INC v Dawkins
I am deeply, no in fact eternally, grateful to Richard Dawkins for all the free publicity he has given to the question of the existence of God with his latest book, The God Delusion. Clearly, however, a quick look at my profile will indicate that I disagree with Mr Dawkins on a few key points.
I am not going to embark on a comprehensive critique of the book itself, largely because I haven’t read it. Nor am I going to try to prove the existence of God in the space of one blog entry when the finest theologians and philosophers the world has ever seen have utterly failed to do so despite trying for several millennia. I do want to comment on a couple of issues raised by an interview with Mr Dawkins in the Age a couple of weeks ago (which I will not quote directly from because I very diligently recycled the stupid thing before I got around to writing this) and on some of the more interesting aspects of the discussion of this book on the December edition of First Tuesday Book Club, and particularly some very interesting thoughts from Germaine Greer on the whole topic.
Mr Dawkins is a pretty intelligent guy, so I was a bit surprised that Ms Greer, as well as some of the other book clubbers, was so critical of the construction of his arguments, but after reading the interview with him in the Age I concluded that there might be some basis for their concerns.
For example, the Age interviewer put to Mr Dawkins the argument that not many soup kitchens and drug rehab centres are run by committed rationalists, the implication being that Christians, Moslems, Jews and other religious types do more good in the world than Atheists.
This is a stupid argument, and I would have thought Mr Dawkins could have handled it quite easily. I don’t think there is actually any evidence that shows that Christians do more good things than atheists, on average. I spent a little over two years working for an organization that existed primarily to do some good in the world, by providing legal services to those who most needed help and could least afford it. Most of our clients were drug addicts or otherwise in need of intense support. All of us working there could have made more money working just about anywhere else (including, say, at Nandos).
I went to work there because I believe that helping the most disadvantaged in our society is a vitally important aspect of Christian faith. However, I was the only Christian in the place for most of the time that I worked there. My boss, who was there for over ten years, was a committed atheist.
To be fair, it is possibly that Mr Dawkins has not been following my career all that closely and therefore this example was not available to him, but surely he could have come up with some sort of similar example.
The other very valid criticism of this argument is that it misses the point of Christianity almost entirely. We have spent decades, possibly centuries, trying to get away from this stupid notion that being a Christian is in any way about being better than everyone else. It’s not. The point is to be better than I would be if I was not committed to this faith. In other words to be the best “I’m not Craig” I can possibly be. (Yes, I know that was a ridiculous sentence, but the point is valid).
Mr Dawkins instead produced a surprisingly half baked response. He suggested that the tendency of Christians to do more good than atheists might actually be an indicator of something quite ignoble in human nature, in that we all tend to be more inclined to do good things when someone is watching. He suggested that Christians believe that God sees what we do 24 hours a day so we tend to spend more of our time doing good things.
This is a surprisingly weak argument. Leaving aside the raft of assumptions about how Christians think and what motivates us (and the quite significant possibility that we don’t all think exactly the same way), the central fallacy of the argument can be easily demonstrated by watching an episode of Big Brother. If Mr Dawkins is right, the Big Brother house should be the most prosocial place on the planet. These people are literally being watched 24 hours per day and they well know it and yet they seem to do less of the fund raising for charity and more of the turkey slapping than Mr Dawkins might expect.
As I said at the outset, I have not read the book, but if the above discussion is indicative of the quality of his reasoning generally, I’d be better off re-reading Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”. At least it took more than five minutes to find the flaws in the reasoning in that particular text.
The question of Mr Dawkins logical reasoning skills brings us neatly to the discussion on First Tuesday Book Club, which I found fascinating. I am always interested in hearing what Marieke Hardy and Jason Steger have to say about a book (or any issue really) and they were joined on the panel by the slightly unusual pairing of Frank Brennan and Germaine Greer, together with the ever enthusiastic Jennifer Byrne.
I have previously been critical of many of Germaine Greer’s views, said criticisms usually involving a lot of swearing and getting cross. However, I have never questioned her intelligence and on this occasion she had, as ever, several interesting things to say.
