To those who need no purpose in life

by gumby 80 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  RationalWitness

  Pat,

  I see that Frenchy has obviated my intended question. (What exactly is a "non-random" mutation ... an intentional one? Yes, the gene-pool surviving does so because of a certain gene, but was that gene that provided the survival advantage NOT originally a random mutation? If not, then what was it? How did it get to be "non-random"?)

  But that still leaves me with another question. You said:

  As a similar instance, longevity wouldn't seem to enhance the propagation of one's genes. This is because once having reproduced and raised young, the purpose (if you will) is over. However, in the group that has only one or two elderly folks, that can make the difference of survival thru a drought or other disaster the old ones had known how to survive before. Hence that genetic line may survive while another shorter-lived one may be wiped out.

  But couldn't having additional elderly ones in the group further dilute the limited resources and possibly diminish the group's chances for survival? Which of the two scenarios (yours or mine) is more likely to affect survival? How could you measure this? Isn't it really just speculation with no scientific value?

  RW
• 

  Seeker

  I really would suggest reading that Talk Origins link I posted if you would like the answer to these questions. Part of the problem in explaining things is that when scientists use words, they often use them in very precise ways that the rest of us don't. A dictionary definition for a word in common usage is sometimes not the precise definition a scientist means when she uses it.

  As a common example, the ordinary way we use "theory" is nothing at all the way a scientist uses it. If you would like to know more about how evolution works, it really goes beyond the scope of this thread. That link will get you started, and the Talk Orgins site as a whole will provide all the answers to this side topic.
• 

  RationalWitness

  Seeker,

  You said:

  Non-random does NOT necessarily suggest design. Pat gave you an excellent answer already. Think of this example: water running down a stream comes across a boulder that has landed in the midst of the stream. What does the water do? It courses around the boulder. What caused it to do this, to change course? Was it by design? No, it was just responding to the new obstacle in its way, and took a non-random, but totally not by design, course of action.

  In your analogy what corresponds to the genetic mutation affording greater probability of survival is the boulder having landed in the midst of the stream. How did the boulder get where it landed if it was "non-random"? Did someone place it there? Your analogy does not help me understand how this involves 'non-randomness.' Please elucidate.

  RW
• 

  gumby

  Frenchy said: 'I look at that phrase as signifying an intent FOR life, an aim, goal, a reason for it’s being, an end in mind as opposed to it being the result of some cosmic accident. A purpose would necessarily involve an intelligent creator'
  This is exactly the way I see it.
  My whole point is I can not relate to those it dosen't matter to.
  I don't mean to condemn in any way in saying this to those it applies to.
  Seeker:Evolution is not an accident, and most definitely does have and act with purpose
  So who's purpose was it and why did he do it?
  I want to know if I'm going to live and my family is going to live ....'somewhere'...after death. Preferably in a hell of a lot better setting than this arrangment!
  Just to think of non existance after this seems awful bad to me.
  I find ,,I guess...some do not care how we got here....just live life the best you can then your gone......no real reason for being here in the first place....just chance you were here.
  I can't buy it and hope I never do!
  Someone put us here and there IS a reason.
  A great big thanks to ALL who supported this question.
• 

  RationalWitness

  Seeker,

  I'm not interested in becoming an expert on evolution. I already believe it to be a fact (though a poorly understood one). I'm simply asking for answers in plain English to simple questions in plain English, resulting from comments previously made in this thread.

  RW

  P.S. I understand the scientific concept of "theory", as well as the less stringent concept of "proposal" (as in the Hartle-Hawking proposal). If you are thinking I have a problem with the "theory" of evolution, I do not.
• 

  Frenchy

  Seeker:
  I did not mean to ignore you when I addressed only Pat in my last post. For some strange reason, your reply did not show up on my screen until this morning! My apologies.

  There are many ‘natural’ mechanisms at work in our universe. There are basic laws which we have come to identify and label and these have helped tremendously in our understanding of the world about us, however infinitesimal that knowledge is. (One cannot but be astounded when contemplating the possibilities that exist in knowledge yet acquired.) The laws and the mechanisms that they power are very real for they are the reason (cause) for which things happen. So basic of a concept is this (cause and effect) that whenever something happens (effect) we immediately look for the cause. We have come to accept that nothing happens without a cause. Newton’s laws of motion are a good example of that concept in action, for example.

  I am not a scientist nor am I a science basher. I have great respect for science as such but some of what passes for science today, as well as in our past, is speculation. Now there is nothing wrong with speculation –as long as you realize that’s what it is. Religion, in particular, should take special note of that.

  Labels are powerful tools that are able to shape not only our thoughts but our very thought process as well. We use the word ‘adapt’ and very little happens in the mind of theist. Use the word ‘evolution’ and …well (smile) strong emotions are evoked. When does adaptation become evolution? What exactly is evolution? Even if, and that is a very big if, man in his present form is the result of a chain of events that mutated/adapted/evolved lower life forms into his present state, it still leaves unanswered a great many questions, just as many as are flung at the person who believes in God.

