Jim Crawford says it better than I: http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2008/02/richard-dawkins-bli... and so does David Benatar: http://vorosh.blogspot.com/2008/03/optimism-delusion.html
That's pretty interesting, given that it's much more likely that they'd be undergoing nuclear fusion as part of a star, or clumped together as a planet or an asteroid.
Dawkins is pointing out how neat this is as a way to get people interested in science. As Feynman pointed out, it's neat to take the world from another point of view.
So to Dawkins, being the pawn of a purposeless, intelligence-devoid, purely natural process -- slowing marching his way to death, only to be forgotten within a few centuries -- probably doesn't sit well with him.
For most people, they choose to ignore the reality that Evolution simply lays down the fact that one's existence is both purposeless and meaningless. Well, one does have a purpose - replicating their species.
Of course, the optimistic delusion starts when people start bullshitting about "doing good for humanity" and "living for the moment" and all sorts of other drivel that really just serves to help them ignore the bigger uncomfortable reality of how incredibly useless and meaningless they are on the timeline of the infinite.
For me it is always humbling; being an infatessimably small part of the grand scheme.
Far from feeling meaningless it sets me free :)
Surprisingly meaningless statement from such a smart guy.
The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details. He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though).
He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud and successfully, without really saying anything really scientific.
You have to be scientific, not only sound so. And, science is not absolute -- nothing is absolute -- but he puts science in an absolute position, which is simply not scientific, but already his religion...
What do you mean by this? Are you claiming his work in evolutionary biology is pseudo-science? What part of it? Or are you just angry that he doesn't believe in god and isn't afraid to say so?
> The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one
Are you claiming he is a pseudo-scientists or a mediocre scientist?
> To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud
What is he shouting about? In my experiences with his writing and speech he makes clear, persuasive arguments which make specific, disprovable claims.
You have made extremely strong claims about a respected scientist and provided nothing but your much derided shouting to back it up.
He is at least soundly scientific; especially in evolutionary biology.
He may dress it up in fancy words, sure.
He or she is hiding there, somewhere, in the probability space of all possible combinations.
Must be lonely.
The one that fertilised it is the only one that could have fertilised it. Perhaps if you're into realist versions Copenhagen interpretation then you can argue that in a largely parallel universe that another sperm may have suited the conditions ...
