|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 14, 2008 21:42:55 GMT -8
I just finished chapter 1 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Much of what he said I would agree with, except that, as he mentioned in his preface to this edition, he has a major tendency to quote and respond to the worst examples of religious thinking. He emphasized how an atheist can have feelings for nature that some might think border on the religious (which I am fully aware of from my own personal experience), but that aren’t, in fact, religious at all.
He spent considerable time explaining certain scientists’ “religious” comments (Einstein and Hawking first and foremost) as decidedly not indicative of anything approaching a belief in the supernatural. Though some over-enthusiastic Christians have used such comments as fuel for their half-baked arguments, I don’t see this as a major problem among more respected Christian apologists.
He then sampled the reader with examples of hate mail religious folk sent people like Einstein, which (of course) incensed me against that particular strain often found in religion (though I do not believe endemic to it) of blind and defensive narrow-minded hubris.
He closed chapter 1 with a discussion about undeserved favoritism toward religion in western society, but there was one quote from Carl Sagan imbedded in the chapter that I’d like to comment on:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. – Carl Sagan
I would say that science continually shows us that reality is “better than we thought”. Science is a wonderful tool that God has granted to us in order to increase our awe (and ultimately, to reflect back on Him, but that’s another topic). Just because there have been prophets who have spoken God’s words of revelation in the past, doesn’t mean that they ever exhausted in their brief lifetimes and recorded works all there is to know about the complexity and elegance of God’s creation… let alone God Himself. Indeed, the prophets often times said just that I do think that Christianity is the progenitor of science and therefore does claim the right to “draw forth the reserves of reverence” science holds.
Some may secretly want a little god. I sure hope I don’t in my heart of hearts.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 2:04:18 GMT -8
I just finished chapter 1 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Much of what he said I would agree with, except that, as he mentioned in his preface to this edition, he has a major tendency to quote and respond to the worst examples of religious thinking. Yes, this will run like a thread through the entire book. And you are right to criticize it. I think we all agree that people who write letters of hate in the name of the Lord must have gotten something wrong and can't be seen as the true representants of Christianity. However, they exist in considerable numbers. If you try to see the world through Dawkins' eyes you'll understand why he's always pointing them out: in his eyes there is no reasonable basis for religion. Yet not only do many many people believe in the most outlandish claims based on scripts of unknown authors* but it also makes some of them really hostile. This is what I tried to point out in another thread when I said that opinion can turn into real life consequences. It's so absurd, it's almost unbearable. Really painful. Josh, at several parts of the book you'll probably notice that what Dawkins says about Christians doesn't fit to you. This topic is so tremendously huge. It offers so many angles, you've got to start somewhere. Yes, he's convinced that religion is wrong and this implies that he believes you are wrong too. But before he can go into the hairsplitting we are practicing all the time over here, he has to rearrange the premises for a broad audience. One of his major points of the first chapter is: Religion has a social standing it doesn't deserve. Nowadays almost everybody agrees that religiousness has to be respected in some way. Religion is sacred and matter of factly treated lightly. As long as it is protected by the premise that personal belief is untouchable and significant, we won't be able to really put it to the acid test. *unknown authors means in this case that we barely know anything about their reliability as persons. He spent considerable time explaining certain scientists’ “religious” comments (Einstein and Hawking first and foremost) as decidedly not indicative of anything approaching a belief in the supernatural. Though some over-enthusiastic Christians have used such comments as fuel for their half-baked arguments, I don’t see this as a major problem among more respected Christian apologists. You were one of those over-enthusiastic Christians too. ;D I immediately had to think of you when I read about Einstein. Back then you made the point that if a scientist-authority like Einstein was a believer, it must be for some reason. Already back then I argued that Einstein's personal belief doesn't mean anything to the truth. tee hee. Well, we agree on this now. It's interesting how you changed your view though. The point Dawkins is making isn't unimportant though. Many people are looking for authorities sharing their beliefsystem. Who wants to blame them? I think somewhere deep inside everybody is aware of his own ignorance. To find knowledgeable people supporting your beliefsystem is always a relief. It's just important that we don't count people to our side that actually aren't standing at our side. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 3:59:51 GMT -8
Some may secretly want a little god. I sure hope I don’t in my heart of hearts. I think wanting a God that is dealing with our insignificant little ways 24/7 IS wanting a little God. The bold Christian assumption that we are the crown of the creation and that God, the creator of the entire universe (a universe which is so big that our crown-of-the-creation-brains can't even fathom it), is permanently dealing with our troubles is simply hilarious. It is reducing God to the size of this planet. It is reducing his dignity to our sense of morality. I've often thought that if there's a creator he must have greater things to do. There's more on that in the God Delusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 15, 2008 8:03:01 GMT -8
And, as I've argued with you and others elsewhere, if one assumes that God is omnipresent and omnipotent (that is, no barriers in the way of his intimate involvement with everything in creation), then it boggles my mind to think that you can't see how it's obvious, without barriers, that he would choose to be thoroughly involved in everything.
