Life with purpose

Could you explain how Darwinism being true, that is, a meaningless goalless undirected mechanical semi-random process having created Man and all other life forms purely from the outworking of the laws of nature, does not imply that materialism is true, all notions of a spiritual realm are fantasy, and life is meaningless? Remember, thoroughgoing Darwinism being true means that not only is this true for the physical body, but evolutionary psychology is also true. All human emotions, moralities, built-in psychological characteristics, spiritual and religious feelings and aspirations, altruism, love, compassion, etc. etc. originated by the Darwinian mechanism of random genetic variation combined with natural selection. This is everything that is Man. 

How is it that all the spokesmen and propagandists and zealots for Darwinism interpret Darwinism being true in the way Provine did? Surely they should know the implications of their own religiously held dogma.

Of course, "some designer mucking around with protein folds" would not necessarily mean that life is meaningful or materialism is false. I don't think I ever said this, just that the falsity of Darwinism and the sure existence of some unknown sort of intelligent design process a long time ago at least leaves open the high probability that materialism is false and there is a spiritual realm of existence.

By what presumptive authority cannot the spiritual realm not be a different form or extention of the material world?  The quantum physical realm is as physical as the classical world though different in how it manifests and yet both are one in the same in that without the quantum world there is no classical world. In short why is it a binary choice for you?

It's complicated because Meaningfulness is like Love, describing a feeling of sorts.

I think Love is a whole topic of its own, rather than a mere feeling. In some perspectives, it is more of a substance, at least metaphorically, perhaps a material from which things may be constructed. Of course there are diverse views, whole books and volumes to explore further.

Well the point that Darwinism is synonymous with Reductionist Physicalism is what I was contending. I guess I'm not sure what points you're making besides that one?

Yes, I understand you are contending that point. I just haven't seen any explication of how the reasoning I presented is erroneous.

Maybe I'm missing what "Darwinism" means, as IIRC even Darwin's own writings were not definitively atheistic nor materialist?

The "standard" view on this has been based on his autobiography (surely a good source):

"On religious matters Darwin said, “I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convinced me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.” And so it has come down to us to this very day. The standard view of Darwin is that he slowly, reluctantly abandoned Christianity first and later – much later – all (spiritual) belief."

At the same time, some critics have claimed Darwin deliberately lied about this in his autobiography. I think the obvious implications of his theory combined with the fact that he never recanted the central thesis of The Origin of Species, indicate that these views written in his autobiography were truly his innermost beliefs.

Yes, I understand you are contending that point. I just haven't seen any explication of how the reasoning I presented is erroneous.


The "standard" view on this has been based on his autobiography (surely a good source):


At the same time, some critics have claimed Darwin deliberately lied about this in his autobiography. I think the obvious implications of his theory combined with the fact that he never recanted the central thesis of The Origin of Species, indicate that these views written in his autobiography were truly his innermost beliefs.

But the basics of Darwinism are true even if Panpsychism or Idealism are true correct?

I guess I remain unconvinced that random mutation would immediately mean the things we value about ourselves - our choices, our morals, etc - have to be reducible in the materialist sense.

Maybe we just luckily evolved to have access to the Platonic realm, wherein Penrose & Hammeroff have suggested not just mathematical but moral & aesthetic Truths might lie...

On Purpose: Alex Rosenberg vs Daniel Dennett

I don't think either captures the possibility of Darwinism being true but Materialism being false, yet since it has two materialists/Darwinists debating whether Darwinism negates purpose/meaning thought it'd be of interest.