Simone Vs. Dawkins

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Simone Vs. Dawkins

Post #1

Post by Nick_A »

How do we see the universe in perspective? Richard Dawkins' perspective sees it as chaos. Simone Weil' perspective,sees it as perfect order. What does your perspective reveal to you?
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, 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 that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.-- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85


“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”

“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”

Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #2

Post by MagusYanam »

I think it is an oversimplification of Ms Weil's view in this to say that she sees the universe as 'perfect order'. When I read this quote:
Simone Weil wrote:Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.
I see it as an admission that what meaning there is in the universe, is the meaning that we create for ourselves on a personal level, by making a self-defining choice, which Weil construes as the choice between desiring obedience to God (a choice which renders meaning) or not desiring obedience. It actually smacks of no little influence by existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

- Søren Kierkegaard

My blog

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Re: Simone Vs. Dawkins

Post #3

Post by QED »

Nick_A wrote:How do we see the universe in perspective? Richard Dawkins' perspective sees it as chaos. Simone Weil' perspective,sees it as perfect order. What does your perspective reveal to you?
While penned to be deliberately bleak, Dawkins is also describing an universe in which laws of conservation hold true and fast. To me the two quotes (apart from the last paragraph of Weil's - which I won't pretend to understand) appear to be fully compatible. You seem to be the one introducing the word chaos. The indifference of the sea is a template for all known aspects of the wider world, bar dubious reports of "miracles".

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Re: Simone Vs. Dawkins

Post #4

Post by Nick_A »

QED wrote:
Nick_A wrote:How do we see the universe in perspective? Richard Dawkins' perspective sees it as chaos. Simone Weil' perspective,sees it as perfect order. What does your perspective reveal to you?
While penned to be deliberately bleak, Dawkins is also describing an universe in which laws of conservation hold true and fast. To me the two quotes (apart from the last paragraph of Weil's - which I won't pretend to understand) appear to be fully compatible. You seem to be the one introducing the word chaos. The indifference of the sea is a template for all known aspects of the wider world, bar dubious reports of "miracles".
QED

Let me ask you how "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." can be described as anything but chaos? Without design purpose, and relative quality, what is it other than chaos?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Simone Vs. Dawkins

Post #5

Post by Goat »

Nick_A wrote:
QED wrote:
Nick_A wrote:How do we see the universe in perspective? Richard Dawkins' perspective sees it as chaos. Simone Weil' perspective,sees it as perfect order. What does your perspective reveal to you?
While penned to be deliberately bleak, Dawkins is also describing an universe in which laws of conservation hold true and fast. To me the two quotes (apart from the last paragraph of Weil's - which I won't pretend to understand) appear to be fully compatible. You seem to be the one introducing the word chaos. The indifference of the sea is a template for all known aspects of the wider world, bar dubious reports of "miracles".
QED

Let me ask you how "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." can be described as anything but chaos? Without design purpose, and relative quality, what is it other than chaos?
Because we see how simple laws of the universe can create order of course. I am so sorry you are so blinded by personal metaphysics you can not see other people's points.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #6

Post by Nick_A »

MagusYanam wrote:I think it is an oversimplification of Ms Weil's view in this to say that she sees the universe as 'perfect order'. When I read this quote:
Simone Weil wrote:Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.
I see it as an admission that what meaning there is in the universe, is the meaning that we create for ourselves on a personal level, by making a self-defining choice, which Weil construes as the choice between desiring obedience to God (a choice which renders meaning) or not desiring obedience. It actually smacks of no little influence by existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir.
Magus

This is to say that there is no meaning in the expression of mechanical laws. As explained in the "Expelled' thread, this contradicts both the Buddhist concept of Dharma and the Christian concept of wisdom.

Simone IMO is describing the beginning of conscious evolution which allows man to participate in a higher quality of meaning and purpose then his normal confines lacking consciousness as a part of organic life on earth.

This is hard for the ego to accept but if a person can surrender its influence for a moment, Meister Eckhart's description of free will becomes comprehensible
"God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom. The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself."

From this perspective, our conceptions of meaning are purely subjective and so, objectively meaningless.

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #7

Post by Nick_A »

QED

I'm not blind to other points of view but only try to understand them. We are examining two quotations and how they relate two each other.

Dawkins claims there is "no design, no purpose," He said it, I didn't. If you admit to simple laws, how can you deny more inclusive laws?

This denial of laws as described by Dawkins isn't exclusive to atheism. "A Course in Miracles" for example asserts that all this is imagination. The appearance of order is only imagination. Rudolph Steiner would call this Luciferic and I would agree. But that is another matter.

Why do you associate asking for opinions on perspective with a refusal to see other people's points?

Simone asserts that beauty in its uconditioned form is an expression of the perception of a higher order of existence within which everything exists as lawful expressions of essential universal laws.

Dawkins asserts that the nature of the universe or the way it eats itself is so seemingly immoral that it cannot have either a conscious source, purpose or design.

I see his point but don't agree with it. Do you really see this as so offensive?

Beto

Post #8

Post by Beto »

Nick_A wrote:I see his point but don't agree with it. Do you really see this as so offensive?
Not agreeing with his point of view is not offensive in the least. Continuously labeling him and other people as "deniers" simply because they don't allow metaphysics, or someone else's "inherently subjective experiences" into their attempts at objective understanding of the universe might very well be. You seem to be the one denying people the option. How "open-minded" is that?

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #9

Post by MagusYanam »

Nick_A wrote:This is to say that there is no meaning in the expression of mechanical laws. As explained in the "Expelled' thread, this contradicts both the Buddhist concept of Dharma and the Christian concept of wisdom.
That is because any meaning in the expression of mechanical laws, is the meaning that we ourselves impose, through extension of our own choices. If there is no subject, there is no meaning. There may be laws, but whom are they for? What are they for?

Dharma in Buddhism can be construed a kind of self-denial in the face of natural causality, but when properly understood it simply means the proper relation to one's own karmic continuity - and karma ('action') has all of the connotations of choice. Wisdom, as well, is the ability of the self, as the self, to exist transparent in the power that created it. I see this idea reflected in Weil's writings.
Nick_A wrote:From this perspective, our conceptions of meaning are purely subjective and so, objectively meaningless.
Exactly, though this is something of a tautology.

Anything objective, without a subject to apply it, is by definition meaningless.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

- Søren Kierkegaard

My blog

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #10

Post by Nick_A »

Beto wrote:
Nick_A wrote:I see his point but don't agree with it. Do you really see this as so offensive?
Not agreeing with his point of view is not offensive in the least. Continuously labeling him and other people as "deniers" simply because they don't allow metaphysics, or someone else's "inherently subjective experiences" into their attempts at objective understanding of the universe might very well be. You seem to be the one denying people the option. How "open-minded" is that?
If a person wishes to limit themselves to one mode of contact with the external world in respect to understanding the universe, it is only harmful when it effects others as it does in universities.

Science can only offer the truths it has access to. I respect these truths but do not deny myself the experience of other avenues towards objective reality. For me the questions is open
"Questioning makes one open,makes one sensitive, makes one humble. We don't suffer from our questions, we suffer from our answers. Most of the mischief in the world comes from people with answers, not from people with questions." Jacob Needleman.
Deniers have answers. They conclude that science only verifies X, so the universe is limited to X and any other thought should be ridiculed. IMO this has the effect of spirit killing on the young.

There is no other reason other than self supporting egotism that enables these "educators" to destroy in this way.

Questioning is one thing and very necessary. Denial is something else altogether and its source is emotional rather than logical.

Post Reply