The God Delusion

[Liara Covert]

I've been reading Richard Dawkins new book The God Delusion and wonder what other people have thought about it. Do you feel trapped in particular conditioning or belief systems? Has Dawkins invited you to think religion and spirituality aren't good for the world as you know it?

[Akashic_Librarian]

Ohh I do LOVE these types of books I havn't read it, but thanks for bringing it to my attention, I will read it very soon!

[Liara Covert]

Although some people avoid this book like the plague, it can be fascinating to read about debates evoked by its controversy. It is said pious people are offended that scientific reasoning is used to supposedly draw suspicion about the plausibility of the supernatural. But, since when has Science ever conclusively proven Faith is unfounded? That debate has continued for as long as time itself.

[Anagogy]

I believe it was Einstein who once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Wise words in my humble opinion, though I would substitute "spirituality" for "religion".

[DaveTyler]

Einsein was a pantheist who believed God was all. No souk or after life

[Liara Covert]

It is true that Dawkins doesn’t take the absolutist opinion. He doesn’t argue “I know for a 100% certainty that there is no God.”
Instead, he explains that the burden of proof is on the positive asserters.

Whether or not you have 'faith' in things may be affected by your word choice. Some people prefer to use the word ‘hope’. I hope the sun will come up or the tide will change tomorrow. Empirical evidence suggests they should.

You could have faith in the scientific or empirical evidence, or in the scientists who examine, measure and predict certain phenomena.
I nurture hope in many things. I can’t think of anything I have faith in for which there is not some kind of evidence or supporting that faith. Perhaps belief, like faith, is ultimately a choice, based on personal emotion, intuition and immeasurables.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People may be interested in this list of 18 unconvincing arguments for God:
Friendly Atheist » 18 Unconvincing Arguments for God
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mark Lapierre]

I haven't read it yet Liara, but I intend to soon. I'm particularly interested to discover if Hawkins is as anti-spiritual as he seems, or if he does acknowledge some form of good in spiritual beliefs.

I do agree with him about the burden of proof being on the positive asserters.

And I can certainly see the "trap" my scientific beliefs create, but I choose to remain within the trap, using my awareness of the trap to avoid its dangers. Hopefully

[JimC]

I have read this book. If you read it with an open mind, he makes some great points. If your a theist, don't use the excuse that "he's an atheist, so I don't want to read it". I think everyone should read it just like the Bible, then make your decisions.

He makes really good arguments and covers a lot. He goes in to the History of the Bible, debunking biblical myths, explaining origins of religions and a lot of other controversial things. He also covers non-religious things like how our mind works, how we behave as humans, and talks a little about supernatural stuff etc...

To put it lightly, you have to be decently smart to understand it, it helps to have a high interest in science or psychology, or the entire book will be boring. I personally favor the chapter on irreducible complexity.

[JohnPlace]

On a related (but more humorous) note, I once saw a SouthPark episode where Cartman froze himself in ice and was awoken several hundred years later, in a world where atheism had replaced all forms of spirituality.

Of course, human beings still warred with one another (because that's what humans do), but instead of fighting over religious issues, countries warred with one another over which "athiest group" had adopted the most scientifically accurate name for itself.

In my opinion, humankind will always need spirituality, and most of the world's ills can be traced to the nature of man, regardless of his religious axioms.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

...humankind will always need spirituality

Why? (just curious why you think that, not saying you're wrong )

[Namaste]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Why? (just curious why you think that, not saying you're wrong )

To try and overcome "existential anxieties" we all struggle with - fear of death, feeling of ultimate loneliness and the massive burden of responsibility over our life (to shift it towards fate/God/destiny a bit).

To create a sense of community and belonging with people who share our beliefs and a feeling of distinctiveness from those who don't.

To attempt to name the unnameable moments of beauty, creativity and love; and the experiences of order over chaos and meaning over meaningfulness.

Pardon the pathos

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Namaste

To try and overcome "existential anxieties" we all struggle with - fear of death, feeling of ultimate loneliness and the massive burden of responsibility over our life (to shift it towards fate/God/destiny a bit).

To create a sense of community and belonging with people who share our beliefs and a feeling of distinctiveness from those who don't.

To attempt to name the unnameable moments of beauty, creativity and love; and the experiences of order over chaos and meaning over meaningfulness.

