Hitchens and Dawkins are completely right. Except that they are completely wrong…
Penning the recent review of the year argument I was prompted to reflect on the death of the late Christopher Hitchens.
Polemicist, wit, writer, commentator and orator, he was a free and independent thinker when conforming to the (usually politically correct) script and staying “on message” is the norm. He also appears to have been a bit of a bon viveur in an age in which the threat of the Health Nazis looms – although this may have contributed to his untimely demise.
One of Hitchens’ best known works is of course his tract against religion “God Is Not Great – How Religion Poisons Everything”.
In this he attacks religion as a powerful regressive influence based on superstition and prejudice, promoting ignorance, tribalism and repression.
In his disdain for religion Hitchens is outdone only by Professor Richard Dawkins, whose position can be summarised in this quick crib from Wikipedia:
“Dawkins is an atheist, a Vice President of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—a fixed false belief. As of January 2010 the English-language version has sold more than two million copies and had been translated into 31 languages.”
The thing that I always find ironic about Professor Dawkins when I hear him speak is his almost Messianic zeal about atheism. And whenever I consider the works of Dawkins and Hitchens on this topic I cannot help but be reminded with great affection of Douglas Adam’s “Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy”.
You may remember that apart from the fact that he had God disappearing in a puff of his own logic, he was also had Him being given a bit of a kicking by the celebrated “philosopher” Oolon Collophid who wrote the popular “quadrilogy” “Where God Went Wrong”, “More Of God’s Greatest Mistakes”, “Just Who Is This God Person Anyway”, and last but not least “Well, That Just Wraps It Up For God”.
Which is not to say that I dismiss the works and position of Dawkins and Hitchens. Notwithstanding my monkish persona I think they pretty much hit a real nail on the head. One only has to flick through a history book to find page after page of war, murder, repression and torture, all in the name of whether “God” wants his “wizards” to wear a blue gown or a red gown, a pointy hat or a round hat or no hat at all, or eat pork or not eat pork. One only has to flick on the television to see that the greatest threat to the future of humanity comes not from global warming, but from fanaticism based on creed which has the inevitable effect depriving “the believer” of any sense of compassion for their fellow man. After all, what can be wrong about promoting the Will of God as it has been revealed? The ends must justify the means. The Unbeliever must be slain.
And yet I believe in God. What do I mean? This is tricky. It is very hard to define. Now when I was going through my logical positive phase I seem to remember the general proposition being that if you could not define something or test for its existence it could not be said to exist.
To which the romantic might with some justification say: define “love” and prove it. And no doubt Dawkins would reply that it is an aspect of evolutionary behaviour hardwired into us to promote the species as a whole.
Perhaps…
I do not believe in a God who is a man with a beard, or even a woman with harp. Indeed I am not sure I believe in a God who takes any particular interest in what we call good or bad at all. I read in the papers this morning that Tony Blair is to be paid some £8,000,000 to advise the brutish ruler of some far flung Asian “Stan” on social policy. In a world in which so many struggle there can be no greater illustration of the moral ambiguity, or indeed neutrality, of “God”.
What then do I mean? Consider it this way. On a practical level we life in a world of Newtonian physics and cause and effect. If you want to move a big rock, you can pray that it moves, in which case nothing will much happen. Or you can construct a lever and in a display of mathematics put into physical reality, shift it with some hard work. Cause and effect, action and reaction.
And yet as science develops and probes into the quantum level, quite different theories as to the workings of the Universe begin to appear.
I have a limited understanding of quantum physics, but my understanding is the two systems – Newtonian and quantum – are somewhat incompatible, and neither properly or fully explains the physic of the Universe. Indeed, an important aspect of quantum physics is that perception changes the condition of the perceived. One of the founders of this branch of science was Nobel Prize winning scientist Max Planck.
Planck himself ultimately reached as somewhat radical position as a result of his study:
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
In short, the Universe is not a mere mathematical accident. And it is not made up of matter at all. It is made up of thought expressed as what we perceive as matter.
I prefer to think of God as the endlessly growing, expanding product of some quite unfathomable Infinite Intelligence, endlessly growing, experimenting, and learning as we all do. Expressing itself through evolution, for example. Not really bothered about what robes those who worship “God” are, or whether we eat pork or not. Not really bothered if it is the hunter or the hunted. An endless experiment of imagination expressed through all of what we perceive.
