(PS. Apologies to Tante Schevester for the repeated use of the word God)
I've just been away on holiday to a fabulous little cottage in Wales with no electrictiy, no heating, no running water and most importantly no phone reception. A true opportunity to escape from civilisation and also my boss and his pesky mobile phone.
At the cottage I curled up in front of the wood fire, with some garden picked apples and a muchroom omlet with mushrooms and eggs from the garden. (Sufficient work was put in to ensuring I wasn't inadvertently picking death caps). Curled up, relaxed after a day of walking in the misty hills I picked up The God Delusion - the New Richard Dawkins book and I have to say it is FABULOUS.
Now, I know we have a large number of Theists on this site and also a few Atheists, I am in no means wanting to cause offence in any way. Just wanting to open doors. I am most of all a seeker of well articulated idea so see how they fit with my current perspective and even if I don't agree, I generally find that all discussions add something.
Anyway, I started this book as a theist. My heart believes in God. It just does. But the god in which I believe has no special powers and is really no more and no less that the wonderful fundamentals of the universe in which we exist. Dawkins defines this belief in this 'god existence' as Pantheist, which he believes is actually Atheism (If god has no powers, is it really God?). Chapter One and already I'm being challenged. Good stuff.
Dawkins's definition of a / any GOD is "A super Human, super natural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."
His alternative end point is that 'Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.'
I'm only half way through, but thoroughly enjoying the book. It presents both sides. The bias is there but not so much that it is uncomfortable. I highly recommend the book. If you are religious, you need to know how you discount his observations, if you are not this is an excellent book on Atheism. If you are undecided, this is the most articulate book I have read.
Anyway, to the purpose of this post. Mostly I just wanted to share. But also I wanted to know if any other jatraqueros had read The God Delusion or for the theist among us how to you respond to Dawkins's alternative hypothesis. To repeat 'Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.'
I look forward to reading the discussion. Please be kind to each other. I know these threads can get venomous, I do not want this one too. No name calling please but just genuine questions if you are interested to read the response ... not if you just want it to attack.
I'm of to bed, London time, and so I hope by morning there are interesting responces for me to read!
Good night and 'god' bless! Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"If you are religious, you need to know how you discount his observations"
Not really. I already know what I believe and why I believe them. That is enough for me.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
oh man. I really love Dawkins, and I think he did okay on the show. But you can tell he really didn't know exactly what was going on with Colbert. Colbert was great by the way, playing both sides of it. It's a shame, I've read a lot of Dawkins and I think he's actually a really funny dude. Just probably didn't realize what he was getting into.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
No, I think he was just content to play straight man for Colbert.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
maybe. I don't think he came off looking bad or anything. Just seemed out of his element.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
One man's faith is another man's delusion.
Always has been, always will be. Truth is reliant on premesis, and tends towards the subjective.
Dawkins' truth is skeptical, empirical, and reductionist in an odd way: 'If you cannot prove it,' he says 'you should not believe in it.'
I don't know what to make of that last bit.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:'Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.'
There's no reason that this statement MUST be true.
God could have come into existence in the blink of an eye, sprung from the broken cranium of Chaos, the spaghetti monster.
I mean, we're talking religion and faith here-- not science.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, and even if we're talking about science, we've got precisely one creative intelligence to go on in making a statement like that. Not exactly enough to make a definitive statement. For all we know there are alien intelligences out there that precipitate in an instant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just add water!
(That'd be so cool. Unless it were like a planetary version of Sea Monkeys. I wonder if there's a big invisible kid hovering over Earth with a plastic magnifying glass and a disappointed look on his face: "I spent $4.95 and waited five billion years for this?")
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:If you cannot prove it,' he says 'you should not believe in it
I don't know if Dawkins specifically says that somewhere, but I can tell you that that quote is NOT the crux of his argument. To him it's not even a matter of proving it, it's a matter of having any reason to believe in it in the first place.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That'd be so cool. Unless it were like a planetary version of Sea Monkeys. I wonder if there's a big invisible kid hovering over Earth with a plastic magnifying glass and a disappointed look on his face: "I spent $4.95 and waited five billion years for this?"
On the other hand, George R. R. Martin's Sandkings is a very disturbing take on something similar. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I wonder if there's a big invisible kid hovering over Earth with a plastic magnifying glass and a disappointed look on his face:
As long as the face stays disappointed, I'm happy. I don't want the gleeful face as he burns us to cinders like ants.
Not that I ever did that as a kid, of course.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That was great. My dad loves Colbert, and I've never really been that impressed. But that was really good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That'd be so cool. Unless it were like a planetary version of Sea Monkeys. I wonder if there's a big invisible kid hovering over Earth with a plastic magnifying glass and a disappointed look on his face: "I spent $4.95 and waited five billion years for this?"
On the other hand, George R. R. Martin's Sandkings is a very disturbing take on something similar.
Sandkings is worth the short time it takes to read. I really enjoyed it, short stories are really underappreciated IMO.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by firebird: (PS. Apologies to Tante Schevester for the repeated use of the word God)
None needed, no offense was taken.
Carry on!
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:'Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.'
There's no reason that this statement MUST be true.
God could have come into existence in the blink of an eye, sprung from the broken cranium of Chaos, the spaghetti monster.
I mean, we're talking religion and faith here-- not science.
I get stuck at on his same sentence. I also go "Really? Must that be true?" And then I think, but science is the study of reality and isn't existence a question about reality? If God has powers / influence in reality then mustn't he be subject to the laws of reality / physics / biology as they are in our universe?
I quite like the idea of God being a highly evolved alien race whose evolutionary scale is dramatically accelerated!! Only doesn't that require Darwinian evolution to work? And then God becomes unecessary in our evolution ...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)