The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

branie

Anyone here ever read this?

pH

Yes.

Dades

Many moons ago.

Tim Robbins

branie wrote: »

Anyone here ever read this?

Yes. Also read Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale and God Delusion.
They're all excellant. The man is genuis, a super writer and has overtones of British public school boy arrogance.

Myksyk

Yes. Terrific book. May totally rewire your brain!

eoin5

I have The God Delusion on my bedside locker but I havent read it yet because I'm still trying to finish The Great War for Civilisation. Its a great book but its too depressing to read quickly

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The man is genuis, a super writer and has overtones of British public school boy arrogance.

Arrogance in an atheist? Are you sure?

pinksoir

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes. Also read Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale and God Delusion.
They're all excellant. The man is genuis, a super writer and has overtones of British public school boy arrogance.

I dunno, I'm currently re-reading The God Delusion and don't find it as well written as I thought the first time round. I originally read that and then went on to read The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. The latter two ar far better written, and the public school arrogance in The God Delusion you pointed out has become somewhat nauseating...

I have a lot of respect for the man and his work, but I was considering giving The God Delusion to a mildly religious friend of mine, but since re-reading it I'm having second thoughts. The consistently pompous tone would almost certainly turn him off it before he even got to any of the good stuff, I'm afraid.

2Scoops

kelly1 wrote: »

Arrogance in an atheist? Are you sure?

Yes, arrogant upstarts - thinking they're right when it's ME that's actually right! Eh, kelly1?

Tim Robbins

pinksoir wrote: »

I dunno, I'm currently re-reading The God Delusion and don't find it as well written as I thought the first time round. I originally read that and then went on to read The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. The latter two ar far better written, and the public school arrogance in The God Delusion you pointed out has become somewhat nauseating...

I have a lot of respect for the man and his work, but I was considering giving The God Delusion to a mildly religious friend of mine, but since re-reading it I'm having second thoughts. The consistently pompous tone would almost certainly turn him off it before he even got to any of the good stuff, I'm afraid.

The arrogance certainly puts a lot of people off. But at the same time if he had no arrogance, like someone like Colin McGinn, we probably would never have heard of him.

Dades

Dawkins' style irks me too. I find Carl Sagan a much more charismatic read.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Arrogance in an atheist? Are you sure?

No more arrogant than some christians I know.

zenith

eoin5 wrote: »

I have The God Delusion on my bedside locker but I havent read it yet because I'm still trying to finish The Great War for Civilisation. Its a great book but its too depressing to read quickly

Snap!
Well, I've actually finished both of them now, but took me aaaaages, for exactly the same reason.

kelly1

Just curious, what is the Blind Watchmaker about? Would anyone like to offer a brief synopsis? Thanks, Noel.

pH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_watchmaker

kelly1

pH wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_watchmaker

Thanks for the link.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Just curious, what is the Blind Watchmaker about? Would anyone like to offer a brief synopsis? Thanks, Noel.

There was a famous British intellectual called William Paley who believed in God and came up with the Watchmaker argument. When you look at something as complicated as a watch, you think there must have been a designer or a watchmaker. The same must be true for life.

Dawkins by explaining the complexities of evolution in simple terms illustrates there is no reason to assume that life as we know it today cannot have arisen from evolution through natural selection i.e. there is no need for a watchmaker hence the blind watchmaker.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Arrogance in an atheist? Are you sure?

In your opinion what percentage of atheists are arrogant?

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There was a famous British intellectual called William Paley who believed in God and came up with the Watchmaker argument. When you look at something as complicated as a watch, you think there must have been a designer or a watchmaker. The same must be true for life.

Dawkins by explaining the complexities of evolution in simple terms illustrates there is no reason to assume that life as we know it today cannot have arisen from evolution through natural selection i.e. there is no need for a watchmaker hence the blind watchmaker.

Thanks for that.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In your opinion what percentage of atheists are arrogant?

I can't really answer that but on this forum I've seen too many comments about believers being unintelligent, irrational, deluded etc. I don't accept that faith is totally blind but we do have to wear dark glasses, which will be removed when we die, so to speak.

BTW, I don't like Dawkins one bit. He's the epitome of arrogance and I find his militant anti-theism a bit diabolic frankly.

kelly1

5.0 out of 5 stars Fascinating, but at times I wish I could unread it., August 7, 1999
By Michael J. Edwards (Healesville, Victoria, Australia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Selfish Gene (Paperback)
I wish I could rate this book at 5 stars and 0 stars at the same time. It is a fascinating book, very well-written, and it conveys a real sense of how life works on the biological level, how all sorts of diverse factors interact with each other to create an incredibly complex system (the evolution of life, in this case); it also just as vividly conveys a sense of how scientists come to understand these processes.

I started it many years ago at the suggestion of a friend, thinking I wouldn't find it very interesting, and not much liking the kind of philosophy of life that (on the basis of my friend's description) seemed to lie behind it. But only a chapter or two in, I was completely hooked, and wanted to read more Dawkins.

On one level, I can share in the sense of wonder Dawkins so evidently sees in the workings-out of such complex processes, often made up of quite simple elemental mechanisms, but interacting so complexly to produce the incredibly complex world we live in.

But at the same time, I largely blame "The Selfish Gene" for a series of bouts of depression I suffered from for more than a decade, and part of me wants to rate the book at zero stars for its effect on my life. Never sure of my spiritual outlook on life, but trying to find something deeper - trying to believe, but not quite being able to - I found that this book just about blew away any vague ideas I had along these lines, and prevented them from coalescing any further. This created quite a strong personal crisis for me some years ago.

The book renders a God or supreme power of any sort quite superfluous for the purpose of accounting for the way the world is, and the way life is. It accounts for the nature of life, and for human nature, only too well, whereas most religions or spiritual outlooks raise problems that have to be got around. It presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature, and makes life seem utterly pointless; yet I cannot present any arguments to refute its point of view. I still try to have some kind of spiritual outlook, but it is definitely battered, and I have not yet overcome the effects of this book on me.

Richard Dawkins seems to have the idea that religion and spirituality are not only false, but ultimately unable to give a real sense of meaning and purpose in life. Their satisfaction is hollow, empty, and unreal, in his apparent view, and only a scientific understanding of life can give a real, lasting sense of wonder and purpose.

I would question this. While I am not sure what (if anything) there is spiritually, I know that a scientific view of life cannot offer the slightest hope of life after death, and since we're all going to die and most of us don't want to, this is a crippling drawback to the kind of scientific vision Dawkins wants us all to have. If there is nothing beyond death, no spiritual dimension to anything, and everything is just a blind dance of atoms, I fail to see how this by itself can give one a real sense of purpose, however fascinating the dance that Dawkins describes - and it *is* fascinating; let there be no mistake about that.

Because of this, I have the curious feeling of dichotomy about Dawkins' book that it is certainly fascinating on one level, but that I cannot give even qualified emotional commitment to the outlook on life that seems to lie behind it. I would in the end rather have the hope of something wonderful and purposeful that only some spiritual outlook can offer, even though it may be a deluded fantasy, than the certainty of a scientific vision that eliminates any possibility of long-term hope, that condemns us to an empty, eternal death of nothingness in the end. This scientific view may be completely rational; but rationality is not the only important consideration to shape our outlook on life.

Anyone who has a narrow religious view of life, who is absolutely sure their religion is completely right, would be best off avoiding this book like the plague - it probably won't change their views, but they will quite likely get very upset and outraged. And anyone with an open-minded spiritual view had better at least be prepared to do a lot of thinking, and perhaps be willing to change some of their views, because this book *will* challenge almost any spiritual or religious viewpoint I can think of - whether it is of the open-minded or dogmatic sort.

Some critics of this book have found its reasoning unconvincing, its materialist reductionism too superficial and shallow. But, from my perspective, the problem does not lie here; the problem with the book is that it is *too* convincing, that it is *entirely* convincing. The book makes it very difficult to continue to believe in anything that contradicts its basic premise, but which might be more comforting, and might give a greater sense of hope and inspiration, and provide a real sense of purpose in life.

Such have its effects on my life been that, in my more depressed moments, I have desperately wished I could unread the book, and continue life from where I left off.

It has been said that each of us has a God-shaped hole inside, and that we spend most of our lives trying to fill it with the wrong things. I firmly believe that God-shaped hole is there, that we have inner longings of a wonderful sort almost impossible to describe in words. Whether a God exists to fill it, I do not yet know. But what I am sure of is that, as wonderful as Dawkins' view of nature and of life may be on its own level, it will not fill that God-shaped hole.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I can't really answer that but on this forum I've seen too many comments about believers being unintelligent, irrational, deluded etc. I don't accept that faith is totally blind but we do have to wear dark glasses, which will be removed when we die, so to speak.

