So...am I over-thinking this? Is it just a metaphor that went over the edge? Or does it suggest that Dawkins in spite of himself believes in an invisible spirit-world? — mcdoodle

Dawkins is trying to justify our short existence as meaningful by using such a metaphor. Death isn't so bad if you consider all those unfortunate souls who never got to exist! Except of course they don't exist, so there's nothing fortunate or unfortunate about them.

I'm an atheist, but not because I think it makes life better. I don't justify atheism by trying to argue that death is okay, etc. That we only live such a short time is aburdity. Camus was more honest.

I think it was just Dawkins waxing lyrical in an attempt to defy claims from religious critics that his worldview is bleak and soulless. I agree with Dawkins that an atheistic worldview is no more likely to be bleak than a theistic one, but I do think he got a bit carried away with his own purple prose there - a metaphor that, as you say, went over the edge.

There is a smidgeon of interesting content in there, about the enormous numbers of different combinations of human DNA that are imaginable. I find that interesting, and had not thought of it like that before. But I don't think it means there are ghosts in the ante-room, and I suspect Dawkins doesn't either.

This is just the ontology of possible worlds, isn't it? I think it makes sense to say that I could have had tea instead of coffee for breakfast, without having to posit an anteroom of ghostly beverages from which the lucky coffee was chosen and doomed to be drunk.

But Dawkins is quite hot on misleading analogies that are not to be taken literally, but which he takes literally. The selfish gene for instance. He accepts from the outset that genes have no self, and no interests, and then proceeds to assume that they do.

I have not read Dawkin's book, but I have read Keats poem Lamia. Here are the line that Dawkins uses as his title:

Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomèd mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade

.

Keat's, was perhaps the greatest Romantic poet ever. He was critical of Science's attempt to explain everything, to demythologize the world, giving explanations for beauty "In the dull catalogue of common things" whereby all mystery melts "into a shade". My understanding is that Dawkins wants to defend Science by saying that its work reveals the unseen beauty of the world, defending the Enlightenment. He's a Bright who melts life's mystery into a shade of possibilities.

Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,

Here, 'philosophy' means 'natural philosophy', that is, science.

I have been reading up on the 'counter-enlightenment', of which the Romantics are the exemplars. That is a perfect statement of same. And more strength to them. As always, Dawkins knows not what he profanes.

There are no such unborn ghosts. — mcdoodle

One of the universal axioms of pre-modern philosophy was that being is an overall good - that non-being, non-existence, is a deprivation or a lack. So corresponding idea was the 'principle of plenitude', which is that, as 'to be' is an overall good, and as God desires the good, then therefore everything that could possibly exist would exist, because if it didn't exist then that would imply some deficiency on the part of deity, namely, the deficiency of not having created something that ought to exist. This was symbolised in ancient mythology as the 'horn of plenty', borne by the goddess Fortuna, and overflowing with bounty, the origin of the term 'cornucopia'.

you and I, — Dawkins

But what is the you and I? The genes themselves which switch on and off over the course of a life anyway. Also many modern conceptions of the universe, like many worlds, might entertain all of them being realized anyway.

The tender-person'd Lamia

Can someone explain this titular metaphor to me? My Google scholarship and Graves' Greek Myths tell me this about Lamia: that she could pluck out and replace her eyes at will (ewww!), that later, mad with grief over her slain children, she became a monster who snatched and devoured the children of others, and that she may also have sucked out the blood of young men while they slept. Nice. Is that really who Keats had in mind?

Lamias enchant their victims, who only see their beauty, the soft tones of their voice, once enchanted the monster has her way with them. Reason sees through the enchanting beauty of the rainbow, but that's the rub.

This interpretation still goes against the grain of the poem: here enchantment is a mortally dangerous deception, not something quaint and charming and romantically wistful.

Enchantment is dangerous because it's happiness or elevation about something. This makes it conditioned by and attached to things. It's temporary, and waxes and wanes with confidence and hype. Doubt is the mortal enemy as happiness depends on not damaging certain ideas.

Similarly to depression, or sadness, we all understand that it's conditioned by things, and is thus temporary, and when it doesn't seem to be conditioned by anything, is also often when it doesn't seem to be temporary either.

