Once our brains evolved and we became sentient beings and could choose for ourselves what to do, we gained control over the evolution process and can now decide how to evolve based on our own moral decisions. But it’s pretty clear there isn’t a bases for these moral decisions without borrowing from social evolution (unless you want to admit to the alternative of borrowing your moral behavior from society’s Judeo-Christian values) which he rejects.
I thought it sad that he strips the purpose of flowers for his six-year-old daughter, reducing their purpose to replicating their DNA. Thus breaking the relationship between us and the environment. Each of us is on our own, with our own purpose, nothing was made for us to be enjoyed by us.
Self-involved and self-centered. We can choose to rise above this model but where do we go from here? And what if we choose not to? Who is to say what is the better path? What is the criteria we can use to determine “better?”
It’s smart of the atheists to move away from social Darwinism, it’s not very attractive as Dawkins demonstrates by reading from Bradbury (sounded a little like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg).
(via)
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted July 14, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Michele, once again you demonstrate the lack of knowledge, in a round-about-way, concerning the topic you write about. I only wish that one day I can view one of your blog posts and see that it contains something of substance, truth, and accurate facts. In the same notion, I would love to see a retraction regarding the blogs where you have written fallacies, which would be an act of true humility of which your “faith” apparently places a lot of value in theory, but you don’t seem to adhere to in action. Your actions speak louder than the words you type in this blog.
posted July 14, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Well, that was really helpful, Jason. You comment would be infinitely more helpful if you told me where I erred.
posted July 15, 2009 at 10:27 am
“I thought it sad that he strips the purpose of flowers for his six-year-old daughter, reducing their purpose to replicating their DNA. Thus breaking the relationship between us and the environment. Each of us is on our own, with our own purpose, nothing was made for us to be enjoyed by us.
Self-involved and self-centered…”
The first sentence after you lament that his view says nothing was made for us to be enjoyed by us, you call his view self-involved and self-centered? Wow. Rock on, Miss Pot.
I agree with him on this point: a flower is a plant’s way of reproducing. It’s not designed to seem attractive to us; it’s so pollinators will find it attractive. Why would that make the flowers not beautiful? I still love the sight of my tiger lillies blooming in my backyard.
I have no idea why you think this breaks the connection between us and the environment. Because I believe plants aren’t here to look pretty for me I now suddenly don’t care if they are all destroyed? That’s quite a leap.
posted July 15, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Sure Michele, let me jump right on that and do your homework for you! Yes, that was sarcasm, in the same sense your response was sarcastic towards me. You can’t have your cake and eat it too! Why would I go out of my way to bring to light the truths of the matter, when it is clearly apparent you have not even taken the time to discover them for yourself.
That same methodology is seen in your recent posts regarding Obama. Putting your partisan biases aside, your are essentially judging someone based on a mere snap shot with absolutely no clue what the intentions or actual events where that took place. If you have a beef with the President, make it about factual and objective information, not some tabloid sleaze journalistic approach.
The general approach to your blogs is with an “either/or” mentality, yet the world is more plural in thought, nature, and beliefs other than your own limited views. The worst part of all this, your representing the Christian faith, at least a small segment of it, and in doing so you bring shame to the whole. Then you wonder why people want nothing to do with your judgmental, hate speech filled, biased, and non-inclusive religion. I have no animosity towards you as an individual; however, I truly believe your practice of blogging has crossed the line morally and ethically. Are you more interested in stirring up activity and achieving some claim to fame through a fallacious gossip column or speaking the truth? I think you can be better than this. Matter of fact, why not step out and BE better than this!
posted July 15, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“I thought it sad that he strips the purpose of flowers for his six-year-old daughter, reducing their purpose to replicating their DNA. Thus breaking the relationship between us and the environment. Each of us is on our own, with our own purpose, nothing was made for us to be enjoyed by us.”
So because Dawkins explained the scientific workings of a flower, it has lost something? I don’t see how science is the enemy of aesthetics.
posted February 21, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Um, no, flowers weren’t made for us. I think they predate us by many millions of years – back to the Cretaceous, if I’m remembering my prehistory books aright. The idea that something has to be made for humans is far more self-centred than what Dawkins is supposed to have said to his daughter. And for the record, I am not atheist and I can’t stand Dawkins’s worldview on many subjects. I’d have said much the same thing, if a child asked me what flowers were for; that they were there to help the plant breed. I’d probably also have said that it’s wonderful to see such beauty, and know that the natural world is so full of it. But the “made for us” thing irks me enormously. That’s the thinking that’s trashed so much of our environment and seen so many species wiped out. Any Biblical injunctions to let oxen rest or so on make NO difference when humans can exploit animals or destroy the environment to serve themselves and their mighty dollar.
So I’d say – if you’re going to criticise Dawkins, find a reasonable target. He offers enough!