BTW, I don't like Dawkins one bit. He's the epitome of arrogance and I find his militant anti-theism a bit diabolic frankly.

I avoided reading the God Delusion as he annoyed me so much until I spoke to a Priest who told me he was reading it so then I said if can stomach it I can. It turnt out to be a very riveting read even if I had heard most of it before.

Have you ever heard of Colin McGinn and what would you think of him?
You can get some of interviews on the net if you have broadband.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tBc3-_vMQ0

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

This review is from: The Selfish Gene (Paperback).

Wow. That's a very interesting review.

I have to admit I saw you'd posted a review and assumed it was going to be from an unconvinced believer. What are your thoughts? Personally I can't imagine Dawkins ever intended people to suffer depression on foot of his analysis. He is a scientist first and foremost, and is really just interested in describing the reality of things from that POV.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Have you ever heard of Colin McGinn and what would you think of him? You can get some of interviews on the net if you have broadband.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tBc3-_vMQ0

I tried that link and got this message:

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Lorber HT Digital"

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

I tried that link and got this message:

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Lorber HT Digital"

Sorry. Just type in Colin McGinn into youtube you'll get it. It's an interview with Jonathan Millar, called the atheist tapes.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

Wow. That's a very interesting review.

I have to admit I saw you'd posted a review and assumed it was going to be from an unconvinced believer. What are your thoughts? Personally I can't imagine Dawkins ever intended people to suffer depression on foot of his analysis. He is a scientist first and foremost, and is really just interested in describing the reality of things from that POV.

I pity the poor man who wrote that review. The small flame of hope that he kept burning has been snuffed out. I can clearly see how Dawinks writings could drive someone to despair. What's the point of it all?? To quote:

It presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature, and makes life seem utterly pointless; yet I cannot present any arguments to refute its point of view. I still try to have some kind of spiritual outlook, but it is definitely battered, and I have not yet overcome the effects of this book on me.

Although he finds the complexity of life fascinating, it still leave him unfulfilled and without any hope. As he says, there is a God-shaped hole in everyone and science will never be able to fill it. Basically I think the man was over-awed by Dawkin's intellect and couldn't rebutt his arguments because he couldn't find the holes. I think he needs a more critical analysis as another reader had:

Honestly, if this is the best argument for evolution, God MUST exist. The holes can be found on pretty much every page. eg p1. Dawkins states that "Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the Sun..". Excuse me? What about the arguments amongst evolutionists themselves - Darwinists, those who believe in punctuated equilibria, saltationists - they can't even agree among themselves, let alone convince the creationists or the growing intelligent design movement. To simply state that there is "no doubt" is just dogma - plain and simple. This is to say nothing of the raging debates that occur to try and explain the "arrival" of the fittest - Abiogenesis? Clay theory? Panspermia? - the debate is endless and has implications for the evolution debate as a whole.

His constant use of "must have", "could have", "probably" etc I also find unconvincing. If, as he states above, there is so little doubt about evolution, why can't he be more sure of himself? If God's design is such a leaking sieve of an idea, shouldn't his be watertight? eg. p19. "We can now see that less-favoured varieties must actually have become less numerous because of competition, and ultimately many of their lines must have gone extinct". If he really can "see" this, why not just state it as a fact? Why the need for "must have" ?

I could go on, but won't.

I'm glad I bought this book. It has strengthened my faith in God immeasurably!

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I can clearly see how Dawinks writings could drive someone to despair. What's the point of it all??

To quote, I think, Carl Sagan:

Sagan wrote:

If you mean nothing to the universe, then you, through your mind, can make the universe mean something to you.

Incidentally, I didn't find Dawkins work depressing at all -- quite the opposite: interesting, profound, intelligent and (generally) convincing. Though I can imagine why somebody who's held onto the consolation of religion for many years, and invested heavily in it, would be unhappy to find out that it's not at all the dead-cert that he'd have been lead to believe.

Paraphrasing Harris, you don't need to make-believe a diamond in your back garden to make yourself happy. Why not simply be happy in the mere fact of existence at all. That against all the unfathomable odds, you exist for a short while.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

whoever wrote:

I'm glad I bought this book. It has strengthened my faith in God immeasurably!

