In response to Richard Dawkins: You are right, Richard.
In response to Richard Dawkins: You are wrong, Richard.
Should any of us care? Yes, because Richard Dawkins is no ordinary person. He is an esteemed scientist/professor/writer from Oxford who has the ear of hundreds of thousands (actually, arguably, millions) and who earlier this year published a book that says, in essence, there is no God.
That is a sad point of view which brings no benefit whatsoever to the human race. And that is why we should care. Because if the whole of humanity should ever adopt Richard’s point of view, I believe we will have lost our greatest asset, our greatest tool, our greatest advantage as we step more deeply into Life in the 21st Century.
Dawkins has created quite a stir with his book, which he has titled The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin), and it is easy to understand why. He offers in his text virtually irrefutable arguments and clear-cut scientific evidence that the ancient God of organized religions simply does not exist.
I agree with him.
The God of which he speaks – and of which most organized religions speak – does not exist. And so, Richard is right. Yet the God of which he does not speak – and of which most organized religions do not speak, either – does exist. And so, Richard is wrong.
In The God Delusion Professor Dawkins spends 406 pages (including a 31-page Appendix) to argue that science and not religion, evolution and not intelligent design, holds the answer to the greatest mystery of the universe: life itself, how it came to be and how it functions, in all its physical forms.
Again, I believe he is right.
I observe that evolution does explain life in all its physical forms. (Well, most of them, anyway. It does not explain miracles, nor any other physical phenomena and metaphysical experience, of which there is ample evidence in our world.) So I have little quarrel with what Richard has to say here, in the main. What I raise issue with is what Richard does not say.
What he does not say is that…
…evolution also explains life in all its non-physical forms. And he does not say that evolution itself is God Godding – although he comes close to it in his first chapter, where he carefully and preemtively acknowledges that there is more than one way to look at God. Yet it is in this same chapter that he says, “…if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship’.”
I couldn’t disagree more. It is precisely because we have continued to use the word God in the way people have generally understood it that the word has become completely useless. Happily, Richard spends the rest of his book proving, absolutely, that point. Unhappily, while making it clear that the God of Our Fathers – or as I have put it, Yesterday’s God – is a myth, he does little to break new ground on the subject of Tomorrow’s God (which is the title, I must immodestly acknowledge, of a book of my own writing).
In short, Richard has brilliantly told us what God is not, but has told us nothing of what God is, assuming that since there is ample evidence of what God is not, God Itself is not. I don’t think the first position proves the second. Richard apparently does. And therein lies a disservice. I would have wished that a mind as brilliant as Richard’s would have gone about analyzing the extraordinary anecdotal evidence, available from any one of several hundred million people on the planet, of the existence of God…or of something, whatever name you want to give it, that even science cannot explain, but that shows up in the day-to-day experience of human beings as very real, very present, very reliable, and very useful.
The name that I give this “something” is Life. Richard in his text admits that humans do not understand all there is to understand about Life. I submit that the part that we do not understand is the part that we might not incorrectly call “God.” I further suggest that it would enormously benefit humankind to do so, for by so doing we acknowledge that there is something Greater Than Us in the universe, and once that acknowledgement is made (and only until it is) we are in a position to use that Something as a mechanism, as a device, as a tool in the creation of our most desired reality.
If we cannot acknowledge God, however, then we cannot use God (how can we utilize that which we believe is not there?) – and not being able to use God as an ever present help in times of need, much less as a powerful force in times of pure creation, is to deny our greatest resource.
I have had ample evidence of the existence of what I call “God.” I have seen from my own life that “God” is a power, an essence, an energy that can be used with consistent and predictable results. I agree with Richard Dawkins that God is not a SuperBeing in the Sky, angry, vindictive, and violent except with those He loves because they love Him – in the way He wants and needs them to love Him. Richard has pulled all the stops to debunk that particular notion, to which I say bravo.
I also agree with the wonderful professor that God is not some sort of Top-Down-Power Over-Highest Life From who spends his days and nights witnessing and judging our every thought, word, and deed, granting or failing to grant our requests (based on some wholly unknown criteria), and punishing or rewarding us at the end of our lives (based on equally incomprehensible measures).
