Apologists wasting their talent

[_amantha]

I don't think you understand. You're mistaken here, and I think your hostility towards me is preventing you from thinking it through clearly. Think about the argument. Don't think about whether purpose is meaningful if it is subjective. If and only if there really is a divine teleological end to our purposes are they meaningful. Don't think about whether or not you agree with this, as your example isn't attacking it directly. It is saying, "Well, what if the FSM created you, does that mean you then can make claims ?" If really did, then there really would be divine teleological ends. If it really didn't, then there wouldn't be. Since we are not warranted to believe the former, we have no reason to conclude there are divine teleological purposes. Mere belief in the FSM doesn't create divine teleological ends, only an actual FSM (or other divinity) can do that. So you can't escape the problem by wishing things were true. You can't make a hammer's function to hit a nail by mere belief in fairies that designed it that way. Believing doesn't make it so. Maybe you should put down "The Secret," and stop sniping at believers with insulting analogies and think about what they are saying. You, after all, harbor the fringe intellectual position, not them.

As far as this thread goes, I have to say that I agree with everything ALITD has said except for the bolded part above. Could you elaborate on this a little more because maybe I misunderstand. Your reasoning was seamless to me up to this point.

Tarski and I had a similar (very brief) discussion over at MAAD. Instead of discussing purpose in general we discussed the purpose of seeking truth. I, for one, cannot conceive of any other reason to seek truth (or to live for that matter)than to be happy. It's the pain/pleasure principle. To me the purpose of science and religion is to lead to greater survivability and happiness.

And does a DTE necessarily involve an Anthropomorhpic deity? Cannot Nature itself (in a panentheistic sense) suffice?

I am especially interested to hear ALITD's and The Dude's thoughts on these questions.

Oh,on a side note for the The Dude, I have been lurking for a while here and I just yesterday rented The Big Lebowski. Hilarious.

[_Coggins7]

But, if Dawkin's construes issues of morality differently than Beckwith and ALitD, then his view may very well be rational, which I presume he does.

Oh goody. Let's add a little postmodernism to the mix. All Dawkins has to do is not construe his concept or "meaning" in a way similar to Beckwith and Light and the entire logical inconsistency between his core belief system and his opposition to religion (or Wise' connection to it), vanishes.

Strange how everyone falls down before the feet of the great god Reason, until their own arguments are sacrificed upon his alter. At that point, they begin construing concepts and ideas like I might knead bread. The imagery is that of a scene from Animal Crackers, in which the butler is trying to open a folding card table. As he drops one leg and spins the table a quarter turn to drop the other, Harpo kicks the leg back up into the card table. They go around and around like this for a while.

How, pray tell, can Dawkins escape the logical inconsistency between his meaningless universe and his ascribing of meaning to Wise' choice of beliefs systems, by reconstruing the meaning of "meaning".

[_harmony]

Why does life have to have meaning?

[_Tarski]

Or, you know, I don't always check this board every few minutes and actually was doing other things with my life. This is the first time I looked back on the board. I'll reply shortly to the extent there are replies worthy of addressing. And yes, I realize that everyone likely thinks their counterargument is awesomness incarnate, but calling a philosophy professor's argument "idiotic" does not a refutation make.

I'm much less interested in searching your post history to link examples where you express lament for apologists not using their abilities on more worthwhile pursuits, but this isn't as important to my main point as the mere fact that one person has done such a thing. I know Tarski did recently in a thread I posted in, so I am able to link that example. Searching for other examples will prove difficult and I only have so much time.

Just curious. When did I say that apologists were wasting their talent? I might agree with the notion that some apologetic effort were a waste in a limited way but, where did I say it?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Then I stand by my very first post in this thread (post #2). Dawkins is irrational only if one accepts Beckwith's sophistry.

Beckwith's reasoning is right or wrong independent of Dawkins acceptance of it. Beckwith is just saying that moral purposes can only be understand as right in a way that necessarily requires divine teleology. So Dawkins can't rationally make claims about how a person ought to use their faculties unless he accepts divine teleology, which he does not. Dawkins can't rebut this reasoning merely by choosing to believe in whatever moral system he feels like. That system actually has to be right and/or he actually has to have good reason that Beckwith is wrong in his understanding of moral purpose. So, no.

[_Tarski]

But, if Dawkin's construes issues of morality differently than Beckwith and ALitD, then his view may very well be rational, which I presume he does.

Oh goody. Let's add a little postmodernism to the mix. All Dawkins has to do is not construe his concept or "meaning" in a way similar to Beckwith and Light and the entire logical inconsistency between his core belief system and his opposition to religion (or Wise' connection to it), vanishes.

Strange how everyone falls down before the feet of the great god Reason, until their own arguments are sacrificed upon his alter. At that point, they begin construing concepts and ideas like I might knead bread. The imagery is that of a scene from Animal Crackers, in which the butler is trying to open a folding card table. As he drops one leg and spins the table a quarter turn to drop the other, Harpo kicks the leg back up into the card table. They go around and around like this for a while.

How, pray tell, can Dawkins escape the logical inconsistency between his meaningless universe and his ascribing of meaning to Wise' choice of beliefs systems, by reconstruing the meaning of "meaning".

I have yet to see a logical inconsistancy.
Ever instance of meaning has a context and is not absolute. The human context provides enough for morality etc.

Read Dennett on meaning: Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life

Also, what property does God have that allows him to create meaning when other less intelligent beings can allegedly create no meaning at all?

[_The Dude]

Then I stand by my very first post in this thread (post #2). Dawkins is irrational only if one accepts Beckwith's sophistry.

Beckwith's reasoning is right or wrong independent of Dawkins acceptance of it. Beckwith is just saying that moral purposes can only be understand as right in a way that necessarily requires divine teleology. So Dawkins can't rationally make claims about how a person ought to use their faculties unless he accepts divine teleology, which he does not. Dawkins can't rebut this reasoning merely by choosing to believe in whatever moral system he feels like. That system actually has to be right and/or he actually has to have good reason that Beckwith is wrong in his understanding of moral purpose. So, no.

You mean Dawkins is irrational if he expresses the opinion that "using your mind to explore the world you live in" is a valuable and worthwhile pursuit? This kind of value judgment does not require divine teleology. What nonsense! It's way simpler than that.

[_Chap]

Beckwith is just saying that moral purposes can only be understand as right in a way that necessarily requires divine teleology.

I have read this thread without being able to discover anything behind this than circular reasoning and repeated assertion.

We are told that in effect that no quality (such as having intention, or conferring purpose or meaning) that cannot be predicated of an atom (or perhaps we should go down to quarks) can be predicated of any system composed of such units (though this is not even true of physical quantities such as pressure, temperature or entropy). This is not proved, but asserted, usually to the accompaniment of heart-rending rhetoric about the silence of infinite space, the chance flux of atoms, the Holocaust, etc. etc.

God is then defined as being the only source of purpose and meaning. Then hey presto - if you don't believe in God, you can't talk about meaning or purpose anymore.

Meeting someone who argues like that strikes me as the philosophical equivalent of an encounter with a pickpocket.

[_Coggins7]

Why does life have to have meaning?

Because if it doesn't, then it doesn't.

See how easy it is to flippantly dismiss one of the mysteries of the universe?

[_Coggins7]

I have yet to see a logical inconsistancy.

Then clearly, you have difficulties with logical thought.