Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion

by Abandoned 104 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abandoned

  I started a thread after I finished the first chapter of this book entitled something like, I'm an atheist. I finished chapter three and I have to backtrack a bit, but I also feel the need to explain why since I was so vocal.

  First, let me say that I think everyon should read the first two chapters of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He brings up some very important points about religion and about science's place in our world.

  That said, I disagree on the primary thesis of the book. I don't think that the most logical conclusion is atheism. I am totally opposed to theism based on my experiences with the handful of religions I've personally investigated, but I'm in love with what Hawkins refers to as Einsteinian Deism. That's the idea that there was a god who designed the entire universe, but that he isn't a prayer-answering, smiting, bible-writing, and religion-endorsing god that is so prevalent among "spiritual" people today. He is the ultimate scientist (and I use "he" out of force of habit and not out of any preference or belief into the creator having a sex) and he is fascinating based on what he's done from a building standpoint.

  I don't know where my beliefs will end up as to why the being so capable when it came to creating the myriad variety of life we see around us doesn't seem to have an opinion one way or the other on morals, but I'm guessing I'll come to see him as a moral entity too. The reason I say this is because I have always believed in and still believe in Karma. I've seen people go so high and get knocked to the ground and even though I've gone through a bunch of crap in my life, I've seen many of the perpetrators pay eventually.

  So, to summarize. I am not an atheist. I am also not a theist but, rather, an Einsteinian Deist in the sense outlined in Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion.
• 

  choosing life

  It is unmistakable to me that their is a master scientist. Why we are left to figure out the rest, I am not sure. People have made their God so small and petty in so many religions that it drives others away from the very concept of a god. Maybe that is the real delusion.

  As you study any kind of science, it is hard to believe there is not an intelligent source behind it. Keep us updated on your thoughts you read the book. It sounds interesting.
• 

  DanTheMan

  My understanding of Einstein is that he was only religious in the sense of being awed and humbled to find himself alive -- and conscious of being so -- in such a vast and beautiful universe. Einstein only used the word God metaphorically. So I don't see a difference between Einstein's and Dawkin's position on the God issue.
• 

  kid-A

  "I don't think that the most logical conclusion is atheism."

  > OK, do you have specific reasons for this sentiment? Given that the onus is upon the theist to prove the existence of some supernatural being, and given that said proof is still lacking, Okkam's razor would dictate that the only logical and coherent conclusion is the non-existence of such a hypothetical creature. I do however disagree with the term "atheism" simply because it suggests a "negation". One cannot "negate" that which does not exist, therefore the word is a misnomer.

  "I am totally opposed to theism based on my experiences with the handful of religions I've personally investigated, but I'm in love with what Hawkins refers to as Einsteinian Deism. That's the idea that there was a god who designed the entire universe, but that he isn't a prayer-answering, smiting, bible-writing, and religion-endorsing god that is so prevalent among "spiritual" people today. He is the ultimate scientist (and I use "he" out of force of habit and not out of any preference or belief into the creator having a sex) and he is fascinating based on what he's done from a building standpoint."

  >Unfortunately, this idea is as much an intellectual and logical dead-end as a more traditional conception of theism. It fails to answer the same questions:

  1) Where did this hypothetical god come from? If there is no answer, it is infinitely more rational to simply assume the universe has always existed (at the very least we have evidence of a universe) then to interject some hypothetical god-creature into the equation. A creature for which you have zero evidence, no explanation for, no purpose for and acceptable means of finding out, given that said deity apparently is mute.

  2) Why would this "supreme scientist" undertake such a bizarre series of experiments? To create some amusements for his/her/its bored mind? Would a being capable of "creating" a universe actually NEED to create hopelessly flawed, mortal, biological life forms prone to infinite barbarism and ignorance?

  3) If this being is responsible for the disaster we call the "human race", his "experiments" have indeed been a spectacular failure. The fact that said being has apparently "left the building" would suggest he/she/it is morally bankrupt and/or could care less about the "results" of their experiments. In either case, why would anyone even care? If this supreme scientist was ever really here, and is now either dead or vanished, what possible relevance can it have to the reality of your life?

  4) Ask yourself this: what motivates my need to interject some hypothetical "creator" into the universe? Am I simply too afraid to accept the ephemeral nature of my biological mortality? Does this hypothetical god serve some psychological construct deep inside my psyche that I simply cannot consider living without? Why does this concept of a deity have such appeal to you? Once you unravel the underlying psychological motivations for these emotion-driven beliefs, you will find the need for deism fading into obscurity.
• 

  Abandoned

  OK, do you have specific reasons for this sentiment? Given that the onus is upon the theist to prove the existence of some supernatural being, and given that said proof is still lacking, Okkam's razor would dictate that the only logical and coherent conclusion is the non-existence of such a hypothetical creature. I do however disagree with the term "atheism" simply because it suggests a "negation". One cannot "negate" that which does not exist, therefore the word is a misnomer.

