Reflecting on the new Atheist, Richard Dawkins claim that there is no meaning, or purpose of this life. If that is true then I can not help but notice how self-contradicting his claim is. In his famous book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkin claims:
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” p.133
Questions:
How can we explain the hurting if we have no idea what “not hurting” feels? How can we explain “luck” if we do not know what “unlucky” means? How can we explain “injustice” if we do not have any knowledge of what “justice” is?
If at the bottom, there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, why are we(including Dawkin) wants the fairness, “Justice”, and not ready to pretend we are not in pain, “getting hurt” when fair-play is not exercised?
If it is true that there is no evil and no good, then I am not in a position to point these things out. If no purpose, fairness, including Dawkins’ own claim is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference” which is absurd.
Dawkin wishes his reader to take his claims serious namely “becoming an atheist after reading to the end of his God Delusion book” Are Richard Dawkins’ claims also “at the bottom … nothing but blind pitiless indifference?” (You ought to ponder these one by yourself)
Dawkins’ Self-exception Fallacy:
In his best selling book, God Delusion, Richard Dawkin attacks the evilness of religion throughout his entire book. “Religion: Root of All Evil” but I am at lost! Help me understand here! If, by his own words “there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” how then is Religion evil?
More over, if Religion is the root of all evil, then there are other evil to which Dawkin knows they exist but rationally deny them by his own definition which again is absurd.
Dawkins’ Self-Deluded Logic:
There is no A and no B
There is A and B
There is no evil and no good,
Religion is evil, not good.
There is No A and there is A can not all be true at the same time. Accepting there is evil i.e. “Religion is the root of all evil” and not accept there is evil i.e. “there is at the bottom … no evil” is simply absurd because either one is wrong, or both are wrong. They can not all be true.
Dawkins’ claim fails to satisfy Logical Thinking on the light of The Law of Non-contradiction . A cannot be B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.
Therefore, Richard Dawkins’ New Atheist claim commits a “Self-Deluded” Logic namely A is evil and not-evil at the same time and in the same sense.
Dawkins’ Self-Exceptional Fallacy:
If I at the bottom, accepts no evil and no good, I will have to accept and apply it to all my views, not just on my hobbies as Dawkin does on his hatred-of-Religion dogma.
Moreover, If I were to accept Dawkins’ atheistic idea, the only an avoidable conclusion I would reach is, Religion is no evil, no good, just a blind pitiless indifference. Attacking Religion as evil is simply absurd from Dawkins’ own chain of thinking.
Therefore, claiming no evil and no good to all things except Religion is simply a self-exceptional fallacious.
Now What?:
There has to be purpose to trace a seemingly purposeless life. Seemingly purposeless life does not mean life is purposeless, but it looks like it purposeless, no meaning(as the new Atheistic calm to which I beg to differ). If there is no God, then there is no meaning to our lives, no purposes, no values, no fairness, nothing, we live, reproduce and die.
If there is no God, why should I be fair? why should I not have my own standards, say murdering babies for no reasons, raping, stealing, lying? Social conduct? You help me I help you? But why do you need to help me if at the bottom all is meaningless? It is normal for animals to rape, steal, kill each other! If at the bottom, there is no evil and no good why am I ought to act like evil and good exists?
Can I stand in front of the courtroom charged with killing, raping, and stealing and bravery state that “Judge! at the bottom, all these is nothing but blind pitiless indifference” without the Judge thinking I am self-deluded?
Meaning of our Universe:
From C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, comes a very interesting argument for the meaning of our universe.
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” p.45-46
I will try to put his argument in Contrapositive form to which I believe is easy to follow:
If not A, not B
B
Therefore A
not A = Universe has no meaning
A = Universe has meaning
not B = Never(not) have found out the universe has no meaning
B= Have found out the universe has no meaning
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning,
We have found out the universe has no meaning,
Therefore, the universe has meaning.
I am open for your views,comments, corrections or something I overlooked or over reacted on, and most if I have committed a logical fallacy.
P:S I am officially banned from Dawkins’ Website Discussion for pointing Dawkins’ Self-Delude Logic, Don’t Feed A Troll is their Motto; “You don’t have the ability to comment” And they call themselves Truth-Seeker. I beg to differ, Dawkins-Discussion is no better than a religious cult! Say something different and you are out.
With All I Am 
This starts with a quote from Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker p133 but I don’t see it there. Please clarify.
Let me try to address both of your points.
