Dawkins why are we here

It is possible for one side to be simply wrong. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do. I prefer to point out that they could also win a Nobel Prize for discovering fundamental physical forces hitherto unknown to science.

Either way, why are they wasting their talents doing party turns on television? By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven.

Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter.

The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them. Voltaire got it right long ago: 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. In fact they do. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite.

Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm?

September 11th changed all that. And you could thrill him to the core of his being. Einstein, for example, was thought to be religious but he used the word as a sort of poetic allusion for that which we don't understand.

I suppose it's the nearest to an original contribution that I've made. As it says at the beginning, it's not research, as in finding out new things about animals. It was a new way of looking at a familiar subject. I think it's revealing and helpful, and clarifies things. It is still science, but it's something close to what philosophers do — slightly turning things on their head and looking at things in a different way. As an artefact, a beaver dam.

That is an extended phenotype of beaver genes — and the lakes it creates can be acres across. It is a phenotype, in that it varies genetically and is useful to the beaver. I later developed the idea that much of animal communication — where one animal influences the behaviour of another — can be seen as a phenotype.

So in that way the entire singing territory of a bird could be considered as a much less obvious idea of a phenotype. Not really, no. It's tempting to do that, to regard buildings as extended phenotypes, for example.

But in order to make that plausible, you'd have to say that there are genetic differences which affect those phenotypic differences. So you'd have to find genetic differences between architects of different buildings, for example. In a way that destroys the concept I think by making it too wildly and implausibly ambitious. But I have no doubt at all that there are genetic differences between beavers that manifest themselves as different sizes and types of dams and therefore lakes.

It is exerting a huge effect on the ecology of the world. Humans dominate the world to such an extent now that those species of animal equipped to exploit that — gulls and pigeons, for example — are increasing in number over those that can't, but also surely are evolving themselves within that niche.

Life-saving medicine obviously must change selection pressures acting on humans which must influence our evolution. But I wouldn't go on to say that is a bad thing. I am in favour of life-saving medicine! You could see the internet as a kind of embryonic super-brain of the future, I suppose, rather like the origin of complex nervous systems way back. Probably, yes. I think you'd have to expect that, knowing how powerful parasites like viruses are in influencing the behaviour of other species.

Her own God would slap her into next week, if he was actually able to keep morons like her from putting words in His mouth. Just one more pismire ant — from a no doubt local colony of identical pismire ants. Willing to strike out and attack any of those other colonies of equally deluded pismire ants — or sheep — as the case may be.

Or merely put Bitch-Bites on the rest of us. Genuine humility. Recognize that the apotheoses of the man Jesus, to the godhead — as Christ, the so called Son of God — was a creation of overly enthusiastic followers, time, and mythology. Accept that we evolved from the mud of creation, along with every other living creature here on earth.

And that human intelligence is easily and woefully corrupted, by ridiculous notions of fanciful beliefs. Ayn Rand? IMHO Report abuse. No, a creator is not needed to live an authentic, meaningful, purposeful life. Authenticity is. Quite so — making the most of our one and only genuine life, without adding fake or false delusions, as aims or objectives.

Your premise is simply not true. Forget that there is no evidence for this but it does not even square intuitively. I was indoctrinated as a child to be a Christian. It all rang hollow. Shedding religion is not only liberating but it allows you to build your own meaning, with the help of others, guided by the morality that develops independently of religious doctrines.

That is far more meaningful and gratifying than one of the thousands of pre-made religions you can choose from…if you actually made a choice.

They usually say something like Christ or God but those ideas are non-existent to begin with. They hold you back. I think the sentiment that atheists or secular humanists are missing something is really intended for the religious crowd. Maybe the better word is entitled…and I do NOT mean that as an insult. Religion has never answered anything. Science continues to inform us.

