This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Against All Gods

Steve Zara's Avatar Jump to comment 43 by Steve Zara

Comment 42 by Schrodinger's Cat

If one envisages an entire universe populated with suffering, struggling of countless universes populated with suffering, struggling does start to seem a bit remiss of the entirety of existence to just 'happen' to be that way. Mere 'indifference' scarcely begins to describe an infinitude of this.

That's a point of view. I'm sure you would expect me to say I don't agree with, and I don't! I don't believe one can talk about the universe being indifferent, because indifference is an attitude, and as far as I know, universes don't look like the kind of thing that can have attitudes, unless you are a deist or pantheist of some kind. Being remiss is the kind of things brains do. I consider that describing existence to be remiss is a case of 'meaning leak', assuming that what goes on inside our heads can somehow leak out and be real elsewhere.

I did discover something recently which surprised me, which is that there is not nearly as much suffering in Nature as I thought. I discovered that an awful lot of animals die of old age, not by predation. This is why scavenging is such a good way for carnivores to survive. I hope this is true!

I have to say I'm quite pleased that the universe doesn't have any ability to care about things. What an awful thought! I don't want a life filled with meaning, I want there to be plenty of room for my own meaning. I don't want cosmic purpose, I want to be free to make my own direction in life.

Although it gives many people comfort, the idea of theism, deism or even pantheism seems terribly intrusive to me. I prefer to not be owned by a creator, or be part of some wider essence of mind. It makes reality seem awfully claustrophobic!

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 02:09:10 UTC | #950199