But, again, I am disappointed that while making it abundantly clear what God could not possibly be, there is little attempt in this book to offer much food for thought about what God could possibly be.
This is not to say that The God Delusion is completely without value. I would like to think that most humans know that Richard is right when he says that Yesterday’s God, the God of our mythologies, does not exist. Yet the fact is that billons do not know this. So there is a plenty of room (and need, I’m sorry to say) for Dawkins in the literature of our time. Yet if you have already gone far beyond any belief in Yesterday’s God, you will have no need to read Dawkins, nor find doing so very stimulating.
Oh, if only Richard could have expanded his horizons to include an attempt to debunk the existence of Tomorrow’s God – then we could have a Socratesian discussion, a debate worthy of what Barbara Marx Hubbard calls our society’s Cultural Creatives.
While I may not be worthy of inclusion in that group, let me continue that debate, Richard, in this space tomorrow.
posted October 15, 2007 at 4:29 am
Quote:Yet if you have already gone far beyond any belief in Yesterday’s God, you will have no need to read Dawkins, nor find doing so very stimulating.
Why giving attention to something that doesn’t work instead of giving attention to a better world ????Dawkins is entitled to have his opinion. That’s the best thing about yesterdays God.
posted October 15, 2007 at 4:59 am
what openion of rechard book it not thue,
sauond of provok hes book ,
GOD hes exist in de whold world,
and realyty i haerd hes voice very lauod,,
and i dont know notece et was GOD,
i haerd hem was 1989 in de morneng,
and agein i haerd hem 203 in afternon,
and agein i haerd hem des yaer,
enyway mey be noboday beleve me that et thrue
i am so satisfied your book NDW,
and paul candace,,
iven suorpreice hes voice because i dont know
noteice et was GOD,,enyway am happy to haerd
hes voice,i whis i haerd hem agein ,
love and ligth,,
posted October 15, 2007 at 9:20 am
In Response to Richard Dawkins-Part 1 / In Re- Neil Donald Walsh
there is no God.
** God is a generic term signifying all that we cannot comprehend or grasp. The existence of God can neither be proven or disproven, either scientifically or spiritually . . . It is all a matter of perception (and perception is everything!) . . . (and don’t let anybody blind-side you either.)
The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin)
** It is actually mis-titled, it should read “The God Delusion/Hawkins Delusion”
the greatest mystery of the universe: life itself, how it came to be and how it functions, in all its physical forms.
** And that’s where all atheists/scientists fall short, they cannot clearly and concretely define what Life is, or pain, suffering, joy, peace, and most importantly Love!
…evolution also explains life in all its non-physical forms.
** Absolutely ! Science is the study or examination of physical evidence or facts. Faith is the belief in something unproven. They are not in conflict, but traveling down different roads. They have different visions, different goals and surely different agendas . . .but the one agenda they both have in common is lust for money, and “Lust for money is the root of ALL evil”
the word (God/Word)has become completely useless.
** Absolutely not ! Spirituality and evolution continue onward and forward, despite whoever and whatever tries to stop it.
Yesterday’s God – is a myth, he does little to break new ground on the subject of Tomorrow’s God
** There is no “Yesterday’s God” or Tomorrow’s God . . . there is just God . . . “Before there was, I AM” (the Alpha & Omega)
what God is not, but has told us nothing of what God is
** I believe God told us that “ I AM Love” . . . If you are looking at God any other Way, your perception is wrong! . . .(and perception is everything !)
The name that I give this “something” is Life
** To Love is to Live, to not Love is Hell . . . and in the darkness God cried out “Let there be Light and (bang!) there was Light !
there is something Greater Than Us in the universe
** Uhhhhhhh . . .HELLO !
I agree with Richard Dawkins that God is not a SuperBeing in the Sky, angry, vindictive, and violent except with those He loves because they love Him – in the way He wants and needs them to love Him.
** Where in the Hell did we get the idea that God is this Absolute Dictatorial/Controlling/Egomaniac/ Asshole, sitting on a gold throne expecting everybody in Heaven and Earth to run up and kiss His feet and sing Alleluia!
the God of our mythologies, does not exist.
