Chris
We've probably all seen posts from ID-supporters claiming that
there is or must be a purpose to life, a purpose provided by
something outside of ourselves and our needs as human
beings. But Susan has chastised me for not taking enough
cognizance of this phenomenon, so I thought I'd try to suck up
to her by giving my views on this topic.
It is relevant to this list because it's one of the main motivators
in the rush to "prove" ID regardless of the lack of basic logic in
the arguments used to do so. Of course, merely pointing out a
person's *motivation* does not mean that his claims are false.
But, if you show that they *are* false, that his arguments are
invalid and or based on false premises, and he *still* insists on
his claim, then something non-cognitive is going on, and it is
well that we be aware of this.
We see the same pattern repeated many times. Behe,
Dembski, Johnson, Gish, Morris, and others have all had their
arguments shredded right in front of their eyes (figuratively
speaking), but not a one of them has said, "Oh, yes, I see
clearly now. I will go see if I can find something better or give
up my claims." Instead, they become "Stepford Intellectuals,"
robots for the cause, re-iterating arguments that have long
since rotted in the bright light of observable facts and clear
logic, sometimes making bizarre attempts at patching them
up (without removing the basic fallacies).
Why do they do this? Because they have made fundamental
philosophical errors that have yielded (as such basic errors are
wont to do) a great many *secondary* errors.
The basic error is the attempt to make consciousness a
*metaphysical* primary, and Existence (the entirety of
whatever exists) a secondary that is either subject to, or
magically knowable by, the almighty mind, *without* the need
for independent *cognitive* validation. But, since the pre-
conceptual consciousness that *Existence* is primary is never
really killed or fully suppressed, the person is (pre-
conceptually) aware that the beliefs he has imposed on reality
by means of his mere choice and feelings are not reliable and
may be crucially wrong. Thus, he is in a state of anxiety about
his relationship to the world, a state that he tries to assuage by
ever more diligent faith in his *chosen* (not cognitively
validated) beliefs.
Because he is in a cognitive quandary about all the basics of
philosophy (or would be if he considered them at all), and
because his mind is largely furnished with more or less blindly-
accepted conventional beliefs, he has no rational idea of where
purpose in life comes from or what it is. But, his anxiety and
confusion drives him to have a purpose. Having stocked his
own mind with philosophical nonsense, and being
psychologically deeply insecure, he will normally seek
something more stable, more reliable, than something as pitiful
as himself to vest his happiness in. Commonly, it will be God,
but not always. As Susan pointed out in a recent post, some
people will make remarks like, "I don't believe in God but I
believe everything that happens, happens for a purpose" -- by
which they mean a purpose determined by something other
than the needs of human beings or other living organisms.
Some will take up social causes.
But, in all of these cases, such people are seeking something
that is not even *logically* possible: A fundamental purpose
other than what *they* themselves need as human beings.
Why is it not logically possible? Because they are *seeking* this
purpose to satisfy *their* need to have a purpose in life. That is
the purpose of seeking an outside purpose. But *that* purpose
is *in themselves*, not in some God or external cause or bizarre
"force" or "karma." Thus, if they *were* to find such a purpose,
it would still never be the *ultimate* purpose, because it would
be adopted only to satisfy *another* purpose. It would thus
both be and not be the ultimate purpose.
Why does it *matter* what the purpose of one's life is? Clearly,
it matters because one already *has* a purpose, a purpose that
the person believes, mistakenly, will be met when one finds an
external purpose that *does* matter.
This is a serious philosophical error. It is not correctable by
means of a little tweaking here and there. It puts the person in
a situation that is impossible to resolve without abandoning the
situation entirely and starting over.
But few will start over. Instead, they remain not-so-blissfully
driven to find or have a purpose other than what they *actually*
need as human beings.
If they find what they take to be *the* purpose of life (i.e., abject
service to a God, or whatever), any threat to that belief may
very well be taken as a threat to their purpose in life, or,
psychologically and usually subconsciously, a threat to their
very lives (because they have invested themselves in the
external purpose and cannot imagine having a purpose without
it).
Since the person has already given up reason in a *quite*
fundamental way in the process of accepting the notion that
faith is a magical way of knowing things or a magical way of
making the world match one's beliefs, it is a relatively small
step to give it up with respect to any scientific issue that seems
to involve their imagined purpose in life. If "materialism" (or
anything else) seems to threaten them (i.e., their "purpose"),
they will automatically (or very nearly so) adopt virtually *any*
rationalization that seems to support their view of their purpose
in life.
Thus, one may come across religious proselytizers who openly
admit that all they have going for their belief in God is faith, but,
since they have faith in faith itself (and, of course, faith in the
faith in faith), it doesn't bother them that people of other
religions *also* have faith, but in a quite different God. Why?
Because, like those others, they have faith that *their* faith is
sound, while the faith of the others is wrong (and, of course,
that's exactly how the *others* feel about *their* faith as well).
The *absolute* absurdity of such a position seems almost
*never* to sink in, because they have faith that it's *not* absurd
when *they* do it (which, of course, is the *same* faith those
*others* have in *their* faith).
With reason *this* far gone, it is no wonder that Johnson, Behe,
and the like are willing to forego it with respect to something as
relatively unimportant as science, if doing so will appear to
protect or promote their "purpose," their precious world-view
that gives their lives (in their view) some sort of "meaning."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 04 2000 - 12:57:43 EST