Let’s put the Earth’s size in context of the universe. Earth is no more than the size of a pixel on your screen. It could be a grain of sand on a beach, or even an atom existing somewhere in space. To help put things in perspective, now if that grain of sand was obliterated out of existence, what is the significance of that one grain of sand with trillions of other grains of sand out on that beach? From our perspective, we care; we want to feel important or significant to serve some purpose in our tiny observable universe. But what is that purpose and what is the point? The universe is indifferent to our existence and any other life within it. The universe in essence is one and everything in it. Like I mentioned, it is all of the same energy down to the sub-atomic level. It does not make any difference to the universe if we exist or don’t exist. Our notion of existence is no more than an illusion of our own consciousness (birth/death). Conceived since the very first single cell of our bodies began multiplying and containing the biological code that makes us human (intelligent beings aware/conscious of our environments due to how our sensory organs perceive energy around us). This is the frequency we are tuned into within the universe based on our senses/consciousness.
Self-awareness is merely an illusion. Our DNA/Program engineers this concept of self-awareness, thoughts, and emotions. Back to my example with animals, why are some animals self-aware while others act purely on instinct? Animals that recognize themselves in the mirror include some birds, our distant primates, elephants, and dolphins. Why are these animals with higher-level of intelligence self-aware? While other lower level intelligent animals such as tigers or gators when shown a mirror, will not understand that they are staring at a reflection. Simply because each species gentic code dictates this. With death, this awareness/illusion is gone, We become what we have always been, energy that is part of the universe. There is no “self”.
We as humans over time have evolved into the apex species of this planet with the goal of our species/cells/dna to replicate and survive. Cell Replication and the underlying DNA code that drives survival, is common across all organisms of this planet. It just happens to be our collection of multiplying cells (or we can go smaller, combination of atomic energies) happens to manifest self-awareness and higher-intelligence which came to dominate this planet as we did. To throw in another perspective, the human species has been around 200,000 years, the earth 4.5 billions years, this is very small fraction of earth’s existence (.00004) and even smaller to the universe. Sure we can say that our purpose is to replicate. However back to my point in the first paragraph, this is the purpose we see in ourselves as a result of nature’s creation of our own consciousness. But in reality when you look at the much larger picture and put things in perspective, is there truly a purpose for this and does this even matter?
If we and all life are gone as things were prior to us, the universe continues existing as is, and whatever manifestation that created this temporary notion of self dissipates and continue to exist as it always has been prior to our awareness. We are one with the universe. This is the universe’s indifference; no good, no evil, no purpose, no design, it just exists as is. You’ll have to step out of the box and confines of your own consciousness and what you’ve come to define to realize this.
oh by the way well said!!!!!!
apoloigies mybrainblinks the stuff you read on my comment is me quoting someone else.I could have possibly articulated it better.
I believe there is God.
David,
1. How do you become self-aware if there is no such thing to justify a cohesive self? What meaning is there in a “self” if nothing purposeful comes together?
2. Are you saying that you know with certainty that there is no one else in this entire universe but the beings on this planet? If you are not saying that, can you back up your assertions that “no one” would care if the earth blew up?
3. Lets grant for the sake of argument your assertion that emotions are just chemical reactions in our brains. These largely consistent and persistent reactions evolved to effectively increase the rate of survival among organisms, right? How is that not “purposeful?” If genes are striving for survival and duplication, how does that not constitute purpose?
Consider this, if earth was blown out of existence today… would anyone be around to care? The answer is no, that in itself is why Dawkins claims the universe is indifferent.
how does dawkins scientific logic explain this claim?How do you know if there would be no one around to care if the earth was blown out of existence,as a result of the big bang we are here and we can explain it,that does not mean there is no life elsewhere. Gods part in this is our spirit, telling lies hurting someone most of the things we do for self satisfaction that mean leaving others out! we know this and we know it wrong.
Read this again below to yourself it is contradictory.
The emotions we feel are no more than the chemicals produced by our physical brains which have been created by elements of this universe and are defined by our dna (e.g. mammals care for families, elephants bury the dead and mourn. But say a gecko, will eat it’s own baby for survival or certain insects kill their mates purely based on instinct dictated by their dna and how that species came about through evolution).
Either way, all of this is purposeless in the bigger picture. However, as humans, we have evolved into conscious animals that are self aware of what we feel and think. So we define our actions, emotions, and behavior. We create what’s right versus wrong to help us explain the emotions we experience that we like or dislike as individual beings conforming to the general population. But keep in mind, this is all deeply rooted to how human have been programmed as a result of evolution.
that word programmed you use is very interesting.
Fairly simple, everything you say and state is in the context of mankind and in the confines of what man has defined. Morals, good vs. evil, as someone has responded, it’s all within the constructs of society.
The emotions we feel are no more than the chemicals produced by our physical brains which have been created by elements of this universe and are defined by our dna (e.g. mammals care for families, elephants bury the dead and mourn. But say a gecko, will eat it’s own baby for survival or certain insects kill their mates purely based on instinct dictated by their dna and how that species came about through evolution).
