From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 01:23:47 +0100 Archived: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:49:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Richard Dawkins 'The Purpose Of Purpose' >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:05:42 -0400 >Subject: Re: Richard Dawkins 'The Purpose Of Purpose' <snip> >Dawkins is very uncomfortable with the why question when it is >aimed at the bigger picture that extends beyond the material >world. By crossing that line, he is no longer talking about >biology, his professed area of expertise, but about the larger >non-material world of psychology and spirituality. These areas >can be addressed scientifically, but he has certainly not done >that. So when his criticisms go beyond biology, Dawkins is >merely spouting an opinion that is no better than anyone elses. >The difference is that he is often given a venue where people >listen. <snip> Hello William, Think I agree with you - imho Dawkins doesn't have the knowledge - of physics, biology and mathematics - needed to understand the probabilities involved. Instead he demands that we accept the various 'standard models' of biology, astro-physics and cosmology (all severely flawed and probably 'wrong'), to which he then attaches his self-serving 'political' messages (as he once did with the 'Selfish Gene' message that "greed is good" - since disproved many times). In other words, he picks simplistic 'band-wagons' to ride on. However, here's a real thinking scientist, Roger Penrose: [Quotation Begins] "To my way of thinking, there is still something mysterious about evolution, with its apparent 'groping' towards some future purpose. Things at least _seem_ to organize themselves somewhat better than they 'ought' to, just on the basis of blind-chance evolution and natural selection. It may well be that such appearances are quite deceptive. There seems to be something about the way that the laws of physics work which allows natural selection to be a much more effective process than it would be with just arbitrary laws. The resulting apparently 'intelligent groping' is an interesting issue, and I shall be returning to it briefly later." [End Of Quotation] pp 537-538 'The Emperor's New Mind' [he then proceeded to consider the role of consciousness in the non-algorithmic nature of mathematical insight - with the example of Godel's Theory/Paradox.] Impressed by such queries - of Penrose and Smolin (+ Stephen Jay Gould), and earlier by Hoyle et al - I began to collect their gist in a page of quotes and linked questions, maybe provocatively titled "Creation?", at: www.perceptions.couk.com/creation.html which has been continually updated to 2011. Here's part of the intro: (HTML links at page) "Feb 2011 - That 'Universe bigger than they thought' item had a follow-up. One can't help being struck by its un-thinking parroting of 'received opinion': ie - blind assumptions. Here's an extract - "when our universe was born, there was no space. There was no time either. There was no vacuum. There was literally nothing." - which blithely ignores the core problem of such ideas: i.e that they demand a 'cause'. One sees this more clearly when referring back to basic principles, in my case the first principle of Leibniz: "that nothing happens without a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise". From that POV, depending on your inclinations, you're almost bound to conclude that our Universe is either a 'supernatural creation', or maybe some sort of experiment by advanced beings." Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp