Where does purpose come from? Daniel Dennett vs Keith Ward

High profile atheist philosopher Daniel C Dennett goes head to head with Christian theologian Keith Ward in this extract from their debate on mind, consciousness and freewill.

In this excerpt Dennett and Ward debate whether purpose can arise from a purposeless process.

The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.


The Big Conversation series:

The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust

[Jesus_Saves_]

So something without purpose, creates purpose - If this isn’t self-deception, then I don’t know what is :/

[mackdmara]

Keith is saying you have an idea now, that later has form. You cannot get to that future form without the idea. Thusly, how does a purposeless process, without an idea, make a purposely organized form. It is a pain to noodle if you are not used to it, but it raises a *Real* issue with Daniel's assertions.

Can chemistry + time = life? At present calculations, not even if the unguided process started on Earth at the beginning of time (the Big Bang). It is so astronomically unlikely, that to posit it, you really have to shun our current understanding of the probability.

[bonnieuk]

We make our own purpose, I don't think we're born with a specific purpose. When you are growing up you don't ask yourself "what's my purpose"?

[tg]

Innate purpose (instinct) has been distorted by our home comforts, along with too much time on our hands.

[LoveYourNeighbour.]

Daniel Dennett said "purpose emerges from the bottom up, from a purposeless process." I find it too difficult to believe that a purposeless process, could have created the first life - A PURPOSEFUL CELL. It seems so obvious to me, that life MUST have been purposely created!

[blamtasticful]

Why can't we simply infer something about what we think the future might hold based on a model created from past experiences? I also don't see what's wrong about saying an eye's purpose is to see regardless of whether or not the supernatural exists.

[elvisitor]

I really believe both are right. Dennet: no pourpuse, but if we break down the physical reality we see that small parts has its "pourpuses". Likewise Keith makes sense in that what we think now defines to some extent what we do towards the future. And I dont think we can have one of the sides without the other (then it wouldnt be reality anymore), so its a false dichotomy.

[bozhidarbalkas]

Jn 18:37, ' "You are the king, then!' "said Pilate. "Jesus answered, ' "You say that I am king. In fact, the reason I was born and came to the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" '. Did the scribe of this verse hear this conversation? And even if s/he did, was s/he not aware that the scribe of John often says that Jesus was not born--he was God, who came to earth from heaven and his number one and only task was to save the lost Israelis.

As for the truth to exists and be known, every human should also know and acknowledge it. If not, we have a huge and very irritating lie. In fact, words like justice, god, satan, love/fear god, truth, democracy, knowledge, laws, morality, etc., i call terror- or weasel-words. We, thus, can call the Bible scribes the worst ever terrorists; provided, of course, they knew [or at least expected] how much terror would cause the no-sense they wrote, to also 95% of all believers. I suggest, they knew it and i suggest they knew the terror always affects people--some very much!
Jn 14:13, " And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son". 14, "You may ask me for anything in my name and I will do it". Was this promise honored even once out of thousand times???? Did anyone pray to God to destroy Satan? Nobody, Right!
More no-sense from Jesus: Jn 12:24, "Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds". Seeds Plants sprout from seeds but dead Jesus produces nothing.

[_a.z]

Assigning "purpose" is something we can do because we are intelligent.
We are intelligent because energy has gradually been pushing complexity to a phenomenal level over phenomenal time spans.

[jerklecirque]

I've listened to Keith's response three times now, and I still can't figure out what he's saying.

[SomeGuyNotKnown]

Yeah, our parts have purpose, but our existience doesn't.

[bozhidarbalkas]

Jn 5:28, "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all those who are in graves will hear his voice and come out---those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned". This verse is very stupid; for one cannot call the bones [or what is left of them] in the grave "people" or "who". And what does mean or entail to "be condemned"??
Nobody, i assert, will ever know the meaning of such words. But will cause clergy to interpret it in endless ways. Since some scribes say that flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God, how can one as spirit "live" or "exist"? Spooks clearly cannot be or exist; they can only 'exist' or think they 'exist'. Or they 'exist' in a nothing or supernatural 'domain' or a nothing burger. And both words: exist or 'exist' are real; in the reality; so, how can they exist as real in a non-reality or in a supernaturalness??? Scribes are clear that nothing real will exist in the 'world' of spooks. Only the spirits will 'live' there'. And how did God create the universe with a one of his mere words. Wasn't it unreal? Or was it real?