Ms Greer described the tone of the book as “shrill” and said that it contained some very bad science, and also said “it’s a mess. It’s not properly organized intellectually”. Jason Steger said he was not convinced by Dawkins’ arguments, Marieke Hardy said Dawkins was a fundamentalist in his own regard and Jennifer Byrne noted that he was surprisingly intolerant. Frank Brennan also declared himself unconvinced, although that is possibly to be expected.
For me, the most interesting part of the book club’s discussion came when Frank Brennan raised the question of how atheists can have a sense of the transcendent, and (in the context of a discussion about weddings) how they can find an expression of love and commitment beyond themselves and beyond time.
Germaine Greer’s comments were fascinating. She said “That’s the annoying thing. Atheism hasn’t been able to… imbue the idea of people as autonomous with anything like the mystic power that religion can give. We haven’t been able to build any aura around it. Atheists have got to imbue this real world (in their view) with resonance. And they can’t do it.”
I would be curious to hear from my atheist readers, or anyone really, as to whether this is truly the case, but I suspect that it is a serious problem for atheists.
G K Chesterton had a few interesting things to say more or less on this topic, such as this:
“I feel in my bones, first that this world does not explain itself… Second, I began to feel as if magic must have a meaning, and meaning must have someone to mean it. There was something personal in the world, as in a work of art… Third, I thought this purpose beautiful in its old design, in spite of its defects, such as dragons…
And last, and strangest, there had come into my mind a vague and vast impression that in some way all good was a remnant to be stored and held sacred out of some primordial ruin.”
The world is a beautiful and magical place. The existence of natural beauty, science can explain. But for me, my sense of awe on seeing the magic of a stunning sunset over Loch Ard Gorge, the awesome experience of falling in love with a true soulmate, the wonder of being kissed on the cheek by one’s beautiful two year old son, and a million other things of beauty can only be explained by the existence of God.
It’s not just that such things are beautiful, but that we have within us the capacity to feel the awe and wonder inspired by such beauty. To live without a sense of the divine seems, to me, profoundly sad.
I quite like Frederick Buechner’s definition of what it means to be a Christian.
“A Christian is one who is on the way, though not necessarily very far along it, and who has at least some dim and half-baked idea of whom to thank”.
I found myself agreeing with Germaine Greer twice in one day when she went on to talk about current approaches to religion, saying “We have reinvented DIY religion which is thin, stupid, ugly, vulgar, plastic, awful; and people are going for it like mad. It’s a flight from reason. I find it extremely annoying.”
This seems like a bit too much of a generalization, and rather unfair to any number of very sincere people, but the central point is a sound and indeed vitally important one.
Faith is not, of course, solely an intellectual exercise. The essence of Christianity lies in loving people, in the sense that we put the needs of others ahead of our own, and then working out what it means to live according to that principle.
It is also, of course, about belief in the transcendent, something bigger than ourselves. Whilst we all agree that we can’t actually prove that God exists, a belief in God is not a suspension of disbelief or an abandonment of science and reason, it’s a recognition that there is an awful lot that we don’t know about the universe and a belief that it all makes a lot more sense if one accepts the supernatural as a part of our reality, even if science can’t define it, measure it and explain it.
Germaine Greer is entirely right that there is no place for a flight from reason in any of this. In my view, many, possibly most, Christians need to abandon their neurotic desire to have all the answers all the time, embrace the uncertainty and messiness of life, be intellectually honest even when it does not suit our purposes, and see where we end up. I suspect the answer is that we will end up with a set of beliefs that is much more robust than the type of Christianity doing the rounds in the churches I’ve been attending lately.
So, there you have my little contribution to the questions that have been asked again and again since the beginning of time. I would be fascinated to hear what all of you, and particularly my atheist readers, made of it. And to anyone who actually read this entire post, thank you.
I am not going to embark on a comprehensive critique of the book itself, largely because I haven’t read it. Nor am I going to try to prove the existence of God in the space of one blog entry when the finest theologians and philosophers the world has ever seen have utterly failed to do so despite trying for several millennia. I do want to comment on a couple of issues raised by an interview with Mr Dawkins in the Age a couple of weeks ago (which I will not quote directly from because I very diligently recycled the stupid thing before I got around to writing this) and on some of the more interesting aspects of the discussion of this book on the December edition of First Tuesday Book Club, and particularly some very interesting thoughts from Germaine Greer on the whole topic.
