[Glice]

It's not that the strong anthropic principle isn't cogent, it just that it posits some new qualia within pre-existing metaphysical issues. If you'd said "hey guys, what about the weak and strong anthropic principles?" that's entirely different to a negatively charged statement decrying other people's orienting metaphysics as if it somehow escapes the sort of thing that people have been on about since anno mundi (wherever we posit that). You might do away with theocentrism - that's one argument, and one I don't have a problem with - but I don't see it as an escape from logocentrism, the noumenal or the issues surrounding the nature of empirical truth. It'd gall regardless of who was saying it, but it's rendered more obnoxious by the fact that it's put forward by someone who's clearly not a complete fucktard. It's much similar to my criticism of Dawkins - you don't do away with the concept of God by just shouting "look at my proofs from a completely distinct epistemology that I'm applying erroneously to an unrelated subject, unsympathetically to the subtleties of the counter-arguments". Boorish and juvenile, is what I'm saying.