  This is exactly why I broke stride with Dawkins. In the first two chapters of the book he rips the religionists a new one over how they use assumptions in their proofs. I agree with him on this. Then, starting specifically in chapter 3, he does the same thing with natural selection and evolution. He starts with the supposition that they are proved when they aren't. The hypocrisy in using the same techniques in proving something as those whom he debunked for using them kind of irritated me.

  I understand this is very emotional issue for Dawkins as it maybe for most if not everybody, but he would have kept me reading with the same awe I had from the beginning if he wouldn't have pulled that little switcheroo.

  Oh, and for the record, why is the onus on the theist to prove anything? I think the onus is on anyone who wants to prove something.
• 

  JamesThomas

  I don't know where my beliefs will end up

  When we take a keen look at beliefs, all beliefs, we can see they are mental interpretations at best. They are mind generated constructs which we can write upon a page. When it comes to our true Source, anything the mind offers up will be too menial and insignificant. So, why believe anything about God or rather what that word points to? As choosing life pointed out, why diminish it?

  Beliefs have there place, but when it comes to the ultimate significance they are insufficient, perhaps even inappropriate.

  I suggest not believing, and instead placing attention -- that would generally placed on beliefs and mind generated stories and illusions -- on to and into the immediate and intimate sense of being and existing in the present moment.

  In other words: stop believing and be still, and know...

  j
• 

  Abandoned

  In other words: stop believing and be still, and know...

  I'm wary of "knowing" too much. I haven't had good experiences with those who always seem to "know" things. I do like the rest of what you wrote though.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  abandoned,

  first of all, good on you for being honest with your own sense of rationality. that is the way rational people should be!

  secondly, i am surprised that dawkins, of all people, has invented a label called "einsteinian deism". is this true? dawkins should be aware that einstein was a pantheist in the tradition of baruch spinoza, and would have done well to leave the label pantheism. in other words, there was no intelligent anthropomorphic scientist, but that all things are god. god is nature, nature is god. the universe is not really anthropomorphic (except in the most enlightened instances;). and yet, when i hear "deism" i immediately see a human face. and so i think it's a poor label for him to use in conjunction with einstein's name.

  i have read most of dawkin's books, and i agree that atheism is not the only logical conclusion. people who say this, are using a definition of god that is somehow objective, as in: "i am sepparate from the universe, therefore so will god be." you know, some kind of abrahamic god. i was guilty of this for a long time myself. check out my first thread on this board. but i believe that it is logical, actually, that as one comes to understand the hyper-relatedness of all things including one's self, that a pantheistic reverence should come from her place of skepticism and atheism.

  for example. atheism taught me that for all intents and purposes, we're all gods, when you consider our evolutionary past, the evolution of our minds, and the sheer potential we have. it is not self gratuitous. it is self organization. it's a technical point, if nothing else. but then, with that understanding of evolution comes the understanding that all living things are equal. technically, we are no pinnacle. so, if we are gods, and all other living things are gods, then so would the entire evolving cosmosbe god. God. see? but here we are no longer just atheists, but *also* pantheists, at the very least. we believe. and with belief comes reverence. all with only the evidence we have on hand. as jung believed, we can only believe what we know.

  why is it a logical problen *at all* to be both atheist and pantheist?

  and i mean, you might be part of some other people's spiritual practices and not even know it. i have met an ultra liberal rastaman who asked me: "do you like reggae?" and i was like, "of course. i love it." and he said: "then that's all. you be rasta." and i was like: "what about jah selassie?" and he said "you already know 'im. you said yourself, "i love it". and love is all."

  damn, baptised on the spot, what can i say? i didn't have a choice. but then i thought, even though it is not one of *my* beliefs (jah), it was part of someone elses. jah exists in his mind, and his mind exists in the universe, and i beleive in my connection with that universe. who can dispute we are woven into it? so i do believe in a very metaphorical, subjective jah. even if it is just an archytype. does that make me rasta? i guess so. then again, who cares?

  anyways, sorry for rambling. you'll do fine i am sure. may the force be with you.

  jah one love, hehehe

  tetra
• 

  SixofNine

  People always say "my spirituality", but if you get "your" spirituality from a book, or books, a preacher, your parents, or that hot dude in your philosophy class, it isn't really yours at all, is it?
• 

  purplesofa

  I am reading this book right now as well.

  hmm, wow, It certainly is not like reading a paragrah at a time---a few pages and thats it like a WT.

  I wasnt going to comment on the book until I finished it...........and still best I wait!~!~!~!

  Hope all is good with you ((((AB)))).

  purps