Mr Dawkins is a pretty intelligent guy, so I was a bit surprised that Ms Greer, as well as some of the other book clubbers, was so critical of the construction of his arguments, but after reading the interview with him in the Age I concluded that there might be some basis for their concerns.
For example, the Age interviewer put to Mr Dawkins the argument that not many soup kitchens and drug rehab centres are run by committed rationalists, the implication being that Christians, Moslems, Jews and other religious types do more good in the world than Atheists.
This is a stupid argument, and I would have thought Mr Dawkins could have handled it quite easily. I don’t think there is actually any evidence that shows that Christians do more good things than atheists, on average. I spent a little over two years working for an organization that existed primarily to do some good in the world, by providing legal services to those who most needed help and could least afford it. Most of our clients were drug addicts or otherwise in need of intense support. All of us working there could have made more money working just about anywhere else (including, say, at Nandos).
I went to work there because I believe that helping the most disadvantaged in our society is a vitally important aspect of Christian faith. However, I was the only Christian in the place for most of the time that I worked there. My boss, who was there for over ten years, was a committed atheist.
To be fair, it is possibly that Mr Dawkins has not been following my career all that closely and therefore this example was not available to him, but surely he could have come up with some sort of similar example.
The other very valid criticism of this argument is that it misses the point of Christianity almost entirely. We have spent decades, possibly centuries, trying to get away from this stupid notion that being a Christian is in any way about being better than everyone else. It’s not. The point is to be better than I would be if I was not committed to this faith. In other words to be the best “I’m not Craig” I can possibly be. (Yes, I know that was a ridiculous sentence, but the point is valid).
Mr Dawkins instead produced a surprisingly half baked response. He suggested that the tendency of Christians to do more good than atheists might actually be an indicator of something quite ignoble in human nature, in that we all tend to be more inclined to do good things when someone is watching. He suggested that Christians believe that God sees what we do 24 hours a day so we tend to spend more of our time doing good things.
This is a surprisingly weak argument. Leaving aside the raft of assumptions about how Christians think and what motivates us (and the quite significant possibility that we don’t all think exactly the same way), the central fallacy of the argument can be easily demonstrated by watching an episode of Big Brother. If Mr Dawkins is right, the Big Brother house should be the most prosocial place on the planet. These people are literally being watched 24 hours per day and they well know it and yet they seem to do less of the fund raising for charity and more of the turkey slapping than Mr Dawkins might expect.
As I said at the outset, I have not read the book, but if the above discussion is indicative of the quality of his reasoning generally, I’d be better off re-reading Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”. At least it took more than five minutes to find the flaws in the reasoning in that particular text.
The question of Mr Dawkins logical reasoning skills brings us neatly to the discussion on First Tuesday Book Club, which I found fascinating. I am always interested in hearing what Marieke Hardy and Jason Steger have to say about a book (or any issue really) and they were joined on the panel by the slightly unusual pairing of Frank Brennan and Germaine Greer, together with the ever enthusiastic Jennifer Byrne.
I have previously been critical of many of Germaine Greer’s views, said criticisms usually involving a lot of swearing and getting cross. However, I have never questioned her intelligence and on this occasion she had, as ever, several interesting things to say.
Ms Greer described the tone of the book as “shrill” and said that it contained some very bad science, and also said “it’s a mess. It’s not properly organized intellectually”. Jason Steger said he was not convinced by Dawkins’ arguments, Marieke Hardy said Dawkins was a fundamentalist in his own regard and Jennifer Byrne noted that he was surprisingly intolerant. Frank Brennan also declared himself unconvinced, although that is possibly to be expected.
For me, the most interesting part of the book club’s discussion came when Frank Brennan raised the question of how atheists can have a sense of the transcendent, and (in the context of a discussion about weddings) how they can find an expression of love and commitment beyond themselves and beyond time.
Germaine Greer’s comments were fascinating. She said “That’s the annoying thing. Atheism hasn’t been able to… imbue the idea of people as autonomous with anything like the mystic power that religion can give. We haven’t been able to build any aura around it. Atheists have got to imbue this real world (in their view) with resonance. And they can’t do it.”
I would be curious to hear from my atheist readers, or anyone really, as to whether this is truly the case, but I suspect that it is a serious problem for atheists.