** Of course it does! . . . In our perception (and perception is everything !) . . In fact, we are the AL/One/Whole that exists in God’s perception . . . “We are ALL a pigment of God’s imagination”
Yet the fact is that billons do not know this.
** Uhhhhh . . . Right ! . . . (sorry, Neale, I couldn’t pass that up!)
While I may not be worthy of inclusion in that group
** Uhhhhh . . . Right again ! . . .(sorry Neale, I couldn’t pass that one up either !)
“A fool never learned anything, listening to himself talk !”(Wisdum)
LUV 2 ALL
Wisdum
posted October 15, 2007 at 10:27 am
Wisdum you said
“Yesterday’s God – is a myth, he does little to break new ground on the subject of Tomorrow’s God
** There is no “Yesterday’s God” or Tomorrow’s God . . . there is just God . . . “Before there was, I AM” (the Alpha & Omega)”
Unless I’m taking something out of context here, there is a Yesterday’s God and and a Tomorrow’s God in so much as how we have defined this term in our societies and cultures etc.
There are people who still very much believe to varying degrees, a yesterday’s God as well as those who in varying degrees, believe in Tomorrow’s God.
In some more absolute sense, God is always the same and never changing and ever changing depending on your point of perspective.
But I believe in the context of what is being said here there is in a sense, an old God and a new God we are describing, and like evolution itself from monkey to man, we are also in process of a spiritual evolution as well.
Thus it makes good sense to use such terms to show the difference of perspective no?
posted October 15, 2007 at 10:35 am
Like Ram Das and many others whose LIFE “was” in their mind, Richard Dawkins should take a mind altering substancce so that his intelligence does not interfere with the 10,000 miracle things (TAO) the essense, the mystery will not be found out scientifically – only experientially.
The name that I give this “something” is Life. In order to speak of the experience to another, humans must put a word on it.
God, the nameless, the power, the source, the creator, the Tao is US in action — and we tap in and become aware —- or not —- with or without our awareness “it” does grow my hair, pump my heart….etc.
Invisible = that which cannot be seen
Inaudible = that which cannot be heard
Intangible = that which cannot be touched
Living beyond form, or name it, with no beginning, no end – living in the mystery without needing to understand the source, the energy, is my surrendered state of bliss and chosen silent observation of it.
Seeing the invisible without the intelligence of eyes -
Hearing the inaudible voice that speaks to my soul-
Touching the intangible with my awareness-
I know with certainty that the nameless-
will always confound the wise-
while remaining the mystery.
Joydancer
posted October 15, 2007 at 10:56 am
Re – Flying Dolphin | October 15, 2007 10:27 AM
** There is no “Yesterday’s God” or “Tomorrow’s “ … there is just God … “Before there was, I AM” (the Alpha & Omega)”
Unless I’m taking something out of context here, there is a Yesterday’s God and and a Tomorrow’s God in so much as how we have defined this term in our societies and cultures etc
** Right ! You’re taking it out of context. The text I’m taking it out of is the Bible, of course if you’re not into that text, then you would obviously be con-text
There are people who still very much believe to varying degrees, a yesterday’s God as well as those who in varying degrees, believe in Tomorrow’s God.
** And there lies the problem, which just stems from or is rooted in “Freewill” which all comes from original sin “Do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, of Good and Evil” It appears that we chose intelligence over ignorance, and one person’s intelligence is another person’s ignor-ance …”Such is Life”
In some more absolute sense, God is always the same and never changing and ever changing depending on your point of perspective.
** Right ! Absolute Sense (I was under the impression that we ALL were searching for Absolute Sense … and Absolute Truth … “Half truth is no Truth, to me”
But I believe in the context of what is being said here there is in a sense, an old God and a new God we are describing, and like evolution itself from monkey to man, we are also in process of a spiritual evolution as well.
** In terms of evolution, you cannot start from the Darwinist Theory, but have to start from before Creation, that would be before the Creation of the Adam (or is that Atom) and Eve (or is that EDE– Electron Data Exchange) DNA is what determines what any living thing becomes (hint- DNA is a script for creation . . . Who wrote that script ?)