The introduction to more recent editions of The Selfish Gene opens with a response to people like that particular reviewer who have missed the point of the book utterly and completely.

Sangre

Reading the Bible has plunged me into utter despair and depression. A life spent worshipping an omnipotent being who will throw all my kind, faithful Hindu, Buddist, Islamic and atheist friends into hell. Whats the point of it all?

Soul Winner

branie wrote: »

Anyone here ever read this?

Can't wait but I want to read William Paley's "Natural Theology" first as Dawkins' “Blind watchmaker” is a direct response to that. Also want to read Darwin's "Origin of the species" and the "Decent of man" and also Hawking's "A brief history of time". Just finished "Starlight and Time" by Russell D Humphreys (Creationist cosmologist) and short and all as it was it just confused me more than anything. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about but I sure as hell don't. For the more scientific amongst us I think, even those who do not subscribe to his theories at least you might make sense of the many equations and theorems he presents in the appendices sheezzee!!!

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just finished "Starlight and Time" by Russell D Humphreys (Creationist cosmologist) and short and all as it was it just confused me more than anything.

There's a very good reason why creationist cosmology confuses people, but I suspect that pointing this out will not inch the argument forward very much

If you want to understand modern biology, then I'd really advise you to drop the Darwin, and get Dawkin's The Selfish Gene instead. Darwin was no stranger to dull text and biology has moved on a lot in the century and a half since his time.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

I pity the poor man who wrote that review. The small flame of hope that he kept burning has been snuffed out.

But hope of what? Should your whole life be spent clinging to a hope of something better in the next one? That seems like a rather negative way to spend your earthly days.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

But hope of what? Should your whole life be spent clinging to a hope of something better in the next one? That seems like a rather negative way to spend your earthly days.

Hope of seeing my Creator face to face and being happy beyond words basically.

I don't see it as negative at all. Belief in God gives life true meaning and purpose. Life on earth to me is like a pilgrimage to our ultimate destination which is life with God. If you don't believe in God there's no destination. What is the roadmap for those who don't believe in God?

Life can't be about amassing wealth and chasing pleasures because that leads to more pain. As they say, you can't take it with you when you die.

How is the worth of a persons life measured is you have no belief in God? Does it depend on one's contribution to society? Is someone in a vegetative state or a homeless drug-addict of no use and a mere burden?

Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who is totally paralyzed or a drug-addict living on the streets. What would you live for? What would keep you going and would you want to live? Death with no afterlife and no God is too bleak a prospect to my mind.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

There's a very good reason why creationist cosmology confuses people, but I suspect that pointing this out will not inch the argument forward very much

I got the basic tenet of his arguement and he was humble enough to admit that he is wide open to correction and he does come across as really knowing his equations but it is not for the lay person IMO, we'll not this lay person anyway The stuff I did understand I did find interesting though.

robindch wrote: »

If you want to understand modern biology, then I'd really advise you to drop the Darwin, and get Dawkin's The Selfish Gene instead. Darwin was no stranger to dull text and biology has moved on a lot in the century and a half since his time.

I will do that thanks...

Dades

kelly1 wrote:

How is the worth of a persons life measured is you have no belief in God? Does it depend on one's contribution to society?

Contribution to society would be a reasonable method. Assuming there is some necessity to measure your life in the first place.

kelly1 wrote: »

Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who is totally paralyzed or a drug-addict living on the streets. What would you live for? What would keep you going and would you want to live?

Not much, tbh. They are just bleak situations. Unfortunately none of this has any bearing on whether an afterlife exists or not.

sdep

kelly1 wrote: »

5.0 out of 5 stars Fascinating, but at times I wish I could unread it., August 7, 1999

This review is from: The Selfish Gene (Paperback)

The reviewer cited says that his world view was challenged by Dawkins' explanation of evolution, that he was unable to "present any arguments to refute [Dawkins'] point of view", and yet that he has "desperately wished [he] could unread the book." This is someone saying that, in order to console himself, he would like to believe something that he understands to be a delusion. I have no respect for this position.

The reviewer says that the book "presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature". I don't agree. The book argues that human nature, including altruism, is the result of evolution by natural selection. This may be reductionist and hyper-adaptationist, but is not to my mind pessimistic.

