Richard Dawkins weighs in against reading fairy stories to children

[seer]

Ok, so you didn't answer the question.

[firstfloor]

Ok, so you didn't answer the question.

[seer]

Are are missing the point FF. We both know that you would trust a calculator created by an engineer over one created by the random forces of nature. And they are random, since there is no intention or goal, it is all chance. This all goes to the question of why we would trust or cognitive abilities if created by such forces.

[Palaeogrammatos]

Are are missing the point FF. We both know that you would trust a calculator created by an engineer over one created by the random forces of nature. And they are random, since there is no intention or goal, it is all chance. This all goes to the question of why we would trust or cognitive abilities if created by such forces.

Because cognitive abilities when demonstrated to be functioning within the norm for human beings have been proven by overwhelming consensus to work.

[Carrikature]

I was being facetious... didn't you see my smilie?

I saw it. Smilies can be used for lots of things. In this case, it looked more like a 'gotcha' to me.

[firstfloor]

Are are missing the point FF. We both know that you would trust a calculator created by an engineer over one created by the random forces of nature. And they are random, since there is no intention or goal, it is all chance. This all goes to the question of why we would trust or cognitive abilities if created by such forces.

I think it is not I but your goodself who is missing the point. A calculator is a calculator no matter how it is made or how or it came into being. If it does not calculate it is not a calculator. Trust is not a factor. What you are talking about is reliability which is different from function.

Evolution does not hold that we are rational beings by chance in the way you mean it. This has been explained to you many times before. It requires not chance but variation and opportunity for advancement of some description. There is no fundamental difference between natural selection and selective breeding of domesticated animals. Animal experiments suggest that breeding can enhance intelligence just like any physical characteristic.

[seer]

I think it is not I but your goodself who is missing the point. A calculator is a calculator no matter how it is made or how or it came into being. If it does not calculate it is not a calculator. Trust is not a factor. What you are talking about is reliability which is different from function.

No, trust is a factor in the question I asked. And it is my question, and we both know the obvious answer.

Evolution does not hold that we are rational beings by chance in the way you mean it. This has been explained to you many times before. It requires not chance but variation and opportunity for advancement of some description. There is no fundamental difference between natural selection and selective breeding of domesticated animals. Animal experiments suggest that breeding can enhance intelligence just like any physical characteristic.

Yes, selective breeding guided by intelligence. And of course it is purely chance. Did the universe have to unfold they way it did, with these laws and properties? Did biological life have to come into existence? Did early biological life have to survive? Did random mutations and Natural selection have to create self-aware creatures?

[Palaeogrammatos]

Yes, selective breeding guided by intelligence...

Not really. Selective breeding is initiated by intelligence, but it is guided (or inspired) by observations from nature.

[seer]

Because cognitive abilities when demonstrated to be functioning within the norm for human beings have been proven by overwhelming consensus to work.

No duh! The real question is why they work. I say because they were designed to be rational, and you say????

[Palaeogrammatos]

No duh! The real question is why they work. I say because they were designed to be rational, and you say????

By natural selection.

[seer]

Not really. Selective breeding is initiated by intelligence, but it is guided (or inspired) by observations from nature.

Yes using intelligence to manipulate nature.

[seer]

By natural selection.

I don't believe that non-rational, no conscious forces, could or did create rational, conscious beings. Why should I?

[firstfloor]

No, trust is a factor in the question I asked. And it is my question, and we both know the obvious answer.

The question is meaningless if it is designed to permit only one answer. What is it you think you have demonstrated?

Did the universe have to unfold they way it did, with these laws and properties? Did biological life have to come into existence? Did early biological life have to survive? Did random mutations and Natural selection have to create self-aware creatures?

No; none of the above. So what? I am not convinced that you are able prove your point by any of that stuff. It is a prerequisite to explaining human beings that human beings actually exist. The same applies to God by the way.

There is sufficient random chance at work that complete repeatability is unlikely but not enough to prevent convergent evolution.

[Palaeogrammatos]

Yes using intelligence to manipulate nature.

Which is virtually no different than seeing lightning strike a tree causing it to burn, and then starting a fire to basically replicate the results.

[firstfloor]

I don't believe that non-rational, no conscious forces, could or did create rational, conscious beings. Why should I?

But you believe in an intelligent, eternal super-being. Unfortunately, eternity is over-rated. No matter how far back you go, there is always a finite time between then and now. Therefore God is not eternal. So how do you explain God?