Ontological cheating

 

AI´s fantasy version of the
First Universal Common Ancestor (FUCA)

Previously posted on January 3, 2022.

Isn´t it strange that most atheists-materialists believe that the universe is inevitably going *their* way, while claiming to believe in blind evolution and attack teleology as unscientific? And yet, it seems that the blind process of chance and determinism invariably ends up with the English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes...at least if you are, let´s say, an English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes. Funny how *blind* evolution never ends with, say, a militaristic Preussian junker, or a French Bonapartist named Bonaparte. Or a hideous Thugee in darkest British Raj. 

Of course, if you are a libertarian, blind cosmic evolution somehow manages to always end with libertarians, never with Stalinists or Latin Rite Catholics. Or even Kamala Harris. If you are a left-liberal disaster area with California Crazy values, blind evolution will inevitably (at least after 15 billion years or so) take you to the sunny shores of Crazy California, that notorious left-liberal disaster area. Even more weirdly, all the scenarios above always converge on humanity inventing some ingenious machine that can take us to the stars and eventually "become like gods" (hiss). 

But that´s not teleology either. Naaah. Cuz that would be UNSCIENTIFIC!!!

Presumably, it´s not anthropocentrism either, then.

One of the few exceptions to the rule seems to be Richard Dawkins. He actually believes that evolution can turn out in a way we *don´t* like. Which seems pretty reasonable, if the process is supposed to be a blind-folded one. (Or even a teleological one - what the heck makes us think *we* are the purpose of the universe?) Hence his quip: "Let´s try to teach some altruism, since we are born selfish". Dawkins has also said: "I´m not particularly interested in humans. That´s just one species, and a highly aberrant one, at that". Dawkins have drawn the conclusion nobody else dares to draw. Everybody else is engaged in a kind of ontological cheating. I used to think that Dawkins´ perspective was terrible, dark and depressive. Reading "The Blind Watchmaker" almost turned me Christian! Or at least Platonist. Today, I suspect he is on to something. And no, I´m not an atheist-materialist. But the plane of existence we are stuck on in this round, sure as hell seems godless...