There are so many reasons why I hate this quote by Richard Dawkins. Actually, there may not be that many reasons, but the reasons I have evoke such strong negative feelings that I feel the hyperbole employed in the first sentence is entirely justified. Here's the quote:
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... Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people... 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.
I found this on Luke's blog, Common Sense Atheism. I didn't care for Philosoraptor's quote either, but I like it a lot better than this quote by Dawkins.
You and I only care about our existence because we exist. If I didn't exist, there would be no "I" to care whether I exist or not. Sure, the only people who can be either lucky or unlucky are the ones who exist, because a "person who doesn't exist" (this phrase makes me cringe, but I'll go with it) can't be unlucky, or unfortunate, or un-anything, because that which does not exist is not a person, place or thing that can be anything. "To be" implies (mandates) being.
Doesn't Richard Dawkins understand why the Ontological Argument for God's Existence is unsound?
This quote is an exercise in ignorance. Being born in itself does not make one lucky. Many people are born into pain, agony, disease, suffering, starvation and violence. Many human lives are snuffed out way too soon, and their entire existence is marked by misery and hopelessness. Are they really the "lucky" ones? I had no problems, no pain, no sadness or fear in the year 1920, because there was no "I" to have any problems, pain, sadness or fear. Some people, sadly, would have been much better off had they never been born. Such people would have been "lucky" to remain where I was in 1920: in the sanctuary of oblivion.
Doesn't Richard Dawkins understand why the Problem of Evil is such a strike against Christian theism?
This quote is (if I'm interpreting Dawkins' meaning correctly) an attempt to make those who don't believe in an afterlife feel better about non-existence after death, and make us appreciate the life we have now. In attempting to wax philosophical, Dawkins comes out looking like a fool - which is a shame, because I think the man is brilliant.
I wrote a blog entry earlier this year - on my birthday, in fact - in which I address the concerns of non-existence after death. There I shared a quote by Lovecraft which I find to be much more eloquent:
It is easy to remove the mind from harping on the lost illusion of immortality. The disciplined intellect fears nothing and craves no sugar-plum at the day's end, but is content to accept life and serve society as best it may. Personally I would not care for immortality in the least. There is nothing better than oblivion, since in oblivion there is no wish unfulfilled. We had it before we were born, yet did not complain. Shall we whine because we know it will return? It is Elysium enough for me, at any rate.
~ H.P. Lovecraft
"In Defence of Dagon"
To quote myself from that same blog entry: "Oblivion, then, is not the dreaded evil shadow I once feared. It is the purest form of Nirvana, a freedom from craving, anger, pain, hatred, disappointment and unfulfilled desires. If there is an afterlife then I should consider it a nice surprise. For as long as I exist, I still prefer existence to non-existence. Only now, I'm no longer afraid of the dark."
That's "lucky" enough for me.
Dead-Logic.com
