I haven't had time to examine to read this really carefully, but here are some random thoughts: If one asserts that the universe is without meaning, does that statement have any meaning? If survival is the be all and end of evolution, why did evolution pass beyond the stage of the algae and protozoa, all of which continue to survive without any further development? A God properly understood would not have to "design" - i.e., lay out plans, etc. - anything.
The thrust of the piece, by the way, I am in pretty ful agreement with, especially this: "Many people deeply, and we believe rightly, intuit that life and consciousness must stem from something more than arbitrary chance, randomness, and mechanical causality."
The thrust of the piece, by the way, I am in pretty ful agreement with, especially this: "Many people deeply, and we believe rightly, intuit that life and consciousness must stem from something more than arbitrary chance, randomness, and mechanical causality."
The proposition that the material intelligibility of the universe has any causal relationship to the human capacity to create meaning is false.
ReplyDeleteThere is no contradiction in a proposition that states: The universe is a system of material relationships without meaning in itself, which has resulted in a human species that are able to create meaning for themselves.
What exactly does "meaning" - as derived from a set of physical relationships that have none - mean? It can't mean what we mean when we say that something means something.
ReplyDelete