Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion

by Abandoned 104 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Blueblades

  James Thomas. " There is a glorious intelligence which brought the entire universe into being without our intellectualizing or believing." James, you lost me with that statement. I started a thread some time ago asking: Where did the universe come from? Someone suggested that the question might better be: How did the universe come into existence? Others, scientist"s have said that the universe is a mystery.

  You answered the question in your statement: Glorious intelligence? Brought the entire universe into being? And, we are to accept this without intellectualizing such a stupendous event?Scientist's have been pondering this event, thinking, and reasoning on this. Believers have emotional considerations when answering the question concerning the universe. God created the universe.

  This is a tough one to solve. Could you elaborate, if it's not too much that I am asking of you, how you have come to know that it was a "Glorious intelligence" That brought the entire universe into being? Thanks.

  Blueblades
• 

  lovelylil

  Many scientists today admit that there is an intelligence behind the universe and everything in it. hence the theory of intelligent design. This theory was brought forth by people of science, not primarily people of faith. Or, possibly a combination of the two? (Believing Scientists, as they do exist) Some people, like myself choose to call this "intelligence", God. And believe "he" (for lack of a better word) is over all, in all and through all things in the universe. This same thought is expressed in Ephesians 4:6 and I think sums up the idea of "God" in an easy to understand way;

  6 one God and Father of all, who is over alland through all and in all.

  Peace, Lilly
• 

  JamesThomas

  Blueblades:

  Could you elaborate, if it's not too much that I am asking of you, how you have come to know that it was a "Glorious intelligence" That brought the entire universe into being? Thanks.

  Good question.

  I didn't come to know in the way that one intellectually gathers information and then coalesces that information into a conclusion. It was not a mental process. Rather a moment came when -- without effort -- it was clearly seen that the universe of phenominal existence is not separate from, or different than, the conscious beingness and Life which views it. Where the mind interprets fragmentation, there is actually Unity, a Oneness. When you see it, it's as if you always knew, because it's what you truly are. You are the Oneness. All is the Oneness.

  There are no words or thoughts I can offer to convince you or anyone of this. I can not give you what you already are. It has to be seen first hand.

  I suggest being present and silently watch the mind's thoughts and the connected emotional responses. Clearly see what is mental illusion. Also be aware of what it really feels like to breath and exist. In other words: shift your precious conscious attention out of the story generated by the mind, and more into the actual reality of the present moment. Become more conscious and aware of the actuality and reality of being. You are simply seeking what IS already true; so diving into reality is the door. A moment will arise when what is seeing everything, sees itself, and then, you know....and not until.

  Honestly and sincerely question everything the mind believes about "self", God, and universe. Let the desire to know what is true, be your light. Trust that the glorious and wondrous Source and Sustenance of all life and things is not separate from what you truly are.

  j
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  lil,

  Many scientists today admit that there is an intelligence behind the universe and everything in it. hence the theory of intelligent design. This theory was brought forth by people of science, not primarily people of faith.

  do you have some data for this claim? i, for one, was unaware that "many" scientists believe this.

  i've been through this before on this board, and that is why i am skeptical. i know there are some, but from what i understand they are not in relevant fields (computer scientists instead of biologists or anthropologists), and that their numbers are very low.

  as far as ID vs evolution by natural selection is concerned, talk origins has some info on scientists:

  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

  Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

  and intelligent design IS creationism.

  ID does not have a testable framework like scientific theories do. it is also not falsifiable. these are two major components of scientific theories that ID does not do.

  ID is a phylosophical/metaphysical hypothesis, and should not be confused with biology. it essentially says "an intelligent designer did it", which is a lot like saying "god did it", and has no difference for the majority of people who use the term ID. the problem with saying that someone else did it, is that it is unprovable, and politically hijacks attention away from the real work that scientists are doing.

  tetra
• 

  Qcmbr

  I'm looking forward to reading it but for some funny reason I'm putting off buying it and hoping to borrow a friends copy. Tight wad.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hi madame,

  Einstein was definitely an atheist who spoke poetically and metaphorically of "God" in the way that most atheists - myself included - do. It seemed to me that Dawkins has belaboured that point and made it quite clear in The God Delusion.

  does dawkins really say that einstein was an atheist? i mean, i am an atheist myself, but i was always under the impression from the things that i read that einstein, when cornered on this topic that he did not think was important, said he was a pantheist.

  if dawkins really hijacked einstein for his cause, without some sources where einstein specifically labels himself an atheist, then i am disapointed in dawkins. it's one of the few dawkins books i had not planned on reading anyways.

  i mean, how shallow can we get here? of course einsten was an atheist to jesus and vishnu. that is obvious! but that is not all he was. i don't like that dawkins treats people like little children on occasion.

  peace,

  tetra
• 

  proplog2

  I read the Blind Watchmaker and Sagans Demon Haunted World. I liked Sagan's book better. I haven't read Hawkins latest book.

