Here is a video in which Richard Dawkins explains why he thinks certain questions are meaningless.
The question being asked is about the meaning of life. Dawkins said he thinks that it is a silly question. He equates it to asking what color is Jealousy? I disagree. I does not make sense to to equate the two. There are some questions that don't make sense. For example: What does a four-sided triangle look like? There are no four-sided triangles. By definition, they do not exist. Applying the same logic to the meaning of life - the purpose of life is presupposing that there is no purpose...no meaning. That is dangerous because no once could really honestly say that there is no purpose just because you don't know what it is. It's giving a non-answer to a legitmate question.
I would probably also disagre for the question of the meaning of life. I have my personal one, at least I am able to formulate it.
ReplyDeleteBut what I agree with is that the "why" question is not always adequate. The "why" question is also important, in my understanding this questons makes a huge part of philopsophy. But there are some cases there this question is used without measure.
In general, I support R. Dawkins very much.
So, you agree with Dawkins about many things except that the "Why" question should not be ignored, but not used to support the existence of God?
ReplyDeleteDawkins is actually committing the fallacy of circular reasoning when he says that "why" questions are "just silly". Take his example of comparing it to "what is the colour of jealousy". The silliness/meaninglessness of the latter question is that it asks for colour from a colourless entity (emotions are felt and experienced, they do not carry anything on the visible light spectrum)! Take another example he's given elsewhere: "what does victory smell like". This question is silly because it asks for odour from an odourless entity.
ReplyDeleteBut then we come to the "why" question. Dawkins must assume it is asking for purpose from a purposeless entity. But, in order to do that, he has to rule out the very possibility of purpose and the existence of any purpose-giving theism! He even made reference to the "why" question being "just a silly question" in a debate, recently, entitled "Does the Universe Have a Purpose"! He's assumed the outcome of the debate before it has began!
In short, Dawkins is begging the question by presupposing that the "why" question is implictly silly. Yet another philosophical blunder from the unschooled and unreflective professor!