[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Case <Case at iSpots.com>:

> [Case]
> Since all the really serious arguments against teleology and purpose have
> had little effect, try this one:
> 
> The real problem with the idea of "design," "purpose," "teleology" and
> "designer" comes down to: designed by who, for what?

How about these for possible answers. Designed by consciousness for the purpose
of becoming more aware of itself.

> If there is a purpose what is it? 

See above.

> According to who?

To transcendent, primary consciousness.

> How would we know it if we saw it?

We know conscious by being conscious. We know transcendent consciousness through
mystic practices.

> What distinguishes it from just shit happening.

It takes conscious to know shit happens.

These answers come from the lecture Ian recommended. I recommend it to you. 

> The real purpose of Purpose is to provide leverage for the interpreters of
> Purpose. God's purpose is not so much what God says it is, as how we
> interpret what God means when he says whatever it is he says.
> 
> Call it Love, call it Oneness, call it Cosmic Consciousness, call it the
> Hodge and the Podge. Purpose does not explain anything. It begs for
> explanation and that's when all the trouble starts.

If we have purpose it's not a great leap to assume the universe has purpose, for
when we speak of the universe why exclude ourselves? As for purpose
explaining things, we find it has plenty of power. It often provides answers
to the question, "Why?," a question science doesn't like very much . . . for
obvious reasons. 

  


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/