Your link does not seem to work - however, the video is still available on youtube.
It distresses me that people are so virulent in their attacks on the person of Dr. Dawkins - he is indeed a brilliant scientist and thinker. He deserves respect, period. These attacks are the small attemts by small individuals, and do not represent all Christians.
I disagree with many, if not all, of his views - but do not believe he should be attacked. In a side note - I once emailed him for a class, and received a wonderful response - such a man that has time for any student deserves respect.
I can’t see this video either but if it’s the one where someone hopes that he gets hit with a church van then it’s very funny. I think he says something about pitying these people who send him death threats. A decent sentiment I think.
I still don’t understand why some Christians are so threatened by evolution or by it’s many supporters. It’s not as if Genesis is a literal retelling of creation. There is plenty of room for metaphor in the story as well as issues of translation to allow for evolution within the Christian framework.
Dawkins is pretty funny, and people are silly for attacking him personally, but what do you expect, he says some pretty nasty things about things people deeply cherish.
If I called your spouse names in a book, you might get ticked off enough to write me a letter like the ones he gets.
I have to say Dawkins looks like a first-rate, intelligent thinker when he accuses creationists of attacking straw men and lacking in proper understanding and credentials to posit theories of origins. But boy does he have egg on his face when he turns around and attacks a ‘Christianity’ that my four year old knows better than to believe!
He needs to read some mature Christian authors and interact with them, instead of the Sunday School teacher of his youth. Not to mention some good ol’ philosophy, history, and rhetoric.
If he did that, I might actually pay attention to him.
Leo and Jason, thanks for letting me know. I found another copy of it on YouTube and put that up.
Leo, yes, you’re right, many Christians would never send Dawkins letters like this.
Jason, yes, it’s the one you said. As to why some Christians care, some take an all-or-nothing view that if you don’t take the beginning of Genesis literally it undermines the rest of the Bible being the Word of God. So it matters a lot what you do with Genesis because of the implications for the rest of the Bible.
no offense, if someone called my spouse names in a book, I’d probably let my spouse deal with them. Which is one reason I’m surprised at the vehemence with which some Christians go after people who criticize the God they believe in. Why not let God do that? He’s the one being criticized.
If I was in a situation where I was responding to something I felt was unfair, I wouldn’t write an angry letter full of expletives. (If I did that would be interpreted as symptoms of mental illness which would mean I’d get put on psychiatric medication - I’m trying to avoid that, hence, I’m not sending viciously angry letters)
There are a number of things Dawkins does which lessen the likelihood Christians will listen to him. If his goal is to be listened to by Christians I think he shows a lack of wisdom in his approach. On the other hand he’s an academic and academics often don’t excell in people skills or people awareness. Also he’s reached an age where I doubt he’ll change his approach even if he did have the people skills to do it. He’s smart and funny and can come across fairly likeable, imo, when he’s not talking about religion - but when he is he’s definitely not diplomatic or tactful and often overstates the case, (again, in my opinion).
People who make the choice to be antagonistic rather than friendly shouldn’t be surprised if those they’re criticizing refuse to engage with them. But then, maybe they aren’t surprised. Maybe they don’t care.
By the way you can leave the comments URL box blank if you like. The site only requires an email (which is not displayed on the blog). If you put fake URLs in the URL box they might inadvertently link your name to weird sites. FYI
Dawkins is interesting, a shameless self promoter, and someone whom the church appears to have hurt very deeply.
I would enjoy his books more but instead of sticking to what he’s good at he can’t resist inflammatory statements and letting his anti christian feelings get the better of him. It subverts his cause and lessens his credibility to me.
He also contradicts himself in ways that are interesting. In the last book of his I read, After trouncing people for being idiots if they believe in God, and offering many explanations apart from God, he goes on with this long gushy paragraph about the uniqueness of life and how we should grateful for the opportunity to live. Grateful to who or what? I’m thinking, “Thanks universe, you non-thinking, self-unaware, completely unintentional, and uncaused sphere of existence with no preference or predication toward me whatsoever.” Who does that leave, lady luck?
Isn’t part of the appeal of atheism the absence of such thinking? We are not special or unique beyond our own ability to see ourselves that way. We are not beholden to anyone unless we choose to be. To me, these are some of the realities of true atheism and the untainted evolutionary process. I don’t like it when people try to soften it or dress it down to appeal to the feeble minded religious people like myself. Think it through and speak the true benefits.
But I digress. Helen, I disagree (respectfully of course) If someone maligns my wife or friend in public I would feel a duty to defend them. In a sense you disrespect them, you disrespect me, because I believe in that person.
As for the hateful things people say, they’re embarrasing themselves and other people that potentially share their beliefs. Dawkins is more subservise and clever with his insults, but I do think he trys to solicit these kinds of reactions so he can revel in his superiority. Unfortunately people aren’t bright enought to avoid taking the bait. I don’t condone that type of reaction in any way, but there will always be people that react like that. (although the van comment did make me chuckle, only because of the irony and the fact that he laughed as well…)
Randy, you might be right although I think you have to be an Evil Atheist and Proponent of Evil-ution to get mail like that. Neither of which Jim is, of course.
Bob, so you really like Dawkins then :)
Dawkins is [...] someone whom the church appears to have hurt very deeply.
I suppose that might be true but I haven’t run across any evidence of it. What I have seen is that Dawkins became more outspoken against all religion after 9/11. Since then he seems afraid that religion is going to destroy the world and he seems to believe it’s his responsibility to speak out about it. I say that based on reading something he wrote soon after 9/11.
After trouncing people for being idiots if they believe in God, and offering many explanations apart from God, he goes on with this long gushy paragraph about the uniqueness of life and how we should grateful for the opportunity to live. Grateful to who or what? I’m thinking, “Thanks universe, you non-thinking, self-unaware, completely unintentional, and uncaused sphere of existence with no preference or predication toward me whatsoever.” Who does that leave, lady luck?
Isn’t part of the appeal of atheism the absence of such thinking? We are not special or unique beyond our own ability to see ourselves that way. We are not beholden to anyone unless we choose to be. To me, these are some of the realities of true atheism and the untainted evolutionary process. I don’t like it when people try to soften it or dress it down to appeal to the feeble minded religious people like myself. Think it through and speak the true benefits.
I think gratitude may be the wrong word. As you say it implies someone to be grateful to and who would that be? I would say appreciation is a better word. Atheists can appreciate being alive and many do. It’s possible to think life is amazing and appreciate it without believing it was created by a supernatural being.
Helen, I disagree (respectfully of course) If someone maligns my wife or friend in public I would feel a duty to defend them. In a sense you disrespect them, you disrespect me, because I believe in that person.
If I was there when it was said and my husband wasn’t then yes I’d defend him. But not because I was disrespected - I don’t agree that the offense is also against me. Because I want to speak up for the truth, as it were, about my husband. Because I don’t want the only thing said about him to be wrong.
I do think he trys to solicit these kinds of reactions so he can revel in his superiority.
That gets into his motives which I don’t think we can know.
I was glad to see him laugh at the van comment because that seems like a good way to respond to outrageous emails. It’s not worth getting upset over them.
Helen — Actually I don’t dislike him, just some of his choices. I do find him interesting as a theorist, even if I don’t agree with his theories. They require creativity and examination and leg work that not everyone is willing to do. His personality can be bit much sometimes. In terms of his motives, I think we can make some safe assumptions that he doesn’t mind offending people regarding their belief systems. As you pointed out a less than wise approach for truly productive dialogue.
Because I don’t want the only thing said about him to be wrong
Well perhaps my choice of words has failed me again here. If someone hurts my loved on I don’t want to see them hurt and will do what I can do make things right. Justice is part of it, but beyond the logic there is love and loyalty that would also encourage me to act.
I suppose that might be true but I haven’t run across any evidence of it.
The last Dawkins book I read (god delusion)mentioned that he had an innapropriate experience with one of the teachers at his anglican school. I found his easy dismisal of the experience rather curious. I do not think the molestation of a 9 year old inconsequential in any way. I was thinking of that particular experience but there could be others.
Dawkins anger does occassionaly seap through his pages. Whether it’s relative to this or something else I can’t say. But Dawkins appears to be more than pro-Atheism, he seems to be anti-God. You don’t have to be that way to be an atheist do you? Can’t you simply choose not to acknowledge what you don’t believe exists? Dawkins can’t write without belittling people that hold Christian beliefs. That’s what I don’t like about him, otherwise I enjoy reading his ideas for the mere inventivness if nothing else.
I think gratitude may be the wrong word. As you say it implies someone to be grateful to and who would that be? I would say appreciation is a better word. Atheists can appreciate being alive and many do. It’s possible to think life is amazing and appreciate it without believing it was created by a supernatural being.
Hey Helen — I somehow missed this part of your response earlier, my apologies. I know what you’re saying but the way he worded this particular paragraph tracked more with gratitude than appreciation (in my dusty recollections). I’ll have to read it again and see if it comes across any differently. I think he used the word thankful as well.
Although, even with appreciate, to me it implies that you have received something. I appreciate good wine, someone made it, or served it to me, or recommended it. There is some record of preceding action that make is possible for you to appreciate. I actually think glad, happy, enjoy or admire might be a better choice of words. To say I appreciate being alive, still sounds like life is a gift or a privelige and someone granted it to me. To say I am glad to be alive conveys it more indepently of any potential giver.
I guess you can say as an atheist, I appreciate the opportunity to be alive despite the face that no one in particular gave it to me. I appreciate the sunset even though no one intended it for my enjoyment. Appreciate my child’s laughter even though I know it’s just a biological mechanism that might have been any other number of random sounds had evolution worked differently. But to me that’s all kind of sad and lonely. I can’t see the world as a big beautiful wonderful accident. It’s depressing.
Although, even with appreciate, to me it implies that you have received something. I appreciate good wine, someone made it, or served it to me, or recommended it. There is some record of preceding action that make is possible for you to appreciate. I actually think glad, happy, enjoy or admire might be a better choice of words
I do think that it’s worth pointing out that we’ve had centuries where our language has developed alongside religion. We talk about the universe as “all creation” for example without implying a creator. When we appreciate or feel awe for what we see in nature it doesn’t imply that it was given to us, rather that the limitations of our language allow us to express our emotional responses in such a way.
Personally, I find the mysteries of the universe and life, as revealed by science, to be far more awe-inspiring and beautiful without insisting that the religious stories about its formation are actually true. I sometimes see religious people as deliberately limiting the scope of their own experience by forcing “all creation” into a religion frame.
I agree with Randy. Morons come out of the woodwork in response to anyone who says anything at all. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you stand for, there’s a bunch of morons out there ready to send you mail.
You could be giving away candy and soft fluffy kittens, and someone would send you badly-spelled hate mail. It’s nothing personal.
If someone hurts my loved on I don’t want to see them hurt and will do what I can do make things right. Justice is part of it, but beyond the logic there is love and loyalty that would also encourage me to act.
If you’re more powerful (maybe you’re speaking of a small child) I can see that. But if they’re an adult like you why wouldn’t they defend themselves? By stepping in for them aren’t you implying they’re too weak to do it? And if they’re more powerful than you then definitely it seems to me that it makes more sense for them to defend themselves. Which definitely would be true if God exists, because then God is infinitely more powerful than anyone who tries to defend God.
The last Dawkins book I read (god delusion)mentioned that he had an innapropriate experience with one of the teachers at his anglican school. I found his easy dismisal of the experience rather curious. I do not think the molestation of a 9 year old inconsequential in any way. I was thinking of that particular experience but there could be others.
I’ve only read some of that book; I guess I didn’t get to that part. Molestation is serious but maybe he’s dealt with it and moved on and so it’s not an issue for him anymore. I’d have to read his own words to see whether I thought he minimized it too much.
But Dawkins appears to be more than pro-Atheism, he seems to be anti-God. You don’t have to be that way to be an atheist do you? Can’t you simply choose not to acknowledge what you don’t believe exists?
Exactly. I suppose the reason Dawkins goes beyond that is the same reason Christians engage in evangelism: they want to rescue people from their wrong beliefs and help them ’see the light’. Dawkins believes religion could destroy the world and he doesn’t want that to happen so he speaks out against it and tries to lessen the number of its adherents.
Hey Helen — I somehow missed this part of your response earlier, my apologies.
Actually it was probably my fault because I forgot it when I posted my comment then went back and edited it into the middle. I should have posted it underneath in case you’d already read the comment. There wasn’t long between the initial post and edit so I thought you’d just see the second version. I guess I was wrong!
Although, even with appreciate, to me it implies that you have received something. I appreciate good wine, someone made it, or served it to me, or recommended it. There is some record of preceding action that make is possible for you to appreciate. I actually think glad, happy, enjoy or admire might be a better choice of words. To say I appreciate being alive, still sounds like life is a gift or a privelige and someone granted it to me. To say I am glad to be alive conveys it more indepently of any potential giver.
I think this is semantics - I like the word ‘appreciate’ because it has more of a sense of savoring something, to me, than “I’m glad”. To me neither one implies a giver. But that may be because I’ve intentionally sought ways of being appreciative (glad) without having to tie that back to a Giver.
I guess you can say as an atheist, I appreciate the opportunity to be alive despite the face that no one in particular gave it to me. I appreciate the sunset even though no one intended it for my enjoyment. Appreciate my child’s laughter even though I know it’s just a biological mechanism that might have been any other number of random sounds had evolution worked differently.
There’s no ‘despite’ or ‘but’ about it for people who aren’t Christians. It’s fine that no-one gave these things to us. It’s not depressing or lonely. We don’t care if things could have evolved differently. For us that doesn’t detract from the beauty of what is.
Christians could say “I worship God even though he’s a sadistic monster based on his acts in the Old Testament” - but that’s not how Christians see God so they wouldn’t, would they? Just like atheists wouldn’t say what you suggested with all those ‘despite’ and ‘buts’ in there.
I can’t see the world as a big beautiful wonderful accident. It’s depressing.
Fair enough. I find the idea that God is sending most people to hell much more depressing than that the world is a big beautiful wonderful accident.
Pseudonym, maybe you’re right although I expect Dawkins gets more hate mail than people who are less public and less outspoken about their views and whose views push less peoples’ buttons.
Bob it was probably my fault you missed it. I forgot to comment on it then added it in the middle of my comment a few mins later. Maybe you saw the first version.
Pseudonym I expect you’re right, but I also would guess that Richard Dawkins, being a public figure who
When we appreciate or feel awe for what we see in nature it doesn’t imply that it was given to us, rather that the limitations of our language allow us to express our emotional responses in such a way.
Yes, if appreciation is merely a feeling and not intellectual in any way then that makes sense, interesting. However I do think that there is thought beyond the feeling and we are capable of analyzing that like we are now.
Personally, I find the mysteries of the universe and life, as revealed by science, to be far more awe-inspiring and beautiful without insisting that the religious stories about its formation are actually true. I sometimes see religious people as deliberately limiting the scope of their own experience by forcing “all creation” into a religion frame.
I do understand what you mean, and we are all certainly affected as by-products of a long period of judeo christian tradition. I guess what I say along the same lines is, take “my” religion out of it, take any religion out of it. I still don’t see the universe existing without cause or intention.
Some atheists want to believe that there is no possibility of cause because if validates their belief there is no god. So to me atheists are forcing “all creation” into a non causal frame for the same reasons you mentioned. To make it fit and support their world view. The idea that the universe popped out of nothingness for no reason is not viable to me. And to declare it as fact, when it is in fact unknowable on certain terms, is no more or less outrageous than claiming that someone made it intentionally. I’d say that’s at least a 50/50 shot to be fair. Do you see my point?
Now arguing about who or what it may have been is a whole different can of worms. But to deny the possibility that something may have caused the universe is no less unreasonable than claiming some one did is.
Hi Helen — I understand what your saying from a logical standpoint, just less so on a personal one. I’m happy to let people fight their own battles if they want to or are able. But I’d like to think I’ve got their back regardless. I also understand the “why doesn’t mighty God show himself” analogy and I get that.
That Dawkins passage was pretty weird, check it out if you get a chance. He goes on to imply that religious upbringing is a worse form of child abuse, I thought the analogy was in poor taste. Trivializing something like child abuse to make your case on religious views is pretty ugly, no matter how strongly you feel.
I think this is semantics - I like the word ‘appreciate’ because it has more of a sense of savoring something, to me, than “I’m glad”. To me neither one implies a giver. But that may be because I’ve intentionally sought ways of being appreciative (glad) without having to tie that back to a Giver.
Yes — like to linger on something with deep enjoyment. Savoring is a good choice of words.
There’s no ‘despite’ or ‘but’ about it for people who aren’t Christians. It’s fine that no-one gave these things to us. It’s not depressing or lonely. We don’t care if things could have evolved differently. For us that doesn’t detract from the beauty of what is.
Hey Helen — I’m just expressing my feelings after visiting that train of thought. I’m allowed to have them and I didn’t say you have to share them. I’m trying to explore your world and understand some of these things. Invalidating my feelings doesn’t help, when you’re defensive it just reinforces my discomfort with it. Also it may be possible that not every atheist feels exactly the way you do about the things I’m bringing up. I’m glad it’s not sad for you, it would still feel lonely to me.
I understand you think my God is sadistic monster, I don’t think that had anything to do with what we’re talking about. If it makes you more comfortable take the christian God out of the equation and think of a benevolent non-Judeo Christian entity that could have intended our existence. My point is more about the lack of intention or causality (which for me would come from a higher power) is discomforting and somewhat illogical based on the way we view anything else that exists. See my post above regarding that. Thanks.
That Dawkins passage was pretty weird, check it out if you get a chance. He goes on to imply that religious upbringing is a worse form of child abuse, I thought the analogy was in poor taste. Trivializing something like child abuse to make your case on religious views is pretty ugly, no matter how strongly you feel.
I’ve heard Dawkins’ comments elsewhere about religious upbringing being child abuse - I don’t agree with him.
Invalidating my feelings doesn’t help, when you’re defensive it just reinforces my discomfort with it. Also it may be possible that not every atheist feels exactly the way you do about the things I’m bringing up. I’m glad it’s not sad for you, it would still feel lonely to me.
Bob I wasn’t feeling defensive when I wrote it, sorry it came across that way.
Where did I invalidate your feelings? I thought I was simply expressing mine.
I understand you think my God is sadistic monster, I don’t think that had anything to do with what we’re talking about.
I was just trying to give an analogy to what you did when you said “As an atheist I would say” - and show that as an atheist you wouldn’t really say that anymore than Christians add ‘even though God is a sadistic monster’ to the end of their comments about God. An atheist who thinks Christians would tack that on the end hasn’t fully stepped into Christian shoes just like a Christian who thinks atheists tack on ‘even though it’s all random’ at the end hasn’t fully stepped into atheist shoes.
God is a sadistic monster is not a phrase I use - maybe I shouldn’t have included it in my attempted analogy.
If it makes you more comfortable take the christian God out of the equation and think of a benevolent non-Judeo Christian entity that could have intended our existence.
FWIW, that doesn’t work for me either - there’s nothing at present driving me to look for an explanation of the universe which includes such an entity. I’m not aware of anything which points to it strongly enough to convince me, or which requires it (I know you feel differently).
Hi Helen — I suppose that’s the trouble with communicating this way, we can read more into things than the author intends. In terms of invalidating my feelings, it seemed as though you were implying my ideas were silly an no atheist would think that way.
It’s not depressing or lonely. We don’t care if things could have evolved differently.
I would say it is possible that there are atheists that may find the idea depressing, but they also do not believe in God. They accept that reality but also find it sobering. I don’t think every atheist thinks exactly the same way anymore than every christian thinks exactly the same way. Their faith and view of life is still unique.
I get what you mean about walking in the other persons shoes, but don’t forget that’s what I’m trying to do. So when my references sound like something a Christian would say that kinds of makes sense. I’m trying to see something differently from how I normally see it and that is challenging. I appreciate that you take the time to explain how the mindset is different and why –I know it’s a lot of effort and I do appreciate it. Just remember I am doing the best I can and my suppositions aren’t meant to do anything other than get my head around this.
I think the God/Sadist reference may have come up a little more than you realize : ) But my memory isn’t the best.
FWIW, that doesn’t work for me either - there’s nothing at present driving me to look for an explanation of the universe which includes such an entity. I’m not aware of anything which points to it strongly enough to convince me, or which requires it (I know you feel differently).
So you really and truly believe the universe sprang into existence with any cause or intention? God aside entirely. No force, no nudge no nothing? On what evidence do you base this thought and what evidence would make you think otherwise? This is the only question we answer this way — anything else that physically exists we can look at it’s structure and positively conclude that something preceded it. So why do we take the biggest event of all and assume it has no cause? I believe that’s a huge leap of faith. I really want to know how this works for you because it just doesn’t make sense to me at all. Any help on this one is greatly appreciated…
Hi Helen — I suppose that’s the trouble with communicating this way, we can read more into things than the author intends.
Yes, it can be tricky!
In terms of invalidating my feelings, it seemed as though you were implying my ideas were silly an no atheist would think that way.
No, I didn’t mean they were silly. I just meant, no atheist would think that way. Or so it seems to me. I think you prefaced your comments with ‘as an atheist I would say’ and I was thinking, but if you were an atheist you probably wouldn’t say it that way. I was just trying to explain what I think is closer to what atheists say.
I would say it is possible that there are atheists that may find the idea depressing, but they also do not believe in God. They accept that reality but also find it sobering. I don’t think every atheist thinks exactly the same way anymore than every christian thinks exactly the same way. Their faith and view of life is still unique.
You’re right that they don’t all think the same. In my experience people who stop believing in God might be depressed about there being no God for a while but then they get used to the idea and it doesn’t depress them anymore. In my experience if atheists are depressed and they didn’t just stop believing in God, it’s because of other things like being maligned and misunderstood.
I appreciate that you take the time to explain how the mindset is different and why –I know it’s a lot of effort and I do appreciate it.
You’re welcome.
Just remember I am doing the best I can and my suppositions aren’t meant to do anything other than get my head around this.
Right - and I need you to remember that if I say ‘that’s not how it is’ I’m not implying what you said is silly.
I think the God/Sadist reference may have come up a little more than you realize : ) But my memory isn’t the best.
Yes, maybe it’s not the first time. Perhaps I’ve brought it out when I’ve been frustrated with people telling me how awesome God is and God doesn’t seem awesome to me. In this case it was just an analogy but maybe not the best one.
So you really and truly believe the universe sprang into existence with any cause or intention? God aside entirely. No force, no nudge no nothing? On what evidence do you base this thought and what evidence would make you think otherwise? This is the only question we answer this way — anything else that physically exists we can look at it’s structure and positively conclude that something preceded it. So why do we take the biggest event of all and assume it has no cause? I believe that’s a huge leap of faith. I really want to know how this works for you because it just doesn’t make sense to me at all. Any help on this one is greatly appreciated…
Bob, I don’t have a belief that the universe came into being any particular way. It’s not something I think about. I don’t have any reason to think about it. “How the universe came into being” is not on my list of things I wonder about. So I’m not making a leap of faith because I don’t even think about it.
The idea that the universe popped out of nothingness for no reason is not viable to me. And to declare it as fact, when it is in fact unknowable on certain terms, is no more or less outrageous than claiming that someone made it intentionally. I’d say that’s at least a 50/50 shot to be fair. Do you see my point?
Equally an uncaused creator bothers me just as much. Some very clever physicists have some very interesting theories about how the universe originally formed. We know (know as in theorise from observable evidence) that the universe formed from a Big Bang event. We do not know anything that happened before the expansion. Given that we do not know we can only guess. For me, God as creator is a guess and not even a good one based on solid evidence. 50/50 shot, no, not for me. Maybe a small chance, enough to keep an open mind.
There is a theory, that I tend to agree with given my limited understanding of it, that there was no “before” the Big Bang. That space-time came into existence at the point of the Big Bang. We know that particles can escape from singularities (Hawking Particles) so the idea of matter arising from a singularity of near infinite mass but no dimensions is plausible.
How a singularity came to exist is anybodies guess. Maybe it was a god or godlike being, maybe it was a natural phenomena that we cannot explain yet. Who knows? What I do know with certainty is that claiming knowledge of the primary cause of the universe is just wrong.
I’ve heard Dawkins’ comments elsewhere about religious upbringing being child abuse - I don’t agree with him.
I get the impression that he is talking about extremes when he says this. Some religious upbringing that attempts to control children and their development through the fear of Hell and a vengeful God might well be seen as mental abuse for a child. Thankfully most Christians aren’t like this and probably make just as good parents as us atheists. ;)
Also the God as a sadistic monster idea comes from his quote about the Old Testament God. That’s the one that floods the world and destroys cities with earthquakes and plagues (all sorts of flavours of plague) and could easily be described as a monster if you take the stories literally.
I, for one, don’t think they were ever supposed to be taken literally. Not any more than the Australian Aborigines stories of the dreamtime are supposed to be literal. Dawkins is just taking the worse interpretation and making a point.
I get the impression that he is talking about extremes when he says this.
He was speaking specifically about Northern Ireland, where religious affiliation has been, in fairly recent history, used as something like a gang symbol. Under those circumstances, a term like “Catholic child” could, indeed, be seen as a kind of child abuse.
So yeah, it makes a bit more sense when you understand the context of what Dawkins was saying. Most times the remark is quoted, this crucial context is removed. Bizarrely, often it’s Dawkins himself doing the out-of-context quoting.
Jason — Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that. I think an uncaused creator does create a problem if you think of them as being limited to the bounds of space in time. If things exist outside of time and space (a reasonable assumption if we claim the universe was born out of timelessness), then wouldn’t they be never begin and never end? They just are. In this cause and uncaused creator is not an obstacle.
Perhaps a creator-less application is to consider the universe in this way, it always has been but changes states internally, kind of like the imploding, exploding theories of universal expansion. In this case I wonder if it would happen the same way every time and if we have any chance of repeating the same existence as we know it.
Applying my 50/50 ratio is probably unfair in terms of saying anything about the cause (force, being, phenomenom etc), so I do see your point. I still believe the 50/50 proposition is more than fair to say that there may be a cause. For every example we can think of in nature (say spontaneous appearace of particles in physics) there are certainly many, many more with identifiable causes or origins. If anything, based on our understanding of our existence, I think the numbers would be tilted toward cause.
What I do know with certainty is that claiming knowledge of the primary cause of the universe is just wrong.
I would say claiming anything with certainty based on what scientific evidence we have is wrong. That includes claiming no one or nothing caused the universe because it is equally unproveable. We can agree we don’t know, and draw assumptions based on what little we do. It is fascinating to consider the things we can’t know though.
Helen — I understand what you mean, just misread the tone. My atheist paraphrases need a little work — it’s all hypothetical for me. : )
Bob, I don’t have a belief that the universe came into being any particular way. It’s not something I think about. I don’t have any reason to think about it. “How the universe came into being” is not on my list of things I wonder about. So I’m not making a leap of faith because I don’t even think about it.
Wow — I always thought this one of the questions everyone ponders. I’m guessing why are we here isn’t high on your list either then? To me these are fascinating questions. However, you’ll save yourself some serious time and pondering if they don’t interest you. Does it disinterest you because it is unanswerable or because you see it as irrelevant to the here and now?
The problem I have with an uncaused creator who always existed is that I could equally apply it to an uncaused natural universe that has always existed. Maybe we do go through different states in time, maybe the laws of physics alter each time. It’s pure conjecture and probably not worth considering without some better understanding of the universe.
The universe is pretty big and wonderful and we’ve barely begun to explore it. who knows what we’ll encounter in the future that could change the way we look at everything?
The problem I have with an uncaused creator who always existed is that I could equally apply it to an uncaused natural universe that has always existed.
That’s an interesting point. Does that mean we have to assume a state apart from time and matter is improbable as well? Or just that that state too had a beginning? (which doesn’t make sense because a beginning indicates the presence of time) Perhaps the existence is so profoundly different from our own that it is difficult to link to or compare it to what we know. I thought about this idea of timelessness. I wonder how it would relate to physically bound time. Every moment past and future already is and can be navigated simultaneously? It creates some interesting questions too. If everything we’re going to do already is then do we really have free will? Which isn’t that disimilar from the things were speaking of relative to our biology dicating our behavior.
The universe is pretty big and wonderful and we’ve barely begun to explore it. who knows what we’ll encounter in the future that could change the way we look at everything?
I think about that too and wonder what may be revealed in our and out childrens’ life times. It’s astonishing how little we know and how small we are in the vast expanse.
Comment by: Leo
1Miss Helen,
Your link does not seem to work - however, the video is still available on youtube.
It distresses me that people are so virulent in their attacks on the person of Dr. Dawkins - he is indeed a brilliant scientist and thinker. He deserves respect, period. These attacks are the small attemts by small individuals, and do not represent all Christians.
I disagree with many, if not all, of his views - but do not believe he should be attacked. In a side note - I once emailed him for a class, and received a wonderful response - such a man that has time for any student deserves respect.
Comment by: Jason Horton
2I can’t see this video either but if it’s the one where someone hopes that he gets hit with a church van then it’s very funny. I think he says something about pitying these people who send him death threats. A decent sentiment I think.
I still don’t understand why some Christians are so threatened by evolution or by it’s many supporters. It’s not as if Genesis is a literal retelling of creation. There is plenty of room for metaphor in the story as well as issues of translation to allow for evolution within the Christian framework.
Comment by: no offense
3Dawkins is pretty funny, and people are silly for attacking him personally, but what do you expect, he says some pretty nasty things about things people deeply cherish.
If I called your spouse names in a book, you might get ticked off enough to write me a letter like the ones he gets.
I have to say Dawkins looks like a first-rate, intelligent thinker when he accuses creationists of attacking straw men and lacking in proper understanding and credentials to posit theories of origins. But boy does he have egg on his face when he turns around and attacks a ‘Christianity’ that my four year old knows better than to believe!
He needs to read some mature Christian authors and interact with them, instead of the Sunday School teacher of his youth. Not to mention some good ol’ philosophy, history, and rhetoric.
If he did that, I might actually pay attention to him.
Comment by: Helen
4Leo and Jason, thanks for letting me know. I found another copy of it on YouTube and put that up.
Leo, yes, you’re right, many Christians would never send Dawkins letters like this.
Jason, yes, it’s the one you said. As to why some Christians care, some take an all-or-nothing view that if you don’t take the beginning of Genesis literally it undermines the rest of the Bible being the Word of God. So it matters a lot what you do with Genesis because of the implications for the rest of the Bible.
no offense, if someone called my spouse names in a book, I’d probably let my spouse deal with them. Which is one reason I’m surprised at the vehemence with which some Christians go after people who criticize the God they believe in. Why not let God do that? He’s the one being criticized.
If I was in a situation where I was responding to something I felt was unfair, I wouldn’t write an angry letter full of expletives. (If I did that would be interpreted as symptoms of mental illness which would mean I’d get put on psychiatric medication - I’m trying to avoid that, hence, I’m not sending viciously angry letters)
There are a number of things Dawkins does which lessen the likelihood Christians will listen to him. If his goal is to be listened to by Christians I think he shows a lack of wisdom in his approach. On the other hand he’s an academic and academics often don’t excell in people skills or people awareness. Also he’s reached an age where I doubt he’ll change his approach even if he did have the people skills to do it. He’s smart and funny and can come across fairly likeable, imo, when he’s not talking about religion - but when he is he’s definitely not diplomatic or tactful and often overstates the case, (again, in my opinion).
People who make the choice to be antagonistic rather than friendly shouldn’t be surprised if those they’re criticizing refuse to engage with them. But then, maybe they aren’t surprised. Maybe they don’t care.
By the way you can leave the comments URL box blank if you like. The site only requires an email (which is not displayed on the blog). If you put fake URLs in the URL box they might inadvertently link your name to weird sites. FYI
Comment by: Randy
5I think we should get Henderson to read some of HIS hate emails on video. I think the same people may have written him.
Comment by: Bob
6Dawkins is interesting, a shameless self promoter, and someone whom the church appears to have hurt very deeply.
I would enjoy his books more but instead of sticking to what he’s good at he can’t resist inflammatory statements and letting his anti christian feelings get the better of him. It subverts his cause and lessens his credibility to me.
He also contradicts himself in ways that are interesting. In the last book of his I read, After trouncing people for being idiots if they believe in God, and offering many explanations apart from God, he goes on with this long gushy paragraph about the uniqueness of life and how we should grateful for the opportunity to live. Grateful to who or what? I’m thinking, “Thanks universe, you non-thinking, self-unaware, completely unintentional, and uncaused sphere of existence with no preference or predication toward me whatsoever.” Who does that leave, lady luck?
Isn’t part of the appeal of atheism the absence of such thinking? We are not special or unique beyond our own ability to see ourselves that way. We are not beholden to anyone unless we choose to be. To me, these are some of the realities of true atheism and the untainted evolutionary process. I don’t like it when people try to soften it or dress it down to appeal to the feeble minded religious people like myself. Think it through and speak the true benefits.
But I digress. Helen, I disagree (respectfully of course) If someone maligns my wife or friend in public I would feel a duty to defend them. In a sense you disrespect them, you disrespect me, because I believe in that person.
As for the hateful things people say, they’re embarrasing themselves and other people that potentially share their beliefs. Dawkins is more subservise and clever with his insults, but I do think he trys to solicit these kinds of reactions so he can revel in his superiority. Unfortunately people aren’t bright enought to avoid taking the bait. I don’t condone that type of reaction in any way, but there will always be people that react like that. (although the van comment did make me chuckle, only because of the irony and the fact that he laughed as well…)
Comment by: Helen
7Randy, you might be right although I think you have to be an Evil Atheist and Proponent of Evil-ution to get mail like that. Neither of which Jim is, of course.
Bob, so you really like Dawkins then :)
I suppose that might be true but I haven’t run across any evidence of it. What I have seen is that Dawkins became more outspoken against all religion after 9/11. Since then he seems afraid that religion is going to destroy the world and he seems to believe it’s his responsibility to speak out about it. I say that based on reading something he wrote soon after 9/11.
I think gratitude may be the wrong word. As you say it implies someone to be grateful to and who would that be? I would say appreciation is a better word. Atheists can appreciate being alive and many do. It’s possible to think life is amazing and appreciate it without believing it was created by a supernatural being.
If I was there when it was said and my husband wasn’t then yes I’d defend him. But not because I was disrespected - I don’t agree that the offense is also against me. Because I want to speak up for the truth, as it were, about my husband. Because I don’t want the only thing said about him to be wrong.
That gets into his motives which I don’t think we can know.
I was glad to see him laugh at the van comment because that seems like a good way to respond to outrageous emails. It’s not worth getting upset over them.
Comment by: Bob
8Helen — Actually I don’t dislike him, just some of his choices. I do find him interesting as a theorist, even if I don’t agree with his theories. They require creativity and examination and leg work that not everyone is willing to do. His personality can be bit much sometimes. In terms of his motives, I think we can make some safe assumptions that he doesn’t mind offending people regarding their belief systems. As you pointed out a less than wise approach for truly productive dialogue.
Well perhaps my choice of words has failed me again here. If someone hurts my loved on I don’t want to see them hurt and will do what I can do make things right. Justice is part of it, but beyond the logic there is love and loyalty that would also encourage me to act.
The last Dawkins book I read (god delusion)mentioned that he had an innapropriate experience with one of the teachers at his anglican school. I found his easy dismisal of the experience rather curious. I do not think the molestation of a 9 year old inconsequential in any way. I was thinking of that particular experience but there could be others.
Dawkins anger does occassionaly seap through his pages. Whether it’s relative to this or something else I can’t say. But Dawkins appears to be more than pro-Atheism, he seems to be anti-God. You don’t have to be that way to be an atheist do you? Can’t you simply choose not to acknowledge what you don’t believe exists? Dawkins can’t write without belittling people that hold Christian beliefs. That’s what I don’t like about him, otherwise I enjoy reading his ideas for the mere inventivness if nothing else.
Comment by: Bob
9Helen wrote:
Hey Helen — I somehow missed this part of your response earlier, my apologies. I know what you’re saying but the way he worded this particular paragraph tracked more with gratitude than appreciation (in my dusty recollections). I’ll have to read it again and see if it comes across any differently. I think he used the word thankful as well.
Although, even with appreciate, to me it implies that you have received something. I appreciate good wine, someone made it, or served it to me, or recommended it. There is some record of preceding action that make is possible for you to appreciate. I actually think glad, happy, enjoy or admire might be a better choice of words. To say I appreciate being alive, still sounds like life is a gift or a privelige and someone granted it to me. To say I am glad to be alive conveys it more indepently of any potential giver.
I guess you can say as an atheist, I appreciate the opportunity to be alive despite the face that no one in particular gave it to me. I appreciate the sunset even though no one intended it for my enjoyment. Appreciate my child’s laughter even though I know it’s just a biological mechanism that might have been any other number of random sounds had evolution worked differently. But to me that’s all kind of sad and lonely. I can’t see the world as a big beautiful wonderful accident. It’s depressing.
Comment by: Jason Horton
10Bob said:
I do think that it’s worth pointing out that we’ve had centuries where our language has developed alongside religion. We talk about the universe as “all creation” for example without implying a creator. When we appreciate or feel awe for what we see in nature it doesn’t imply that it was given to us, rather that the limitations of our language allow us to express our emotional responses in such a way.
Personally, I find the mysteries of the universe and life, as revealed by science, to be far more awe-inspiring and beautiful without insisting that the religious stories about its formation are actually true. I sometimes see religious people as deliberately limiting the scope of their own experience by forcing “all creation” into a religion frame.
Comment by: Pseudonym
11I agree with Randy. Morons come out of the woodwork in response to anyone who says anything at all. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you stand for, there’s a bunch of morons out there ready to send you mail.
You could be giving away candy and soft fluffy kittens, and someone would send you badly-spelled hate mail. It’s nothing personal.
Comment by: Helen
12Bob wrote:
If you’re more powerful (maybe you’re speaking of a small child) I can see that. But if they’re an adult like you why wouldn’t they defend themselves? By stepping in for them aren’t you implying they’re too weak to do it? And if they’re more powerful than you then definitely it seems to me that it makes more sense for them to defend themselves. Which definitely would be true if God exists, because then God is infinitely more powerful than anyone who tries to defend God.
I’ve only read some of that book; I guess I didn’t get to that part. Molestation is serious but maybe he’s dealt with it and moved on and so it’s not an issue for him anymore. I’d have to read his own words to see whether I thought he minimized it too much.
Exactly. I suppose the reason Dawkins goes beyond that is the same reason Christians engage in evangelism: they want to rescue people from their wrong beliefs and help them ’see the light’. Dawkins believes religion could destroy the world and he doesn’t want that to happen so he speaks out against it and tries to lessen the number of its adherents.
Actually it was probably my fault because I forgot it when I posted my comment then went back and edited it into the middle. I should have posted it underneath in case you’d already read the comment. There wasn’t long between the initial post and edit so I thought you’d just see the second version. I guess I was wrong!
I think this is semantics - I like the word ‘appreciate’ because it has more of a sense of savoring something, to me, than “I’m glad”. To me neither one implies a giver. But that may be because I’ve intentionally sought ways of being appreciative (glad) without having to tie that back to a Giver.
There’s no ‘despite’ or ‘but’ about it for people who aren’t Christians. It’s fine that no-one gave these things to us. It’s not depressing or lonely. We don’t care if things could have evolved differently. For us that doesn’t detract from the beauty of what is.
Christians could say “I worship God even though he’s a sadistic monster based on his acts in the Old Testament” - but that’s not how Christians see God so they wouldn’t, would they? Just like atheists wouldn’t say what you suggested with all those ‘despite’ and ‘buts’ in there.
Fair enough. I find the idea that God is sending most people to hell much more depressing than that the world is a big beautiful wonderful accident.
Pseudonym, maybe you’re right although I expect Dawkins gets more hate mail than people who are less public and less outspoken about their views and whose views push less peoples’ buttons.
Bob it was probably my fault you missed it. I forgot to comment on it then added it in the middle of my comment a few mins later. Maybe you saw the first version.
Pseudonym I expect you’re right, but I also would guess that Richard Dawkins, being a public figure who
Comment by: Bob
13Jason wrote:
Yes, if appreciation is merely a feeling and not intellectual in any way then that makes sense, interesting. However I do think that there is thought beyond the feeling and we are capable of analyzing that like we are now.
I do understand what you mean, and we are all certainly affected as by-products of a long period of judeo christian tradition. I guess what I say along the same lines is, take “my” religion out of it, take any religion out of it. I still don’t see the universe existing without cause or intention.
Some atheists want to believe that there is no possibility of cause because if validates their belief there is no god. So to me atheists are forcing “all creation” into a non causal frame for the same reasons you mentioned. To make it fit and support their world view. The idea that the universe popped out of nothingness for no reason is not viable to me. And to declare it as fact, when it is in fact unknowable on certain terms, is no more or less outrageous than claiming that someone made it intentionally. I’d say that’s at least a 50/50 shot to be fair. Do you see my point?
Now arguing about who or what it may have been is a whole different can of worms. But to deny the possibility that something may have caused the universe is no less unreasonable than claiming some one did is.
Comment by: Bob
14Hi Helen — I understand what your saying from a logical standpoint, just less so on a personal one. I’m happy to let people fight their own battles if they want to or are able. But I’d like to think I’ve got their back regardless. I also understand the “why doesn’t mighty God show himself” analogy and I get that.
That Dawkins passage was pretty weird, check it out if you get a chance. He goes on to imply that religious upbringing is a worse form of child abuse, I thought the analogy was in poor taste. Trivializing something like child abuse to make your case on religious views is pretty ugly, no matter how strongly you feel.
Yes — like to linger on something with deep enjoyment. Savoring is a good choice of words.
Hey Helen — I’m just expressing my feelings after visiting that train of thought. I’m allowed to have them and I didn’t say you have to share them. I’m trying to explore your world and understand some of these things. Invalidating my feelings doesn’t help, when you’re defensive it just reinforces my discomfort with it. Also it may be possible that not every atheist feels exactly the way you do about the things I’m bringing up. I’m glad it’s not sad for you, it would still feel lonely to me.
I understand you think my God is sadistic monster, I don’t think that had anything to do with what we’re talking about. If it makes you more comfortable take the christian God out of the equation and think of a benevolent non-Judeo Christian entity that could have intended our existence. My point is more about the lack of intention or causality (which for me would come from a higher power) is discomforting and somewhat illogical based on the way we view anything else that exists. See my post above regarding that. Thanks.
Comment by: Helen
15Bob wrote:
I’ve heard Dawkins’ comments elsewhere about religious upbringing being child abuse - I don’t agree with him.
Bob I wasn’t feeling defensive when I wrote it, sorry it came across that way.
Where did I invalidate your feelings? I thought I was simply expressing mine.
I was just trying to give an analogy to what you did when you said “As an atheist I would say” - and show that as an atheist you wouldn’t really say that anymore than Christians add ‘even though God is a sadistic monster’ to the end of their comments about God. An atheist who thinks Christians would tack that on the end hasn’t fully stepped into Christian shoes just like a Christian who thinks atheists tack on ‘even though it’s all random’ at the end hasn’t fully stepped into atheist shoes.
God is a sadistic monster is not a phrase I use - maybe I shouldn’t have included it in my attempted analogy.
FWIW, that doesn’t work for me either - there’s nothing at present driving me to look for an explanation of the universe which includes such an entity. I’m not aware of anything which points to it strongly enough to convince me, or which requires it (I know you feel differently).
Comment by: Bob
16Hi Helen — I suppose that’s the trouble with communicating this way, we can read more into things than the author intends. In terms of invalidating my feelings, it seemed as though you were implying my ideas were silly an no atheist would think that way.
I would say it is possible that there are atheists that may find the idea depressing, but they also do not believe in God. They accept that reality but also find it sobering. I don’t think every atheist thinks exactly the same way anymore than every christian thinks exactly the same way. Their faith and view of life is still unique.
I get what you mean about walking in the other persons shoes, but don’t forget that’s what I’m trying to do. So when my references sound like something a Christian would say that kinds of makes sense. I’m trying to see something differently from how I normally see it and that is challenging. I appreciate that you take the time to explain how the mindset is different and why –I know it’s a lot of effort and I do appreciate it. Just remember I am doing the best I can and my suppositions aren’t meant to do anything other than get my head around this.
I think the God/Sadist reference may have come up a little more than you realize : ) But my memory isn’t the best.
So you really and truly believe the universe sprang into existence with any cause or intention? God aside entirely. No force, no nudge no nothing? On what evidence do you base this thought and what evidence would make you think otherwise? This is the only question we answer this way — anything else that physically exists we can look at it’s structure and positively conclude that something preceded it. So why do we take the biggest event of all and assume it has no cause? I believe that’s a huge leap of faith. I really want to know how this works for you because it just doesn’t make sense to me at all. Any help on this one is greatly appreciated…
Comment by: Helen
17Bob wrote:
Yes, it can be tricky!
No, I didn’t mean they were silly. I just meant, no atheist would think that way. Or so it seems to me. I think you prefaced your comments with ‘as an atheist I would say’ and I was thinking, but if you were an atheist you probably wouldn’t say it that way. I was just trying to explain what I think is closer to what atheists say.
You’re right that they don’t all think the same. In my experience people who stop believing in God might be depressed about there being no God for a while but then they get used to the idea and it doesn’t depress them anymore. In my experience if atheists are depressed and they didn’t just stop believing in God, it’s because of other things like being maligned and misunderstood.
You’re welcome.
Right - and I need you to remember that if I say ‘that’s not how it is’ I’m not implying what you said is silly.
Yes, maybe it’s not the first time. Perhaps I’ve brought it out when I’ve been frustrated with people telling me how awesome God is and God doesn’t seem awesome to me. In this case it was just an analogy but maybe not the best one.
Bob, I don’t have a belief that the universe came into being any particular way. It’s not something I think about. I don’t have any reason to think about it. “How the universe came into being” is not on my list of things I wonder about. So I’m not making a leap of faith because I don’t even think about it.
Comment by: Jason Horton
18Bob said:
Equally an uncaused creator bothers me just as much. Some very clever physicists have some very interesting theories about how the universe originally formed. We know (know as in theorise from observable evidence) that the universe formed from a Big Bang event. We do not know anything that happened before the expansion. Given that we do not know we can only guess. For me, God as creator is a guess and not even a good one based on solid evidence. 50/50 shot, no, not for me. Maybe a small chance, enough to keep an open mind.
There is a theory, that I tend to agree with given my limited understanding of it, that there was no “before” the Big Bang. That space-time came into existence at the point of the Big Bang. We know that particles can escape from singularities (Hawking Particles) so the idea of matter arising from a singularity of near infinite mass but no dimensions is plausible.
How a singularity came to exist is anybodies guess. Maybe it was a god or godlike being, maybe it was a natural phenomena that we cannot explain yet. Who knows? What I do know with certainty is that claiming knowledge of the primary cause of the universe is just wrong.
Comment by: Jason Horton
19Helen said
I get the impression that he is talking about extremes when he says this. Some religious upbringing that attempts to control children and their development through the fear of Hell and a vengeful God might well be seen as mental abuse for a child. Thankfully most Christians aren’t like this and probably make just as good parents as us atheists. ;)
Also the God as a sadistic monster idea comes from his quote about the Old Testament God. That’s the one that floods the world and destroys cities with earthquakes and plagues (all sorts of flavours of plague) and could easily be described as a monster if you take the stories literally.
I, for one, don’t think they were ever supposed to be taken literally. Not any more than the Australian Aborigines stories of the dreamtime are supposed to be literal. Dawkins is just taking the worse interpretation and making a point.
Comment by: Pseudonym
20He was speaking specifically about Northern Ireland, where religious affiliation has been, in fairly recent history, used as something like a gang symbol. Under those circumstances, a term like “Catholic child” could, indeed, be seen as a kind of child abuse.
So yeah, it makes a bit more sense when you understand the context of what Dawkins was saying. Most times the remark is quoted, this crucial context is removed. Bizarrely, often it’s Dawkins himself doing the out-of-context quoting.
Comment by: Bob
21Jason — Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that. I think an uncaused creator does create a problem if you think of them as being limited to the bounds of space in time. If things exist outside of time and space (a reasonable assumption if we claim the universe was born out of timelessness), then wouldn’t they be never begin and never end? They just are. In this cause and uncaused creator is not an obstacle.
Perhaps a creator-less application is to consider the universe in this way, it always has been but changes states internally, kind of like the imploding, exploding theories of universal expansion. In this case I wonder if it would happen the same way every time and if we have any chance of repeating the same existence as we know it.
Applying my 50/50 ratio is probably unfair in terms of saying anything about the cause (force, being, phenomenom etc), so I do see your point. I still believe the 50/50 proposition is more than fair to say that there may be a cause. For every example we can think of in nature (say spontaneous appearace of particles in physics) there are certainly many, many more with identifiable causes or origins. If anything, based on our understanding of our existence, I think the numbers would be tilted toward cause.
I would say claiming anything with certainty based on what scientific evidence we have is wrong. That includes claiming no one or nothing caused the universe because it is equally unproveable. We can agree we don’t know, and draw assumptions based on what little we do. It is fascinating to consider the things we can’t know though.
Comment by: Bob
22Helen — I understand what you mean, just misread the tone. My atheist paraphrases need a little work — it’s all hypothetical for me. : )
Wow — I always thought this one of the questions everyone ponders. I’m guessing why are we here isn’t high on your list either then? To me these are fascinating questions. However, you’ll save yourself some serious time and pondering if they don’t interest you. Does it disinterest you because it is unanswerable or because you see it as irrelevant to the here and now?
Comment by: Jason Horton
23The problem I have with an uncaused creator who always existed is that I could equally apply it to an uncaused natural universe that has always existed. Maybe we do go through different states in time, maybe the laws of physics alter each time. It’s pure conjecture and probably not worth considering without some better understanding of the universe.
The universe is pretty big and wonderful and we’ve barely begun to explore it. who knows what we’ll encounter in the future that could change the way we look at everything?
Comment by: Bob
24Jason wrote:
That’s an interesting point. Does that mean we have to assume a state apart from time and matter is improbable as well? Or just that that state too had a beginning? (which doesn’t make sense because a beginning indicates the presence of time) Perhaps the existence is so profoundly different from our own that it is difficult to link to or compare it to what we know. I thought about this idea of timelessness. I wonder how it would relate to physically bound time. Every moment past and future already is and can be navigated simultaneously? It creates some interesting questions too. If everything we’re going to do already is then do we really have free will? Which isn’t that disimilar from the things were speaking of relative to our biology dicating our behavior.
I think about that too and wonder what may be revealed in our and out childrens’ life times. It’s astonishing how little we know and how small we are in the vast expanse.
Comment by: Helen
25Bob wrote:
Fair enough - thanks for caring enough to think about these things.
I responded to your other comments in a new post