered applicable to the universe unless you
make the assumption that there is a creator.

It makes no sense to ask what motivation a brick has in falling to the
ground, or forming part of a wall. It is a simple collection of atoms
and molecules with no internal state that could be said to have a
preference as to whether it falls or not. It is not capable, as far as
we can tell, of having intentions.

There is only one definite example of an object that can be said to have
such an internal state, able to model its environment, predict future
states and alter its behaviour to increase the chance of a preferred
future state coming into actuality. It's a human being, past infancy.
(Various animals also have it of course, but the phenomenon is most
pronounced by far in humans).

As we look at larger scales of matter in the universe, the more like an
unintelligent, clockwork system it looks. (Conversely, at the smallest
scales, the more like utter chaos and randomness it looks). At no scale
does any matter in the universe that we can observe, other than life
forms on the earth's surface, appear to contain a system that could be
said to have intentional states.

Thus, I see no reason to consider "why", in the sense of motivation or
meaning, to have any applicability to the universe.

You can argue that a creator had a purpose in creating the universe, if
you choose to believe in such a creator, but that purpose is not visible
in the universe as we observe it.

A universe created by random chance, or a creator creating by accident,
or a creator trying various things experimentally could all look the
same as the universe we see.

Thus I see no reason to assume that life was created _for_
anything, or has any deeper meaning that the meaning we create ourselves
for it, that life . I think each of us has to deal with that and not
hide from it behind a belief system that is not supportable by evidence
and rationality.

All IMHO.


[This is probably my last posting on this thread for a little while-
Guests coming for new year, and mundane stuff to be done in preparation.
I wish you all the best in celebrating the change of one of the less
frequently changing digits in the date.]

Mike
--
Mike Sandells
Work: mikejs@xxxxxxxxx http://www.liv.ac.uk/csd
Home: mike@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.mikejs.com/
AMPlay 2.00a: http://www.mikejs.com/riscos/amplay.html
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A treatise on how one willfully becomes an atheist
    ... The child intrinsically ... knows that existence implies a creator and design implies a Designer -- ... and realizes that his/her ultimate purpose ... and in many ways more interesting universe. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin wast atheist anyway
    ... believe in creator. ... What is the purpose of certain laws, ... Can our lives hold purpose if the universe doesn't? ... John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin wast atheist anyway
    ... believe in creator. ... What is the purpose of certain laws, ... Can our lives hold purpose if the universe doesn't? ... John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What if you were wrong?
    ... >> An actual purpose that exists must come from a creator. ... The universe could be purposeless. ... So the object or state which it is striving for is ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: OT: Why do Atheists have children?
    ... If all of Creation has no purpose then nothing of it can have purpose, ... But the universe doesn't have consciousness, ... Humans, of course, can create any purpose they want to. ... Life is that mysterious thing that goes completely opposite. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)