Indeed, I have the suspicion that the Universe is teeming with life of all forms weird and wonderful, it is just the vastness of space that make it seem that we are alone. But that is another matter…
The great F. Scott Fitzgerald once observed something to the effect that the mark of a first class mind is to be able to hold two inconsistent thoughts at once and see the truth of both. I suggest that the same may be said of belief in God. Dawkins and Hitchens are quite right. And yet the Universe is an infinite expression of a thinking thing. A dream machine. Possibly even a dream machine which reacts to what thought is brought to it, right or wrong. Which has implications…
I have heard it said that the concept of God is useless because mankind is a finite being and the contemplation of what is by definition infinite is impossible. To take an example it is like asking a fish that lives at the bottom of the Ocean to contemplate a sunrise.
This fish will continue to dream…
Gildas the Monk
January 5, 2012 at 14:44
-
- January 5, 2012 at 14:51
-
The most holy church of divine whisky – open for business. Entry – oops,
sorry bout that – voluntary donations of the following malts gratefully
rec’d:
Lagavulin
Highland
Park
Talisker
Balvenie
McCallan
However, as a church , we are of
course, infinitely tolerant of all and so are happy to accept whatever is
going.
Slainte
- January 5, 2012 at 18:10
-
Or there is always the First Presleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine
- January 4, 2012 at 21:18
-
I too am an agnostic and agree with David Duff. As our knowledge of Quantum
Mechanics slowly increase, apparently the number of necessary coincidences (as
in not just the right size of a particular physical constant but the exact
size of multiple and reliant constants) is so large that the physicists have
been forced to go with the ‘many worlds hypothesis’ as the only way to explain
them (the idea that in an infinite number of universes at least one would have
the constants in the correct proportions to allow our current universe). The
alternative is apparently unthinkable – intelligent design.
For myself I have an open mind (although to mistreat the quote, when the
bullets start flying I’ll be down on my knees praying – just in case). I
remember reading as a child a story (I think by Arthur C Clarke) in which an
omnipotent being set up the conditions for the big bang (gathered up all those
quarks and leptons in a pile then gave them just the right nudge) then ‘walked
away’ – along the lines of a pool game – set up the balls, hit one and then
watch as all the balls rebound around the table gradually potting in order
(resulting in our current universe all from the initial hit). It has a certain
intellectual appeal
As M Barnes said, it is unfair to blame religion for the wars et al through
the ages. Religion was an excuse, just as AGW (obesity, anti-smoking, etc) are
excuses today for those in power, or wanting power to do what they would have
done anyway. I can’t say I’m a fan of religions (especially with the current
crop of ‘leaders’), however they do offer a ‘moral framework’ for a society –
witness the decline of moral behaviour in modern Britain coincidental with the
decline of Christianity in this country.
The thing I find most amusing is the fact that the atheists, Professor
Dawkins in particular, present their atheism with an almost religious fervour.
He has replaced the ‘old fashioned’ religions with one of his own. Looking at
others who disdain orthodox religions, such as communists, etc. , their new
beliefs become pseudo-religions, even to the point of using similar language
(brotherhood, keeping the faith, etc.). I’d say that this indicates at least a
fundamental need for a belief in something greater in the human psyche, do you
think?
So for me the jury is still out. Beliefs are strange things, for example
I’m not even vaguely superstitious and yet I assiduously avoid ‘walking under
any black cats I see’
-
January 4, 2012 at 19:03
-
Have you heard the one about the dyslexic-agnostic-insomniac who lies awake
all night wondering if there really is a Dog?
-
January 5, 2012 at 11:57
-
Thank you Gloria…..most helpful!
-
January 4, 2012 at 13:15
-
Great debate!
- January 4, 2012 at 12:17
-
An interesting topic. I did like reading Christopher Hitchins – he could be
an annoying so and so but he was never dull.
My faith arc is pretty
predictable- catholic, agnostic…. thought about it for a while…. athiest. So I
declare my nicely ground axe up front.
There seems little point arguing
about God – if you believe, then I will not change your mind. If you are
agnostic, you will not (by definition) declare a position. If you are an
honest/cowardly agnostic, then you will go with Pascal’s gambit and cover your
bets. I’d enjoy a discussion with Dawkins about Pascals theories on the limits
of reason!
