Richard Dawkins’ Sunday Sermon

Reading from his new book at Kepler’s tonight.

Wired just published a provocative discussion, sparked by Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion. It issues a challenge to scientists who are on the fence, in denial, or in the closet. And it raises some troublesome questions about how we inculcate children.

To take full advantage of Flickr, you should use a JavaScript-enabled browser and
install the latest version of the Macromedia Flash Player.

Comments

evermore says:

I realize your title is tongue in cheek but I do find it amusing to see religious leaders refer to atheism disparagingly as just another faith, thereby completely missing the point. Atheism puts into question the validity of faith, not just the belief in a deity.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

Todd Huffman says:

Yeah, the whole God thing... a lot of atheists just don't have the energy to argue their points... religious people just have more energy to devote to the debate... That's my take anyway, I get tired of discussing stuff with diests, where they never seem to tire of arguing with me.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ says:

The ultimate point is that neither the atheists nor the believers in God can demonstrate their point. It seems more a question of who speaks louder or has the microphone today. It´s never about the ultimate truth of how things work.

We just don´t know the truth, but we don´t seem willing to accept that we don´t know.

And the ultimate point about this, which follows, is that it is evident to me that human beings can not simply live with the uncertainty of not knowing, and the suspicion that the truth, whatever it is, it may be irrelevant.

It´s not so important if God exist or not, what matters is what people do because of their creed -or lack of-.

Faith is -for me- a cognitive function, unavoidable and only form of cognition and understanding of the world. Whether the Science magazine or the Bible the only basic form to apprehend the information is to believe in it (even if the belief is that what we are learning is "False". Thanks to our logical intelligence which allow us to work with affirmations in the positive or in the negative). Thus, to my understanding we don´t "know": we only "believe".

It´s very clear to me this, but it seems that many people have a hard time restructuring their perception in order to understand what I mean. We are taught that "To Know" and "To Believe" are two different things, yet at the same level of cognition. And what I think is that the one main level of cognition is "To Believe", being "To Know" a subcategory of it (or even more: just a semantic license created to try to name something which doesn´t exist, in order to disassemble beliefs in: "Religious" and "Secular").

In the end, what I think we can´t bear with -neither atheists or god believers- is the insignificance of our existance, the absurdity of chaos, of chance, of the lack of order.

We crave for an order to give meaning to our lives (even if that meaning is the lack of intelligent design, is blind evolution, or plain "non-sense") Seen like this, atheists and god believers are equal, as they ask the same basic questions.

[I´ll go reading the link, thx.]

----
[edit]
I said, "we crave for an order to give meaning to our lives"... and now re-reading, it sparked the remembrance of the day I realize that the word "Information" was actually "in + formation": = implying a particular order to given elements (elements which are also pieces of information themselves).

"In Formation"... Information is what we crave for since the beginning of times, whether the (in)formations are released by religion or science, we seek for a "formation", for an order.

I believe. ,-)
[/edit]
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

benjiman says:

Amen brother. Dawkins is on a roll these days.

Humankind searches for the patterns, the meaning. When we can't find them we just start making shit up. Good stories to fill the void. We are so afraid of the ideas of meaninglessness, chance and chaos.

Hahaha, I love that you put it in the FSM pool! Just spotted that. :)
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

Victor1 says:

What strikes me about the whole god/evolution question is the abject limitations of everyone involved. It is so obvious that it is the personification of god that is the problem, not the 'magical powers' , and that each side is arguing the same argument - that the world came about through some 'intelligent magical means' - one side arguing that intelligence is a natural phenomena and the other that a human-like 'being' posessed the intelligence. Neither side has the humility to see around the boundaries of its own logic system. If it could, it would become aware that the 'argument' is moot, and each side is not arguing about the reality beyond their subjective system, but arguing for the limited contents in their brains on the subject, filled in with lots of emotion to plug the gaps in logic or ability to actually ascertain (or experience) the other's points of view.