Pardon the pathos

*dryly* Responses like this are precisely what makes me think spirituality is unnecessary. I mean, as JohnPlace points out, it's not even necessary for conflict.

And........ I probably just hijacked the thread. *cough*

[Namaste]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

*dryly* Responses like this are precisely what makes me think spirituality is unnecessary. I mean, as JohnPlace points out, it's not even necessary for conflict.

An interesting choice of words there. Unnecessary for what?

Spirituality is one of the ways to deal with inner conflict.

[JimC]

I was a Christian until about 15, then I became an agnostic, then an atheist, and now I am juggling between agnostic and pavlina's strategy (see podcast #13) and I must say, spirituality has been present through out all of these stages.

I don't in any way attach spirit to religion. I completely agree that is needed, and will continue to be a big thing forever, especially as humans evolve mentally. I believe that the smarter you are, the more spirit you need. My reason for saying this is through my experience and this article: Why Intelligent People Tend To Be Unhappy

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Why? (just curious why you think that, not saying you're wrong )

Because spirituality satisfies two basic human needs:

1) The need for answers to things science cannot provide
2) The need for hope from something beyond our understanding

Please note, I'm not saying that *all* human beings will always need spirituality -- some don't need it at all.

What I'm saying is that logic is *not* the answer to everything for everybody. And keep in mind, that's always been a tough pill to swallow for me because I'm a highly analytical person by nature.

Think of the parent who loses a child. Although he hasn't prayed in years (and may even consider himself to be an atheist), his grief may cause him to cry out to a higher power because no earthly knowledge can console him -- this need for comfort from a "greater than human" force is universal and can be found in every culture.

Now think of the man who is trying to decide whether or not it's morally wrong to cheat on his wife. Science cannot answer this question for him. To solve the riddle, he has two choices: he can rely on his own logical axioms, or he can rely on the guidance contained in a religious book thought to be sacred by his culture.

And no matter how much we might prefer him to use his own logic, many people will always rely upon the book. You see, both logic and dogma can be debunked in the hands of a skilled debator. Some people want their law to come from something higher than themselves.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Namaste

An interesting choice of words there. Unnecessary for what?

Spirituality is one of the ways to deal with inner conflict.

Unnecessary for anything. When you say "one of the ways", you automatically concede that it's not necessary. Something is necessary--I'm not arguing that, though I'm not agreeing with it either; we haven't discussed it--but that something is not necessarily spirituality.

For instance, we might say that sustenance is necessary for life. And what you're saying, in a sense, is that potatoes are necessary for life, whereas people may easily have nutritious meals without potatoes.

As such, things such as existential anxieties, sense of community, and unnameable names can be fulfilled without spirituality. In a sense, you could say that spirituality is only one of many possible roads. This in no way says "Spirituality bad!", but it does say that "Must have spirituality" is an erroneous claim.

[Namaste]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

As such, things such as existential anxieties, sense of community, and unnameable names can be fulfilled without spirituality. In a sense, you could say that spirituality is only one of many possible roads. This in no way says "Spirituality bad!", but it does say that "Must have spirituality" is an erroneous claim.

Absolutely, I think so as well. I believe that people have (various levels of) spiritual needs, and they fulfil them in different ways.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Namaste

Absolutely, I think so as well. I believe that people have (various levels of) spiritual needs, and they fulfil them in different ways.

What constitutes a spiritual need?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Because spirituality satisfies two basic human needs:

1) The need for answers to things science cannot provide
2) The need for hope from something beyond our understanding

Do you believe spirituality actually provides answers? From what I've gathered through many discussions, and as confirmed by what you and Namaste have said here, spirituality provides emotional comfort, in various ways. It provides certainty, but not necessarily an answer behind that certainty.

If a man turns to some form of religion to decide on the morality of cheating, he's not looking for an answer, but rather the relief an authoritative source can provide from the stress of making the decision on his own. Neither science nor religion nor spirituality nor logic is necessary to answer the question of "is cheating wrong"; it's a matter of consideration for others, and of having the foresight to see that immediate gratification will have lasting repercussions. And while that message may be contained in, and learnt from, a religious text, it is not a necessarily spiritual concept.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

And no matter how much we might prefer him to use his own logic, many people will always rely upon the book. You see, both logic and dogma can be debunked in the hands of a skilled debator. Some people want their law to come from something higher than themselves.

