Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion

by Abandoned 104 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abandoned

  tetra,

  Thanks for such a well thought out and tempered response. I think I would enjoy conversations with you. I looked up the term I used, Einsteinian deism, and without a search mechanism, all I can find is Einsteinian Religion so it's possible that I added the deism part on my own. The latter shows up a handful of times in chapter one. My apologies to Dawkins if I was in error.

  The quick jump to atheism mirrored with his tendency to consider evolution and specifically, natural selection as a done deal, was what bothered me. I'm up for any kind of reading, but after coming out of the jw, I have a pretty strong bs meter and that set it off.

  It's interesting to think that we're all gods. We all have power and can use it to affect others so from that standpoint, at least, I'd have to agree. I'd have to think more of what you said to furnish an opinion though, as it's too knew a concept for me.

  For now, I'm convinced that religion has caused more problems than it has solved. I think it's quite telling that the one time in history where religion had almost complete control over its subjects lives, we now refer to as the dark ages.

  Thanks again for your comments. I look forward to other posts by you.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  and you know, i can think of reasons to believe in all religions. even jehovah's witnesses, and still be an atheist. you wanna know how? ("no tetra, tell us please") well, when i dissosociated myself, i said "i am no longer one of jehovah's witnesses". but there are two things wrong with that statement. one, jehovah doesn't exist. i am an atheist to jehovah-concept. so i didn't truly disavow myself of anything. and second, i am still the same person. and that person was once a jehovah's witnoid. i still have memories of it, therefore it is still part of me, and me part of it.

  see? atheism is becoming an overtly obvious title to use. of course i am an atheist! we all are! i don't know many people who believe in Zeus!

  "how many god's do you reject frank?" oh, gee, well about 3228 jim." "HA! philistine! i reject over 4000!" "wow jim, i didn't know there were so many."

  so, if you believe that you are a part of the cosmos, and all religions that humans have been part of are part of that cosmos, even if just in the minds of people, then you and all those religions are part of the same organizational structure: the cosmos. so, you believe in the cosmos, you "believe" in all religions, even if they only have subjective relation to the "manifestly real".

  i also have other definitions of god that would make me a gnostic, a buddhist, and a sub genii. and that's because god is just a word. like "being", or "knowing" or "remembering".

  is dawkins right? is god a delusion?

  joe hoba the smiting omnimax god? delusional, you bet.

  it's sad that more people are not aware of it to even that simple place. there's so many more places to go once you understand that!

  tetra

  edited to add: thanks man. i bet i would enjoy talking with you too. and i agree with your comments about religion causing more harm that otherwise. totally! i don't mean to sound like i am pro religion because i can believe in them all. or even just the best of them all. i mean ultimately i want us to evolve away from this concept. either that, or totally revolutionize our definition of god from objectively literal, to subjectively luminous. either way, i don't see much of a place in our future for religion.

  and i agree with you about karma too. and i think karma can actually exist with out willing into existence a designer. a conscious one. i am perfectly comfortable with karma working as a cosmological meta-process. anyways, that's for another time. peace bro! .t.
• 

  JamesThomas

  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.

  Yes, we are in agreement here. The knowing that I am referring to is not the knowing that makes you "wary", but rather the first hand realization which is too close, to real, too intimate, too immediate and alive to ever express or comprehend mentally or intellectually. It is a knowing, a conscious seeing and awakening which reveals the actual purity, peace and wholeness of your own being.

  Look at it this way, there is a glorious intelligence which brought the entire universe into being without our intellectualizing or believing. It is THIS that is being referred to and pointed to as the core of your own being and existence (the foundational Core of all, actually).

  Perhaps a better way to say it is: stop believing, stop knowing, and instead LIVE the reality of your own true Self.....which is here to see if you look beyond all that you believe and think you know yourself to be.

  I understand that this all sounds kinda crazy. But when you see yourself, you'll know.

  j
• 

  Fleshybirdfodder

  Thank you for sharing your personal insights on Dawkin's work. One must understand that collective reality is simply a bunch of comparisons. For instance, we cannot call someone tall without a comparison to someone who is shorter. Is there a real logic which dictates this person tall? Will a tape measure do? Perhaps... if we all shake hands and agree that these are the standards by which we measure "height". 1+1 always equals 2 to the objectivist, because within the confines of what is presently comparable that will always be the outcome. Does that equal truth? I can't answer that. What I do know is that God has not been empirically proven. Doesn't mean he never will. Just not yet.

  FBF
• 

  Leolaia

  tetra....On pantheism, I am reminded of the saying in the Gospel of Thomas: "I am all, from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood, I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there" (77). Of course, this is not a pantheistic text per se (it rather describes how transcendent divinity is found throughout the world of matter), but it poetically expresses a sentiment that God is not an anthropomorphic being distinct from the "created" universe but is the life/light/glory/etc. embodied in the universe itself....
• 

  some-xjw-guy

  Leolaia, is that what is called emanationism?
• 

  Little Drummer Boy

  The quick jump to atheism mirrored with his tendency to consider evolution and specifically, natural selection as a done deal, was what bothered me. I'm up for any kind of reading, but after coming out of the jw, I have a pretty strong bs meter and that set it off.

