PaulS Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Bill, I don't agree with your opening assumption about Dawkins, that he thinks a 'more' is unknowable and irrelevant. To the contrary Dawkins says in this interview "To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them". He also acknowledges "There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding" . I don't read anywhere in the interview, as you seem to suggest, Dawkins saying that if there is a More it is completely unknowable. Maybe you're referring to other interviews or understandings you have of Dawkins? I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with all of it. At the same time, I certainly don't agree with everything Dawkins says or has said in other forums. It was either on this thread or another that I recently said that I don't understand some atheists' firm mindedness that there definitely cannot be a God. At best I think all one can say is "I haven't experienced any such God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist". I don't understand why it wouldn't be left at that. And I don't doubt that many feel they have experienced God. I am undecided as to whether that is a psychological thing or if in fact they have in some connected to/genuinely experienced God. A person's certain-ness in having experienced God does nothing to convince me though. My comments were strictly in relation to the point being recited by George that somehow the universe as we know it, is held together by some laws that have some ridiculously infitissimal likelihood of occurring. My point is, as we don't know what actually could be achieved had the universe rolled another way, then I fail to see how we can put that in perspective when considering what we do know of this universe and determining some sort of 'odds'. Instead of marvelling at the 'chances' of our universe turning out this way so that we may have life, I simply say "we have life because the universe turned out this way". It's not amazing to me that we're here, it's simply a result of the universe developing this way. Had the universe developed differently, I doubt we would be having this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Instead of marvelling at the 'chances' of our universe turning out this way so that we may have life, I simply say "we have life because the universe turned out this way". It's not amazing to me that we're here, it's simply a result of the universe developing this way. Paul, This is a point of view not so different from that of the biologist E.O. Wilson (whose latest book I am in the middle of now), but on a smaller scale. He talks about evolution of modern humans. There are many branches of the tree that led to us that met dead ends along the way and perished. And, although we humans were -- by definition -- amazingly adaptable, it is also great luck that the line survived to this point. Our evolutionary branch, at times, were a few thousand creatures concentrated geographically. It wouldn't have taken much of a natural disaster or infectious disease to wipe out the whole line. So, adaptability and a good roll of the dice and here we are talking about here we are. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 So, adaptability and a good roll of the dice and here we are talking about here we are. George ...and sometimes talking about where we're going! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I don't read anywhere in the interview, as you seem to suggest, Dawkins saying that if there is a More it is completely unknowable. Maybe you're referring to other interviews or understandings you have of Dawkins? More than likely, Paul, from "The God Delusion" which I read a few years back. I've listened to a number of his talks via podcast also, so I'm not sure exactly where my take of his views comes from. It was either on this thread or another that I recently said that I don't understand some atheists' firm mindedness that there definitely cannot be a God. At best I think all one can say is "I haven't experienced any such God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist". I don't understand why it wouldn't be left at that. Well, from my perspective, and I hope you don't take this as confrontational, at first blush to a new-comer here to the website and forum, Progressive Christianity implies that it has something to do with God and Jesus. We can (and do) discuss what these topics mean in our lives and their relevancy to us. Traditional Christianity has said, in various ways, that it is in Jesus that we see what God is truly like. But, and this is my opinion after spending a few years here, over time this forum has drifted away from theism (which Jesus held to) and into either agnosticism or Buddhism, neither of which affirm theism. It has probably done this in order to accommodate religious plurality, but I question the value of a "Christianity" that has little to do with God or how we might be in relationship with God, especially through the ways that Jesus taught and lived. Can Christianity, even "progressive" Christianity, leave behind God or Jesus' understandings of God and still be Christianity? Spong thinks so. I don't. I think there is still a place, and even a need, to talk about the reality of God, especially in a group that makes some kind of claim to Christianity. Just my opinion. And I'm not popular for it. And I don't doubt that many feel they have experienced God. I am undecided as to whether that is a