Enchantment is the easiest way to be happy, but it will be cyclical, and impermanent.

I think Keats was suggesting that if what we find mysterious, beautiful, enchanting in the world, is an illusion (the Lamia), one which Science sees through, that in doing so, Science loses the world's apparent mystery, beauty and enchantment. He is also suggesting that not seeing through this illusion can be deadly, as in the poem her spouse's 'true' vision of Lamia as she is came too late and at the end she kills him at their wedding feast. The paradox between sense & reason is the rub, which I think prevails in the poem.

But Dawkins is quite hot on misleading analogies that are not to be taken literally, but which he takes literally. The selfish gene for instance. — unenlightened

I too felt that when going back to 'The Selfish gene', which I was more of an enthusiast for when I first read it when it came out - I didn't know much about genetics. It's one reason why I asked this question: I just didn't feel it right to re-locate the forward thrust of life in the encoded gene which blindly (tick tock, see next prevailing metaphor) uses all other things for its own self-perpetuation.

The paradox between sense & reason is the rub, which I think prevails in the poem. — Cavacava

I hadn't thought about the inspiration, thanks for taking me back to Lamia. For myself I think the message of the poem is muddled, perhaps because the characters took over Keats somewhat and defied their allegory, which finally they had to step back into. But you can read it a lot of ways.

I'm gonna be a bit polemical and harsh in this response, but only because I have some steam to blow off. Dawkins is one of those chaps that just pisses me off. The above quote in the OP from Dawkins strikes me as an example of him trying to show that a secular life is meaningful and worth living, but it comes across as some real im14andthisisdeep crap, aggressive crap at that.

A quote from River Out of Eden, which is an otherwise good description of the sentient condition, shows, when compared with his other claims, just how hypocritical and contradictory his views are:

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

There are good reasons to believe that the universe is indifferent to the injustices occurring, but there are also good reasons for believing the Mr. Dawkins is unable to come to terms with this himself:

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. — Dawkins

Wait, what happened to the fact that some people aren't so well off as Mr. Dawkins? What was that about the suffering per capita being beyond decent comprehension, or how the universe has no value and is pitilessly indifferent?

Like come on, how can you get any more special-snowflakey?

We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. — Dawkins

Yeah, we certainly are ordinary aren't we? ...thanks, I guess? Here Mr. Dawkins seems to think that if we compare ourselves to people who would have been better than we are, but who do not exist, we can affirm our own existences. It's supposed to encourage and motivate us - but it's also kind of insulting. But more importantly, Mr. Dawkins tries to cover his bases by telling us how we aren't special and we aren't as good as those who could have been - but simultaneously tell us how that simply the fact that we are makes us special and important. It's humble-bragging, isn't it?

And had we never been, we wouldn't have been any worse. He can preach and shout about how fan-fucking-tastic it is that we're alive, but as soon as you put his words into practice, it ends up being nothing more than a bit of empty sophistry. A cheap pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps that can't survive a basic intro to ethics course that is only taken seriously because he's a scientist and he knows stuff, he knows more than you or I. Say - if we are to cheer and high-five each other for being alive, are we to feel relieved that we were born? Does Mr. Dawkins honestly want us to pity those who never were - does he sincerely believe what he says?



The fact that it was so unimaginably unlikely that any one of us would exist is evidence that our individual and collective existences are a fluke, and not some marvelous achievement that Mr. Dawkins wishes it to be. We didn't exactly do anything to get here, for better or for worse.

Mr. Dawkins seems to want us to tremble at the meaningless indifference the universe has to us, and our general unimportance in the grand scheme of things, but simultaneously also desire that we leap up and sing and parade around reminding ourselves how special we are, simply for being. Like, congratulations, you exist! What an amazing accomplishment! What an incredibly sublime and spiritual achievement! - ack, I can't stand that cheesy "scientific spirituality", the one that chastises those with religious spirituality but then recommends that we binge-watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos, read Mr. Dawkins' many evangelical books, worship our self-image (jack ourselves off to our reflection in the mirror) and constantly remind ourselves how we are special because we are "starstuff" (...just like everything else - tell me more about how "starstuff" is "scientific").

