Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[explod]

Just because people cannot correctly comprehend or interpret a subject or thing does not mean it does not exist.

Absolutely agree, but we don't know.

 

[cynic]

He does not present arguments, as a biologist he presents facts. However there is considerable material ( writings) to the examinations of these facts. You need to read the book and form your own view of his presentations.

I read it in 2010 however I'd formed my own (and a similar view to Dawkins) when I was at Uni in 1986 from the psychology of art history. Pictures tell many tales.

I am not declaring that there is no God, I just do not know. Many believe there is a God and that belief is strong and good for them. However this does not prove there is a God nor can a mountain of bibles do it either. In fact there are mountains of contradictions within the respective bible accounts which are covered in great detail by Dawkins. But open objective reading of Dawkins work and " The Golden Bough" by James Frazer is another very good text on findings of anthropologists

Therein lies a serious problem with Dawkins approach.
The existence of contradictions, in the writings of those believing in a thing, do not prove its non existence. If it were otherwise, I would, long ago, have ceased to exist!
Some time ago, I viewed an hour long discussion, between Dawkins and a creationist, in which Dawkins mounted such a poor argument against the case for creationism that he ended up in tears!

Evolution deserves a far more capable representative than Richard Dawkins. Likewise, atheism, also deserves far better representation.

 

[explod]

Therein lies a serious problem with Dawkins approach.
The existence of contradictions, in the writings of those believing in a thing, do not prove its non existence. If it were otherwise, I would, long ago, have ceased to exist!
Some time ago, I viewed an hour long discussion, between Dawkins and a creationist, in which Dawkins mounted such a poor argument against the case for creationism that he ended up in tears!

Evolution deserves a far more capable representative than Richard Dawkins. Likewise, atheism, also deserves far better representation.

I did not say that it did and nor does Dawkins. This is where you fall down, God may exist but we do not actually know that. People have the feeling within them and that he speaks within them but that does not prove actual existence.

 

[SirRumpole]

In fact there are mountains of contradictions within the respective bible accounts which are covered in great detail by Dawkins. But open objective reading of Dawkins work and " The Golden Bough" by James Frazer is another very good text on findings of anthropologists

In my view, if Dawkins is using Biblical contradictions to dismiss the idea of a God, then he's barking up the wrong tree. Various tribes sought to claim god for themselves over history, the Bible and Koran are human interpretations of what each tribe would like their god to be.

What god really is may be not remotely like what religious people believe him to be, so the Bible and Koran are irrelevant in forming an understanding of God.

Physics and mathematics may ultimately prove to be much better indicators of "the mind of God".

 

[cynic]

I did not say that it did and nor does Dawkins. This is where you fall down, God may exist but we do not actually know that. People have the feeling within them and that he speaks within them but that does not prove actual existence.

If that is true, then why has Dawkins embarked on a crusade against theism and theists alike?

And are you truly trying to suggest to me, that his efforts to highlight the existence of contradictions in scripture, aren’t motivated by his desire to shore up a body of evidence, in support of his case, against theism?

 

[explod]

If that is true, then why has Dawkins embarked on a crusade against theism and theists alike?

And are you truly trying to suggest to me, that his efforts to highlight the existence of contradictions in scripture, aren’t motivated by his desire to shore up a body of evidence, in support of his case, against theism?

He hasn't, its those opposed to his findings that say he is motivated in this way. Its obvious that few understand intellectual methods of writing or statements backed up by annotations. I can try to explain till black in the face but it will not work till there is acceptance of the actual meanings of the words in the context of our discussion in "believe" versus "know" THIS IS THE CRUX OF MY ARRIVING IN THIS DISCUSSION.

I was heading to Catholic priesthood as a youngster and gained a good idea of metaphysics back then. This has provided a good view of the wider picture I believe. It cannot be argued till both sides have read the book and its too complex for it to be read to you in understandable terms. For example a conclusion at the end of a chapter is made only after many pages of sifting over all of the facts from all sides and views. Yes he has a lot of critics and an insight into his research exposes the lopsided bias of those, particularly theologian's. Of course many of the ordinary public are fearful of possible truths so avoid a proper look and understanding of all the sides. And I do understand that many need to believe in God for personal welfare as its been ingrained from childhood as a mental support.

 

[bellenuit]

In my view, if Dawkins is using Biblical contradictions to dismiss the idea of a God, then he's barking up the wrong tree.

I don't believe I have ever heard him use Biblical contradictions as a means to dismiss the idea of a God. But he has used them to question the belief many hold that those who wrote the Bible were being guided by the hand of God; that the Bible is God's work. Since that God (the Abrahamic God) is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, one would expect the Bible to be contradiction and error free, which it definitely is not.

 

[cynic]

He hasn't, its those opposed to his findings that say he is motivated in this way. Its obvious that few understand intellectual methods of writing or statements backed up by annotations. I can try to explain till black in the face but it will not work till there is acceptance of the actual meanings of the words in the context of our discussion in "believe" versus "know" THIS IS THE CRUX OF MY ARRIVING IN THIS DISCUSSION.