psychological thing or if in fact they have in some connected to/genuinely experienced God. A person's certain-ness in having experienced God does nothing to convince me though. I understand...and I agree. I don't think anyone's "certain-ness" about God or experiences with God can be conveyed in any convincing way. At best, we are merely pointers. But, if one shares Dawkins' view, that those who believe in or claim to experiencially know God on some level are "deluded", that, to me, is the atheististic equivalent of the fundamentalist claim that if we don't believe as they do, we go to hell. It's not amazing to me that we're here, it's simply a result of the universe developing this way. I guess that is where we (you and I) are wired a bit differently, Paul. As I sat and watched "Hubble in 3D" a couple summers back in an Imax theater, I wept tears in awe. I was amazed at how small we and our world really are compared to the vastness of space. And I was in awe that, as Carl Sagan said, we are the way the universe comes to know itself. I thought how, to the best of our current knowledge, rare we are, how rare life is, and how easily we could blow it all away and destroy it on our planet. I didn't fall on the floor of the theater with my arms raised in order to belt out the "Hallelujah Chorus", but I felt...thankful. Is there Someone to be thankful to? In my experience, yes. But that is my experience. Could I be deluded? Certainly. But I have to be true to the light that I have. When I have more light, I will endeavor to follow that. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Bill, No confrontationality taken! (did I just invent a word?). I think I understand your opinon on PC and I think you have every right to feel that way. I am seeing that PC has by no means a strict defining code of how it 'connects' to God and that views can certainly be diverse. FWIW, to me the Christianity in PC means that people can consider Jesus, or at least what we have been led to believe about Jesus through the Bible, as an example of how best to live our lives. Jesus can be an example, but it is recognised by PC that he isn't the only example. That's my take on it anyway. And strangely enough, I don't think one even has to believe in a God to think that Jesus is an example to us of how to live a rewarding and fulfilling life. I'm probably in that category. I think you'll find we are actually wired more closely than you think. I didn't word that sentence well. I actually do find the universe amazing, and it blows me away that we are as insignificant as we are (sort of makes lifes problems not really worth worrying about in some ways). What I was meaning to say is that I don't think of our universe being an amazing probability against all odds, which to mean seems to infer that somehow a creator is behind it. It is amazing that the universe developed and so did we, but we shouldn't be amazaed that it turned out the way it did because as it stands, with the 'laws' as we know them, this is the only way it could have turned out. Cheers Paul Edited May 3, 2012 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I have a problem with saying that if this or that were not just so we would be ... the real answer is, as Paul says, we, here, now - amazing! As George notes modern humans were reduced to a few thousands - by climate change, and probably disease and starvation. But evolution is such, I think, that if those homonids didn't survive and evolve another would because the challenge and opportunity will come again. I am not sure how you live as if God exists. Well, actually, Andrew Newberg, neuroscientist, author of How God Changes Your Brain, will tell you how living as if a loving God existed will change your brain and your life. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I am not sure how you live as if God exists. Well, it may be out of place to say this here, Dutch, but I once heard of a first-century rabbi who tried this. Got him killed, so the story goes. PM me and I'll tell you where you can read the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I know the rabbi who lived in and through and with God; I do not know a rabbi who lived as if (as in pretending) that God existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 In some respects, I think we are a bit out of line concerning what science "knows". As noted in many other threads, science has no explanation for consciousness. Science cannot explain so-called "dark matter - energy", not even with a theory. One could expand this list consderably. But then, there are humble scientists who admit this, and remain ... curious. Instead of asking questions concerning free will, perhaps it would be productive to ask "What drives our curiousity?" What drives our creativity? The prototype can be found by watching a child exploring, imagining, creating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I don't think one even has to believe in a God to think that Jesus is an example to us of how to live a rewarding and fulfilling life. I'm probably in that category. This is not a strange idea at all, Paul. In my Minyan, there are several of us who do not believe in a supernatural G-d. We are not criticized for this, because the purpose of the Minyan is to live our lives in such a way as to be a blessing for all mankind -mitzvah. It is possible to do this whether or not you believe in a supernatural "cause" for such ideas. NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.