Consider the final sentence in the quotation above:

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

And then pair this with a quotation by Cioran:

"Objection to scientific knowledge: this world doesn't deserve to be known."

Riiiiiiight - so, once again, we have Dawkins (and co.) wanting us to submerge ourselves in the nihilism of the Enlightenment, only to pull us back out by a complete contradiction. The universe is indifferent and indecent - but it's also quite beautiful and spiritual! But remember it actually doesn't give two shits about you and could purge your existence at any time, really. But ya' gotta remember, life is pretty sweet, isn't it? Have you looked through a telescope recently? How privileged we must be to have the opportunity to see a representation of Saturn through our eyes that will later degenerate with cataracts! Remember when the dumb people before thought Saturn was a god? Ahahahahaha how silly of them, hehehe now we know stuff. Wanna know more? Suck my dick and buy my books!

We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred? — Dawkins

How dare anyone think otherwise! How dare anyone not want to be here! How dare anyone wish they didn't have to die! How dare people complain about their suffering! How dare they, dammit! How dare they not agree with me! How dare they threaten my meaning! waaaaaaah!



(cartoons are by David Shrigley, for those interested).

The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains — Dawkins

This is pretty much meaningless, at least as far as I can tell. No one else could be Dawkins, nor me, nor you. We aren't missing any number of Newtons and Keats; neither are we missing any number of monstrous despots.

I don't especially care for the lottery idea either, though if Dawkins imagines there is a gate through which only so many beings can pass, I suppose a lottery is a logical idea. But only so much water can run out of a faucet and we don't call the kitchen sink a lottery of water. We need have no feelings or thoughts about the water that didn't make it.

In ancient Greek mythology, Lamia (/ˈleɪmiə/; Greek: Λάμια) was a beautiful queen of Libya who became a child-eating daemon. Aristophanes claimed her name derived from the Greek word for gullet (λαιμός; laimos), referring to her habit of devouring children.

There are various web sites about Lamia, some behind paywalls. For those who feel a need for free assistance in understanding Keats' poetry, the links below might help. Some of the assistance is elementary and obvious (which can be quite helpful, actually) and some of it is a bit more elevated.

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/k/keats-poems/summary-and-analysis/lamia
http://www.keatsian.co.uk/keats-poetry-lamia.php
https://henneman.uk/john-keats-biography/lamia-annotated-text-part-1-lines-1-26/
https://henneman.uk/john-keats-biography/lamia-annotated-text-part-2-form-structure-language-context/
http://crossref-it.info/textguide/john-keats-selected-poems/40/2965

Yo, just wanted to say (Y)

And the moral of that is, 'leave the metaphors to poets, Richard.'

Ah, I see now, I didn't realize that the passage quoted here wasn't the entire poem. Thanks for the links, . I just finished chewing my way through a couple of annotated Shakespeare plays; when I recover a bit, I might work that annotated Keats.

Hey, I feel like I opened a door! :)

Damn right you did.

That we only live such a short time is aburdity — Marchesk

I guess that depends on the depth of one's self-identity. If you identify only as a specific individual then I agree that it's absurd, but if your identity encompasses wider aspects of reality then your existence is incredibly profound. I try to understand myself ultimately in terms of subjective awareness within a biological-psychological-social construct and so I'm not just this specific person at this particular time, I'm all subjective awareness in existence everywhere at all times. And it's not like a new agey "we're all one" woo fest either, it's not that we're all psychically connected to each other or we're part of a cosmic mind or anything, it's just that once you strip off culture, gender, race, and biology the only thing that remains is first person awareness. Conscious awareness is analogous to the electron, all electrons are identical, every electron has the same exact size mass and charge, they are all effectively the same electron. From that perspective my individual personal existence is only meaningful or important insofar as serves to aid in the expansion and liberation of conscious awareness itself from all arbitrary constraints and limitations which are the essence of the absurd. We can work towards that liberation on many levels - personal enlightenment, community service, political activism, etc. and the more liberation we achieve the less absurd our lives become.