An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
Fan of Science wrote:Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins that makes no sense to me: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." How could he know such a thing? He may have come to the conclusion that there is no evil, despite the existence of such notables as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, but how does he know evil does not exist? He may have concluded that there is no good, despite the numerous acts of kindness that people express daily, but how could he know for sure goodness does not exist? He claims there is no designer, but we can computer model a great deal, including evolution, so how does he know that no designer exists? And how could any observation anyone could make cause one to conclude that there is no purpose at all to the universe?
What so-called "precise properties" is he even referring to? Conservation of energy? What physical laws should we observe in order for the universe to have a purpose as opposed to what we presently observe?
Dawkins seems to be making a claim that science, or at least direct empirical observations, have left us with no other conclusion than those he describes. How so? I doubt see how he makes this amazing leap from observations of the universe to his conclusions.
Greta wrote:Yes, he has jumped to conclusions. If he was still a practising scientist I would say it's an error - jumping to one's favoured conclusion.
I'm an atheist myself, but don't see how an absence of god would necessarily make my life or existence without purpose.
Fan of Science wrote:
Razbio -- Dawkins has definitely jumped to conclusions. Name a single science textbook used at any major western university that states the laws of physics have revealed the universe is meaningless. You won't be able to find any such textbook, because science has never endorsed such a claim. Dawkins has added his own personal views onto the science, and he has attempted to pass it off as real science. In fact, your very comment reveals the harm he has done in getting people like you to falsely believe that his personal opinions are actually objective, scientific ones. That's my concern with Dawkins.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests