...is nobody else's god. I think many atheists are comfortable with the idea that there might be a creator force that set up the rules of the universe and threw down the laws, processes, and maybe thereby set in place the seeds of life.

But I don't see many religious people jumping on board this particular wagon. I might be nitpicking, but the difference between Kauffman's stance and Dawkins' is miniscule when compared to the difference between Kauffman's stance and that of any religious proponent or Intelligent Design backer.

I hope we can find our way to a global ethic, beyond just the love of family, a sense of fairness, and a belief in democracy and free markets.

Really? Beyond all that? Because I'd be pretty happy if the majority of the planet could agree to that much. The world would be a lot better for it.

If everyone believed as you did, and there was absolute "meaninglessness" in the universe, you and I would not exist. People would not obey laws, would crash cars into each other willy-nilly, resort to much more violence and crime than we see in the world today, etc, etc. Chaos incarnate.

What? That doesn't even make sense.

Here's a more accurate way of putting it. In a universe without meaning, people could write stuff like that and no one would ever correct them.

"Meaning" implies intent, information to be conveyed, and significance. None of those concepts can be separated from the framework of language itself--that's why words and sounds have different meanings when different people from different parts of the planet say them.

Your idea of meaning is more akin to holy writ: all meaning derives from God, and God gives us life, puppies, and unicorns, therefore without it everything falls apart. That's so stupid I can't even believe I need to refute it.

But the world goes on, whether we ascribe meaning to something or not.

The world does in fact go on whether people ascribe meaning to things or not.

Something like 5.6 billion years have passed on this planet, and the vast majority of them did not have people in them to give meaning to things. That does not mean that time did not exist, though.

But go on, feel free to try again. You know you're not making sense.

...the least coherent thread of commentary I've ever seen on Salon.

I cannot imagine driving a Hummer in India.

First, the Hummer doesn't run on diesel. So there goes that rationalization.

Next, the H2 barely fits most American roads in terms of width. You think it'll fit on a Delhi street? Give me a break. There's a reason why the cars sold in India are smaller across the board than the corresponding vehicle in the U.S. (why a Honda City is considered a full-size sedan in India, but a Honda Civic is a compact here in America, for instance).

No, what I hear in your post is envy. If it were simply a matter of dealing with bad roads, then how about a car or SUV with a beefier suspension?

The H2, H3, and original Hummer are simply statements about conspicuous consumption. Why you'd want to encourage that sort of thinking in India is beyond me...

"Gas would be cheap for decades like that, except for the anti economic greens, who are opposed to civilization just for the sake of it..."

Um. yeah. Nice bit of trollery there.

...why not distance yourself from Cousin Rusty?

You can cheerfully admit the old bastard is family, but hey, he's not the sort of family you have to feel proud of, just because he's family.

It's possible to be proud of your family and yet not align yourself with Cousin Rusty, because Cousin Rusty also happens to be Rush Limbaugh, and when he's Rush Limbaugh, then you guys share a last name.

It's wrong and stupid for people to judge you simply on the basis of that last name, but this is America. We seem to take pride in judging people wrongly and stupidly on skin color, sexual orientation, work background, age, and any number of things.

To me, it really sounds like you need to find a way to quit taking Cousin Rusty so seriously. You know, like the next time you find yourself with his credit card in hand, why not order up a few rounds of Jon Stewart box sets for the guests? If you need to shake hands with Ann Coulter, why not ask her if she's really blonde?

There's nothing wrong with it, and America needs more subversives.

The GOP's efforts to make all things equal when they look bad by pulling down, diminishing, or attacking the successes of the opposition, and playing up their own disasters as victories to be heralded.

Horowitz, go back where you came from. Salon gave you a stump, and THIS is how you used it? I don't see you making friends on either side of the aisle with this piece, and if you're addressing it to the GOP, well...you've come to the wrong place.

Try posting this sort of thing on TNR, or better yet, call Rushbo. Let's see how that goes.