This is wanting a HUGE God. A little god would be one who can only deal with the mundane affairs of daily life on planet earth.
A HUGE God can be intimately involved in supernovae and in personally witnessing every tear we shed.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 8:37:50 GMT -8
And, as I've argued with you and others elsewhere, if one assumes that God is omnipresent and omnipotent (that is, no barriers in the way of his intimate involvement with everything in creation), then it boggles my mind to think that you can't see how it's obvious, without barriers, that he would choose to be thoroughly involved in everything. Maybe it's not obvious for me because I wouldn't do it if I were omni. I couldn't care less about the ever repeating vanities of humanity. Here's another Dawkins you'll come across soon: "Why should a divine being, with creation and eternity on his mind, care a fig for petty human malefactions? We humans give ourselves such airs, even aggrandizing our poky little 'sins' to the level of cosmic significance!"You gotta love him! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 15, 2008 8:46:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 15, 2008 9:15:12 GMT -8
Not so fast on Einstein. First off, here's what I actually wrote: How about Einstein? Now here you have, arguably, the most brilliant scientist of the last century. Thanks in large part to him, we have gained the big bang theory (one of the most verified theories in the history of science). And the Big Bang Theory is one of the most compelling evidences for the God of the Bible. -Josh to Mo, 2004 All I was claiming here was that through Einstein we got the big-bang theory, which provides compelling evidences for theism (and the Bible). and As a result of the implications of the Big Bang theory, Einstein himself acknowledged, "the necessity for a beginning" (of the universe) as well as "the presence of a superior reasoning power". Josh to Mo 2004 The only point I am making about Einstein is that the most brilliant scientist of the 20th century did not consider the existence of some God-force ludicrous; in fact, he could not find any alternate explanation. Neither you or I understand the complexities of the theory of relativity (the most complex area of science), so I think we should give him some credit on this one, considering that very theory led him to this conclusion. Josh to Mo 2004 The relevant quote from Einstein above in full text is: "That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." Albert Einstein I never claimed that Einstein accepted Christian or Jewish theism. I claimed that he came to being is a "god-force". Not exactly a presice term, I'll admit. But it's very hard to exactly define Einstein's view of God. Are you familiar with philosopher Anthony Flew ? He was an outspoken and prominent atheist until 2004, partially due to a debate with Chrsitian apologist Gary Habermas and his own ruminations on science, he announced that he become a deist. It turns out he has a lot to say in critique of his former-atheist colleague Richard Dawkins, especially on this issue of what Einstein actually believed. In Flew's book There IS a God, he has this to say: Einstein clearly believed in a transcendent source of the rationality of the world that he variously called "superior mind," "illimitable superior spirit," "superior reasoning force," and "mysterious force that moves the constellations." This is evident in several of his statements:
I have never found a better expression than "religious" for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. Ther is no remedy for that. [12]
Whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances in this domain [science] is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence ... the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence. [13]
Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order .... This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. [14]
Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. [15]
My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. [16]
He made quite clear how he felt about popular religion:
It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage n such a task. For such a belief seems to me referable to any lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether one can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.[17] And this, from Denise O'Leary's (ARN correspondant) review of There is A God : ...Flew wants to get straight what Albert Einstein really thought about religion. One senses his annoyance with (former) fellow atheist Richard Dawkins for treating Einstein as an atheist in The God Delusion.