The reviewer goes on to say that the book gives 'a scientific vision that eliminates any possibility of long-term hope, that condemns us to an empty, eternal death of nothingness in the end' and that 'makes life seem utterly pointless'. Does evolution mean that life is pointless? Only if your prior assumption is that any meaning we find in life can derive solely from humanity's special creation.

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

Arrogance in an atheist? Are you sure?

At least we don't believe that the entire universe was created just for us. Nor do we believe that our position holds absolute truths, for we acknowledge this is impossible to achieve. Shame you can't say the same of your beliefs. Now who is the arrogant one, eh?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Life can't be about amassing wealth and chasing pleasures because that leads to more pain.

Is this really all that you think that people like me worry about? I'm really quite disappointed that you seem to think that everybody but you and your co-religionists are immoral, money-grabbing, lascivious assholes.

kelly1 wrote: »

How is the worth of a persons life measured is you have no belief in God?

Here's an honest question, Noel. What do you think when you ask questions like that? Do you ever wonder if it may be just an eensy-weensy bit arrogant of you to say that life is worthless unless you believe what you do?

kelly1 wrote: »

Death with no afterlife and no God is too bleak a prospect to my mind.

Simply because something is "bleak" doesn't mean that it's false. Have you considered that you may be simply building a mental blindfold for yourself? To hide what you are too scared to face?

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

Death with no afterlife and no God is too bleak a prospect to my mind.

So instead of celebrating life, you celebrate death. What a waste.

Ekancone

Here is a video synopsis of The Blind Watchmaker, presented by Dawkins.

http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=472D647B5B8C3AAB

I recommend all doubters watch this. That means you kelly1.

2Scoops

kelly1 wrote: »

Life can't be about amassing wealth and chasing pleasures because that leads to more pain.

Thanks to my obsession with wealth (evil investments and satanic SSIAs), I can now finally afford to go to a Roman orgy, let loose my hedonistic desires (previously kept in check by poverty, and God) and get to know a few people. In the Biblical sense.

Run amuck!!!!!!!!

Agonist

sdep wrote: »

The reviewer goes on to say that the book gives 'a scientific vision that eliminates any possibility of long-term hope, that condemns us to an empty, eternal death of nothingness in the end' and that 'makes life seem utterly pointless'. Does evolution mean that life is pointless? Only if your prior assumption is that any meaning we find in life can derive solely from humanity's special creation.

I dunno. I suffer from recurrent depression and before reading the book (about ten years ago) I was a blithely carefree atheist. After reading it, I was plunged into a nihilistic despair, obsessed with the fact that I'm just a vehicle for my genes. With no intention of ever having children I felt that my existence was just a waste of the earth's resources.

I got treatment for the depression and moved on but I do agree that The Selfish Gene has very profound things to say about human life. There was no place in the way I was feeling for a smiling jesus to tell me he counted the hairs on my head each night. The hole in my being wasn't God-shaped, it was lack-of-seratonin shaped, but nonetheless that book had the power to kickstart the downward spiral.

It's not really popular on an Atheism board to admit to being an atheist with nihilistic clinical depression so I'll add that the psychiatric hospital I was in had way more than its fair share of nuns, priests and brothers on the brink of suicide.

Dades

Thanks for the candid posting, Agonist. And welcome!

Do you think your problems were there to begin with and could have been triggered by something else at another point?

Interesting that you mentioned you had no intention of having children. I think in the absence of a religious purpose (to serve God?) raising offspring seems to be a genuine purpose, and in a manner, a way to ensure some of you lives on after your death.

Hope things have picked up for you.

sdep

Agonist wrote: »

I dunno. I suffer from recurrent depression and before reading the book (about ten years ago) I was a blithely carefree atheist. After reading it, I was plunged into a nihilistic despair, obsessed with the fact that I'm just a vehicle for my genes. With no intention of ever having children I felt that my existence was just a waste of the earth's resources.

I got treatment for the depression and moved on but I do agree that The Selfish Gene has very profound things to say about human life. There was no place in the way I was feeling for a smiling jesus to tell me he counted the hairs on my head each night. The hole in my being wasn't God-shaped, it was lack-of-seratonin shaped, but nonetheless that book had the power to kickstart the downward spiral.

It's not really popular on an Atheism board to admit to being an atheist with nihilistic clinical depression so I'll add that the psychiatric hospital I was in had way more than its fair share of nuns, priests and brothers on the brink of suicide.