G K Chesterton had a few interesting things to say more or less on this topic, such as this:
“I feel in my bones, first that this world does not explain itself… Second, I began to feel as if magic must have a meaning, and meaning must have someone to mean it. There was something personal in the world, as in a work of art… Third, I thought this purpose beautiful in its old design, in spite of its defects, such as dragons…
And last, and strangest, there had come into my mind a vague and vast impression that in some way all good was a remnant to be stored and held sacred out of some primordial ruin.”
The world is a beautiful and magical place. The existence of natural beauty, science can explain. But for me, my sense of awe on seeing the magic of a stunning sunset over Loch Ard Gorge, the awesome experience of falling in love with a true soulmate, the wonder of being kissed on the cheek by one’s beautiful two year old son, and a million other things of beauty can only be explained by the existence of God.
It’s not just that such things are beautiful, but that we have within us the capacity to feel the awe and wonder inspired by such beauty. To live without a sense of the divine seems, to me, profoundly sad.
I quite like Frederick Buechner’s definition of what it means to be a Christian.
“A Christian is one who is on the way, though not necessarily very far along it, and who has at least some dim and half-baked idea of whom to thank”.
I found myself agreeing with Germaine Greer twice in one day when she went on to talk about current approaches to religion, saying “We have reinvented DIY religion which is thin, stupid, ugly, vulgar, plastic, awful; and people are going for it like mad. It’s a flight from reason. I find it extremely annoying.”
This seems like a bit too much of a generalization, and rather unfair to any number of very sincere people, but the central point is a sound and indeed vitally important one.
Faith is not, of course, solely an intellectual exercise. The essence of Christianity lies in loving people, in the sense that we put the needs of others ahead of our own, and then working out what it means to live according to that principle.
It is also, of course, about belief in the transcendent, something bigger than ourselves. Whilst we all agree that we can’t actually prove that God exists, a belief in God is not a suspension of disbelief or an abandonment of science and reason, it’s a recognition that there is an awful lot that we don’t know about the universe and a belief that it all makes a lot more sense if one accepts the supernatural as a part of our reality, even if science can’t define it, measure it and explain it.
Germaine Greer is entirely right that there is no place for a flight from reason in any of this. In my view, many, possibly most, Christians need to abandon their neurotic desire to have all the answers all the time, embrace the uncertainty and messiness of life, be intellectually honest even when it does not suit our purposes, and see where we end up. I suspect the answer is that we will end up with a set of beliefs that is much more robust than the type of Christianity doing the rounds in the churches I’ve been attending lately.
So, there you have my little contribution to the questions that have been asked again and again since the beginning of time. I would be fascinated to hear what all of you, and particularly my atheist readers, made of it. And to anyone who actually read this entire post, thank you.
posted by I'm not Craig at 9:54 PM
14 Comments:
Hi, I've been lurking, but had to say that was beautiful.
Was it Paul who said that Doubt can make one's faith stronger, and more real? Having to reiterate to yourself who God is, and why you believe...?
Thanks.
INCraig,
As one of those “atheist” readers of yours, I am seriously inclined to write a comment almost as long as your post.
I guess I come from a perspective of having similar tantrums to yours on the basis of peoples’ view about feminism. If there is one thing that is truly irritating (and oftentimes Germaine Greer seems to be the lightning rod) it is the tendency of the mainstream media, the general public and most stridently, conservative blokes, to try and lump all feminists into one camp as believing the same thing.
Unsurprisingly, I have a lot of friends who are feminists, but I’ll be buggered if we all believe the same thing about everything. We don’t even all believe the same thing about the key issues of feminist activism: women who work outside the home, reproductive rights or gender roles. So I really share your crossness about the lumping of Christians into the same church (excuse the pun) – nuance is often lost in these debates.
However (and taking up my point above), I don’t know that I agree with you that ALL Christians have spent decades trying to distance themselves from the idea that being Christian is about being better than other people. In fact, I think that the underlying message of a lot of “new school” evangelism (from which I’m sure Dawkins draws much of his argument – although add the caveat that I haven’t read the book either) is that being Christian is a HEAP better than being anything else. My major problem with this premise is that it is incredibly divisive, as you rightly point out.