I’m don’t agree with the assertion that religion causes wars – I
think religion was the rationalisation for wars, genocide, murder, torture and
suppression. If religion didn’t exist then mankind would simply have found
another excuse for a fight so they could grab a bit of land, a waterway, some
loot, whatever. It’s interesting that humans spend so much time thinking about
and creating Gods. Their ubiquitousness suggests they perform a function –
maybe help us make sense of the big bad world, help us organise ourselves in
large groups so we don’t kill one another and of course there is the function
of giving us the impetus to attack enemies and suppress others without feeling
bad about it. Now that science is a growing ‘religion’ it’ll be interesting to
see if Jesus goes the same way as Zeus!
- January 5, 2012 at 19:18
-
I agree with you to a point that religion doesn’t, or at least, isn’t the
only cause of wars. That’s patently true. However, I do think it makes it
easier for people to go to war. Partly as you say because it can be used to
make people feel better about oppressing and killing others. But also
because if you think that death is not the end, but rather that you move on
to some sort of better ‘after life’ – especially if you’ve died for the
cause – then you are likely to be less reluctant to ‘go over the top’
yourself.
-
January 5, 2012 at 20:17
-
Yup – I take your point on the idea of an afterlife impacting how
people behave. To develop it , I think it also impacts how a person may
view trangressions of others. If someone is hell-bound then they can be
de-humanised? And so any treatment of them is ok – I am thinking of the
treatment meted out to single mothers in Ireland by various holy orders.
What do you think?
-
January 6, 2012 at 22:22
-
I agree. Of course, if you go back further, heretics were tortured to
save their “souls”. Or perhaps closer to no longer viewing someone as
human, regardless of what the Quran actually says – and I’ve seen
various arguments on that score – there are clearly Muslims who see
unbelievers as beings to be converted, subjugated or, if the first two
fail, killed. I can’t read Arabic, but I have seen the Quran quoted as
saying “To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not
believe and remain unbelievers”, which I think pretty much sums up
dehumanising.
- January 4, 2012 at 05:09
-
This discord in the pact of things,
This endless war twixt truth and
truth,
That singly hold, yet give the lie,
To him who seeks to yoke them
both —
Do the gods know the reason why?
– The Hymn of Boethius
- January 4, 2012 at 02:19
-
2mac, I admire your conviction, to hold it you must have read a great deal
of scientific, philosophical and theological literature; or not. I do believe
the latter is probably the actuality, which would suggest your opinion whilst
coherent is hardly factual or even relevant.
-
January 4, 2012 at 08:11
- January 5, 2012 at 11:47
-
Thank you for you opinion. I have spent over 20 years reading all three
subjects. Theology I find fascinating and I am knowledgeable in many
religious systems from Egyptian to Calvinism.
They all share good ideas but ultimately they could be summarized as “a
man wrote/said/claimed that the true God/Gods require you to do x, y & z
to enter Paradise/afterlife. In the meantime give the Holy orders your
money.
- January 3, 2012 at 23:50
-
All religion is false. Every concept of a father God requiring certain
behaviors and providing rewards eternal is false.
Are there unknown things about the Universe, forces & science of
course. Should we call them God. No! That word already has a meaning. Changing
the meaning of a word to a new meaning then arguing for the existence of “God”
as defined by new terms is just an attempt to retain a believe in the
supernatural when you know better.
The concept & term God belongs to religion.
However since hypothetical discussions about the existence or non existence
of unknown unknowns that are unknown should not be the basis of law, society
nor conflict between civilized people therefore my Monk friend call it what
you want. It does not matter and never should.
- January 4, 2012 at 18:18
-
How do you define “should”, in purely scientific, athiestic terms?
- January 3, 2012 at 23:25
-
Dawkins claims to know that there is no God. Now those with a son who has
read “The Hitchhikers Guide” will know that (a) the puff of logic was that the
Babel Fish demonstrated God’s existence beyond doubt so His claim that he
depended upon faith was invalidated and (b) the concept that an omniscient
all-powerful being can order things so that you cannot know whether or not He
is ordering them or they happen by chance. So for Dawkins to claim that he
knows there is no God implies that he (Dawkins) is omniscient and therefore
(by a series of logical steps) in all-powerful as he knows which butterfly to
net (see Chaos theory) and effectively is God. In which God does exist in the
person of Richard Dawkins.