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences, and glad to hear you have moved on.

My point was that most people who accept Dawkins' (and Darwin's) mechanistic explanation of our origins don't equate this with the purpose, or lack of it, of our existence. Many people, some leading biologists among them, accept a view of the workings of evolution very similar to Dawkins, but are still religious, seeing evolution as directed by a higher authority. Others say that we find meaning within the context of our human history, culture and achievements, and in our relationships with other people. The question of our purpose has been debated by philosophers down the millennia, and there clearly isn't only one answer. All I can say is that my experience is that my life is more than the sum of my genes.

Agonist

Dades wrote: »

Thanks for the candid posting, Agonist. And welcome!

Do you think your problems were there to begin with and could have been triggered by something else at another point?

Interesting that you mentioned you had no intention of having children. I think in the absence of a religious purpose (to serve God?) raising offspring seems to be a genuine purpose, and in a manner, a way to ensure some of you lives on after your death.

Hope things have picked up for you.

Yes, I think there's a biological basis for the depression and any kind of loss could precipitate it. That wasn't the first or last episode I had. It was interesting that the content of a book could be a sufficient trigger.

I agree about raising children giving life a genuine purpose. I'd see it as a practical way of achieving a form of immortality as well as satisfying a primal urge, amongst other good things. I'm just not in a position to rear children with all the basics I think they deserve. Life is tough enough - they could do without inherent disadvantages.
Plus, my "I didn't ask to be born" complaint wouldn't hold much weight if I was popping them out myself.

I'm doing better now, thanks. Medication and psychotherapy seem to make god redundant.

Agonist

sdep wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences, and glad to hear you have moved on.

My point was that most people who accept Dawkins' (and Darwin's) mechanistic explanation of our origins don't equate this with the purpose, or lack of it, of our existence. Many people, some leading biologists among them, accept a view of the workings of evolution very similar to Dawkins, but are still religious, seeing evolution as directed by a higher authority. Others say that we find meaning within the context of our human history, culture and achievements, and in our relationships with other people. The question of our purpose has been debated by philosophers down the millennia, and there clearly isn't one answer. All I can say is that my experience is that my life is more than the sum of my genes.

For me it's clearer if I separate reason, purpose and meaning. I'm pretty sure that the fundamental reason I'm here is success of my genes. They've reproduced successfully until they arrived in this body. I'm here because of that success.
The idea of purpose has a teleological spin which I think is false. I see no ultimate goal in our lives, or in the process of humankind.
Meaning is something I can look for within my own life - the span of years that I'm here for and the past and future which contains it. I think it's a valid search and that meaning can be found, in the simple things like making someone smile and in the big picture.
Looking at the lunar eclipse the other night I felt bound up with generations past and future who know the wonder of the sight. Each person's thoughts and understanding of it can be so different yet the vast scope of those thoughts is similar throughout the ages. I feel part of something bigger than myself in moments like that.

aidan24326

kelly1 wrote: »

Belief in God gives life true meaning and purpose. Life on earth to me is like a pilgrimage to our ultimate destination which is life with God. If you don't believe in God there's no destination. What is the roadmap for those who don't believe in God?

An absurd idea. If your ultimate destination is eternal life with god why bother with life on earth at all? After all, life on earth is then just an irrelevant split-second in the face of eternity. And what of your pre-life, before birth? What exactly were you doing for all those billions of years? And why attach such significance to this little blip in your existence that it should have such profound impact on all the rest of it? You see in all likelihood there isn't a roadmap, and you are just inventing one to make yourself feel better. That's fine, you're quite entitled to do that. Be just be honest about it and admit that that's what you're doing.

kelly1

aidan24326 wrote: »

An absurd idea. If your ultimate destination is eternal life with god why bother with life on earth at all? After all, life on earth is then just an irrelevant split-second in the face of eternity.

A very good question indeed and one I've often thought about. Why not begin life in Heaven with God fully visible, no suffering, no sin, no need for faith. The only answer I can come up with is that life on earth is a test of how much we truly love God. A person who loves God without ever seeing Him would certainly love Him face to face. The angels were created by God and remained in His presence until they rebelled against Him. Doesn't this demonstrate that being in God's presence is no guarantee that you'll love Him. This of course is only my belief.

aidan24326 wrote: »

And what of your pre-life, before birth? What exactly were you doing for all those billions of years?

