Feb 19
2007
Meaning and Dawkins – Meaningless Dawkins.
Normally things like this do not bother me so much. I could not care less about the actual conclusion if the method to arriving at the finish line were reasonable. And by reasonable or rational I do not want to imply that reason or rationality is the only way by which a conclusion can be drawn.
I say this because reason and rationality demand all the facts. It is impossible for a person to see all the facts. Even if someone could see all the scientific proofs and have them at the ready, on the tip of the tongue at all times, it would be impossible to know them all. This is because of prejudices, personal theories, and a very personal world view. Facps are interpreted. Facts do not exist as entities on their own accord.
This creates an interesting connundrum. If all information is processed by the individual and, in said processing, some information is given greater value than other information, then it is plausible to state that some information will be put into disuse and some into over-use.
With this as the case, when a person seeks truth, no matter what the form or what the method, the person will employ particular information and will exclude other information. This is true in the case of historical, literary, and scientific research (as well as any other conceivable field).
This is the problem with science. This is the problem with religion. This is the problem with history. This is the problem with philosophy. Et cetera ad nauseum.
This this also the problem with humanity.
We want truth and meaning. We want to understand the world around us. Some of us place a higher value on the philosophical aspects; Others on the religious; Others on empirical proofs; Still others look towards art and entertainment, and find meaning there.
Richard Dawkins is looking for scientific proof. He claims there is no God. But that is not a scientific query. God is not something science can measure and his path to proving his atheism does not do so with science. He attempts to prove it with philosophy. Even-so, if there is indeed no God and science is the ulitimate purveyor of truth does it matter so much what people believe or how much we know about the world? Does it actually matter considering that life is without any innate meaning or purpose?
The people who look to philosophy and religion, or art and entertainment, or science and rationality, all look to find meaning and purpose and truth in life. Richard Dawkins does a dis-service to everyone by seeking to bully people into his own perspective on how to find meaning in life. Dawkins’ goal is to preach evolution and convert the theists. In this he finds meaning and feels that it is the only way.
While religion is capable of being interpreted differently by different people and, in such, is used as a justification for actions which may well be deplorable, this is not enough to falisify religion. I can call on personal family histories which would speak of the same evils under the hand of atheists (Stalin). I could also look to Pol Pot in Cambodia. But that only proves that ideology in any extreme can be deemed as evil. This also proves that when ideology is exploited and given power over people, it is the people that are exploited.
All that is left to be said is that Dawkins wishes to remove religion because he does not agree. He has not seen proof, and the proofs he has seen do not prove. He has selectively evaluated the world and interpreted it in a particular way. He has found meaning and has a glimpse at truth. The truth he has seen and shared we should cherish. But this is true of everyone. Everyone has seen truth of some sort. But to seek to extinguish the sense of meaning in others rather is to remove meaning from life even if it is a contrived meaning.
But contrived meaning is the only thing Dawkins has left us with. An evolved sentient being can only create meaning in a meaningless world. And, yet, even a contrived meaning will mean the world to the beholder.
Fume-hood be with you.
No Responses to “Meaning and Dawkins – Meaningless Dawkins.”
I stopped reading at “And by reasonable or rational I do not want to imply that reason or rationality is the only way by which a conclusion can be drawn.” Thats not true, I did continue reading a bit and saw, “I say this because reason and rationality demand all the facts.” Your 0/2 now brother. I feel that you should correct both these statements before my valuable time, as a reader, is wasted. Please let me know when you’ve gotten your introductory statements correct. By the by, thanks for the easy comments page, it is the one redeaming factor of this site, thusly I withdraw in great anticipation of your response.
Andrew
Andrew, what are you saying? Are you saying that rintrah wants to imply that reason and rationality are the only way a conclusion can be drawn? Or that reason and rationality are the only way?
Are you saying that reason and rationality don’t demand all the facts? If the facts are not all on the table then how can there be a reasonable discussion? If the facts are not there how can a person rationalize? Rationalize comes from the word ratio. Ratio meaning that the ideas are weighed. What is the ratio of points for and against the existance of God? That is the rational approach. It is faulty.
What is it that you want rintrah to correct?
Also, I think the image of the chair is a very redeeming quality.
am i missing something?
Andrew, I don’t think you are quite understanding what rintrah was driving at. If you did bother to gamble on wasting your time you would have seen why he said what he said. Even if he was wrong.
I don’t think you are being reasonable at all. If reason and rationality are the only means by which truth is discerned, then would it not be beneficial to have more information at your finger-tips? Even if rintrah were wrong his wrongness might propell you to a greater truth. You may consider something in a new light or at least consider as someone else may (walk in their shoes, say).
But alas, the truth that you agree with is the only truth that can exist and, therefore, you might as well ignore all others. Tradition dictates that. oh yeah, that would also be non-rational, and possibly un-reasoned. hmmmmm, go figure.