Unfortunately, what follows in his article relies heavily on assumption that the reader shares his viewpoint, and does little to persuade anyone outside of it. "The universe is simply ..." is just generally a bad way to start a sentence. The most glaring example of circularity comes close to the end: "Shouldn’t we love our families, be nice to other people, and support our communities because those things are good in and of themselves? Of course!" Consider the logic at work here: we should do these things because they are inherently good. Why are they inherently good? Because they just are! Maybe it's supposed to be an implicit argument for the ethics of pragmatism (and if so, I can understand why -- such arguments make really wide targets when made explicitly), but as stated, it boils down to an appeal that we share his personal, intuitive conclusions. This same appeal, interestingly enough, is the same one found at the bottom of most unconvincing arguments for theism. I couldn't read this article without thinking of this Robert Frost poem which is the soundest, pithiest (and most playful) treatment of these issues I've run across to date: http://www.daylight.com/~dave/poems/accidentally.html "It must have had the purpose from the first
To produce purpose as the fitter bred:
We were just purpose coming to a head." Thanks for the stimulating read.
-Did you watch that video? It's an interesting debate but the production is insane. It's like a mexican wrestling match meets a serious philosophical debate. -Pretty hilarious.
Why do we need a purpose to encompass ours in order that ours should be valid? My love, emotions, commitments and convictions aren't artificial because they are confined to me. In fact, I might argue that they are more valid than any guided by involuntary instruction, inheritance, or reward.
Let's think about this: If there is a God worthy of the Name, clearly that God must know the creature and the creature's mindset. Those of us who do good would do so regardless of any "guidance". (Do you really think we need biblical productions to understand that for example "thou shall not steal?") And as it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, regardless of the book, or messenger, or people or era involved, guidance does not help those who in fact do kill, steal, and cheat. So, that is not what 'Guidance' is about.
I'll concede this to be a worthy interpretation, but one too rare. :) And don't get me wrong; although I might find basis for that argument, I wouldn't make it. -That's why I didn't find Dawkin's The God Delusion to be personally interesting. I will strongly defend a right to equal footing for the uninformed, but no more. I also use 'uninformed' in a non-cynical way. I find myself to be insufficiently informed. That is my state, and the footing of my purpose.
That is the whole point, mk. You speak of "I". A fitting self-expression for a Fermion. (Have you noticed not even two Fermions can occupy the same spot? ;) The Bosonic ones say "there is no I -- there is only One". The entire Aseembly of Light (Photons) can occupy the same point without any of these stepping on "another's" toes ... (Who Sees when you see? Who feels when you feel? "My thoughts, my feelings". Are you so very sure?)