I’m also trying hard to be fair to each side: it’s not long before these debates are littered with hypocrisy and double-standards (illustrated well by Greer’s assessment that what atheists should have done is to create a mysticism based rationalist school of thinking – something that I’m sure had some one like Philip Adams choking on his chardonnay).
To precis my thinking about these things:
1. I think that a lot of people who hold views which happen to be expressed in major religious texts don’t necessarily identify as “religious” (for example, thou shalt not kill seems pretty reasonable to me, but I am not Jewish, Christian or Moslem, all of which accept this as a universal direction for humankind)
2. I think that the doctrine of tolerance is underplayed in the public persona of almost all philosophical schools including, but not limited to, religion.
3. As I’ve said before, doubt is the necessary counter-point to faith – whatever your school of thought/faith/beliefs. I spent a long time hectoring my Year 8 science teacher about this on Saturday night. And then he screaming into the night.
Thanks INCraig, it is food for thought – and I always enjoy your contribution to the philosophical discussion…it’s always very considered and consistently lacking in dogma.
GW
I agree with actonb and gw both, INC, in that your post is terrific. It gives an opportunity to think about what we believe and why, and that is an important thing for us all to do. Thank you.
I am an atheist, and I think that I accept the world as it is, while wanting to make it better. I think of humankind as just another animal in a complex, changing and often baffling global ecosystem. I don't believe that we have a priveleged place in our little world, but I do believe that we have a responsibility to take as much care as we can to keep it, and all its inhabitants, safe. This basic belief I have, that we are nothing special (albeit pretty cunning in terms of survival and dominance), is certainly diametrically opposed to one of the core beliefs of the Jehovan religions, namely that mankind is chosen by God to rule the earth. I simply can't understand why such an arrogant premise has such broad acceptance.
You spoke of the appreciation of beauty in both physical and emotional terms, and that you believe that your appreciation is enhanced by a belief in a mystical power. That may be the case for you, INC, but I don't think that my appreciation is any less powerful for me. I can't help but be moved by the glories of our planet, or by the love of my family, or by the sheer emotional and physical power of giving birth. I think that my belief that I am just a tiny part of this wonderful world, that I am known only to my friends and loved ones, that my fate is entirely unknown and unknowable, and that I will eventually just be a grain of dust and not even a memory makes that appreciation of beauty so much fiercer. I know that I'm not going anywhere when I die, and that makes life and it's beauties and pains so much sharper and clearer.
So endeth the rant. Sorry about burbling on...
I agree with actonb and gw both, INC, in that your post is terrific. It gives an opportunity to think about what we believe and why, and that is an important thing for us all to do. Thank you.
I am an atheist, and I think that I accept the world as it is, while wanting to make it better. I think of humankind as just another animal in a complex, changing and often baffling global ecosystem. I don't believe that we have a priveleged place in our little world, but I do believe that we have a responsibility to take as much care as we can to keep it, and all its inhabitants, safe. This basic belief I have, that we are nothing special (albeit pretty cunning in terms of survival and dominance), is certainly diametrically opposed to one of the core beliefs of the Jehovan religions, namely that mankind is chosen by God to rule the earth. I simply can't understand why such an arrogant premise has such broad acceptance.
You spoke of the appreciation of beauty in both physical and emotional terms, and that you believe that your appreciation is enhanced by a belief in a mystical power. That may be the case for you, INC, but I don't think that my appreciation is any less powerful for me. I can't help but be moved by the glories of our planet, or by the love of my family, or by the sheer emotional and physical power of giving birth. I think that my belief that I am just a tiny part of this wonderful world, that I am known only to my friends and loved ones, that my fate is entirely unknown and unknowable, and that I will eventually just be a grain of dust and not even a memory, makes that appreciation of beauty so much fiercer. I know that I'm not going anywhere when I die, and that makes life and it's beauties and pains so much sharper and clearer.
So endeth the rant. Sorry about burbling on...
Yes, I'm an idiot. Why did I post twice? Because I added a comma. That's right! A comma!
And then I realized I couldn't delete my first comment.
That's right! An idiot!
Hi everyone, sorry for the really really slow response but here we go...
Actonb
Hi, welcome, and, most of all, thanks.
Too many commas.
My favourite quote on doubt and faith is another one of Frederick Buechners:
Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith - they keep it alive and moving.
