Why was the thread about Dawkins' intro closed?

It was really starting to pick up steam, too, and then—poof!—just gone. Like, what’s even the point of shutting it down? I actually thought it was getting pretty interesting!

It was shut down because someone with the power to kill threads unilaterally—without checking if the majority actually agrees—decided it was time. Whether that’s democratic or not is pretty obvious, but honestly, if the topic didn't fit the "Philosophy 101" section, they could have just moved it elsewhere instead of nuking it...

I guess this format works better, though it’s pretty clear the person in charge is finally feeling alive—or maybe just finally feels like they have some semblance of control over something in their life: deciding whether a thread gets 👎 or 👍 (life or death, metaphorically speaking). It’s a good thing they aren't deciding anyone's actual life or death...

p.s. There’s really no point in arguing with the mods about this. So far, they haven't exactly shown an ability to understand the users in most of those closed threads—you know, the ones that don't offend anyone and are totally harmless... Meanwhile, there are a million other threads that are incredibly offensive but stay wide open... Conclusion: the mods are anything but perfect or objective.

I can’t quite wrap my head around why, from what I can gather, our friend William Gonzalez3 decided to drop a Dawkins quote in his last post, as if he’s somehow convinced himself this entire discussion has reached its natural conclusion and there’s absolutely nothing left to be said on the matter. We shall simply have to wait and see what his actual take on things turns out to be, won't we? 🤷

That being said, for those of you who find yourselves caught up in the thick of this particular debate, you might find it more productive to head over to the existing thread on Reddit:

Reddit

That’s a whole different kettle of fish, isn't it? We’re talking specifically about Dawkins' assertion here. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around why someone would shut down a thread that clearly has so much untapped potential for debate. It seems the moderator operates under this assumption that once they’ve handed down a verdict on a topic, the conversation is effectively dead and buried. But that completely misses the point of what a forum is actually for, doesn't it?

Arthur Anderson49 said:It was really starting to pick up steam, too, and then—poof!—just gone. Like, what’s even the point of shutting it down? I actually thought it was getting pretty interesting!

The topic itself is engaging, but I don't think it warrants a full philosophical deep dive.
Before we had the full context, there was still some room for debate regarding the subject matter—but once ironmarlin1 provided the broader picture, the point became clear. At that stage, continuing to argue over the "correct" translation of that specific sentence felt somewhat pointless.

The discussion was primarily linguistic rather than philosophical. Before things started getting heated, I kept the thread open because I assumed Dawkins was referring to the meaning of existence rather than the mechanics of origin—and since that turned out to be correct, I thought there might be more to discuss.
However, since there isn't much ground to cover philosophically when it comes to evolution, I'm closing the topic.
If you're interested, I can reopen it and move it over to the linguistics sub-forum, where you guys can work on translating the rest of the book.

brisktiger56 said:It was shut down because someone with the power to kill threads unilaterally—without checking if the majority actually agrees—decided it was time. Whether that’s democratic or not is pretty obvious, but honestly, if the topic didn't fit the "Philosophy 101" section, they could have just moved it elsewhere instead of nuking it...

I guess this format works better, though it’s pretty clear the person in charge is finally feeling alive—or maybe just finally feels like they have some semblance of control over something in their life: deciding whether a thread gets 👎 or 👍 (life or death, metaphorically speaking). It’s a good thing they aren't deciding anyone's actual life or death...

p.s. There’s really no point in arguing with the mods about this. So far, they haven't exactly shown an ability to understand the users in most of those closed threads—you know, the ones that don't offend anyone and are totally harmless... Meanwhile, there are a million other threads that are incredibly offensive but stay wide open... Conclusion: the mods are anything but perfect or objective.

Translating a sentence isn't the same thing as philosophizing about it.
Looking at the broader context, it's crystal clear what Dawkins is talking about here, and his point doesn't actually have much to do with philosophy.
Just slapping the word 'philosophy' in a title doesn't suddenly make a topic truly philosophical.
As I mentioned before, I am willing to move the thread to a different subforum, but I didn't want to do so on my own whim—I'd rather wait for someone to request it, and there are certainly more polite ways to ask than the approach you've chosen for this kind of forum.
You have my arguments, and I would ask that you please refrain from using insults moving forward, as no one—including myself—has insulted you.

I don't know about you guys... but if you ask me, this wasn't even really a linguistic issue. It was just that we needed to fix the translation so everyone could actually grasp the backstory! How are we supposed to have a real debate about the plot if we can't even understand what's going on? But hey, whatever; it's not like my life depends on getting this one thing right, right?

Arthur Anderson49 said:I don't know about you guys... but if you ask me, this wasn't even really a linguistic issue. It was just that we needed to fix the translation so everyone could actually grasp the backstory! How are we supposed to have a real debate about the plot if we can't even understand what's going on? But hey, whatever; it's not like my life depends on getting this one thing right, right?