  I think of all of the matter and all of the energy that exists on earth alone. Then I try to think of all the planets and all the stars and all the galaxies and I wonder how could there be so much substance and energy that came out of nothing. I think of the art and literature that man has produced, things that have aesthetic value only and cannot in any way be construed as a survival trait. Are these things which move us so deeply only a by-product of some more mundane attribute that non-randomly mutated so that we could survive? And then an even bigger question looms: Why should anything survive if it has no purpose of end in view? Does your vegetable garden show any propensity in wanting to survive or is it just the opposite?
• 

  Seeker

  I'm really not in the mood to get into a discussion of evolution. Let me just offer some very brief points to some questions raised:

  First of all, I never said anyone didn't understand how the word "theory" is used. I merely offered that as a totally-unrelated example of how scientists can use a word in a way that is different from the way you and I use a word.

  Secondly, the boulder in the stream example had nothing to do with evolution, and wasn't intended to imply anything. I merely used it as a totally-unrelated example of something that could be not by design and yet cause non-random events. Since it was said that non-random implies design, I wanted to show an example where that was not true. Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. It is an example that shows that non-random behavior can come about without design being in the picture.

  Finally, the purpose of evolution is to perpetuate the species. As The Selfish Gene tells us, we exist to pass our genetic material on to the next generation. Any change that conforms to our environment in a better way is a change that is kept and passed on. As to who made this process start in the first place, evolution does not say, for that is not the point of evolution. If you want to believe God set it in motion, go ahead.

  In fact, if you want to believe God has something nice waiting for you after death, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you from believing this. All I was doing was explaining my personal take on things, and only because I was quoted at the beginning of this thread in the first place. No one else has to accept my viewpoint. But if you'd like to fully understand my viewpoint, you're eventually going to have to read the same things I read, and that's why I gave a link for those who wish to learn more. If you dont' want to, don't.
• 

  gumby

  Seeker: That's why I gave a link for those who wish to learn more.
  Thank you seeker for the link. I do intend to learn more and at least look into the many claims made here.
  Thanks again for the help of all
• 

  RationalWitness

  Seeker,

  You said:

  First of all, I never said anyone didn't understand how the word "theory" is used. I merely offered that as a totally-unrelated example of how scientists can use a word in a way that is different from the way you and I use a word.

  and earlier:

  Part of the problem in explaining things is that when scientists use words, they often use them in very precise ways that the rest of us don't. A dictionary definition for a word in common usage is sometimes not the precise definition a scientist means when she uses it.

  This observation is, of course, quite true ... and valuable. It is likewise true that theologians use words in much more precise ways than "the rest of us." Words like "God," "Divinity", and "faith". This is why, when you say:

  But if you'd like to fully understand my viewpoint, you're eventually going to have to read the same things I read, and that's why I gave a link for those who wish to learn more. If you dont' want to, don't.

  my reaction is to think, "Yes, and if he'd like to understand MY viewpoint, then eventually he's going to have to read the works of theologians like Paul Tillich and Hans Kung, philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Roy Clouser, and Michael Novak, and scientists such as John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, and Russell Stannard. Too often, people read popular theological 'fluff' (of a fundamentalist or bibliolatrist bent) and then imagine that the arguments in favor of atheism (with its accompanying lack of ultimate purpose in life) are somehow unchallengeable. I think this may be what is behind Frenchy's thinking. I know it's what is behind mine.

  This reminds of the Native American legend about the man with two dogs. The two dogs are constantly fighting. Which one will ultimately win? The one he feeds most, of course. So it is with our personal worldviews: the one that ultimately wins out is the one we have fed most. If it were otherwise, i.e., if the ultimate answers were simply cut-and-dried for anyone with the intelligence to see them, then there should not still be an ongoing debate about theism/atheism at the highest intellectual and academic levels.

  I hope we remain friends. It is not my intention to 'stir up' anything. I take you at your word when you say you are a "seeker" of truth, and would welcome the opportunity to discuss some of your views ... privately, though, not in this public forum where such discussions tend to become confrontational, tangential and irrelevant issues are floated, and both sides simply withdraw into their protect-the-ego-at-all-costs mode. I'd especially like to discuss your (apparently Freudian) view that God is simply a result of wish-fulfillment, a father figure. Anyway, let me know if you have the time and interest.

  Cheers,
  RW

  [edited for punctuation]
• 

  Seeker

  RW,

  No reason for us not to remain friends. My comments were not made in frustration or anger, just lack of interest at this time in discussing the particulars of the side topic. I'd be happy to discuss your thoughts when I have more time.