The meaning of life (and podcasting)

Hi Andy,

Once again, you’ve created a good and interesting article. I have only two quibbles with your personal orientations, one large, the other, small.

The large quibble is your phrase – “….I’ve rejected our evolutionary imperative to further the species.” I believe that the truly unique orientation that Darwin presented to us is that NO species has an evolutionary imperative. There is no such thing as evolution with a purpose – other than adaptation. This is one of the largest problems that many Theists have with Darwin – they always want to add purpose to evolution. There isn’t any non-adaptive purpose or imperative in evolution.

The small quibble is your phrase – “….let us bow our heads and pray.” As an assertive Atheist, I assert that this phrase brings to the fore the issues of Symbols and Symbolic Form vis-à-vis Epistemology versus Propaganda. I believe that you use the symbols of “bowing one’s head in prayer” as a way to express respect and praise for and to the folk who created deò’s Shadow. However, many Theists could interpret the symbolic reference as an acknowledgement in support of their particular brand of Theism. I believe that your mixing of metaphors, so to speak, undermines a clear orientation within an Epistemology of Atheism.

Bob Allen

Hi Andy,

As an assertive Atheist, when I indicate that there is no purpose in evolution (other than adaptation), I am speaking of several issues. One large issue is that of removing any hint or flavor of teleology – the doctrine that final causes exist and that there is a design or purpose in nature. Theists, by definition, wallow in the murky muck of teleology – and like pigs wallowing in other murky muck – they love it.

Another issue is that of Entropy. By definition, organic matter has less Entropy than does inorganic matter. Moreover, organic matter is what Darwinian evolution is all about. However, Darwin had more than enough on his plate – in his day and age – than being able, or interested, in dealing with the issue of decreasing Entropy between inorganic matter and organic matter. Theists traditionally have also shied away from issues of Entropy in general and the issue of decreasing Entropy between inorganic matter and organic matter in particular. Theists, almost by definition, tend to assert a “Devine Something or Another” as being the energy source for the decreased Entropy from inorganic matter to organic matter.

Assertive Atheists on the other hand, by definition, look to nature, in the broadest sense of the word, as providing the energy source for this decreased Entropy from inorganic to organic matter.

Nonetheless, there is a continuum, in the process of decreasing Entropy between inorganic matter and organic matter. And of far greater significance, this continuum in the process of decreasing Entropy continues “up the chain”, so to speak, in the evolutionary process from “simple” organic form to “more complex” organic form. There is no purpose in this continuum of decreasing Entropy “up the chain” – only increased availability and consumption of Energy. This increased availability and consumption of Energy is the base from which Darwinian evolution derives – but without any notion whatsoever of purpose or drive.

I believe that folk coming in to this conversation about “purpose” in evolution will not detract from your purpose Andy, of showing great respect for deò’s Shadow.

Now for something a tad different. I trust Andy that you noticed that I did not quibble with you over your usage of the construct of an Atheist spirit and/or and Atheist Soul. I strongly, as an assertive Atheist, believe that I have a live and thriving Atheist Spirit within my Atheist Soul. However, this is for another conversation, at another time and place.

Thanks again Andy for your original piece on deò’s Shadow.

Bob Allen

Thanks for the thoughts, Joe!

Yep, you’ve identified why some of the ads are bad. There is a filtering thing I can do to get rid of them, but it’s a hassle to use, takes time, and is pretty limited. So I don’t use it much. I’d just as soon get rid of the ads.

So please spread the word. The more people sign up, the sooner the ads will disappear.

Andy

Hi Chris,
Would you please expand a tad on your assertion – “….there is a purpose to evolution, but it is the gene’s purpose, not ours.”
Thanks,
Bob Allen

Hi Chris,

I kinda thought that you were expressing cuteness and had the metaphor of Dawkins “selfish-gene” in mind with your initial comment.  There are some problems within this area.

When one follows the link that you provide, a major construct that appears near the beginning of the article is – “According to this theory [the “selfish-gene” theory], adaptations are the phenotypic effects through which genes achieve their propagation.”

From my first entry on within this conversation thread, I place emphases on – “There is no such thing as evolution with a purpose – other than adaptation.”

Exploration of a number of links within the link that you provide lead to such constructs and metaphors as sociobiology, genetic altruism and genetic egoism, green beard effect, etc.

Unfortunately, all of these areas tend to lose the historical sense of cooperation and collaboration from the early days of Darwin’s influence upon Western Culture.

Although Anarchist literature is not very popular today, nor has this tradition ever garnered much popularity, near the end of the Nineteen Century, Petr Kropotkin, responding to Thomas Huxley’s essay “The Struggle for Existence in Human Society” (published in The Nineteenth Century, Feb. 1888) – begins to contribute a number of essays to The Nineteenth Century, rebutting Thomas Huxley.  These Kropotkin essays appear from 1890 through 1896 in The Nineteenth Century and later find publication as the book Mutual Aid in 1902.

Kropotkin is quite upset with what Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley take from Darwin and then apply as corrupted orientations attributed to Darwin –in dealing with issues within Social Engineering in support of the owners within the ruling classes.

Within the book Mutual Aid, Kropotkin’s first two chapters deal with “Mutual Aid Among Animals”.  He then goes on to investigate “Mutual Aid Among Savages”, “Mutual Aid Among the Barbarians”, “Mutual Aid in the Medieval City”, and concludes with two chapters on “Mutual Aid Amongst Ourselves”. 

My copy of Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid also contains twelve appendix entries of some additional Kropotkin notes on the swarms of butterflies, dragon flies, etc; ants; nesting associations; sociability of animals; checks to over-multiplication; adaptations to avoid competition; the origin of the family; destruction of private property on the grave; the “undivided family”; the origin of guilds; the market and the medieval city; and mutual-aid arrangements in the villages of Netherlands at the present day.  My copy of Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid also contains Thomas Huxley’s “The Struggle for Existence in Human Society”.

Thus Chris, I find is much easier to deal with my initial orientation – “There is no such thing as evolution with a purpose – other than adaptation.”

Bob Allen

Hi Chris,

I’m happy to see that you and I are of closely related orientations in these areas.  In checking the further links in your original link, I found that Kropotkin and Mutual Aid find reference – but only in passing.

Bob Allen