I prefer not to believe that Richard Dawkins is
the omniscient Deity – while mankind has made a mess of things the world is
not as nasty as Richard Dawkins.
I can and do respect thoughtful agnostics,
devout Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs but I do not
respect anyone who claims that atheism is not a religion.
- January 4, 2012 at 21:13
-
“I can and do respect thoughtful agnostics, devout Jews, Christians,
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs but I do not respect anyone who claims
that atheism is not a religion”
Hmmm, so you respect a Hindu who believes there is a talking elephant god
called Ganesh and that cows are holy or a Muslim or Jew who takes one look
at a new born male baby and says “Pass the knife” or any devotee of the
Abrahamic religions who seems to think that a talking snake persuaded a
women, created from a mans’s rib to eat the fruit of a magic forbidden tree
and thus we are all sinful despite being totally uninvolved in the alleged
‘crime’
Well done, it’s about time someone took a stand against pesky empirical
evidence upon which to make reasonable deductions and thus form logical
conclusions.
- January 5, 2012 at 18:00
-
If you want an academic treatise on Original Sin consult an eminent
(Roman) Catholic theologian. I am not redneck from the southern states so
like all the orthodox Jews for whom the Books of Moses were written I
understand that creation stories (yes, there are more than one in Genesis)
explain why not how. Ganesh is not an elephant, he is portrayed as looking
like one – and we’d be better off with the average elephant as God than
with Richard Dawkins.
“Well done, it’s about time someone took a stand
against pesky empirical evidence upon which to make reasonable deductions
and thus form logical conclusions.” That’s one reason why I don’t like
proselytising atheists. Since when did any atheist use any empirical
evidence for their religious belief? The existence of the universe could
be taken as empirical evidence for creation.
Incidentally, most of the
great advances in science have been made by Jews, Muslims and Christians
(e.g Newton, Charles Darwin, Einstein, Al-Khwarizmi, who invented
algorithms, Boyle, ) who believed that God made laws that could be
discovered rather than in magic or the omnipotence of man.
Only someone
who was *very* stupid or deliberately misleading would use the word
“magic” to describe any religious concept, even one in an illustrative
fable.
- January 3, 2012 at 20:14
-
I wish I had the faith of the atheist. Both Dawkins and Hitchens are happy
to stake their eternal future on their belief that everything ends upon
death.
The Christian faith (and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam) offers hope
in an eternal life, that there is more to it than this short and futile three
score years and ten. Where they differ is in how one can achieve this eternal
life. Some religions specify certain actions that must be undertaken, whether
it be how to dress, what to eat, when to pray, observance of particular rules
and customs. That is religion (in the same way that people do the lottery
every week religiously).
All three religions demand punishment for
wrongdoing, and also demand that blood be shed in order to appease their god.
However, in the case of Christianity, the blood is shed by another- Jesus.
Now it’s up to the individual whether he/she chooses to accept this, unlike
another religion where conformity is compulsory, and to leave is punishable by
death. We in the west are blessed by being able to publicly deny the existence
of God (something that will get you killed elsewhere).
In some strange way
that reinforces my belief in God, because he doesn’t get upset if I deny him.
It seems to me that the god of the moslems must be much smaller as he takes
offence and needs men to protect him.
The Christian God seems aloof and
uncaring, but how else can we be free? Free to make our own choices, free to
succeed or to fail? Free to accept him or deny him?
We are like children
struggling to walk, to swim, to ride a bike. Falling over, swallowing water
and falling off the bike are part and parcel of learning. Every concerned
parent would love to hold the child securely so that he never falls, but that
child would never be free. He would always be restrained by over-loving
parents.
OK a long rant, but consider this- am I happy to risk everything on the
non-existence of God? On the fact there is no future? That these earthly
struggles are all there is?
Or am I willing to trust Jesus?
I hate
church. I hate religion. I hate moralising do-gooders telling me what I
shouldn’t do. That puts me on the side of Hitchens, but not on Dawkins side.
He is as bad as those he fights against.