I, personally, really respect Native American religions, because they teach things like inter-connectedness and leaving small footprints. Nordic April 21st 9. It is possible for billions of people to be wrong and act very badly too. People can be wrong wicked stupid AND deluded. In the modern world, whatever aims and purposes you choose, it is almost certain you will be using the products of science to achieve the Report abuse.

Sorry, but rationalism fails here. The rational mind will deconstruct its own goals endlessly and leave you back where you started: existential despair.

But your problem is the same as with other religions: your first principle is easily deconstructed and revealed to be without foundation. Who cares? Nihilism is not refuted. This nihilism problem might explain why secular rationalists fail at the most basic task of any species: reproduction.

Birthrates among the secular natives of Denmark and Sweden are anemic and unsustainable as they were in the Soviet Union. So it appears that secular rationalism, more than religion, functions as what Mr. Why allow yourselves to be tyrannized by the barren god Reason? Is Reason your replacement for Jehovah? Right, and in a nihilistic universe we are free to be monsters.

Genghis Khan created his own meaning; so did Hitler. The most what? The most money? The most cheesecake? The most death? Your maxim is so vague as to be meaningless… Report abuse. Being rational means rejecting a god given purpose especially when you have feelings in quite another direction. No one decides on a purpose ex nihilo. Like it or not we come with a package genetically and culturally conferred values and aesthetics. We reject the unappetising. They have purposes beyond the selfish.

Besides at 12bn in , reproduction beyond 1. They are rationalists. You, each of you is left to fill in his or her blanks. Life is to be filled as you will. But filled it must be! This is the entire point. Monsters are mostly licensed by some ideology or other. Or made by psychopathy born into power. The most death it is then… Report abuse. Or could that be the biggest blinkers of preconceptions? Of course I mean we are philosophically free to be monsters.

To act upon it is just a matter of opportunity and instrumental rationality. The question is, can a scientifically-empowered humanity survive its atheist monsters going forward? I fear the ideological monsters, not those free of ideology and I fear the religious monsters most of all. Having faith in their ideology, they are particularly brain fritzed against reason and evidence should they go all Islamic Westboro State.

Life is absurd, and no better than death. We are just collections of atoms, so why not arrange them in such a way as to eradicate all life and end suffering forever? Is this in fact your feeling? You seem obsessed with it with not a one like it on show, here amongst all of these atheists… Report abuse. This how mystics operate; we look inside our own minds, into the darkness and the monsters we find there, and conclude that, since we are not different from other men, that these monsters threaten us all.

The point is to make conscious what the rational mind tries to bury before it erupts into the material world, and to realize that science is rather useless in this domain. Science cannot describe or understand subjective experiences , though they clearly exert a powerful influence on the material world.

That is a rather crass assumption, — especially since the human brain cannot do self-analysis, and various psychological conditions are only diagnosed within certain individuals. Science cannot describe or understand subjective experiences, though they clearly exert a powerful influence on the material world. We express patience, kindness, gentleness, humor, irony, joy, happiness, love, hope, awe, etc.

We just do not subscribe it to an imaginary friend. If you are sad, I am sorry but perhaps it is an indication that you might want to think on this some more… Report abuse.

It seems to me that your analogy fails on many levels — most egregiously in comparing thinking, acting and socialising human beings with inanimate objects.

Also; balls are manufactured, humans are born. This is clearly not true. For a ball that became a human companion — surely a purpose which no ball manufacturer would have ever dreamed of — see the film Cast Away, a year film starring Tom Hanks.

Just one simple example of what must surely be an uncountable number of manufactured objects pressed into service in millions of imaginative ways not avowedly intended by their manufacturers. This certainly one way in which the word purpose is used, possibly even the most common use of the word. However, I believe that by giving only this meaning you are attempting to forestall some arguments. That seems evasive to me in this context.

Indeed, the definition you have chosen is highly questionable — as we clearly do not have evidence of a creator of humans it cannot be applied to us.