I think we should make a distinction between religion and spirituality. As far as I'm aware, spirituality is less rigid than religion, and thus not so concerned with laws, but rather with personal interpretation of experiences. It's implicit where religion is explicit. Jenny summarised religion and spirituality well, I believe.

Liara, or anyone else who has read Hawkins' work, do you know if he treats spirituality and religion identically?

And does he address the question of what effect the conflicting concepts of self-realisation/self-empowerment and adherence to divide law have on an individual?

[Maguru]

There appears to be many definitions of 'spirituality' and the meanings as applied are broad and diverse. It seems the new spirituality is just giving us all something to argue about.
If the reason for this new spirituality is to unite us as a human family, then it ain't working. Can we devise a simplified definition that we can all agree on?

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Do you believe spirituality actually provides answers?

Yes. Symbolic answers, if not scientific ones. The symbolism is our attempt to grasp the things which cannot quite be grasped, and the answers we ascertain may be just as true as any bit of logic or science. More true in many ways, less true in others.

but not necessarily an answer behind that certainty.

Oftentimes the answer and the certainty are viewed as the same thing, coming from the same source.
Answers may, in fact, map quite well to logical arguments.

If a man turns to some form of religion to decide on the morality of cheating, he's not looking for an answer, but rather the relief an authoritative source can provide from the stress of making the decision on his own.

This is a less than generous view of the matter, in my humble opinion -- and it sounds like the view of someone on the outside looking in, or perhaps someone on the inside trying to get out.

If a person honestly believes in a God (take the Christian God for example), and he truthfully believes that this one all-knowing God possesses the one and only correct answer, then he may, in fact, be seeking truth, not just attempting to avoid making his own decisions.

The fact is this: There is no morally "right" answer to the question of whether or not cheating is wrong that a skilled debator couldn't shred into a million pieces. That's the problem with both logic *and* religious dogma. The difference is that dogma provides a structure, a culture, a hierarchy, a whole bunch of other people of perceived authority, and a higher power to support an opinion (and while religious opinions do differ, here it's a matter of who your system trusts vs. who it doesn't), whereas moral logic often sways with popular opinion and can appear quite liquid as a result -- often with the feeling of isolation.

Of course, I could easily flip those definitions upside down and make logic the more concrete of the two -- and that's precisely my point. There will always be people (large numbers of them, in fact) who naturally gravitate to one system or another because of their own individual needs.

Many people will meld logic and dogma together, finding neither satisfactory in isolation.

Neither science nor religion nor spirituality nor logic is necessary to answer the question of "is cheating wrong"; it's a matter of consideration for others, and of having the foresight to see that immediate gratification will have lasting repercussions.

But those are your arguments, your axioms. And you find the vehicle or your own logic quite satisfactory as a means of understanding them. And while large numbers of people would agree with you, one need only visit a forum like this one to see that every bit of logic can be challenged.

The question, then, boils down to which moral system provides the greatest comfort to the individual.

I think we should make a distinction between religion and spirituality. As far as I'm aware, spirituality is less rigid than religion, and thus not so concerned with laws, but rather with personal interpretation of experiences. It's implicit where religion is explicit. Jenny summarised religion and spirituality well, I believe.

Yes, this distinction is an important one. Religion is "narrower" in many ways, but "deeper" too. Without man's nearly universal need for spirituality it's unlikely religion would have ever taken hold to the extent that it has, and it is this very need that will keep it from ever going away.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Yes. Symbolic answers, if not scientific ones. The symbolism is our attempt to grasp the things which cannot quite be grasped, and the answers we ascertain may be just as true as any bit of logic or science. More true in many ways, less true in others.

Haha if truth is so amorphous it's no surprise the debate over secular versus spiritual beliefs has been going on for so long.

If that's the case then I suspect the terms "question" and "answer" are misleading. The "question" seems more of search for a path, and the "answer" is a signpost pointing in the direction of a path. And the feeling of certainty, or its absence, will determine if the path is suitable, or not. I suppose that's a less-than-concise description of what metaphors and symbols are. (and here I use a metaphor to describe metaphors. Yes, really helpful )

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Oftentimes the answer and the certainty are viewed as the same thing, coming from the same source.
Answers may, in fact, map quite well to logical arguments.

I'm having trouble seeing how such ambiguous answers could map to sound logical arguments. But that's probably because I see a logical argument as falsifiable, which the ambiguity of personal experience is not.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

This is a less than generous view of the matter, in my humble opinion -- and it sounds like the view of someone on the outside looking in, or perhaps someone on the inside trying to get out.