Thus it makes good sense to use such terms to show the difference of perspective no?
** Yes ! Absolutely yes ! Without the exchange of data, nothing is learned and we remain “ignor-ant” … As I said before “A fool never learned anything, listening to himself talk !” . . . Just so you ALL know, I am the world famous “Fool On The Hill” (the one that the Beatles wrote about)… Now, The Toothless Old Fool On The Hill
LUV 2 ALL
Wisdum
posted October 15, 2007 at 1:14 pm
The God of which he speaks – and of which most organized religions speak – does not exist.
Oh, ya gotta love this. When an organized religion makes the unequivocal claim that God does exists, people like you and Dawkins blast them for making a statement that you say can’t be backed up. But then you turn around and do the same thing! Come on…
posted October 15, 2007 at 1:26 pm
The word “exists” cannot be applied to the concept of God. A table can either exist or not exist, God can do neither. The word “God” has many uses but the one I think most mystic types prefer is as follows: The only satisfying definition of God is one that leaves us significantly unsatisfied. Unfortunately, most mystic types think they are making an epistemological claim about some thing or power called God so they get into all kinds of discussions about “mind” and “consciousness” and “modes of perception.” Instead they should recognize that God is a word that plays different roles in different contexts. I also don’t like to hear the author of this blog talk about “ample evidence and predictable results” when it comes to his definition of God. He seems to think that his interpretation of his own experience is unassailable and could not possibly be explained by a whole assortment of scientific ways. (and despite his protestations to the contrary, this particular choice of words belies a belief that God can be measured by science) My biggest beef however is with believers who think that it is their duty to resist unreligious explanations while maintaining their own particular religious explanations. Why not use the limitations imposed by science and philosophy (as defined by science and philosophy) to think creatively about alternate uses for religious forms of life. I am a Christian who totally respects Dawkins and sees no reason for him to change. I also see no reason to be defensive about how I use the word God, which I do use by the way.
posted October 15, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Hey little Wisdum,
Where are you ???????
You big Goddes….
I really love your pureness.
posted October 15, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I’ve read Dawkins’ book and although I’m a devotee of Lord Krishna and so I believe that God exists, and have my own ideas about God, I still have to say that I respect Dawkins and am thankful that he’s challenging so many WRONG and ABSURD ideas that people have about the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Unlike many religious people, I welcome atheists and their arguments. I think they’re refreshing, relevant, and the issues and arguments that they present us with are completely legitimate. It people of faith confront these arguments, they’ll be better able to purge their religious fantasies from their true faith. Religions today have become dangerous and harmful to many, not just due to terrorism, there’s hostility in many parts against gays, against atheists, against people of other religions.
I think it’s important to admit that the Bible and Qur’an contain verses which are no less than terrorist propaganda, such as 1 Samuel 15:3. God did not say that.
There are also instructions to murder entire tribes and rape their women in Deutoronomy 21 (and kill your own son by stoning if he gets drunk), as well as the stoning of women in Deut 22, and clear instructions to murder gay people in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1:32. Slavery was instituted in Leviticus 25:44-46. God did not say any of that.
Qur’an 4:34 contains instructions on wife beating, and 2:191 contains instructions to murder infidels wherever one may find them. God did not say that.
We live in a world where people want to be politially correct and not face these facts with veracity. This is an error. We are the generation that saw 9/11, we know that the ideas that people have about God are DANGEROUS. Who can deny this?
Any discussion that arises from Dawkins’ book is a good one. People have to mature to a point where they can discern between righteousness and plain superstition, and understand the true purpose of religion.
posted October 15, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“I also don’t like to hear the author of this blog talk about “ample evidence and predictable results” when it comes to his definition of God. He seems to think that his interpretation of his own experience is unassailable and could not possibly be explained by a whole assortment of scientific ways.”
Is it possible to talk about any perceiver’s idea about anything at all without talking about that particular perceiver’s interpretation of evidence and “predictable results” as he has experienced it? An authentic discussion of one’s definition of God is inseparable from one’s experience of God.
