It's difficult to determine precisely what he means without talking to him. I sympathise with determinism to some degrees, since it seems to me that all actions or decisions are based off of factors that affect those things performing those actions and making those decisions. If it is determined that a situation forces a person to act in either one way or the other, free will could be argued to be the factor that decides which decision will be made. In truth though, is not the person's nature what ultimately leads to which way their will be direct them? And one's nature is typically determined by one's life experiences and previous choices. So is there really a choice? I do not know. One could have this in mind, and choose some third option, but it is likely that thew third option would not become apparent unless that person knew of this determinism idea.
It's an interesting notion, to be sure. Why is Dawkins pushing for it? The same reason anyone pushes for anything. He believes it to be true, and wishes other people to see it that way too. The ramifications of it being accepted are not really important. In his view it'd be the same as accepting some uncomfortable fact of reality, which cannot be changed but only recognised, or ignored.
It's an interesting notion, to be sure. Why is Dawkins pushing for it? The same reason anyone pushes for anything. He believes it to be true, and wishes other people to see it that way too. The ramifications of it being accepted are not really important. In his view it'd be the same as accepting some uncomfortable fact of reality, which cannot be changed but only recognised, or ignored.
If you believe it, question it. If you question it, get an answer. If you have an answer, does that answer satisfy reality? Does it satisfy you? Probably not. For no one else will agree with you, not really.