I’m an aging hippy Jesus freak,
worn down to a cynical stump, but occasionally remembering that Jesus promised
eternal life to all that believe in him. That’s me.
- January 3, 2012 at 21:18
-
You’re not alone.
- January 3, 2012 at 23:27
-
Ditto here.
Let me tell you a story…
One day, a town gets flooded. One devoutly religious man is stranded in
his house. A canoeist is passing: “climb aboard. I will take you to
safety.”
“No,” the man replies, “God will look after me.”
The canoe disappears. The water rises further, the man moves up to the
first floor. Presently, a rowing boat sculls into view. “Come one,” shouts
the rower, “I will take you to safety!”
“No,” the man replies, “God will rescue me.”
The rowing boat paddles away, and the water rises. The man clambers
onto the roof. Soon a motor boat hoves into view: “Let me take you to
safety!” shouts the skipper.
“No,” the man replies, “My faith in God is absolute. He will save
me.”
By now, the water is past the rafters, and the man is perched on a
rapidly diminishing area of roof. A helicopter hovers overhead. Grab the
line,” the winchman shouts, “we will haul you to safety.”
“No,” the man replies, “God will look after me.”
The helicopter departs, and the man is soon engulfed in the floods.
At the pearly gates, God meets the man.
“Where were you?” the man cries, in exasperation, “I put all my faith
in you, and you let me down!”
“Well,” replies God, “I sent you a canoe, a rowing boat, a motor boat
and a helicopter – just what help did you want?!”
Perhaps proof of God is more obvious than we think.
Ivan does have a point, too: my own hypothesis is that religion is a
man-made concept, made for the benefit of those in charge of the religion.
That said, the rituals of religion can be a very stabilising force for
people.
- January 4, 2012 at 21:06
-
No, you are all signed up to Pascal’s wager by the sound of it.
- January 8, 2012 at 22:40
-
It’s not so much about being willing to risk one’s eternal future on the
non-existence of God, but about what you believe.
For example, I don’t believe in a god. The evidence I’ve seen provides no
reason to believe in one. I can’t just will a belief on the off chance that
I’m wrong. And if I pretend to believe, then if – against all the odds –
there is an omnipotent god, well, he will know I am pretending.
As Hitchins has commented, if I’m wrong and there is a god, hopefully the
way I’ve led my life will count for something. Indeed, one would hope a god
would have more respect for my honest position than for someone who
pretended in the hope that he’d get something out of it when he died. By
comparison, if the only thing that matters is belief and worship, well
frankly, it’s not much of a god worth worshipping anyway.
- January 3, 2012 at 19:58
-
Epicurus [341 – 270 B.C.] Greek philosopher
“Is God willing to prevent
evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
I have yet to meet a religious person able to refute the epigram.
- January 3, 2012 at 20:20
- January 3, 2012 at 21:17
-
It’s a tricky one. You have to reconcile perfect justice, mercy, love and
freedom. If only God had thought of a way…
oh. wait…
- January 3, 2012 at 19:55
-
Ah, Gildas, I see you have not yet taken up my suggestion and read ‘Jesus
the Man’ by Barbara Thiering. I hope that one day you will. When you have done
so I can predict you will experience competing emotions and will require time
to contemplate what you have read.
- January 3, 2012 at 16:20
-
Gildas, if you haven’t done so yet, you could read – next to Dawkins &
Hitchins – Douglas Hofstadter or, more digestible – Dan Dennett:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett
I can also
recommend an old film by a friend of mine, which has been put on internet I
noticed, called “Victim of the Brain” loosely based on “The Mind’s I”:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8576072297424860224
- January 3, 2012 at 15:33
-
The existence of God is like the existence of the fundamental spark of life
– call it the soul if you like.
Religion, on the other hand, is a man made product. The two are not the
same and never will be!
Religion is a belief system created by man, with many of them showing mans
need for control over others – join my club and do as I say or we will kill
you. It has resulted in many wars and jihad against those that are not in the
club down the ages and will result in more in the future.
Most religions started out as a set of rules to control people. Some have
moved with the times an tried to let those that follow it live in the present,
one has not and wants to keep its followers in the dark ages and there is the
source of potential conflict.
The existence, or not, of God has little or nothing to do with religion
though many believers will say they are the same. How can they be? After all
atheism is a religion, a belief system.
