I'm paraphrasing Dawkins from a different context, but in my view the Greta "logical conclusion" seems to be to erect a philosophical barrier where there is no need to do so, with the effect of creating a smokescreen (Brenton has the book where this is from).
For someone to look for meaning for his/her life in some sort of ultimate "purpose" to the universe is in my view extremely self-indulgent. Life is full of a million smaller and more immediate concerns day to day. Even if the logical conclusion is that ultimately life is amoral/ nihilistic/ meaningless, does that not create more meaning in the immediate concerns of the present? From here I can only move to an argument by personal example (as you do) - I find that for me and for other atheists it does.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 11:27 pm (UTC)For someone to look for meaning for his/her life in some sort of ultimate "purpose" to the universe is in my view extremely self-indulgent. Life is full of a million smaller and more immediate concerns day to day. Even if the logical conclusion is that ultimately life is amoral/ nihilistic/ meaningless, does that not create more meaning in the immediate concerns of the present? From here I can only move to an argument by personal example (as you do) - I find that for me and for other atheists it does.