The problem with insisting on an “assortment of scientific ways” to explain the supernatural phenomehna that many people have been fortunate to witness/experience is that the emperical method depends on observation alone and until the scientific community is able to suspend their disbelief they will not be able to witness nor measure in verifiable data what others have seen.
Until the scientific community as a whole embraces the concept that supernatural phenomena exists or at least the possibility that it exists, and until those who subscribe to these ideas are permitted to vocalize them without being subject to ridicule by their colleagues then the current academic perspective of atheism or agnosticism at best is all we get.
Love and peace,
MIchelle
posted October 15, 2007 at 5:32 pm
What is come down to is people need to ” open ” their minds. God or yes like the author said ” whatever you want to call it ” the source ” Wayne Dyer is the best when it comes to making us understand how this all works………Any books of his I recommend.
Most people are not AWARE of what goes on in their day to day lives.
We have angels around us all the time. And if we paid attention to them for example: repeating numbers ( my come to me on license plates ) they are talking to us. We are not alone. And don’t worry and stres out. We will be taken care of. But you have to open up and believe and talk to your angels. What a beautiful thing go know.
I had a life experience on this and I believe.
Love and Happiness
Pay It Foward. Do one nice thing for someone everyday
posted October 15, 2007 at 6:25 pm
a “sad” point of view? “no benefit to humanity”? “unhappily”?
i thought Truth doesn’t need to be defended!
posted October 15, 2007 at 6:47 pm
deepak chopra’s book How to know God goes into some scientific details regarding this “god”.
posted October 15, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Re – Saadaya | October 15, 2007 2:24 PM
I think it’s important to admit that the Bible and Qur’an contain verses which are no less than terrorist propaganda, such as 1 Samuel 15:3. God did not say that.
** It is important to know and understand, exactly what the Bible is. God did not write the Bible ! The Bible is a collection of books (not even in chronological order, which right there throws everything out of sync) It is also misconstrued metaphor, symbolism and perception with a particular agenda in mind. The Bible is not only a His-Story of what we should do right, but also a history of everything we do wrong! Bear in mind that there were a whole lot of crazy, wacky, depressed, bi-polar people there trying to control the world (a lot like today !) “There is nothing new under the Sun” It was meant for you as an intelligent human being to make an evaluation and discernment in how to lead your Life.
**Here’s the problem, we ALL have freewill, and that alone can account for all of this insanity since the beginning of Time. God does not discriminate, if you get it, everybody gets it ! That does not mean that we use it wisely. People do not go to the Bible seeking the Truth. They go there seeking truth that agrees with their truth, and when they find it (and they will!) they say “Aha ! I was right” slam the book shut and go about their merry Way.
**Also the Bible has no title, it is simply called The Book. You need to put a title on it. Whatever title you put on it will slant everything you read,in a certain direction. You can call it The Book of War & Peace, The Book of Right and Wrong, The Book of God’s Rath & Vengeance … or whatever. The title I like is the Book of Love. Everything you then read, must pertain and be in the perception of Love (this works for me because God defined Himself as Love) If it does not relate to Love, you are reading it wrong! There is no such thing as forced Love, not even for God…especially for God ! You may spend your entire Life trying to understand what Love is (and probably will) and you will have just begun to understand the kind of Love that God has … “Uncompromising, Unconditional Love !” There have been only a handfull of people that have reached that level so far. Doesn’t say to much for the human experience…does it !
** Bear in mind also, that there are all kinds of spirits out there, and you and your mind must wrestle all the time with them, good and evil (which is only the Spirit of Temptation). I had an atheist tell me “Believing in spirits is the same as believing in Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny” to which I responded “I believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny !” … “They are spirits. Santa is the Spirit of Giving, and you know that is true, because every year near the end of the year, the entire world is filled with the Spirit of Giving ! … And the Easter Bunny is the Spirit of New Birth/Born Again, and every spring the world just bursts forth with new birth, over and over and over again ! You have a problem with that” (the usual response is “Asshole !” and walk aWay )
LUV 2 ALL
Wisdum
posted October 15, 2007 at 10:05 pm
NO DEFENSE of GOD, JUST MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE/PERCEPTION:
God is NOT over there, outside of me, while I am over here.
