Stupid ideas 1: Man is a blind machine

When someone says that we are machines then either they believe in God or they believe in the Wisdom of Man. And, the adjective “blind” is cake frosting, adding nothing.

This is where people like Dawkins and materialists destroy their own case when they claim that we are machines: The creation or existence of machines requires intelligence because machines fufill tasks and expectations. As the machine doesn’t have intelligence or tasks, then the bloke who made the machine has it - and that bloke is God or Man.

you are literalizing a metaphor

that people function in mechanical ways does not require that they have been designed by a transcendent intelligence of any sort - a rock rolling down a hill behaves in mechanical ways, but that does not mean its behavior is by design - it could merely be the result of the wind, or a tectonic shift - similarly, according to the Dawkins crew, natural, “blind” forces result in the “machine” of man, not the designs of a higher intelligence - it’s a perfectly valid speculation (tho speculation is what it is)

Nope. According to evolutionists like Dawkins, living beings are survival machines built by genes, not God or Man.

No. The meanings of the words of a metaphor are to be taken “literally”, even if the metaphor isn’t.

The word “machine” means “machine” in the metaphor, and not “mechanics” which you take it to be. There’s a huge difference. I will let you explain what that difference is, as I have already done so.

Machines fulfill tasks. But if the task is not God’s or Man’s but a chemical 's that you and Dawkins call a “gene” then that looks like chemical animism, and is indeed magical thinking. Why make the claim on Dawkins behalf that chemicals have tasks and expectations?

Once you start talking about something being a machine then you either subscribe to animism or you do not, but either way you confirm the operation of design and intelligence.

Why do you have to be so literal as to destroy the intended meaning in the things you are trying to analyze?

Yes and survival machines fulfil the task of holding and propogating the genes.

Well, since Dr. Dawkins is not here to explain his ideas, you brought him into the picture and I believe I understand his position, I chose to explain it.

No, it may not be called chemical animism.

Design and intelligence surely exist. But they were themselves not designed intelligently is the crux of the evolutionary argument.

And just what is the intended meaning of “machine” if it is not “machine”?!

Dawkins et al used the word MACHINE. A MACHINE is built to complete a task, and to create or construct a machine in support of that task requires intelligence and purpose - otherwise, it isn’t a machine!

Are you saying that genes have tasks and expectations? That’s chemical animism and magical thinking.

Now it looks as though you are saying that designs and intelligence came out of nowhere, which is a sort of creationism.

The intended meaning behind that word is something that functions mechanically, and has parts that can be taken away and replaced. So yes, a machine is built to complete a task, but what a machine IS, is an aggregate of parts that function together. And that is why organisms are compared to machines. Because they are aggregates of parts that work together.

Old philosophy divided nature into natura naturans and natura naturata, meaning nature in the active, creative sense, and nature in the passive, created sense, you know- visible nature, with animals, mountains, etc. Looking at nature mechanically allows these two perceptions to be combined: the machine organism is both created and visible, but also active, because as a mechanical structure it functions as an assemblage of parts to accomplish “life.”

Even a cursory reading of Dawkins would educate you as to what is claimed.

Creationism as used to refer to the American Christian movement holds that design and intelligence come from a creator who is a prime cause. So no, it’s not a sort of creationism at all.

It seems as if either you don’t understand what a metaphor in general is or simply haven’t grasped this one properly yet. The main reason behind calling it ‘blind’ is to make lucid the fact that there is NOT in fact an intelligent design behind the machine, though it would be fair to say that it is a type of design (genes). But this came about as an incrediblly slow reaction to respective environments over hundreds of millions of years. Ganapati put it pretty well actually:

Even if “machinery” is not “mechanical” it is still “of mechanism,” and neither mechanism in general nor machinery in particular implies intelligent design by definition, although the association is strong. And what exactly do you mean by “blind” such that you believe machines are blind by definition?

To say that something “functions” admits a purpose and intelligence. These define what that “function” is, its task or what it is for, when it is completed, and the design needed to make it work.

You are trying to make “machine” synonymous with any physical, mechanical event. But you do not really want to do that.

This is basic grammar. Machines have purposes, unlike any other mechanical or physical event. You can’t say there is no distinction between them. And neither can people like Dawkins.
Machines have no tasks themselves (“blind”), we identify mechanics with tasks, and the machine is the physical objects that carry them through.
But you know this. You know that a machine has tasks that it, itself, does not possess. Why bend over backwards to protect a silly metaphor?

To say that something “functions” admits merely of an intelligence that sees purpose in it. One can talk about how a thing can function which was not in fact designed. A cave can function as a shelter. Need it have been designed to be a shelter, or designed at all, to function as such? - no.

Are there no possible cases in which one can call something which is not designed a machine? That we give meaning and purpose to things does not mean that all such things are designed.

And how do you respond if I propose that: I am a machine. I was not intelligently designed. I create meaning and objectives.

it looks like you are agreeing with me. If we say that there is a function or purpose in or inherent to something, then we are talking about a life-form that works for itself. We are not talking about a bucket of gravel or a piano, or a cave as themselves having functions. If they, themselves, had functions they would also have preferences and tasks. THe function is our’s, life’s. but whoever’s it is, if there is a function then there is purpose and intelligence.