Ha! Yes, yes it is less than generous. I'm still far from compassionate enough to be generous with people who are unsure of the morality of cheating.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

If a person honestly believes in a God (take the Christian God for example), and he truthfully believes that this one all-knowing God possesses the one and only correct answer, then he may, in fact, be seeking truth, not just attempting to avoid making his own decisions.

Agreed, but I don't believe this person, and the person unsure about the morality of cheating, are the same... Or at least if they are, he never went to Sunday school and slept through all the readings and homilies.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

The question, then, boils down to which moral system provides the greatest comfort to the individual.

True, though I'm sure wars have started over individual concern for comfort when it's at the expense of the comfort of other individuals

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Without man's nearly universal need for spirituality it's unlikely religion would have ever taken hold to the extent that it has, and it is this very need that will keep it from ever going away.

I think it's religion and spirituality's past and current satisfaction of that need which will keep it from ever going away, not the need itself. Without spirituality or religion the need would be satisfied some other way, as Michael pointed out.

I should just shut up and let people be satisfied with their methods of satisfying their needs

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

If a person honestly believes in a God (take the Christian God for example), and he truthfully believes that this one all-knowing God possesses the one and only correct answer, then he may, in fact, be seeking truth, not just attempting to avoid making his own decisions.

Can you map this paragraph to a non-Abrahamic religion?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

What I'm saying is that logic is *not* the answer to everything for everybody. And keep in mind, that's always been a tough pill to swallow for me because I'm a highly analytical person by nature.

Well no. But surely there are options other than logic and spirituality. Human compassion and other emotional cues, for example.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Think of the parent who loses a child. Although he hasn't prayed in years (and may even consider himself to be an atheist), his grief may cause him to cry out to a higher power because no earthly knowledge can console him -- this need for comfort from a "greater than human" force is universal and can be found in every culture.

Or perhaps the grief has just caused him to regress to the (religious) security blanket of his youth. Would he cry out to God if he had not been raised religious?

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Now think of the man who is trying to decide whether or not it's morally wrong to cheat on his wife. Science cannot answer this question for him. To solve the riddle, he has two choices: he can rely on his own logical axioms, or he can rely on the guidance contained in a religious book thought to be sacred by his culture.

Again there are options other than logic, science or spirituality. How about his own gut feelings on the matter? (Incidentally, since he's phrased the question in terms of 'cheating' I'd say that he considers it wrong).

Any system that relies on external input to tell a person the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' is flawed. That knowledge needs to be intrinsic to an individual, not extrinsic.

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Keith

Well no. But surely there are options other than logic and spirituality. Human compassion and other emotional cues, for example.

Certainly.

Or perhaps the grief has just caused him to regress to the (religious) security blanket of his youth.

Nowhere do I validate or refute his choice to turn to God. I merely state it as an example, without judgment.

Would he cry out to God if he had not been raised religious?

Depends upon the individual. Examples exist of people finding spirituality for the first time in a situation such as this, although more often than not I imagine they've have had some prior exposure.

Again there are options other than logic, science or spirituality. How about his own gut feelings on the matter?

Of course. While "gut feelings" is an imprecise term, most probably referring to intuition, which could be based on a number of things (including the things we've already discussed), your point is well taken, and I agree. I always have, in fact.

Any system that relies on external input to tell a person the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' is flawed. That knowledge needs to be intrinsic to an individual, not extrinsic.

All systems are flawed -- this I promise you. And it could be argued that all knowledge comes from outside the individual -- even logic, which is based upon learning of one form or another.

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Can you map this paragraph to a non-Abrahamic religion?

Michael, I tried to answer this question with a simple "no," but unfortunately, posts here need to be at least 6 characters long. And the periods I was going to add seemed flippant.

Despite my own admitted lack of knowledge, I do have some friends who practice various Eastern religions that I could ask, if you're interested (assuming your question was not rhetorical).

[JohnPlace]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Haha if truth is so amorphous it's no surprise the debate over secular versus spiritual beliefs has been going on for so long.

Well, it depends upon what kind of truth we're talking about. Easily verifiable scientific truth is different than the more ambigious truth of morality and ethics.