He writes,
"Dawkins ignores Einstein's categorical statement [in Jammer's Einstein and Religion] that he was neither an atheist nor a pantheist. This is puzzling because Dawkins cites Jammer on occasion, but leaves out numerous statements by Jammer and Einstein that are fatal to his own case. (pp. 99-100)"
While Einstein is often associated with the philosopher Spinoza, for whom God and nature were synonymous, Flew points out that Einstein knew little of Spinoza's work and admitted as much (p. 98). True, he did not believe in a personal God and displayed little interest in organized religion, but he did think that the pursuit of science leads to the recognition of a "superior mind", and "illimitable superior spirit", or "superior reasoning force" (p. 101). And that is certainly enough to remove Einstein from the catalogue of celebrated materialist atheists.So, in conclusion, though I wouldn't use the term God-force to describe Einstein's view, I definitely wouldn't use atheist. That Einstein's theories propelled him to accept something beyond mere naturalism is enough to make my point. Sources for quotations from Einstein: [12] Albert Einstein, Lettres a Maurice Solovine reproduits en facsimile et traduits en francais (Paris: Gauthier-Vilars, 1956), 102-3. [13] Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, trans. Sonja Bargmann (New York, Dell, 1973), 49. [14] Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 255. [15] Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 44.* [16] Albert Einstein, The Quotable Einstein, ed. Alice Calaprice (Princeton, +NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 195-6. [17] Jammer, Einstein and Religion, 51. (Citation [10] in the book.) |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 9:55:45 GMT -8
And this, from Denise O'Leary's (ARN correspondant ...Flew wants to get straight what Albert Einstein really thought about religion. One senses his annoyance with (former) fellow atheist Richard Dawkins for treating Einstein as an atheist in The God Delusion.So, in conclusion, though I wouldn't use the term God-force to describe Einstein's view, I definitely wouldn't use atheist. Did Dawkins really say Einstein was an Atheist in the God Delusion? I can't remember that, maybe you who read it just yesterday can give me the page again. I only remember Dawkins clearifying that Einstein was a Deist and not a Theist or even a Christian. That he had his own concept of religion. Josh, you said this: Thanks in large part to him [Einstein], we have gained the big bang theory (one of the most verified theories in the history of science). And the Big Bang Theory is one of the most compelling evidences for the God of the Bible. [/i] -Josh to Mo, 2004 [/quote] Compelling is it? Whether you intended to do it or not, with this progression of claims you are making a connection between Einstein and the Bible God. An invalid connection as Flew's and Dawkin's Einstein-quotes unanimously emphasize. In what way the Big Bang ever made the case for the Bible-God is something you would have to prove (maybe we already discussed it by e-mail. If so, it can't have been persuasive enough to justify the use of the word "compelling". Cause I can't even remember it.) All I was claiming here was that through Einstein we got the big-bang theory, which provides compelling evidences for theism (and the Bible). Why are you suddenly putting the Bible into brackets. Wasn't the Big Bang Theory providing compelling evidence for the Bible God? The only point I am making about Einstein is that the most brilliant scientist of the 20th century did not consider the existence of some God-force ludicrous; in fact, he could not find any alternate explanation. What Einstein actually meant by God-force is the decisive point. From what I read, certainly not a personal God. The idea of a higher force of whatever kind isn't ludicrous to me either. It becomes ludicrous when you derive from the Big Bang Theory that the Bible God must be the creator of the universe. There are quite a lot of imaginable alternatives, beginning with Einstein's "God-force" and ending with the flying Spaghetti Monster, don't you think? It turns out he [Flew] has a lot to say in critique of his former-atheist colleague Richard Dawkins the critique is mutual. That Einstein's theories propelled him to accept something beyond mere naturalism is enough to make my point. What point exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 24, 2008 11:33:24 GMT -8
A quote I ran into from a Peter S. Williams (MA, MPhil):
The God Delusion is the work of a passionate and rhetorically savvy writer capable of making good points against religious fundamentalism. As Stephen Law (editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy’s journal Think) observes: ‘what Dawkins attacks is typically a highly Authoritarian brand of religion.’ Christians should wholeheartedly agree with Dawkins about the hazards of illiberally encouraging an unbiblical blind faith:
Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them – given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by – to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for the future jihads or crusades… If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers."
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 25, 2008 16:24:36 GMT -8
A quote I ran into from a Peter S. Williams (MA, MPhil): The God Delusion is the work of a passionate and rhetorically savvy writer capable of making good points against religious fundamentalism. As Stephen Law (editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy’s journal Think) observes: ‘what Dawkins attacks is typically a highly Authoritarian brand of religion.’ Christians should wholeheartedly agree with Dawkins about the hazards of illiberally encouraging an unbiblical blind faith:Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them – given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by – to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for the future jihads or crusades… If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers."Dawkins is against all kinds of religion. Yes, Christians should agree with his animosity towards religious fanatics, but he doesn't stop there. |
|