Nothing, I was only a twinkle in God's eye. I hadn't been created yet.

aidan24326 wrote: »

You see in all likelihood there isn't a roadmap, and you are just inventing one to make yourself feel better. That's fine, you're quite entitled to do that. Be just be honest about it and admit that that's what you're doing.

OK, I admin it, you've got me. How did you know?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

....OK, I admin it, you've got me. How did you know?

Its quite obvious actually in what you post in this and the Christianity forum. You need not admit it to me at least.

Soul Winner

daithifleming wrote: »

Here is a video synopsis of The Blind Watchmaker, presented by Dawkins.

http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=472D647B5B8C3AAB

I recommend all doubters watch this. That means you kelly1.

Very interesting. I actually like Richard Dawkins, he can be real funny without even intending to be, I'm referring to the way he was trying to open the safe with the wrong code. Very funny

Anyway, from 5 mins 03 secs to 6 mins 25 secs on clip 5/5 he says the following in relation to DNA:

“This is really the subject of this program. A long and very common chemical polymer called DNA. The sequence of molecules in its double spiral, exactly analogues to the binary digits of some compute code. It’s the computer recipe for life itself, unravelling like a reel of magnetic tape on some giant computer. The only truly remarkable thing about it is its immortality, because it can copy itself, and to make sure there are no mistakes it has an error correction mechanism, without it the recipe would be reduced to rubbish. But nothing’s perfect, chance intervenes, mistakes occur and occasionally they are preserved. The recipe is altered, Evolution has begun! All DNA ever needed to do was make perfect copies of itself, left to it’s own devices all that would exist on this planet would be little naked molecules of DNA. We are nothing more than the accumulation of its mistakes, generated randomly and guided by natural selection. Without the blind watch maker, there’d be no chromosomes, no embryos, no eyes, no stick insects, fish, you or me and dinosaurs would never have existed.”

After watching this very interesting documentary a curious pupil would probably ask the following of his/her Biology Teacher: “So immortal DNA was around before evolution began? Then where did DNA come from? How did this “computer recipe for life itself” get programmed? It wasn’t by evolution through natural selection because it was there before evolution began according to Dr. Richard Dawkins. How did it get its “error correction mechanism” if not by evolution through natural selection? How could these primordial building blocks of life come pre-programmed prior to the process of evolution itself?”

I would if I were the curious pupil.

Bduffman

kelly1 wrote: »

I can't really answer that but on this forum I've seen too many comments about believers being unintelligent, irrational, deluded etc. I don't accept that faith is totally blind but we do have to wear dark glasses, which will be removed when we die, so to speak.

I would think there is no more arrogant a viewpoint than the idea that some will enjoy eternal life while the rest of us will be damned for eternity just for not sharing the same views. Say what you like about atheists but at least we don't believe that.

kelly1 wrote: »

BTW, I don't like Dawkins one bit. He's the epitome of arrogance and I find his militant anti-theism a bit diabolic frankly.

Funny - thats how I feel about most churches hierarcy (just change 'anti-theism' to 'theism'').

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

A person who loves God without ever seeing Him would certainly love Him face to face.

I don't know about this at all!!!
I know some people who started a relationship over the internet. They got on really really well talking in chat rooms and over the phone, but when they actually met each other there was no chemistry. Do you know why? Because they had built a mistaken impression about what the other person was like and were disappointed when those impressions were wrong.

In terms of loving god. You don't love god, you 'love' your own impression of god that you have created out of nuggets of information that you pieced together yourself. You're no different from an obsessive fan. You think you love Sharon Stone because you've seen some of her movies and read some interviews. If you ever met her in person, you could very easily be massively dissapointed if she didn't live up to your massive expectations.

The angels were created by God and remained in His presence until they rebelled against Him. Doesn't this demonstrate that being in God's presence is no guarantee that you'll love Him. This of course is only my belief.

It doesn't make any sense. You're saying that people will be less likely to rebel if they loved god before they ever met him? Is a celebrity stalker less likely to harm a celebrity than the celebrity's own brother?

Nothing, I was only a twinkle in God's eye. I hadn't been created yet.

So if you're untroubled by the fact that there was once a time when you did not exist, what's so hard to accept about the idea that you will stop existing when you die?