Our Monk has started a discussion to which, at this time, there can not be
a definitive answer or even a consensus – as in global warming by man –
because everyone is still an individual, at least I hope so, and as such will
have their own ideas and thoughts on the matter.
- January 3, 2012 at 16:23
-
The latest religion (& potentially the most destructive yet to human
endeavours) is the Climate Change nonsense. I’d rather believe in an old man
with a long beard than this made-up CO2 blather.
- January 3,
2012 at 14:53
-
No mention of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems nor of the schoolboy
philosopher’sl “It depends on what you mean by…” If god is a shorthand term
for an amazingly complicated universe, then there is god. But that is no
nearer the truth than A=B.
How should I know the answer when I have to
consult the manual to send texts?
- January 3, 2012 at 14:25
-
God’s that Higgs Boson, in’E. Nuff said.
-
January 3, 2012 at 13:33
-
Well it’s a vigorous old debate!
-
January 3, 2012 at 12:40
-
I don’t believe in God – but I do believe in the Church if England.
And I will believe even more strongly in it when conceited Fabian tossers
like Rowan Williams are tossed out.
There’s only ever been one bad thing about the CofE………its prelates.
- January 3, 2012 at 11:57
-
As Engineer said (2nd comment), there are so many things we do not
understand. Apart from the physical like climate, how about, in relation to
the subject: the life force, consciousness & ESP. None of these are
understood much more clearly, despite major advances in science in the last
200 years.
The spark that animates us is a mystery and might be our
individual link to a higher consciousness.
- January 3, 2012 at 11:48
-
Accepting that belief without proof is possible and also accepting the
evidence against that belief can be ignored sets a very dangerous precedence.
It spills over into the realm of the here and now that relies solely on making
the right decisions and judgements based on sound evidence, data and rational
thought. The prime example is the many religious wars throughout history and
to this present day. Other examples there are in abundance of actions taken
that avoid the natural in favour of the supernatural and the objective in
favour of the subjective. If god had never existed in mankind’s minds, totally
impossible as god(s) was the substitute for science in a time when ignorance
of most things was complete, then the course of human history would have taken
an altogether different path. Whether that path would have been better or not
we have know way of knowing.
- January 3, 2012 at 11:43
-
Believe in what you will.
But God?
I like to know how things work,
but am well aware that I don’t have the time or capability to understand
everything. So I’ll just believe in my inability to understand, rather than a
God.
Even so, established religion is very comforting sometimes. Perhaps
its something to do with the inclusiveness of ritual and the support of a true
believer at time of stress and loss.
- January 3, 2012 at 11:24
-
What a broad, complex and endlessly interesting subject.
I suppose that ‘belief’ must to some extent be personal. Over the years,
I’ve struggled with this too. I was once a regular church-goer, and still
believe, though I no longer attend organised worship. I’m not sure what I
believe, but I’ve become content to not know. For me, God just is, in some
way; but I don’t know what way, and maybe as a mere human, I’m not capable of
knowing.
Somewhere in amongst the comment and discussion around the St. Paul’s
tented protest and the subsequent actions and pronouncements of assorted high
churchmen, the phrase “Nearer the Church, further from God” surfaced. It seems
to encapsulate in some way the failings of some organised religion. Moral
framework and spiritual guidance, comfort in times of distress and celebration
at times of joy – fine. Fancy robes, wishy-washy political comment and
infighting, big turnoff ; though fiery fundamentalism would be an even bigger
turnoff. Oddly (or perhaps not) Atheist Fundamentalism seems to be one of the
fireiest of the fundamentalisms at the moment. It seems to have no room for
doubt, no room for our own undoubted lack of knowledge.
- January 3, 2012 at 11:23
-
Religion is a load of man-made crap, but God does exist and He probably
despairs of humanity.
- January 3, 2012 at 19:07
-
Wot “He” created… Poor ickle deity, bless.
- January 3, 2012 at 11:13
-
Sitting as comfortably as I can manage on the fence known as agnosticism
(as it happens, I am a confirmed, fundamentalist agnostic), allow me to point
you at this essay in Harper’s by the polymath Alan Lightman:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
In so far as I understand quantum and cosmological physics (I failed maths,
physics and chemistry at ‘O’-level – but with honours!) I gather that the
swots, after their admirable 20th century race towards a Theory of Everything,
have been forced to admit defeat. Einstein’s (well, it was bound to be him –
awkward sod!) gravity just will not fit in with the other basic forces.
