J Jones schreef:
> Noel wrote:
>> J Jones schreef:
>>> Noel wrote:
>>>> J Jones schreef:
>>>>> Richard Dawkins is a bumbling old materialist whose ideas are
>>>>> backed up by straw-men that only he and his kin believe in.
>>>>>
>>>>> I challenge anyone to present any of his thoughts, aside from
>>>>> commonalities, that are not incoherent. Go on.
>>>>
>>>> Dawkins presents nature as doing a kind of calculations.
>>>
>>> Calculation is done to a purpose.
>>
>> reproduction of genes
>
> But the reproduction of genes is not a goal. Why would there be goals in
> an inanimate universe?
You can get comfort from the thought that there are goals in life, but
goals are an invention of mankind. An approach. It's also an approach to
look at nature as doing calculations. You can understand why the outcome
of a process is such, with calculations. It's not that someone or
something is actually adding or subtracting. But actually things can be
seen as collections of material, that grow or get smaller.
>
>>>> It is as if nature calculates the best outcome for genes to replicate.
>>>
>>> There is no criteria for a 'best rate' of gene reproduction. What is
>>> best for us may be worst for a bacterium. Any attempt to quantify
>>> 'best' introduces design through the back door.
>>
>> it says so clearly "best" is used together with reproduction
>
> ....
>
>>>> All kinds of behaviour of species can be explained by the fact that
>>>> a specific behaviour leads to better gene replication.
>>>
>>> Now we have the idea that a creature is a set of optimised attributes
>>> and behaviours. In which case, I would be better off with a thick
>>> coat of blubber, sharp claws, large wings for gliding, and ability to
>>> reproduce rapidly on a petri-plate, etc.
>>
>> not optimised, more like the best of all tries survives.
>
> But are they the best because they survive? or do they survive because
> they are the best?
Here again "best" means better reproduction, better surviving. There is
no other meaning, although you can have all sorts of meanings for "best".
>
>>>
>>>> I understand that it may sound awfull for some people that nature
>>>> should be calculative.
>>>
>>> It doesn't sound awful. It sounds like wishful thinking - the wish
>>> that there is design in nature.
>>
>> whishing, hoping, is something people use every religion for. It is
>> more like a lack of hope that you get from reading Dawkins.
>
> If calculationg has a purpose, then Dawkins universe of life is full of
> meaning and design.
I would read his books. Meaning is an invention of mankind. It's just
the way things work that receives a story from Dawkins. There is little
room for "hope" in his story, once you get a clear view of the way
things work according to Dawkins. This could be an objection. Hope is
needed for so many people.
>
>>>> It could imply that people also should be calculative, that a
>>>> calculating character would have benifits.
>>>
>>> I don't see any reason to confuse the ability to calculate with a
>>> calculating character. Anyone who wants to look after their life's
>>> affairs in love and respect needs clear thinking.
>>
>> What else could be your objection to Dawkins thinking?
>> There's no more to it.
>>>
>>>> It's a common opinion that calculating/scheming characters are evil
>>>> egoïsts.
>>>>
>>>> But on the other hand a non calculating God would be unthinkable.
>>>> It's a great comfort that God should be planning our smallest step.
>>>> A God that would let things go out of control, wouldn't even be
>>>> called a God. Our hope is with God's plan.
>>>>
>>>> So I wonder why people have so little patience with a thought about
>>>> a nature as doing a kind of calculations, while one should belief in
>>>> a calculating God.
>>>>
>>>> Could you explain this?
>>>
>>> It sounds like you are replacing gaia for a god, assuming that this
>>> god has a similar role to a sort of earth goddess or 'nature'.
>>>
>> I merely translated a few of Dawkins idea's into a few sentences.
>>
>> A kind of calculation by nature, purpose: replication of genes
>>
>> From your answers I understand that you haven't read anything from
>> Dawkins.
>
> You are his representative.
> Goodbye.
I've read his books. F.i. the story about how clay molecules change the
streams of water and already begin to replicate like a life-form, was an
eye-opener to me.
