The moving force we likely know, but is not worthy of our love
The universe, according to Dawkins, was put together randomly--not out of love, or hate, or volition, or disinterest. We find this disconcerting, because we are meaning-craving human beings. What I find strange is that Dawkins isn't more respectful of our need for things to BE beautiful, by which I mean, moved out of true love, not just out of fascinating processes, not just SEEM beautiful--to see in a forest something that is intrinsically spiritual and good, rather than just a marvelously successfully adaptive/adapting manifestation. If everything before us was made without intent--conditions simply lead to changes, formations--then why should it interest us so? That is, Shouldn't we become less interested in the fact of what is out there, now that we know it better, and more interested in how we--as meaning-making, as makers with the potential to create out of empathy, true love--are prone to see/perceive this world we have been born into? Our phenomenological experience is to me the God mind out of which so much great matter, might be fabricated. Since WE can be loving, personable movers/makers, shouldn't our focus come to be on what we fabricate in this universe--not just our technie, our machines, but lifeforms, too? Shouldn't we insist that scientists be more than not demon-haunted? Shouldn't we expect them to be empathic, emotive, poets, too--who don't just study the world about us, but transform it into something as personable, as truly relatable, as we instinctively are prone to engage with it as?
Just to be clear: yes, creationists are demon-haunted, not to be listened to. Yes, corporations who bio-engineer are currently hardly poets at work creating loving things. Yes, Dawkins can be very inventive and exciting in his explorations, but is not fully worthy of us, either.
@ Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Your unfortunate relativistic gobbledygook is as exhausting as it is meaningless.
"The universe, according to Dawkins, was put together randomly--not out of love, or hate, or volition, or disinterest. We find this disconcerting, because we are meaning-craving human beings"
The knowledge we have about how randomly the universe was put together has absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins' (or anybody else's) assertions or beliefs and everything to do with scientific facts.
Speak for yourself if you find it disconcerting. I am positively nowhere near the "meaning-craving" anything you choose to be.
"Shouldn't we become less interested in the fact of what is out there, now that we know it better, and more interested in how we--as meaning-making, as makers with the potential to create out of empathy, true love--are prone to see/perceive this world we have been born into?"
So now that we as a species are getting so good at really understanding the world we live in, in the most wonderful and USEFUL ways (basically, acquiring more knowledge - the stuff that rapidly evaporates our incapacitating mysticism) - now we should "become less interested" in that and more interested in... realizing our potential as meaning-making makers, or something. And by the way, "we" (scientists, clear thinkers, humanists, etc) are plenty interested in how human beings perceive the world. Read "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett. Warning: you will find it deeply disconcerting as a meaning-maker.
And then there's this (best for last)...
"Shouldn't we insist that scientists be more than not demon-haunted? Shouldn't we expect them to be empathic, emotive, poets, too--who don't just study the world about us, but transform it into something as personable, as truly relatable, as we instinctively are prone to engage with it as?"
No. Absolutely not. We absolutely, definitely should not do that.
Cheers (Untimely demise, response to post, “Creationism vs. atheism: It’s on!” Salon, 23 November 2009)
I don't understand why the self-assembly of our amazing planet and the resulting biosphere isn't miracle enough for people's spirituality. (Alteira99, response to post, “Creationism”)
@altaira99
re: "I don't understand why the self-assembly of our amazing planet and the resulting biosphere isn't miracle enough for people's spirituality."
It's cool. It's astonishing. But the fact that Moby Dick might eventually be written if you let a bunch of chimps pound at a keyboard for a few millenia, is interesting too: but if it was the fact of it, I think our assessment of the book would lessen. It was written by someone motivated to create something lasting, meaningful, and great--it was MEANT to speak to us, and that's a much more beautiful thing.
The earth wasn't, and to a certain extent should leave us a bit non-plussed--more entranced by the fact that we can imagine it as worthy of love--by ourselves, that is, and become way more interested in what we fashion out of the raw materials.
Evolution somehow lead to something that takes over in a way superior, fantastic sense (we need to stop speaking as if we're still operating under some other force: natural selection randomly lead to something--us--that is motivated, that can act out of love--not, that is, unknowingly out of a desire to spread the love meme). Tyrell was something in Blade Runner; but he created something far superior in Roy, who knew life was in the science, in a way I can respect.
Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
...and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. (Wendy in California, response to post, “Creationism”)
Originally posted as letters in response to:
Comments
Post a Comment