I was heading to Catholic priesthood as a youngster and gained a good idea of metaphysics back then. This has provided a good view of the wider picture I believe. It cannot be argued till both sides have read the book and its too complex for it to be read to you in understandable terms. For example a conclusion at the end of a chapter is made only after many pages of sifting over all of the facts from all sides and views. Yes he has a lot of critics and an insight into his research exposes the lopsided bias of those, particularly theologian's. Of course many of the ordinary public are fearful of possible truths so avoid a proper look and understanding of all the sides. And I do understand that many need to believe in God for personal welfare as its been ingrained from childhood as a mental support.

Well it seems that Richard Dawkins himself, is in disagreement with you:
https://www.richarddawkins.net/aboutus/

Do I really need to read the entire contents of his antitheistic book, when I have already seen footage of him publicly expressing his opposition to theism?

 

[grah33]

Well it seems that Richard Dawkins himself, is in disagreement with you:
https://www.richarddawkins.net/aboutus/

Do I really need to read the entire contents of his antitheistic book, when I have already seen footage of him publicly expressing his opposition to theism?

Although those goals seem good to many people, he seems to be another commie at heart, wanting to force his atheistic beliefs and virtues on everyone. He would also remove freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

 

[grah33]

I did not say that it did and nor does Dawkins. This is where you fall down, God may exist but we do not actually know that. People have the feeling within them and that he speaks within them but that does not prove actual existence.

If there is a God, it's possible that He chooses to manifest only to some people, but not everyone. In that case, some people not only believe , but know truth as well.

 

[notting]

Physics and mathematics may ultimately prove to be much better indicators of "the mind of God".

Well that's novel. Looks like this God is one only you know of. Maybe you should use another word for it like, my mind, my idea. It would make it less confusing.

 

[Joules MM1]

from an effective thinker, allowing you to think.....further

"NS: You brought up the word God… what does that word mean to you these days?

Werner: First I have to tell you what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean all the things you know it doesn’t mean, like it’s not a white guy with white hair and white robes sitting on a white throne. Nor is it any thing but it’s not not any thing. By that I mean that you can’t say that God is not the chair. You can’t say God is there and the chair’s over here. But you can’t say that God is the chair, because that would imply that God’s here and not over there. So what I would say about God is first of all that anything I say about God has got to be inaccurate because you’ve asked me to say something about the infinite and all sayings, are finite. But I think it’s possible for me to talk, about it in a way that a person is left with an apprehension of God for him or herself, not from what I’ve said, but perhaps standing on what I’ve said. So, God is the context of contexts; that would mean that God is contextuality. You have a content. You have a process which devolves to the content. You have a context in which the process devolving to the content occurs. And then there are many contexts and the context for contexts is contextuality. Just as you’re an individual, and I’m an individual, but you wouldn’t be an individual and I wouldn’t be an individual without the context of individuality. There wouldn’t be any word individual without individuality; there wouldn’t be any such thing as an individual without the context of individuality.
When you show a primitive tribesman a photograph he sees black and white splotches because he has no context of picture. Once he gets the notion that he can be represented on a flat plane, he instantly sees his picture. You and I have had experiences like that, where you don’t know what you’re looking for and you can’t see it, and somebody tells you what you’re looking for and suddenly you see it. And now you can’t not see it. So, you and I would not notice that we were individuals if it were not for the context of individ¬uality. You would have no individual expressions if it were not for the context of individuality. Individuality is the context, you are the process, the content is you as an individual. Then there is a context of contexts. It’s like a set and elements. What is the set of all sets? God could be said to be the set of all sets. The problem with that is that it gets into an infinite regression for most people.

NS: Because then you need the set of the set of all sets.

Werner: Yes. Precisely. Except that the resolution to that is not an infinite regression…

NS: The context contains the infinite regression?

Werner: Yeah, that’s good, but it’s not complete if you say it that way. I can give you another way of looking at it. All of these things are approximations because we’re trying to say everything, so anything you say has to be an approximation. So this is just another approximation and that is that the second dimension is contained within the third dimension and if you’ve got three dimensions you’ve got to have four dimensions because the three dimensions have got to be contained in something. So that’s the fourth dimension Which means there has to be a fifth dimen¬sion, and so on, except that it isn’t necessary to have an infinite regression. What you can have is a shift from dimen¬sion to dimensionality, and that which can contain any number of dimensions is dimensionality, and it would not require an infinite regression.
So the way I would talk about God that I thought was useful—that is to say, something on which people could stand and see for themselves—was a conversation that would involve the things we’ve just talked about. I would talk about God as wholeness, or completeness. I would talk about God as everything/ nothing. I would talk about God as the context of all contexts. I would talk about God as contextuality itself. But that would certainly not exclude anything, but, also not be anything to the exclusion of anything else.
If what I just told you isn’t mind-boggling, it isn’t accurate, because anything you say about God that will fit into your mental system you can be sure is illusionary. That’s a nice word for bull****. And we all want something that will fit in our mind when in fact what is useful to us is something which will not fit in our mind. The description of God that won’t fit in our mind isn’t mindboggling just for the sake of being mindboggling–that would be gibberish or jargon—it’s mindboggling because it is that way in nature. The mind is not big enough to contain God, because the mind deals in symbols and God, when represented, is no longer God. It isn’t even accurately represented; any representation of everything is a thing and everything and a thing are two different orders of thing. Therefore, God doesn’t fit into our system of things because God is not a thing. In the Hebrew tradition they don’t let people use the word God, which is not a bad idea actually, because then you don’t bull**** yourself about it. I mean you’re stuck with your apprehension of it rather than your symbols of it.