  One book I would reccomend is Daniel Dennets "Breaking the spell-Religion as a Natural Phenomena" . It approaches the subject from a psychological perspective.

  I don't believe in an omnicient and omnipotent entity that created the universe. However, I do believe in a "god-function". Chance and selection got us to this point. THAT process in THIS particular version of the universe (one universe out of multiverses) that produced conscious beings is an amazing event for "us,we,me,you". It is so unique it has to be called something more awe inspiring than "mere" chance. It is "mind-boggling" chance. It is the chance of all chances. But it is still chance no matter how superlative the terms.

  Here is the psychological basis for calling it the "god-function". As humans our brains probably evolved to keep track of the polictics and social interactions of a troop of about 120 wandering hunter gatherers. We have boot-strapped all that sorting and matching into science,math,art, and philosophy. But we still have this habit of personifying everything important to us. Our theories are our "brain children". We treat our cars, boats, even lawnmowers as persons. We discipline our TV sets and computers if they don't obey. Earth is Mother Earth. Time is father time. Our behavior is controlled by a little man inside at the controls that we call "soul".. The big man that is out there controlling celestial bodies - well that's god.

  These are vestigial habits that are every bit as curious as our appendix or our shortened tail-bone. We are no doubt in a transition and will eventually dump these archaic terms along with our mistaken beliefs. Science is telling us there is NO ONE at the controls. That's scary to most people. In the meantime I like the term "god-function". It retains some of the habits of personfication along with the knowledge that we are really embedded in a material universe.
• 

  lovelylil

  Tetra,

  I'm not trying to tell you that you should change your views in any way. We both have our own personal views on things and they are valid in our own eyes. I was merely saying that the ID theory was not brought forth primarily by religious groups but people in the science field came up with this theory. My understanding is that they felt there was an "intelligence" behind all things in the universe - which they based upon scientific research, but did not feel compelled to call it "God".

  Yes, the research in this area is still new but that does not mean it is invalid. And it really does not matter if these scientists are in the minority right now as this is true when all new theories are brought forth. BTW, I am a God believer but I personally do believe in evolution and think it is valid scientifically. As the evidence shows it to be such.

  Here is a link which lists many modern day scientists who believe either in ID or God. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

  Scroll down to the middle of the page and the fields of science will be listed. You will see that many are in the biology or anthropology fields. Peace, Lilly
• 

  Abaddon

  Theism; yeah. Enough said.

  Deism; the chocolate kettle of belief systems. It's there alright but will it do anything useful for you? Ooooo look at the pretty kittens! And God, isn't photosynthesis simply elegant?

  Pantheism; to those who remember Pan's People, the feeling you had the first time you saw them at age 10... Oh... My... God... To the rest, thou art god, I am god, the cat is god (especially my cat) that rock is god... well, some are like that to one extent or the other, others use 'god' to describe wonder(?).

  Atheism; I still believe in god enough to define myself by the absence of something I don't believe in, so add asantaist to the list too please...

  Bright has been suggested as an alternative label. Humanism is used by some but carries with it a not-necessarily-compulsory ethos for other atheists. Buddhism purports to be. I think Nergle is as good a word as any.

  Pan narrans. The story-telling ape. Of COURSE we think our individual stories makes sense. We stare at the night sky and see lions and bears, not sure about the tigers, but there you go.

  Whatever data points we have to assemble a world view, we end up assembling a world that on some level makes sense. If there HAD been buses when we thought the world was flat, they would STILL have been as reliable/unreliable as they are now. People somehow were born, married, had children and died under the misconception they were being orbited by the sun! You can believe what in hindsight is utter rubbish and still be absolutely convinced your story is true. Because that is how our heads work.

  The only way to be reasonably sure we are 'right' about something (whatever 'right' is) is to look at as much information about it as possible, and ensure we comprehend it. Even then, someone turns the page, the story can change.

  Quote I read in a Discworld book; "I don't like scientists on committees, they don't know where they stand on anything. Give them new data and they change their minds".

  I wish there was a magic smiley that would appear on the posts of people who don't get the joke...
• 

  lovelylil

  Abaddon,

  I collect quotes I love and tape them up by my computer. I am adding the one you provided today! I Love it. Lilly