Gigglewick
I have those tantrums about feminism occasionally too.
I have to agree with what you said about not all Christians distancing themselves from that particular idea. When I said "we", I meant the, you know, sensible ones.
Thanks for the wonderful comment, it too was great food for thought.
Meva
Having read your blog, two things I knew about you were that you are an atheist and that you have a deeper appreciation for the beauty in this world than pretty much anyone I know. Thanks for explaining how this works for you.
As for the idea that mankind is chosen to rule the earth, I don't think that's an accurate reflection of what the Jewish and Christian books actually said. Mankind is meant to look after the earth and be responsible for it, not like trash it and stuff. Admittedly, this misinterpretationis pretty well entrenched around the place.
Don't worry about the double posting. The first comment of yours that I ever read (on RYWHM) included the question 'Did you notice my lovely grammar?' so it's entirely good and right that you would re-post something to add a comma in. Utterly not an idiot.
Melbourne Girl has said she's going to read this post soon. Watch this space for more great comments...
*crosses fingers*
INC: you really are lovely. Fancy remembering my first comment EVER! What is it about RYWHM inspiring people to blog? I guess we all owe her a debt. (But I prefer reading other blogs now, I admit. Such as yours.)
And I await Melbourne Girl's comments with great anticipation. Another of my faves! In fact, INC, all of your commenters are among my favourite bloggers.
wow, now i feel nervous as if people are waiting to see what i have to offer.
firstly, i thought your post was beautiful, inc, and i agree with gigglewick who said you never resort to dogma and your writing is always considered. thankyou for the post.
i apologise for the following being circular and incoherent at times. it all just spewed out.
i am an atheist, and i really enjoyed being able to read this without feeling there was an argument about it. religion is a topic that can really get my back up, but i guess in this post you focused on faith and perhaps spirituality, and really, those are things that aren't exclusive to people who practise a religion.
another comment that resonated for me was meva's, when she said:
"I know that I'm not going anywhere when I die, and that makes life and it's beauties and pains so much sharper and clearer."
i feel the same, and while i like the comforting idea of life after death, or heaven or something like that, logically i just can't believe it. and i know this is the point where a christian will say "that's where faith comes into it" but i guess for me, i just have a feeling that everything will be ok, in the end.
i don't believe in a god or almight power that is overseeing us all here on earth. and i certainly don't feel bereft by that thought, or that in some way i am missing out. i feel empowered, knowing that i can work out how best to live my life; i think human values prevail - respecting life, helping others, not lying, not killing, trying to be the best person i can be (a daily challenge) all the ten commandments stuff, that's not just for religious folk.
as for what germaine said (and i confess to loving her. not like that!) about atheists never having developed a mysticism to go along with their beliefs, or lack of believes, and that this somehow detracts from their legitimacy (?) i'm not sure about that. firstly, it has to be said that the organised have pretty much got in first and monopolised the mystic attachments. but secondly, in much the same way that feminism has (supposedly) allowed women to have more choices, ie earn money, be autonomous, wear liptstick, control their own fertility etc. why can't atheists (not that i'm making a parallel connection here necessarily; feminist is to atheist as traditional woman is to person of religious faith - no, don't read that in!)um, why can't atheists create a sense of ritual, taking bits and pieces of what they like from other religions? why does it have to be all or nothing? does it have to be? i know people who have shabbat - and they're not jewish. no, they don't do it every friday night, and they don't have the traditional food or do the prayers/candles/bread, etc. but they call it shabbat and they do it sometimes as a family dinner. some jews might find that offensive but i think it's lovely, and so does a good jewish friend of mine. i love hymns. it doesn't mean i believe in god, but why can't i enjoy being in a church, surrounded by the ceremony and lovely atmosphere. am i being a hypocrite? in my bookcase i have a couple of bibles (from school) and a koran in english. the old testatment (the book of judaism), the new testament (the christian book) and the koran, the islamic book. i guess it's all about exploring different thinkings. i have books by cs lewis on christianity, books on mohammad, books on the dalai lama. i am a believer in the teachings of buddha, there is huge resonation there for me, and they are certainly not a contradiction of the christian teachings.