In addition, they have now come to the conclusion that for life even to
stand a small chance of evolving it was necessary that several absolutely
critical factors at the time of the ‘Big Bang’ were within very tight and
specific boundaries. The coincidence (I use the word with the neutrality of a
Swiss) that they were raises the dreadful possibility – no, no, impossibility,
surely! – of Intelligent Design (dread words). Hence, the latest wheeze to
explain the inexplicable is the notion of a multiverse, that is, an infinity
of universes all of which are different so, you see, the fact that we are
around is not so strange after all. To which one can only mutter soothingly as
one backs away looking for the exit, “Yes, yes, er, quite so . . .”.
Faced with these complex but conflicting ideas I can only shift my buttocks
uncomfortably poised as they are on this fence of mine and fall back on an
empty word full of meaning and thus beloved of the ‘youf’ of today –
‘whatever’!
-
January 3, 2012 at 11:27
-
Is it glaringly stupid of me to ask whether the “several absolutely
critical factors” may have been there at The Big Bang because TBB recorded
on those lovely scientific instruments could itself be a record of the
implosion of the same formerly expanding universe which had run out of puff
and had sucked all the critical factors back into itself resulting in
another Big Bang?
I don’t mean to be glib, I just wonder whether Space Scientists have
ruled this out.
- January 3, 2012 at 12:35
-
Alas, Gloria, according to the latest reports from the swots, our
little old universe is not only getting bigger but it is doing so at
increasing speed. Consequently, the deliciously ironic theory that we will
all eventually disappear back up our own fundamental hole in space is
unlikely. Well, it is until the next lot of swots leave university and
tell us different.
- January 3, 2012 at 11:59
-
As we do exist, however unlikely these conditions are surely shows that
they were met in one of the possible universes. QED
- January 3, 2012 at 12:39
-
Ed, that is exactly the point the swots are attempting to make. It is
not too dissimilar to the excuse I might make to my wife on returning home
from the pub and she spots lipstick on my collar. Well, that’s easily
explained, dear, I shall say, the pub was absolutely packed full of women
so it is statistically probable that some lipstick was bound to find my
collar. Nah! Can’t see that one working, either!
- January 3, 2012 at 12:53
-
Ah well, in that case I’d better go and expand my own personal chunk
of our universe by going to a lovely Vermeer exhibition! Toodle Pip!
-
January 8, 2012 at 14:55
-
The arguments for intelligent design seem to bearing more and more
similarity to Douglas Adams’ infinite improbablility generator but who
wants to learn to drive by going round Hyde Park Corner on a moped?
- January 3, 2012 at 11:10
-
I was the ‘rebel’ in obligatory RI lessons and couldn’t wait to drop the
subject.
Having absolutely no regrets for my rejection of religion, I must
admit to envying those with an intuitive sense of a creator.
- January 3, 2012 at 10:51
-
Tony Blair is to be paid some £8,000,000 to advise the brutish ruler of
some far flung Asian “Stan” on social policy.
That is evidence for the existence of some other entity, though. Smell the
stink, the hoof prints in the butter….
-
January 3, 2012 at 10:32
-
I find Dawkins fairly unpalatable. And also not particularly bright outside
of his biological comfort zone (he is a Lib Dem supporter FFS).
However, Hitchens was a whole different beast. And the things is, what you
seem to come to is a deist position that really does not conflict with
Hitchens at all. You are not presuming knowledge others do not have and nor
are you presuming authority in the name of that knowledge. Therefore I am
confident the Hitch would have no problem with that and would no doubt also be
excited by our expansion of the knowledge that leads you to this.
For as long as “Which has implications…” does not lead you to conclusions
about how others should live their lives until you have proof that can
withstand dialectics, you are in no breach of the ways of C.E.Hitchens.
- January 3, 2012 at 09:41
-
“I do not believe in a God who is a man with a beard, or even a woman with
harp.”