Mk 1:15, ' "The time has come" ', "he said". ' "The kingdom of God has come near. [or will come in a few decades]. Repent and believe in good news" '. But Jesus lies once again. The scribe who wrote 1:15 forgot or was not willing to tell us to whom and how to repent. Was he not aware of what Eph 1:4 says: God has chosen people to become his before they even existed; thus, could have not been repenting first and ONLY then being accepted by God. And if God exists, is almighty, loves all people, wants all of them to believe in him, what or who could have prevented God from achieving what he wanted so badly to achieve? After all, God was all alone for some time. So, how can an almighty God fail to get what he wants to get; especially, since at the time he was choosing people, Satan, bad/angels, demons, and bad spirits have not existed? Did the scribe of Mark thought that we are that stupid not to have seen that he talked a lot of no-sense? ====

Jn 1:1, In the beginning was God. Some scribes contradict John by saying that God is eternal. In any case, scribes say there was God, but w.o. any spooks. The guy was all alone, right? So, the spooks could have not spooked God from acting at that time. Spooks were created by God later. But God could not or did not want to control them or, better yet, destroy them. But will one day, say scribes. Mk 3:33, ' "Who are my mother and my brothers? ' ", he asked. 35, ' "Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and my mother" '. But Bible says too often that God is saving his people not because of anything they have done. So, why preconditions to become saved? Especially in view that the scribes say all have sinned [haven't been obeying God] and all of us will sin onto death. Or as Paul and Hebrews say: All a believer needs to do to be saved is to merely believe. But even this revelation from God is contradicted by other scribes.

[bozhidarbalkas]

According to scribes, the tomb in which Jesus' body allegedly lay, was opened only once. However, when opened, the tomb was empty. This proves that Jesus was not laid in that tomb. Magdalene allegedly said that she saw the Lord. Actually Jesus was still fully human; thus could not have been God yet.
Strange, tho, that Magdalene, instead of heading to the city and telling pharisees that Jesus was risen, she goes only to his disciples. Stranger yet that even disciples avoid going to the city and to proclaim that Jesus was risen and come to see him for themselves. And instead of Jesus going to the Israelites with or not with God's protection; and which Jesus was to have only saved, he goes to hated Galileans.

Jn 2:9 "(They still did not understand that Jesus had to rise from the dead)". "They"= Peter, disciples. Note please that NT [or parts of it] did not exist until, say, 40 or 50 ce. But the OT did exists. Most Judeans knew it well. And the OT does not predict that Jesus would rise; so, Jesus' people could not have known from reading the OT that Jesus would rise. However, the apostles, disciples, and a lot of pharisees heard more than a dozen of times Jesus say that he'd be killed and rise in three days. So, clearly, Jn 20:9 is a brazen lie; provided, of course, Jesus existed, been killed, and buried in Joseph's tomb.

Jn 18:37, ' "You are the king, then!' "said Pilate. "Jesus answered, ' "You say that I am king. In fact, the reason I was born and came to the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" '. Did the scribe of this verse hear this conversation? And even if s/he did, was s/he not aware that the scribe of John often says that Jesus was not born--he was God, who came to earth from heaven and his number one and only task was to save the lost Israelis.

As for the truth to exists and be known, every human should also know and acknowledge it. If not, we have a huge and very irritating lie. In fact, words like justice, god, satan, love/fear god, truth, democracy, knowledge, laws, morality, etc., i call terror- or weasel-words. We, thus, can call the Bible scribes the worst ever terrorists; provided, of course, they knew [or at least expected] how much terror would cause the no-sense they wrote, to also 95% of all believers. I suggest, they knew it and i suggest they knew the terror always affects people--some very much!