We actually managed to get the necessary background thanks to ironmarlin1.
I think the core of this is really about the 'how'—you know, the actual mechanism of species evolution—rather than the 'why,' which is more about purpose or meaning.
In my view, the 'how' is something for the natural sciences to tackle, whereas philosophy tends to wander into different territory altogether.

From here, we could go in a few directions. We might debate whether we're actually mature enough to handle the facts of our origins, or perhaps argue over why some people still lean toward intelligent design instead of evolutionary theory. That’s pretty much the extent of it, I suppose.

Do you agree with that assessment? Or do you think the conversation is headed toward something we might call philosophical? If it is indeed moving in that direction, what kind of path do you imagine we'll take?

.. I agree .. though I should mention .. the sheer variety of directions this discussion took .. felt .. perfectly suited for philosophy ..
(.. not that I'm suggesting my .. old anarchist-communist leanings .. always pull me toward .. letting a topic breathe .. until it dies on its own .. but fine .. I won't .. drag or push .. anything specific .. into the fray .. just to keep the debate at a steady level .. (.. wouldn't want to end up tripping over my own feet like some clumsy amateur..))

.. true .. given how it leaned toward science .. and how the US pushes in that direction ..

.. true .. purpose and meaning have always pulled toward .. God and religion .. and while Americans might balk .. even if they'd be making a mess of things by claiming .. there is no God ..

.. but .. a third point .. equally vital .. linguistics .. following that famous guy's logic ..
The intelligence that kickstarted evolution didn't emerge from the very evolution that produced our own intelligence.
.. and .. intelligence .. as a core concept .. the one thing that could actually settle the question of intelligence .. would effectively screw over both the US and the clergy ..

.. it is my deep conviction that a topic .. with this much multimedia potential .. was born .. specifically to shine in philosophy .. or perhaps to die there .. collapsing under its own weight ..
(.. much like how the Third Reich once rose with such blinding brilliance .. only to collapse in a bunker .. via suicide .. where Hitler essentially blamed the Reich .. saying .. if you aren't capable of greatness .. then .. just stay small ..)

The intelligence that kickstarted evolution didn't emerge from the very evolution
that produced our own intelligence.

William Gonzalez3 said:We actually managed to get the necessary background thanks to ironmarlin1.
I think the core of this is really about the 'how'—you know, the actual mechanism of species evolution—rather than the 'why,' which is more about purpose or meaning.
In my view, the 'how' is something for the natural sciences to tackle, whereas philosophy tends to wander into different territory altogether.

From here, we could go in a few directions. We might debate whether we're actually mature enough to handle the facts of our origins, or perhaps argue over why some people still lean toward intelligent design instead of evolutionary theory. That’s pretty much the extent of it, I suppose.

Do you agree with that assessment? Or do you think the conversation is headed toward something we might call philosophical? If it is indeed moving in that direction, what kind of path do you imagine we'll take?

I have to say, I disagree with that translation big time. That's the real issue here! Look, I've been working professionally with the English language for twenty years now, so I'm pretty damn sure that isn't a solid translation. And once you get that wrong, it triggers a massive domino effect of questions regarding how Dawkins phrased things, what his actual intended message was, and so on and so forth.

Honestly, I have no clue where that debate would lead or if it even counts as philosophy. And hey, I'm not exactly throwing a tantrum because the thread got locked. I'm not out here trying to start a protest or anything! I was just genuinely curious about why it was shut down, because it felt like a really great discussion was finally getting moving. As far as I'm concerned, you can manage the thread however you see fit.

Every single philosophy shares one fundamental trait common to all systems of human thought—some people will agree with it, and some won't. 😁 I honestly think that topic had so much potential, way beyond just the linguistic breakdown part.
Evolution doesn't just provide a foundation for one specific philosophy; it lays the groundwork for what might be the ultimate philosophy. I'm not talking about its strict scientific implications, but rather the broader stuff, http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Dawkins.htm, so if anyone’s interested in looking at things from a different angle, why not give it a shot?

Scientific humanism—which is built on the concept of biological altruism—is really the only universal perspective for philosophical, social, and basically any other type of future thought or practice. Everything else has just kind of fizzled out and become too weak for actual application, consciousness (ignore my New Jersey attitude on that one, if you can), or unifying humanity. There's no reason to go back, and there's no need to. Evolutionary philosophy is a philosophy of knowledge, direction, and purpose. Personally, I find it beautiful and freeing; everything feels affirmed in it. That said, you shouldn't try to play games by flatly denying any sort of intelligent designer (that's a bit of a cliché, anyway, and pretty much played out thanks to the Matrix). I don't think science has much to say about that, nor does anything else that tries to establish itself with more than just one follower, or more than just one person standing up for it.

When you put it that way...