…
“I prefer to think of God as the endlessly growing, expanding
product of some quite unfathomable Infinite Intelligence”
…
“The great
F. Scott Fitzgerald once observed something to the effect that the mark of a
first class mind is to be able to hold two inconsistent thoughts at once and
see the truth of both. I suggest that the same may be said of belief in
God”
There you go, not that hard to explain at all. In a couple of steps, you
have transparently remade god in the image of an educated westerner, so you
don’t have to suffer belief in the more usual low-brow santa-god. No evidence
required.
Others, meanwhile, continue to make-up gods that enable attainment of power
over their fellows – often with less than good intentions. Sadly, no evidence
required for that either.
- January 3, 2012 at 09:28
-
OK, my twopennyworth (it’s a valid as anyone else’s, right?):
God does not exist external to the universe. God IS the universe,
unconscious and dreaming, and we, as manifestations of that universe, (along
with tapeworms, Andromedan Squidoppotami and cats) are also therefore
manifestations of a living God. I’m God, you’re God (how’s that for hubris?).
He is not interested in answering prayers or forging directions for societies
– just in being, in seeing what it is like to be alive in as many guises as
possible and to learn from those experiences, and to see what the universe
itself is like. Whether it ultimately will have any meaning or God /the
Universe will itself die is unknowable. Mr favourite analogy is that we are
all pieces of software running on the hard drive of time and space.
Who runs and reads that hard drive is, of course, an interesting
question.
Ultimately, everything becomes recursive, but it’s what works for me. It
helps me deal with people I don’t like (they are God too), and inspires me to
try to see the positive in everything (I’m sure God what not want to see the
universe as a fucked up head trip).
If that makes me a sickening inconsequential aery-faery type, oh well. It’s
only one opinion of possibly several billions.
Lovenkisses….
-
January 3, 2012 at 13:07
-
Seems to be the opposite of the “Large fleas have small fleas upon their
backs to bite them” theory of the universe.
-
January 3, 2012 at 08:55
-
Tin hat on! I am sure that there will be many contrary views, and I
peacefully and respectfully note them all. I also have neither the power nor
the wish to impose my views on anyone else
- January 3, 2012 at 08:49
-
G, as long as you don’t want to ban me from eating pork, drinking wine,
shopping on a Sunday, saying ‘offensive’ stuff about something from the bronze
age, or compel various other behaviour, so long as you don’t want tax free
status when everyone else pays or undue influence in the legislature, then we
can peacefully disagree.
- January 3, 2012 at 08:43
-
“God” is simply a catch-all term used by some of the innocent to explain
things they do not yet understand. Quite reasonable among primitive societies,
some would say.
Trouble is, in modern times, the God-Concept has been
hi-jacked by various groups keen to exploit its power, to give them power over
the rest of the innocents. In so doing, they have amassed great influence and
even greater fortune, both of which they fear losing as the tide of knowledge
progressively overwhelms their myths, fairy-tales and fables.
There is no
doubt that some of the accompanying mythology has proved useful in guiding
many societies to moderate behaviour and to suppress many natural instincts
but whether these marginal benefits outweigh the institutional deceit and
delusion at its core seems dubious.
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy both
share as much fundamental truth.
- January 3, 2012 at 11:05
-
What makes you think we are not still a primitive society? There are many
things we know that we don’t know (how the climate works, to take a topical
example), and maybe even more that we don’t know that we don’t know.
-
January 3, 2012 at 11:51
-
I agree, but it’s relative. There are still very many ‘unknown
unknowns’ as well as ‘known unknowns’, as the unfairly-derided Rumsfelt
said, but I was careful to say “as the tide of knowledge progressively
overwhelms their myths, fairy-tales and fables”.
It isn’t all solved yet, nor will it be for many generations to come,
if ever, but the trend is the thing. The trend is for the ‘mysteries’ to
become explained, thus debunking the mischievous mythology of the
ministries.
There is no rational reason to accept the default of “God” to explain
anything we don’t yet understand – we merely accept our current relative
ignorance but continue moving forwards to solve more of those ‘mysteries’
as we go.
-
January 3, 2012 at 12:18
-
When we use rational reason, we can only use what we know, thus
excluding what we don’t know, and we’re agreed that there is much (how
much, we don’t know) that we don’t know.
Perhaps on two thousand years time, people will look back at us and
laugh at our ignorance, and the things we did in our ignorance. But
there will still be things that they won’t know…
{ 61 comments }