It seems to me that if life is empty and meaningless, then it follows naturally that the fact
that it is empty and meaningless, is in itself
empty and meaningless.

I agree completely with Dawkins here and also with Orrin's comment.



But it does not follow from what Dawkins said that life in meaningless. Rather the reverse, life is the only thing that does have meaning. But the hereafter is meaningless.

I see why you thought that, but you're wrong Orrin. Dawkins is a leftist/liberal/collectivist. He will always, as he does in his many books, swerve away from the obvious nihilism of his purported belief system at the last minute.



By the way, how would we know 'precisely' what properties to expect?

and Jeff, you have an excellent point. Any philosophy that declares all meaningless must declare itself meaningless as well.

You are right about Dawkins' leftism, but it does not follow that a purely materialist view of the world requires nihilism. All you have to do is take the self-centeredness of the God of the bible -- his most pronounced characteristic -- and transfer it to yourself.



Nothing in logic says you can't do this. Now you have defined life itself as meaningful and can go on your merry way.

Nature may not impose any meaning on the universe, but neither does it stop any of its inhabitants from imposing their own meaning. Meaning, like religion, is a creative act of humans. You should be happy that Nature lets you do so, without interference. Does meaning have to be given to you from above?



A cow living on a cattle ranch has a higher purpose to its life. Its life exists to fulfill the protein requirements of a higher being. Be careful what you wish for. If a higher being gives purpose to your life, you shouldn't assume that it does so for your benefit.

Harry and Robert: opinions noted. As you say, everyone is entitled to whatever delusions they desire.



I love discussions of meaning by beings who see themselves as accidental products of mindless process.

Jim

You're too concerned with how you got here, and not enough about the fact that you are here. If you find life good and worth living, what matter does it make if you were put here on purpose or by accident? You are like an art critic who sees a painting, and says "I find this painting beautiful, but if I find out that the artist used synthetic paints, and not organic, I will hate it".

RobertD:



But you miss the point--why would it matter if a second from now someone stopped you or the painting from being here?

OJ

I think that we are talking about two different things: one is transcendent meaning, the other is immortality. I think what you are saying with your last post is "how can you have meaning in your life if you know that it can end in an instant?"



You can have meaning without immortality, and, logically speaking, you can have immortality without meaning. We only experience life in the immediate moment. The moment is either meaningful to us, or not. It is meaningful if we deem the moment worthy of our passionate commitment to it. It is an act of will to do so. The moment has meaning because we will it to have meaning.



Now, if you can't give meaning to a single moment, then how will immortality, which is just an endless series of such moments, be meaningful? Infinity times zero = zero. If you run a deficit of meaning for each moment, you can't make it up with volume. The sense of immortality just gives someone an excuse to put off this commitment to the meaning of the moment. Somehow, we'll have more time for it later, when we don't have the dagger of mortality hanging over our heads.



I hope this clarifies my thinking.

Nicely put, Robert.



If you define the present moment as meaningless,

and it turns out that there is no afterlife, then

you've blown your only chance for meaning.



That's where Pascal went astray.