  I think you may have missed a small link in there that would temper your feelings towards what Dawkins is saying. When he speaks of probabilities, you are infering that he is speaking in absolutes. He doesn't claim to be absolute even in his own atheism. If you will remember back, he mentions that he is one step removed from being comletely atheist on his seven point scale, but is leaning towards that last step. In otherwords, he finds the probability of a god existing to be insignificant - but, there still is the possibiliy. It is just a very small one that pales into insignificance. He does the same with evolution in this book. He treats it as the most likely probability, not a done deal as you mentioned (I feel you are not reading this part of the book without bias). Now, it helps one a great deal to have read his previous work, "The Blind Watchmaker". It is very convincing, and that is one of the vehicles that Dawkins has chosen to explore his views on evolution. He does not need to explain an entire book's worth of information inside another book, just to clarify his point when he brings up evolution in "The God Delusion". Nobody does that sort of thing. I would suggest that if you need clarification on why he is so confident in evolution as being the most probable explanation for why life is here, pick up his previous work.

  On another front, when you started the I'm an Atheist thread, (I think that's what it was called), I could tell that there were some understandings that you were taking away from the book that weren't what Dawkins intended when you were discussing (and praising) the book. I didn't comment on it at the time, because it seemed vague to me and I couldn't quite put my finger on what I felt you had misunderstood. So I stayed silent. I hope this helps you a little.

  I am going to put out another thought - just between friends as it were. I mean this with all respect and friendship. You can throw away everything I'm about to say if you like, but I think you should hear it. I have taken part in threads where you were very upset (too upset given the circumstances) and I tried to console you, and others where you were very happy (actually excited such as The Atheism Thread and too excited given the circumstances). This thread has its own "feel", and it is one I recognize, just like I recognized the special tone of the other threads. I recognize these tones in these threads because of my own mental state. You have been through a great deal in your life. I think this may be triggering a bi-polar state in you which you are expressing in your threads. Very sad/depressed, swinging to very happy/excited, with a dose of grumpiness thrown in on top (like this thread, though I'm not sure grumpy is the right word at the moment- maybe combative).

  I say these things because I am bi-polar and I see myself in you. I really, really hope that doesn't offend you becaue I want the best for you.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  leo, yes, the gospel of thomas has cured many fears in me. and i see a very liberal/modern gnosticism in essentially the same light that i see pantheism. perhaps not the 2nd century gnosticism, with literalized archons and aeons and demiurges. but metaphorized understandings of what they naturally represent. although, that said, i am still unsure to what extent those early "gnostics" literalized those things. perhaps i am off base in assuming that because they came from an earlier time, that they saw it all literally.

  james, while i'm here, i want to say that i like what you write in these topics. and i see what you are saying about "knowing" as an immediate intuition that is too immediate to intellectualize.

  i see it like this: our consciousness is like a bubble around our head. as we expand our minds it grows in ever increasing abstraction and intellectualization, taking in things and arranging them in ever more complex ways. some psychologists actually think that consciousness is symbolism, and that the strongest of our sysmbol systems is language. but here we are limited in describing anything else, including the natural evolution of our symbol based, dualistic consciousness to a consciousness of being in the totality of the eternal moment. a place where intellectual understanding is stripped. or the bubble of one type of consciousness overflows into the next. from duality to being and oneness. and this is truly a speechless place. one cannot "learn" it per se. one must know it. and it happens in an instant. the only instant.

  forgive me if i misrepresent you with that.

  i think it's really cool that you stick to your guns so well. and it's well and good considering that this is where man is evolving, imho.

  tetra
• 

  lovelylil

  I also believe that God is embodied in all things in the universe including humans. Think about this: the Bible says that when God created man, he breathed the breath of life into him. Where did the breath of life originate? With God. I believe God gave us humans some of himself (his breath). So God is IN all of us. He is also in everything else like Leolaia said.

  Paul said in Acts that God is not far off from any of us, but from the beginning of creation gave us proof of his existance. (paraphrasing)

  Why doesn't God get involved right now with man? Many people wonder this and when they don't recieve a satisfying answer, they give up on the idea of a God. But I don't feel you have to give up the idea totally. My personal view is this; Tetra touched on it a little when he said "man are like gods", he is correct. God made man Lord of all the earth and put everything on earth in subjection to him. What happens on this earth is man's primary responsibility right now.

  Unfortunatly man has not done a good job of his responsiblities but we can hardly blame God or say he is totally absent from us. He is not because he created all, is in all, and works through all.

  One more thought - many "religious" people try to box God into thier own little ideal of what or "who" he is. This is very arrogant because absolutely no one knows for sure "what" God really is. The Bible writers used human terminology to try to explain a very hard concept. but I don't think our minds can fully grasp the concept of God. Instead of hanging on every letter that the Bible writers wrote as if it came from God's mouth himself, we should take the record for what it is, a book written by men who were inspired by God, but wrote from their own perspectives, all the while trying to fully understand the concept of God themselves. Peace, Lilly

  P.S. I don't buy into the my God is going to smite all who believe other than my religion concept. And I cannot understand how any belivers can teach that God will soon destroy most of mankind and then teach "God is love" from the other side of thier mouths. Better yet, my favorite is God will burn people forever in a fiery hell teaching (including children). These are two opposing concepts in my opinion. (smiting vindictive God verses All Loving God) As for me, I'll take my chances with my all loving God.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  It really is a great book - mind expanding is the term I like to use