In the laws of the universe, none of this matters. life, death, good, evil, feelings, and even thought. From the macro level with galaxies down to sub-atomic particles, the whole universe and everything contained in it is nothing more than blobs of mass and energy interacting with one another. Everything in the universe is random, by chance, it is indifferent (shit happens). All that we have ever known since our existence is nothing more than a spec of dust lost in time in the infinite universe or even endless multiple parallel universes. Perhaps all of this may even be limited to what our consciousness can comprehend.
Either way, all of this is purposeless in the bigger picture. However, as humans, we have evolved into conscious animals that are self aware of what we feel and think. So we define our actions, emotions, and behavior. We create what’s right versus wrong to help us explain the emotions we experience that we like or dislike as individual beings conforming to the general population. But keep in mind, this is all deeply rooted to how human have been programmed as a result of evolution.
Consider this, if earth was blown out of existence today… would anyone be around to care? The answer is no, that in itself is why Dawkins claims the universe is indifferent.
everything….. the reason for been an athiests.
I agree and disagree with everything you say here – Dawkins seems to exclude himself from his own theories.
If he understood what he was saying then he would realise that everything he is saying, everything he is doing is just a peacocks tail – it’s a sexual display.
He’s displaying his erudition to pass on his genes. To maintain his middle class social position to ensure his children’s survival.
But at the same time Dawkins is right – there is no good or evil. It’s just a social construction.
Stoning people to death is ok in the Bible – the people at that time were primitive and stupid. Their behaviour is evil by any normal modern standards, but they really did stone people to death.
There is no Good or Evil. Just animal behaviour, because human beings are animals.
Everything we do – our pointless jobs helping shareholders make a profit while we spend 8 hours a day selling irrelevant products and throwing our life away, is absolutely driven by our genetically induced need to survive.
If killing millions of jews helps us survive then we will do it without hesitation.
Mark,
Don’t judge others by your own rottenness. 🙂
If YOU would “kill millions of Jews” (again with the Jews!… the western world really is obsessed with the holocaust. Why not say “kill millions of Armenians”?… But I digress), doesn’t follow that “we will”. And who is “we”?
He is successfully explaining his OWN life and the atheists who follow him..The only thing he has wrong is he doesnt get to just vanish out of existence so easy. This trend is nothing more than a vehicle for all the pretenders to jump aboard. Do we really believe the godless wasnt always among humanity? Sure they were…but they were hiding because belief in God was the cultural norm. Now they have no fear of society so they’re out of the closet. They are emboldened. Yes, greater judgement may come upon them for their proud boasts–but I dont believe a single soul is lost because of them. God knows who are his.(although I dont mean in reformed calvin way). If atheism can anything in common with Christianity it is Calvinism–which uses pretend logic over truth and lays out its argument by painting itself into a box(we are dead bodies)–very similar to atheist’ no freewill argument(minds cant move matter)
When Dawkins says “there is at bottom… no evil and no good”, he is speaking about objectives. Objectively, there is no meaning, purpose, good, or evil. Good and evil are simply perceptions of the mind. Define good; define evil. What is evil in one’s perception may be good in another’s. This is why there are gray areas. This is the proof that these concepts are perceptions and are not defined by the universe or a creator. If they were defined, it would never ever be debatable whether anything was good or evil.
The same goes for justic/injustice, lucky/unlucky, and anything else.
We, humans, with our perceptions, have created the concepts and definitions of good and evil. And that is the “evil” that Dawkins refers to when he calls religion evil.
In a debate with Francis Collins, RD was asked if he believes in the notion of right and wrong, good and evil in this world, instead of giving an answer he mused about “lucky and unlucky” things in life, that is where Francis knew the distinction between them. When Francis Collins daughter was raped while she was in university, he certainly did not saw it as her daughter being unlucky.
Richard Dawkins has always puzzled me. IMO, even if it turns out there is no God, he is still more deluded than any person who believes in God(s).
Who is more illogical, the person who believes Santa is real and so leaves out cookies and milk so he does not go hungry, or the person who says they do not believe in Santa, yet leaves out milk and cookies for him because he does not want him to go hungry?
Dawkins’ rants about the evils of religion after saying he does not believe evil exists is silly.
I do not believe animals can be evil. If I had a dog and it mauled me because it didn’t care for me, I may not like the dog, but I’d simply get it put down and that is it. I would not go on a big rant about the evils of the dog, because I do not believe they can be evil. I would not say a police dog trained to catch criminals is “more dog-like” or “superior” to the other dog. They’re both just dogs, acting on whatever impulses they have due to genetics and upbringing.
Even chimpanzees, which are highly intelligent, will steal, dismember and eat the young of other chimps. I’m sure they’re at least intelligent enough to know that they are causing the infant pain and killing it. However, even most atheists wouldn’t say a chimp is being “evil” or is violating its evolved moral compass or whatever.