Personification stories of godliness has been necessary for earlier societies (that were illiterate and learned through passing on of stories) because this is the form that can be taught to children, who's cortex cannot make sense of abstract notions, so that the content of a 'system' could make its way down the ages. This was the only way religious doctrine (or spiritual insights translated into story form, like the greeks) could successfully be handed down - while children were dependent on parents and still open to indoctrination. Religion is rarely an act of adult will, but of believing what your parents believed.

People on a spiritual path can use these religious stories as a starting point for further spiritual development, and had it not been for the story format of the content of spiritual texts, they would not have successfully been passed down and survived the ages and provided that 'first door' to greater spirituality for those who sought it later. Even though this first door leaks heat and has rusty hinges, its still there, after so many thousands of years.

So the 'argument' between the two is cute but pathetic, particularly for the advanced minds that argue the point, since actual spirituality is never a part of either arguers life (those people just 'know' and dont get mired in such silliness) so the point is moot. the argument is just about 'rightness', not what the stories stand for and can mean to people at different levels of understanding. The beauty of the stories is in their metaphorical extrapolation, and the smarter people who are extending this realm of extrapolition INTO the sciences, not away from them, are becoming the only posessors of the wholistic view - that the creation and other stories are metaphorical and useful, if you're looking for that. If you're looking to argue and be right about your limited perspectives and logical extrapolations and limitations... let me tell you now that you're already right.... but there's cooler things in this realm of study than being right. Besides, argument and facts are left brain phenomena and processes, which the spiritually developed will tell you, throws little light on 'right' brain or intuitive world of spirituality.

If a person is impressed with the cosmos and can't see how it would create itself, why not say "I don't understand that", instead of taking the position that what is outside of his reason must be ascribed to a creator. They made a good choice based on what they know. It 'fits' in this world and is evolutionarily congruent.

If a person understands the cosmos is created through means beyond current description, why is it so hard to say that a Metaphorical story about a creator is one person's way of creating a description, and that is valid for them to make sense of the world and live their life with a sense of knowing, purpose and order? Do the athiests kids have that going in their life? If not, they'll live, and find an adaptation style that works too.

Perhaps the notions of creation/creator are not well developed enough in either side of the argument for either to reach agreement. If they did, they'd have the bandwidth to compute that its two stories, each describing that which is beyond the metaphors either side can currently construct.

In a way, the scientists still arguing this point are the real dummies here, unless they're the insightful ones like Deepak Chopra or others in the know on a broader range of experience than book knowledge and dialectic, which allows him/them to realize the synthesis of both viewpoints, and others, into one very deep. That area (spiritual scientific synthesis) is far more interesting than the less developed group arguing for evolution or creation, each disparaging the other in a metaphorical tour-de-force for their OWN lack of knowledge.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

sbove says:

Nature has a way of producing forces in opposition: Relgious Fundamentalists deserve Richard Dawkins.

Unfortunately, no matter how loud he preaches, Dawkins can't make a dent in the damage the extreme-irrationalist-faith-war-mongers do to each other, our world, the peacefull-tolerant-non-extreme-people-of-fait h, and all the innocent bystanders.

As much as religion/faith seems built into humanity, so it seems is extremism, inter-tribal-thrashing, and abject cruelty.

All of heaven and hell is certainly here on earth and most of the hells are hand made by homo sapiens ignoramus.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

Victor1 says:

sbove - Excellent wisdom. Yes we are a combination of all things, and all things don't make a good mix.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

Colin Purrington says:

Has anyone seen his "Root of all evil" television series?

Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ says:

"The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers; wider freeways but narrower viewpoints. We spend more but have less; we buy more but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences but less time. We have more degrees but less sense; more knowledge but less judgment; more experts yet more problems; more medicine but less wellness.

We've learned how to make a living but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things." -- George Carlin
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

Kirpernicus says:

The photo isn't why I'm faving this, it's so I can follow the discussion.... I'm a big fan of Dawkins and what he has to say. I saw the the TV series, it was excellent. Got it through bittorrent.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

jurvetson says:

What? You don't love the creative artistry of the shot?? (Hey, there are no faves yet....)

And as for the discussion, it seems that oddwick's observation is playing out... ;-)
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )