Theist Reads The God Delusion.
Offline I really enjoy reading what the other side thinks. I think it is helpful to me as a believer as well as to learn from others no matter what their view is. I was fascinated by the viewpoint of Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion.
He made some very interesting remarks that I think is worth commenting on. Throughout his book he continually marveled at how natural selection worked as if it had thoughts and intentions. I find this kind of talk to be common among atheists today and somewhat odd. Unable to live in an impersonal universe in which everything is the product of blind chance, Richard Dawkins and others like him begin to ascribe personality and motives to the physical processes themselves. This is a very bizarre way of speaking.
Francis Crick halfway through his 'book The Origin of the Genetic Code begins to spell nature with a captial "N" and elsewhere speaks of natural selection as being "clever" and as "thinking" of what it will do, as does Dawkins. For Carl Sagan, the "Cosmos" which he always spells with a captial letter, obviously fills the role of a God-substitue. Though all these men profess not to believe in God, they smuggle in a God-substitute through the back door because they cannot bear to live in a universe in which everything is the chance result of impersonal force.
Secondly, atheists pride themselves on being rational and logical. Yet, most atheists have not thought about the logical conclusion of atheism. If God does not exist, then there is no ultimate meaning to an atheists life. Oh sure they can make up some meaning and purpose for existence but that is just self delusion, because ultimately their is no meaning, no purpose to this life. We are all on this planet awaiting our execution, the heat death of the universe in which everyone will eventually die. Then it doesn't matter what accomplishments you have made here today. None of it will make any difference at all. If the atheists realizes that this is where atheism leads he cannot live a happy life.
But atheists do not live this way, they are good citizens, are respected members of the community and take care of their families as if there is a purpose. In this manner, the atheist is not consistent. If they consistenly live out the logical conclusion of their atheism and understand that it leads to despair, then they cannot be happy. If an atheist is happy he is not consistent. The atheist can do one or the other but he cannot do both.
Therefore is it possible that the atheist is the one that is delusional and not the theist? I think maybe so.
"An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexamined belief is not worth believing." - Dr. Abraham Vema
- Login to post comments
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I can be happy without an "ultimate" meaning of life because the humans that live beyond my existence carry on their meanings. If your wife was cheating on you would you want to know or would you just never question inconsistencies like the pool boy's boxers under your bed? I'd rather know the truth even if it isn't particularly pretty it's reality. Although the Gods man have created don't sound all that pretty either.
chan, wrote: 'If God does not exist, then there is no ultimate meaning to an atheists life.' ~~~
Geezz that's an old tired saying of the theists. Why do you in awe, no greater than the awe of the atheists, make up or hold onto a "supernatural, immaterial" god thingy of obvious make believe? Your awe has got you folks obviously in an emotional plea that life must be a gift.
I cannot pretend that life is a gift. How could I know?. The simple thing I know is I am here, and that life is fun, sad, pleasurable, painful, etc. I don't invent a loving why we are here, I ask how are we here. I dislike suffering ... I like love and peace of mind, just as most all of us do.
I use the g-o-d word scientifically as simply meaning all connect existence, which we know virtually little about, and so I am of course god as you, as many wise ones have said, such the atheist story characters buddha and a jesus.
Keep and expand the awe and questions, but we must give up believing make believe, and especially dogma. Obviously we must not believe so much of what we religiously hear and can wishfully imagine was true. Yeah, sure I too "wish" the force behind the universe was thinking lovingly of me.
Sartre said "we are condemned to be free", and I will say smiling, condemned to be god.
The humble lover Carl Sagan in 'awe' - "Pale Blue Dot" , 3 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
Atheism Books.
I'm confused.... How is finite subjectively derived meaning delusional again? You attempt to answer this very question, yet it seems that your explanation fails the original assertion. Do they know that it's purpose adopted only to pretend that it's purpose handed down? Do they believe it to be more than finite? Where exactly is the delusional part?
Further, it doesn't seem to make sense (to me at least) to talk about purpose and meaning concerning life the way you have here. You say that "ultimately there is no meaning" but in the very same sentence you suggest that we can indeed give meaning to our own lives (of course you said if we did it would be delusional, however, you haven't shown that to be the case... at least not yet anyway). So to say the least, I find myself trapped deeper in confusion here. If life can have meaning no matter how fleeting, it doesn't then follow that it can have no meaning. Not even ultimately. In the end all that can be said is what kind of meaning life has, and in this case it would be finite self derived meaning.
I think what you mean to say is that our accomplishments will only make a difference that's 'finite' in nature as it doesn't make sense to say "None of it will make any difference at all" while at the same time ascribing to the idea of 'accomplishments having been achieved'. Surely it's correct to say those achievements make a difference today and for as long as there are people to benefit. If this is the case, (and I for one think it is) then there's no reason to suggest that atheism must lead to anything even remotely resembling your statements above.
As far as I can tell you seem to think that because it's not logically required that we 'do care' it somehow makes a case for the idea that we 'shouldn't care'; however, the only thing that matters here is that we do in fact care (<--- this most likely stems from our very nature before you go asking where it comes from). It's from this point forward that you find plenty of reason to behave the way we do.
This just doesn't make any sense. Humans want to be happy, and we want it to last as long as it possibly can; moreover, we care about and want the same thing for our loved ones (which as it happens, directly ties into making ourselves happy). To achieve this we must think outside of ourselves to a certain degree and produce (to the best of our ability) a workable model. Your line of thought doesn't do that, that is to say, it's just not consistent with our goals in life.
No, not really.
I think maybe in your eagerness to pat yourself on the back you overlooked the nature of your argument. I mean, is it really your intent to win an argument by way of convincing people that they 'shouldn't' give a shit about themselves or others? Because from where I'm sitting, it doesn't seem to serve any-other purpose.
*edited for clarity*
As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch
It's called sentence structure. Any typical English sentence sounds like it's ascribing motive and deliberate action to a subject.
It's called anthropomorphism. Things are easier for humans to conceptualize when dealt with as concepts readily available to -- wait for it -- human beings. There's a difference between invoking a metaphor for effect, and literally believing in ancient mythology.
Whereas in your scenario, a mythological figure looks up from his paper as you fly by into the afterlife, and goes, "Neat."
Your scenario is far worse than that, actually, and I'll tell you why if I feel like it later.
You're either incredibly optimistic about humanity's collective longevity, or you don't understand heat death.
You're happier because you think some meta-dude is going to pat you on the back when you die?
Chan, the main difference between yourself and an atheist is the latter isn't expecting some idiotic thing to happen when he or she dies.
In addition to committing an argument from consequences fallacy, your writing is very ESL.
chan wrote:
"pride themselves" seems a bit melodramatic, but let's assume for a moment you're correct...does this mean that theists pride themselves on being "irrational" and "illogical" ?
Ridiculous, but let's assume for a moment you're correct...does this mean that if a theist has placed his/her entire self worth & meaning on something that is pure make believe, they have no meaning in their life ?
The exact same fate awaits both the theist and the atheist alike. The search for meaning affects us both in the same degree as well.
I think what it comes down to is how do we cope w/ this fated mortality and how do we find meaning in a world that is frightening, random, full of unpredictability & one in which we have limited control.
We could take the all too common path and deny our mortality. We could also subvert the random nature of things & a give ourselves a pseudo "purpose"-ful ideology that has a measure of compatibility with the associated denial. To accomplish this however, we must learn to lie to ourselves, the only option open to the human unwilling to accept the truth of his/her human existence. In the end, however; this human only assigns purpose to something purely make believe and so they have attained neither purpose nor immortality.
So what have they done ?
Denied themselves the opportunity for human growth/education that could have come w/ being honest w/ themselves and learning to cope w/ that reality.
And made the rest of the word suffer because of their inability to cope w/ the fear of death and the discomfort that comes w/ the unknown.
The human animal cannot impart the illusion of immortality or make-believe purpose to himself. He/she has always needed fellow humans for both comparison & to validate him/herself w/ the conviction of numbers.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
AmericanIdle , Just had to say something at ya, so lol friend.
Yes, welllll, I enjoy it so much, that I have read many, many different holy books and in various "translations". From my point of view, I can't call it, what the other side thinks. 'S more like, what the other side is willing to blindly believe without so much as a shred of evidence.
Marvelous book. If you enjoyed that you should really read his other works, especially IMHO, The Selfish Gene and Unweaving The Rainbow.
In general, it is easier for people to ideate or even relate to those writings and ideas if they can view them from a somewhat emotional perspective. Humans are indeed machines in many respects, but we do have emotions that need to be tapped. I find the kind of talk you refer to as "odd", to be completely natural, for humans.
Wonder... did you ever consider that Dawkins might write/speak in this manner in hopes of, drawing in more readers and listeners, even devout believers of the various deities?
As Jill mentioned earlier though, it seems like you are projecting. "Clever" results do not an intelligent creation make.
Gonna insult Bruce Springsteen next ? Watch it, bub.
Not true. Time and again Carl Sagan said that he found it exhilarating to know that we live in a Universe that permits such creatures as we. He also said the Universe appears neither hostile nor benign, but rather, indifferent to humanity. There are so many other ideas he brought to the table and I could write volumes but I won't.
God-substitute? I don't think so. Capital letter in "Cosmos", can be correct. Just as Universe with a capital, can be correct.
Why do I suddenly have this fear that you're going to try and tell us what that conclusion must be.
Whoa!!!!! I marvel at your leaping ability. My fear is quenched.
Did you just state what me thinks you staterd ???
My accomplishments do make a difference in the here and now and for many years to come. Especially for the people I am able to help. And when in the course of my duties I am able to save a human life, you'd be surprised what a ripple effect it can have on---- you've prolly heard of this before ---- future generations.
Well, ya got some of that right.
That part about Atheists being respected members of the community though... well, what community do you live in ?
Damn, you ever consider taking up pole-vaulting? Four more years til the next summer oly's, dude. Thanks for stopping by and please visit again soon.
Secondly, atheists pride themselves on being rational and logical. Yet, most atheists have not thought about the logical conclusion of atheism. If God does not exist, then there is no ultimate meaning to an atheists life. Oh sure they can make up some meaning and purpose for existence but that is just self delusion, because ultimately their is no meaning, no purpose to this life. We are all on this planet awaiting our execution, the heat death of the universe in which everyone will eventually die. Then it doesn't matter what accomplishments you have made here today. None of it will make any difference at all. If the atheists realizes that this is where atheism leads he cannot live a happy life.
Really are amazed by the sheer arrogance of theists.
Need to get this very clear, LIFE HAS NO ULTIMATE MEANING, repeat this a 1000 times and once you understand this then concentrate on a reason to life which are many.
More importantly not only does life have no ultimate meaning the question itself has no meaning 'What is the ultimate meaning of life'. You might as well ask 'what are the thought processes of the clouds regarding tomorrows football game (British version of course) or what is the favorite song of my teddy bear, what is the colour of my fart. You add just putting a listen of words into a grammatically correct sentence but that doesnt make the question of any value.
100 years after you are dead no one in most cases will remember you, no one will care you ever lived. In a very few rare cases they may have remembered your deeds (Churchill, Hitler, Washington, Darwin, Einstein) but they wont remember you personally.
Now what do I do in life that I enjoy?, thats a real question probably only really answerable by you (you won't find the answer to that in any religious book or for that matter any science one either)
I'm going to ask you a question in return to the one you have answered
Why do you think life can have an ultimate meaning?
The question is basically a psychology one (note I have no interest in what that ultimate meaning is as thats meaningless but the original question is of interest to me and probably most people ont his board)
I was just thinking about this and I think quite the opposite is very probably true.
To have "meaning" and "purpose" in your existence is to have goals. Unachievable goals are delusional, but in order to have an existence FULL of meaning and purpose there must be some goals in your set of goals that remain unfulfilled at the end of your existence.
To measure meaning and purpose in terms of achievement of such an 'ultimate' purpose self destructs your own argument. To live forever and achieve the one ultimate goal would then leave you with no meaning and purpose in your existence.
Thus the only way to have meaning and purpose for all of your existence is to have a finite existence.
Yes, we die no matter what. Except for a very few of us, everything we do will eventually be forgotten by the human species. So yes, from the perspective of humans collectively in the long term, most of what we do is pretty insignificant. Even more so from the perspective of the indifferent universe (not that I'm saying the universe is conscious). However, from our own perspective, it's different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luAteAz3WQ0&NR=1
Great Sagan stuff. And yes, the seeming indifference from our perspective does not imply an intelligent creation or creator. Carl was a gifted writer, unpretentious, intelligent, a creative user of language; perhaps on rare occasion he was too emotional about the Universe but never leading people to believe that the Universe itself was consciously so.
good read, im w/ you on that one chan, ultimately that is where atheism leads when you really look at it.
You just killed religion.
Good for you !
Hi truebeliever. It's understandable that you'd be drawn to a caricature of another's perspective. It's easier to imagine that atheism is a slippery slope that leads to nihilism than to face the prospect that few things change when one ditches religion, and in that case, how little those few things mean, even as abstract concepts. If atheists aren't rampant criminals and dull-eyed nihilists, then you've lost even the subjective value of your position; you're left to interrogate the objective value, the evidence for your views as fact, where they fail the most spectacularly.
The purpose of life is me, as stardust, as energy, of no known creator of purpose, nor beginning. There was never ever nothing, says our science. To imagine a beginning arising from an immaterial time of nothing, having conscious purpose is all make believe. I am what I am , as all is one and eternal, as says our science of thermodynamics. How do I know? ... because I've come to be this aware form of consciousness, from my infinite past of not aware. We are the eyes of god looking at our god self ....
Some Carl Sagan words,
http://www.hillmans.soupbo.com/bu/sagan1.html
"Fix and improve my words", say all wise ones .....
Atheism Books.
Chan you are absolutely crazy. you have no idea what my happiness depends on, and i certainly do not go into despair over the thought of my own death.
Believing in myths is delusional period. You trying to scare yourself with illogical assumptions about atheisim will only work for you because we have accepted reality.
I don't need some grand purpose to find life enjoyable. so quit trying to BS atheist.
Why do thiest change the meaning of god when it suits their argument? here Chan said that the cosmos was sagans god etc. god is a sky daddy period. god is not a metaphor. god has been well defined so quit trying to change the meaning to suit your argument it only shows more of your delusion.
Oh! Oh! I want to pretend to be a theist and answer this one.
<ahem>
"The reason why more atheists aren't mass murdering, child-raping, Obama-voting, baby-eating nihilists is because you all hide a secret belief in God, and you know He's watching you like a voyeur at Hugh Heffner's mansion."
There. How was that?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Just great....
I'm laughing til next Tuesday now.
Hope my boss doesn't mind
ON GOD:
"Because the word 'God' means many things to many people, I frequently reply [to people who ask 'Do you believe in God?'] by asking what the questioner means by 'God.' To my surprise, this response is often considered puzzling or unexpected: 'Oh, you know, God. Everyone knows who God is.' Or 'Well, kind of a force that is stronger than we are and that exists everywhere in the universe.' There are a number of such forces. One of them is called gravity, but it is not often identified with God. And not everyone does know what is meant by 'God.'...Whether we believe in God depends very much on what we mean by God." ~ Carl Sagan"
http://www.hillmans.soupbo.com/bu/sagan1.html
Atheism Books.