So if Dawkins doesn’t believe human evil exists, why does he go on such long rants about things humans do that he does not like? Why do most atheists call rapists and murderers “sub-human” and pretend they are somehow “more evolved” than them?
He is either self-deluding himself or trying to profit from his books by appealing to the emotions of illogical atheists who enjoy feeling superior to others after reading his books.
I can admit that if there is no some sort of God that has given me some sort of moral code in my brain, then the only reason I or anyone else doesn’t rape/murder/steal etc. is the same reason why a vegan doesn’t eat meat. They either have no desire to and/or it would make them feel bad if they did.
Most atheists will not admit this though because it doesn’t sound as noble as “I don’t rape because I know it is wrong and I don’t need a smelly old book full of lies to tell me that!” To admit that there is no such thing as a “good” person in any meaningful sense would take away the good feeling they have inside themselves, for all it takes to be a “good” person is to believe whatever you are doing is good. If Hitler thought what he was doing was good, he is just as much a “good” person as I am.
Dear Aardvark,
Thank you for sharing puzzlement of Richard Dawkins. Even great atheist philosopher like Michael Ruse conclude that:
“The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist”
On Moral:
One is good not because of belief in God “those need an old smelly book”But on existence of God.
It is so important to know the difference.
This is something I have played over in my mind. Almost playing the devils advocate with myself in trying to find a solution to this problem.
In that if you accept atheism to be true (and I mean for all I know it could be) then you must also accept the universe itself to be random chance, without meaning, and Dawkins does. The issue with this is that if the universe is without meaning then by deffinition all parts of the universe are without meaning or at least only have meaning relative to the universe which leads to all parts being ultimately without meaning.
Now most atheists I know almost seem to ignore this. Why? Well its because to accept this in it’s fullest would lead to a nihilistic approach to life, and trust me nihilism is depressing. So they have good reason not to want to go down that road.
The issue with this is that for most atheists what they believe and the life they lead are in conflict with each other. In that they live as if life has meaning but they do not believe any intrinsic meaning does/can exist.
Most are just as outraged as theists by moral attrosities. There is no reason to be so if morality is a mere evolutionary tool, because the attrosity is not intrinsically wrong. It is merely someone going against the crowd.
Hi,
Just thought I’d chip in here, hope you don’t mind. I agree that the neo-Darwinian worldview struggles to address the problem of evil. Anyone who has encountered evil in this world knows that it is a real and active force. And it needs to be explained. I don’t think that Dawkins can explain it.
Dawkins chose to deny evil exist in first place, thus avoid to answer it 🙂
I you’re going to try and critique the guy, the very least you could do is get his name right – it’s Richard Dawkins.
I think with the point about evil, people like Dawkins use the term linguistically; it is like Einstein saying ‘God dosn’t play dice’, he wasn’t refering to any specific God, rather to the laws of the universe, which do not play chance. Evil as an absolute is a thing of religions – ie ‘to love another God is evil’, but Atheists use the term to label things which they find abhorent, in a relativistic sense if you like.
You keep using the phrase ‘nothing but blind pitiless indifference’, but this is simply describing the universe; not the people in it. He goes to lengths in a great many of his books to try and inspire his readers with just how tremendous the world – as revealed to use by science – is, and how we as beings alive on this planet owe it to the incalculably low odds of our existance to make the most of the short time we have.
Dear Cambridgechris,
Thank you so much for pointing out the right name. I so much mix Darwin and Dawkins when I write or speak about the two 🙂 I have tried to correct the name. Thank you so much:)
Yet I think from your reasoning we miss the author meaning and create our own-like meaning namely “simply describing the universe; and not the people in it”.
Does the Universe as itself be describe as justice? good or evil? I do not think so for these properties namely justice,evilness and goodness apply to or are described by beings with rational mind namely “the people”.
See how “Dawkins” put it:
We should expect in peoples lives hurt,sometimes luckiness, no justice, not purpose, no evil, no good, all we have is relativist ideas “indifference”.
Funny enough Dawkins is not alone seeing this problem in Atheistic Worldview which is self-refuting. Here are some other great atheists thinkers on the same issue namely seeing no meaning if God does not exist “If Atheism is true”:
Science as I can say has no Objective moral values”good and evil” nor duties “right and wrong”. It cannot put what Nazis did to the Jews in test tube and find out if the Nazis were wrong or right. This lead me to conclude that science is thus impotent to explain the meaning or purposes of our existence if in the end “at bottom” our universe will go cold and die ” The end of Universe”
In short, Dawkins apply his meaning to people response to meaning, design, justice, value and duties if the Universe has no designer namely God.
Please let me know what you think