7 ms·

All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequentl

by dfranke 18y ago

All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!' But is 'religion' the right word? I don't think so. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory: Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal. Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. --Dawkins

robg 18y ago
Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :) Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint". Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?
- dfranke 18y ago
  So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
  - robg 18y ago
    And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions. Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
    - 0x44 18y ago
      And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? That statement has no meaning. There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however. Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
      - astine 18y ago
        "To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however." No it wouldn't. Perhaps I'm just special. a priori knowledge is knowledge gained without experience. There is no reason it has to be universal.
        0x44 18y ago
        All a priori knowledge we have discovered so far, is universal at least to the locality that we can see.
        18y ago
- IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
  Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? To paraphrase Dawkins' speech to the University of Kentucky, The thing about being an atheist is that you don't think that "theology" is a subject at all. You're not an expert in fairies, but I'll bet you have no problem not believing in those. Actually, since Dawkins is an expert in Ethology, the evolution of animal behavior, he is in fact uniquely qualified to talk about religion, as that is among the most odd, fascinating, paradoxical, and complex behaviors that evolution has yet produced. In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion. Theologists are the ones not qualified to analyze religion.
  - robg 18y ago
    "In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion." And yet none are testable hypotheses. In other words, he's no longer doing science unless he can propose some experiments with predictions. They're just so stories that give the illusion of understanding without verification. Hmmm, seems an awful lot like faith creeping in... Now, that's not to knock evolutionary theory. It's just a massive reach, without an empirical net, to try to apply it toward explaining away religion.
IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
This reminds me of a conversation I heard once in college that stuck with me. A: I believe that when you die, your energy goes back out into the world, and becomes a part of everything. P: Yeah, that's why you get cold. Entropy. The problem is, when non-geeks talk about energy, they almost never really mean energy. Which is a shame, because real energy is a lot cooler and more magical than the ghosty chi-stuff they're talking about.

by dfranke 18y ago

robg 18y ago

Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :) Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint". Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?

dfranke 18y ago
So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
- robg 18y ago
  And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions. Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
  - 0x44 18y ago
    And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? That statement has no meaning. There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however. Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
    - astine 18y ago
      "To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however." No it wouldn't. Perhaps I'm just special. a priori knowledge is knowledge gained without experience. There is no reason it has to be universal.
      - 0x44 18y ago
        All a priori knowledge we have discovered so far, is universal at least to the locality that we can see.
        18y ago
IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? To paraphrase Dawkins' speech to the University of Kentucky, The thing about being an atheist is that you don't think that "theology" is a subject at all. You're not an expert in fairies, but I'll bet you have no problem not believing in those. Actually, since Dawkins is an expert in Ethology, the evolution of animal behavior, he is in fact uniquely qualified to talk about religion, as that is among the most odd, fascinating, paradoxical, and complex behaviors that evolution has yet produced. In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion. Theologists are the ones not qualified to analyze religion.
- robg 18y ago
  "In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion." And yet none are testable hypotheses. In other words, he's no longer doing science unless he can propose some experiments with predictions. They're just so stories that give the illusion of understanding without verification. Hmmm, seems an awful lot like faith creeping in... Now, that's not to knock evolutionary theory. It's just a massive reach, without an empirical net, to try to apply it toward explaining away religion.

IsaacSchlueter 18y ago

This reminds me of a conversation I heard once in college that stuck with me. A: I believe that when you die, your energy goes back out into the world, and becomes a part of everything. P: Yeah, that's why you get cold. Entropy. The problem is, when non-geeks talk about energy, they almost never really mean energy. Which is a shame, because real energy is a lot cooler and more magical than the ghosty chi-stuff they're talking about.