inc, you said this:
"It is also, of course, about belief in the transcendent, something bigger than ourselves. Whilst we all agree that we can’t actually prove that God exists, a belief in God is not a suspension of disbelief or an abandonment of science and reason, it’s a recognition that there is an awful lot that we don’t know about the universe and a belief that it all makes a lot more sense if one accepts the supernatural as a part of our reality, even if science can’t define it, measure it and explain it."
i pretty much agree with this statement 100% per cent - i just can't bring myself to think of that superpower as something called God. has the word been spoilt for me? in some ways i think; to me it's got a taint about it because so much misery and pain has been caused under that name. good things too, i know, but there are shades of something attached to the word. i'm sorry if this upsets you, i really don't mean to, or want to.
i'm nervous about pressing the button on this comment. it's a touchy area and i feel i haven't been as considered and calm about it as everyone else.
apols. in advance xxx
MG
Great comment, loved it, thank you.
I don't have time to respond properly as it's late and I have to catch an early flight to get to the medieval wedding, but I will write more when I get back.
Have a great weekend.
MG
Thanks again for the comment, and particularly for saying nice things about my writing.
Your apols in advance were entirely unnecessary.
I’m really glad that you didn’t feel like this was an argument. I posted this because it’s a conversation that I think is important, but also because I’m interested in learning more about atheism.
On life after death (and here’s another topic I can’t possibly do justice to in just one post, or indeed a hundred of them), I believe in life after death for the simple reason that I can’t imagine that we are meant to live for such a tiny period of time and then cease to exist altogether.
I also believe that we only get one chance at life on this planet, so it’s vitally important that we live each day with an appreciation of what a precious gift life is. The beauty and pain of life should indeed always be sharp and clear.
On the whole question of “mysticism for atheists” and Germaine Greer’s comments and stuff, I find this whole issue deeply fascinating and I loved what you wrote about Shabbat, hymns and exploring different thinkings. Of course you’re not being a hypocrite. Being open to ideas is vital, even for those of us with a firm belief in a certain type of faith and spirituality.
In essence, we seem to agree on pretty much everything except whether God exists. Your comments on this didn’t upset me. I deeply appreciated your honesty and your willingness to share your thoughts on such a personal topic.
The key thing for me is that God is not just a label we put on things we can’t explain, or a concept that I believe in intellectually. God, to me, is best described as a loving parent who wants a close relationship with all 6 billion of his children, including me. Jesus taught that when Christians pray they should call God “Abba”, an Aramaic word that is best translated as “daddy”. “Mummy” would of course be equally appropriate, as anyone who thinks God is male hasn’t thought it through, but the point is that Christians don’t just see God as some sort of supernatural force, we see God as a person, as a parent and as a friend.
I too am just a little nervous about posting this comment. I occasionally worry that I will come across as some sort of religious nut and people will flee from this blog never to return.
I hope this doesn’t happen, as I am very fond of all my readers and I would miss you terribly.
This is obviously an old article so I won't go to too much trouble. From the comments made by the reviewers it was clear that none of them had actually read the book. At best they may have flicked through it quickly.
The most revealing comments were those of Jason Steger towards the end when he claimed that "one of the great shames is that he [dawkins] doesn't consider the legacy of religion" in relation to religious art/music/architecture.
Unfortunately for Mr Stenger, Dawkins states unequivically in his book that he admires the beauty of religious architecture, music and art. He also states unequivically that you don't have to be religious to admire. In the book, dawkins purveys exactly the sentiments that Stenger claims he doesn't using almost the same language.
I'll leave it at that but Stenger isn't the only one who messed up. This book review was a joke.
By Stenger I mean Jason Steger of course.
This is obviously an old comment so I won't go to too much trouble either. I'm not sure if you mean that my review was a joke (unlikely, since I started by saying I hadn't read it) or it was the Book Club one that you hated, but either way, you are entitled to your opinion and thanks for taking the time to share it with, well, not that many people, actually.
Wow that's a blast from the past. I was referring to the book club people. I gave one example there of something they claim Dawkins didn't consider in the book where he clearly did. But it wasn't the only thing.
Germaine Greer was actually the worst. Just about everything she claimed Dawkins had not considered was covered in the book. There is an entire chapter on group selection for instance.
It was an incredibly sloppy and incredibly biased book review.
Post a Comment
<< Home