NS: In the Hindu tradition there seems to be a personal devotional relationship to God. I understand that to simply be a vehicle for the mind to relate with that which is bigger than it…

Werner: Almost all religions have attempted to bring God into the scope of “the people.” I have a sense that that’s, a little demeaning to people. I have a sense that it is possible to relate to people in such a way that they will expand to be able to know God. I’ve got to be a little poetic here, but for me it is clear that the Self is the only vessel which can hold God. That’s a little too poetic for me, so maybe I want to say that the Self is that which has the ability to know God, because it is God. My personal preference, and that which I see as workable, is rather than to reduce the thing to something palatable, I’d rather ask people to increase their capacity, and I find that people are better served by that. But I think that comparisons are bull****, and I don’t want to get into a comparison about the way Hinduism approaches the notion of God. Hinduism is perfect for Hindus and all those people who are Hindus should practice Hinduism as long as they do. That is to say, while they’re Hindus they should practice Hinduism.

http://www.erhardseminarstraining.com/?page_id=935

 

[SirRumpole]

It would make it less confusing.

To you perhaps.

 

[explod]

Well it seems that Richard Dawkins himself, is in disagreement with you:
https://www.richarddawkins.net/aboutus/

Do I really need to read the entire contents of his antitheistic book, when I have already seen footage of him publicly expressing his opposition to theism?

So you will not consider the other side of the argument.

Of course Dawkins is a atheist as I am myself. Yet again you avoid the black and white opposites of "to know"(science) or "to believe"(religion)

However, having been there, indoctrinated in my youth, I sympathise. My prime interest is that religion inhibits free individual education and thinking.

 

[Macquack]

If there is a God, "a la" the Christian version, he has a duty of care to pop in a bit more regularly. After 2000 odd years, even the believers are losing interest. Hope I don't get struck down for saying that.

 

[grah33]

If there is a God, "a la" the Christian version, he has a duty of care to pop in a bit more regularly. After 2000 odd years, even the believers are losing interest. Hope I don't get struck down for saying that.

Maybe God is only interested in popping in peoples lives if He thinks He would get something back in return.

They are losing interest (in recent times) as you say, but history has shown me that things change quickly enough.

 

[grah33]

Another interesting angle:-

Very misguided actually. Jesus taught morals which can be applied to everything. The role of the Church is to work things out.

 

[notting]

To you perhaps.

No because it's a word that is claimed by traditional religions and you are using for your own invented mind/idea.
A bit like calling a mutating flea larvae an elephant.
It's not really the way language is supposed to be used. With language we agree on a label for conventionally accepted thing then apply it. It's how we communicate and identify objects that function as they do.
Perhaps you should start a new church called the the Church of Runpole where people come to worship your inconceivable and incomplete thought bubble with a great sense of faith.

 

[SirRumpole]

No because it's a word that is claimed by traditional religions and you are using for your own mind/idea. A bit like calling a mutated flea larvae an elephant. It's not really the way language is supposed to be used.
Then again it is all God ever was in reality.

If you would like to present a scientific view of how the universe was created without external influence and prove this was the only way it could have happened then I will believe there is no god.

Untill then...

 

[cynic]

So you will not consider the other side of the argument.

Of course Dawkins is a atheist as I am myself. Yet again you avoid the black and white opposites of "to know"(science) or "to believe"(religion)

However, having been there, indoctrinated in my youth, I sympathise. My prime interest is that religion inhibits free individual education and thinking.

You seem to be accusing me of your very own crimes here!

I would have hoped that by now, you would have realised, that the meaning of the word "religion", is derived from its latin root "ligare"! (The meaning of which is "to bind").

I do not object to anyone having the freedom to choose whichever religious philosophy, they consider to be most appropriate for their personal lives, whether that religion be: atheism, agnosticism, theism, science, a blend of several, or perhaps even, "none of the above".

What I do object to, is, religious zealots making the error, of deluding themselves into believing, that their chosen philosophy is the one true religion, and, therefore, the only religion that anyone is entitled to embrace.

It is this, aforementioned mentality, that precipitates harmful "crusades". The cited excuses of "God, the truth, science, or the facts, are on my side!" is naught more than a false justification, for the real reason, for declaration of a holy war!

Richard Dawkins is just one, of many classic examples I could give, of how easily a person can delude themselves into believing that their "crusade" is somehow justified.
Please note, that I do not blame atheism for Dawkins evident state of self delusion, for the very same reason that I do not blame theism for the Spanish Inquisition.
Atheism was simply, the style of music, Richard happened to be listening to, when he decided to allow, his, over inflated ego, to take him for a ride down fallacy lane.