If that's the case then I suspect the terms "question" and "answer" are misleading. The "question" seems more of search for a path, and the "answer" is a signpost pointing in the direction of a path. And the feeling of certainty, or its absence, will determine if the path is suitable, or not. I suppose that's a less-than-concise description of what metaphors and symbols are. (and here I use a metaphor to describe metaphors. Yes, really helpful )

People may seek the symbolic when no scientific answers exist. And I think the way you've described it is quite appropriate, whether we're dealing with the logical or the dogmatic pursuit of moral clarity.

Logic is not always scientific, after all, and can be used to justify practically any position. Same as religion.

I'm having trouble seeing how such ambiguous answers could map to sound logical arguments. But that's probably because I see a logical argument as falsifiable, which the ambiguity of personal experience is not.

Mark, I could give you a very thorough answer here involving specific stories of the Bible that map quite well to logical arguments that you'd probably agree with, but I'm reluctant to do so here, except to say that many of the stories in the great myths throughout history have resulted from logical cause and effect (in addition to the quest for the unknown which I've already mentioned).

Ha! Yes, yes it is less than generous. I'm still far from compassionate enough to be generous with people who are unsure of the morality of cheating.

Mark, I did not intend my "less than generous" remark to relate specifically to the person who does not know that cheating is wrong. I meant it to relate to your view of anyone who turns to religion for answers.

The "cheating" was just a randomly chosen moral question (and a rather obvious one at that). There are more subtle moral questions than this.

Furthermore, this picture that I may have unintentionally painted of "spiritual" people as sheep is niether accurate nor fair. In reality, I imagine that very few spiritual people have the ability to completely disengage from their reasoning skills; while I'm sure these people do exist, I have no reason to believe that they are more prevalent among the spiritual.

One need look no further than your average political debate to see someone using a "logical" argument to defend what is essentially a belief system, irrespective of spirituality or religion.

My point was not that the spiritual are sheep (just to be clear), but rather that spirituality and religion provide models that help large numbers people understand the world in certain situations.

And I do not believe the desire for these models is ever going to go away, although I suppose we could discuss it in 10,000 years to see how it all worked out.

Agreed, but I don't believe this person, and the person unsure about the morality of cheating, are the same... Or at least if they are, he never went to Sunday school and slept through all the readings and homilies.

It's getting kind of hard to follow this debate (I think we need nested includes), but I'll do my best here. Those Sunday School Lessons, readings, and homilies may have been the vehicle through which he was first introduced to the concepts of coveting and adultery. When the person becomes aware was not critical to my point -- at least, I don't think it was!

I think it's religion and spirituality's past and current satisfaction of that need which will keep it from ever going away, not the need itself. Without spirituality or religion the need would be satisfied some other way, as Michael pointed out.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point -- although I'm not sure the distinction is one worth arguing about, at least not for me.

I should just shut up and let people be satisfied with their methods of satisfying their needs

Well, if you truly believe that logic should supplant spirituality as a means of finding answers in EVERY CONCEIVABLE SITUATION for EVERY PERSON, carry on. It's good to believe in something.

Although I must say, the similarities between logic and dogma have never been so clear to me as they are now. And underneath the hood of all this, what we really have is human nature.

[Michael Chui]

Eh:

Smoke and Mirrors: The Science of the Mysterious

[Keith]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

Nowhere do I validate or refute his choice to turn to God. I merely state it as an example, without judgement.

You were offering the example as a demonstration that man needs to turn to a higher power sometimes. I consider the fact that the man has been conditioned to turn to a higher power invalidates the example.

I am not convinced that this need for a higher power exists in individuals who haven't been raised to expect it.

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

All systems are flawed -- this I promise you. And it could be argued that all knowledge comes from outside the individual -- even logic, which is based upon learning of one form or another.

True. But a person will never feel external sources of wisdom to be True like they do internal ones.

[JohnPlace]

I am not convinced that this need for a higher power exists in individuals who haven't been raised to expect it.

Using the specific example that I gave (which was just one possible example in an endless array), you may be correct.

My opinion? If you could somehow remove all the personal history from everyone's memory, we'd still find a way to re-invent religion and spirituality. I have no way to prove this, of course. But I believe it.

True. But a person will never feel external sources of wisdom to be True like they do internal ones.

Two points:

1) That sounds a lot like a belief to me, as opposed to a verifiable and repeatable scientific fact, and

2) As I mentioned in my response to Mark, the portrait that I painted of spiritual people as sheep was unfair -- that was not my intent.