Even if I grant you that fantastic, outrageous, idea that there is a creator: A creator of humans would obviously be far, far, more interested in our efforts to define our own, moral, productive and humane goals than in simply handing us some checklist. What: She gave us intelligence so that we could pass multiple choice tests? My resolve to counter the backward, regressive, ideas of those who promote the idea of a creator of humans is only strengthened by your little dogma.

Good one. I DID mention, on another thread, that we may be trying to engage in rational discourse with a psychotic. Or a prankster. For a vulture, a perfectly reasonable purpose. There is obvious evidence around us that great numbers of people do find or have a purpose without really thinking about it. Medical researchers with a passionate lifelong dedication and purpose of conquering cancer do not do so in case they personally get cancer but do so almost altruistically for the benefit of humanity in general.

Perhaps it is simply part of an evolutionary imperative to try and improve the quality of life for oneself and ones offspring and for the wider human species with the purpose of improving the chances of survival and propogation of genes. The instinctive drive to be creative in some way seems to translate into a unique purpose for an individual and I would dare to say that those who able to live their lives being creative are the happy ones. Those who simply exist without creating, cultivating, or nuturing anything lack purpose and hence happiness?

A major issue for an evolutionary world view is the one of purpose. Evolution informs us that we are all here because of blind random chance. Our bodies and minds are a collection of atoms. Those atoms behave according to the physical laws of the universe. It cannot therefore be that we have purpose, that is an illusion.

Richard Dawkins is passionate about Reason and Science as am I but as a product of evolution he cannot be responsible for his passion. His purpose is the result of blind random chance and as such can have no more validity than any other purpose that is the result of evolution. Evolution merely means that things change over time.

I think you may be referring to the additional, observed, trait of biology called natural selection. A key part of natural selection is that mutations to the base chemistry of biological, replicating, bodies appear to happen at random. Those mutations happen, relatively speaking, very rarely. If the body can replicate successfully, passing on that mutation, there is a difference between the first set of bodies without mutation and the second body with mutation for selection to happen.

There is therefore a tiny random element within the overall framework, but the rest of natural selection is far from random. Natural selection requires changing environments — which include other evolving, living, bodies — and a lot of time, a lot of time , for natural selection to affect evolution. A lot more than atoms are required to make minds. Without getting into a very long and detailed description of atomic physics, chemistry, biochemistry to the best of our knowledge carbon or arsenic based , amino acids, enzymes, proteins, polysaccharides, and, and and … we arrive at neurons and the synapses that connect them.

These form nervous systems, including brains. Brains come with about 86bn neurons arranged in a parallel processing network of nodes. This plastic neural network is connected by a mass of synapses and it is estimated that the brain of a 3-year-old has about 1 quadrillion 10 raised to the power of This network can, in some ways, be actively changed through influences of will or environment.

From this biological substrate emerges our cognition. As biologists have noted: Cognition is an imprecise description of a range of abilities from worms to humans — and this does not indicate that humans are anything more than the current, marginally higher, peak of cognitive development — just above chimps and other apes, possibly alongside similar peaks such as those occupied by whales and certainly not the ultimate limit.

From the variable abilities of different brains emerges different kinds of cognition, analogous to software — though brains and Turing machines are very different. The above is merely the headlines. To say that minds are based on the physics of atoms is true — but it tells us nothing about minds, or physics, or any of the intervening nine-or-so levels depending on definitions of complexity in between.

Each of those levels is so intricate, complex and varied that scientists have — and still do — spend entire lifetimes studying just one, and concluding they will never know all of it. In this way details of the particular set of functions at each layer is not directly dependent on the underlying layers.

It may be true that, at some deep and yet-to-be-defined level, we are creatures that are driven by being — inescapably — creatures who are a part of nature.

If I have understood you correctly, Phil, you seem to think this is a problem. Yet it is the truth, we are just as much a part of nature as nature is a part of us.

Why is that a problem? As above, the movement of a single atom is too far removed from our psychology to have any direct influence.