[bozhidarbalkas]

Mt 13:18, "Listen then to what the parable of the sower means". Jesus was saying by said parable that some people will accept Jesus as the Son of God or God [and remain faithful until death?]; others will accept Jesus for only a while and the rest will not [ever?] accept Jesus as God nor Son of God. So, Jesus, knowing this [scribes say he's omniscient] has, according to scribes [only Jewish] prepared a hell for those who he knew would not accept him. But we need not fret about hell; for even scribes don't know if the hell Jesus prepared is supernatural or natural. But since scribes knew God would reject a mass of people, why don't modern scribes and 'teachers' tell their mental captives to stop blaming the rejected, and start, instead to blame the scribes or God.
Jesus' either-or use in Mt 6:24, "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and lover the other....". First off, it is not possible to make any sense of the first part. Clearly, nobody can obey equally both masters. And in reality, no human can have two masters. And if two people want to be your masters; they will soon turn also on each other; thus, causing the owned person to obey only one of them and even to lay one against the other.
And a slave will most likely resent or hate her or his owner and even try to flee from a person who commands them. True, on occasion, an owner may even become loving of the person he or she owns and vice versa. So, either-or structure seldom if ever fits reality. We always have at least three ways out of a awkward or unwanted situation. "..You cannot serve both God or money". Clearly, one does not have to "serve" neither [and whatever the "serve" may have meant, means now, or will mean]. Besides, money is only a tool; one can thus use it.

[FindleyOcean]

Dennett makes complete sense, Keith makes no sense at all.

[bozhidarbalkas]

Mk 1:15, ' "The time has come" ', "he said". ' "The kingdom of God has come near. [or will come in a few decades]. Repent and believe in good news" '. But Jesus lies once again. The scribe who wrote 1:15 forgot or was not willing to tell us to whom and how to repent. Was he not aware of what Eph 1:4 says: God has chosen people to become his before they even existed; thus, could have not been repenting first and ONLY then being accepted by God. And if God exists, is almighty, loves all people, wants all of them to believe in him, what or who could have prevented God from achieving what he wanted so badly to achieve? After all, God was all alone for some time. So, how can an almighty God fail to get what he wants to get; especially, since at the time he was choosing people, Satan, bad/angels, demons, and bad spirits have not existed? Did the scribe of Mark thought that we are that stupid not to have seen that he talked a lot of no-sense?
==== Jn 1:1, In the beginning was God. Some scribes contradict John by saying that God is eternal. In any case, scribes say there was God, but w.o. any spooks. The guy was all alone, right? So, the spooks could have not spooked God from acting at that time. Spooks were created by God later. But God could not or did not want to control them or, better yet, destroy them. But will one day, say scribes.
Mk 3:33, ' "Who are my mother and my brothers? ' ", he asked. 35, ' "Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and my mother" '. But Bible says too often that God is saving his people not because of anything they have done. So, why preconditions to become saved? Especially in view that the scribes say all have sinned [haven't been obeying God] and all of us will sin onto death. Or as Paul and Hebrews say: All a believer needs to do to be saved is to merely believe. But even this revelation from God is contradicted by other scribes and/or God. So, preach they: God against God forever.

[bozhidarbalkas]

Jesus' either-or use in Mt 6:24, "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and lover the other....". First off, it is not possible to make any sense of the first part. Clearly, nobody can obey equally both masters. And in reality, no human can have two masters. And if two people want to be your masters; they will soon turn also on each other; thus, causing the owned person to obey only one of them and even to lay one against the other. And a slave will most likely resent or hate her or his owner and even try to flee from a person who commands them.
True, on occasion, an owner may even become loving of the person he or she owns and vice versa. So, either-or structure seldom if ever fits reality. We always have at least three ways out of a awkward or unwanted situation. "..You cannot serve both God or money". Clearly, one does not have to "serve" neither [and whatever the "serve" may have meant, means now, or will mean]. Besides, money is only a tool; one can thus use it.

[rodneyblackwell]

Humans fear of the future, including fear of death and the future unknown, is one of the drivers that has lead to the emergence of religions.