God is NOT seperate, sitting on a throne far away somewhere.
God has NO favorites, He does NOT love some more than others.
God cannot be found outside of yourself, He is not a description.
God is real, or God is a myth, He is awesome, God is love, or not.
TRUTH REALIZED by establishing a belief with all my heart,mind,soul.
God is a mighty mystery, His wonderous ways astound me as I observe His grace in this discussion by all His creations. Judge not lest ye be loved more by the very subject or object of thine own magnificient obsession = GOD
Joydancing with reason
posted October 15, 2007 at 10:51 pm
For the most part I think anytime an individual has a great deal of hate for something as Dawkins does for God, their scientific neutrality should be questioned. Dawkins opinion is full of bias and ignorance, and it’s unfortunate that this article writer agrees with it. The arguments he makes have been successfully debated and debunked by a variety of contemporaries over the years. Doubt this? visit http://www.rzim.org and search “Dawkins” in the archives for examples.
Further… as Bob said, When an organized religion makes the unequivocal claim that God does exist, people like you and Dawkins blast them for making a statement that you say can’t be backed up. But then you turn around and do the same thing! (i.e.; saying that God does not exist equally can’t be backed up) You can’t have it both ways; the law of non-contradiction should be applied here.
Dawkins views Science as the determining method to debunk faith, which is impossible by definition. Let’s be clear, science itself plays an important role in understanding our world, but it does have limitations. Create a hypothesis, observe it, and then calculate the results (it’s pretty objective really). Once the results are in somebody has to determine what it means. (sounds kind similar to faith) Let me ask then, how can Science tell us anything meaningful about faith, God, or the human condition (or contradiction)?
Bravo for Dawkins publisher however, as this repackage of his previous works affords Dawkins the opportunity to receive one-sided discourse and softball questions from a bunch knit witted celebrity reporter types on TV. It further inflates Dawkins ego and pocket book and ratchets up the God hate rhetoric with a similar lack of neutrality popular in the secular media these days.
Let’s recall that secular humanist thinkers like Nietzsche once declared God was Dead, inspiring humanists like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini to slaughter millions in the name of progress.
In conclusion, Richard needs a new hypothesis, though something tells me one is not forthcoming. It’s his money maker after all.
Please don’t let this book mislead you, God is alive (as faith allows) it only takes something as simple as a child birth or the passing of a loved one to see it clearly. A famous speaker once said that God’s presense is comparable to wind. “Wind” can’t be seen with the naked eye though it can be felt on the skin and it’s results witnessed on the environment and others around us. Enough to scientifically prove wind exists. Perhaps God needs a similar categorization.
posted October 16, 2007 at 12:32 am
I agree many different perceptions and understandings of God and Higher Forces exist. What can seem funny is that behind all the debate and arguing, many people find themselves agree about the same things.
posted October 16, 2007 at 12:48 am
“(Well, most of them, anyway. It does not explain miracles, nor any other physical phenomena and metaphysical experience, of which there is ample evidence in our world.)”
Such as?
“…evolution also explains life in all its non-physical forms.”
Such as?
“And he does not say that evolution itself is God Godding”
Does this actually mean anything?
“I couldn’t disagree more. It is precisely because we have continued to use the word God in the way people have generally understood it that the word has become completely useless.”
Why? Everything else already has a secular label that describes whatever it is quite well. Using “god” just encourages those who use it in the traditional context, by making “god” seem relevant, when it does not need to be.
posted October 16, 2007 at 6:39 am
Re -Walter | October 15, 2007 2:19 PM
Hey little Wisdum,
** Hi Walter…wuz up ?
Where are you ???????
** My blog is bellynet(I call it that because, they haven’t got a stomach full of me yet…but they will!)I can be found here
http://www.beliefnet.com/features/searchengine.html?cx=000544890178875010597%3An9bkjko5dsm&cof=FORID%3A9&q=Wisdum#0
You big Goddes….
** I’m just a child as in “Come to Me as a child” I never grew up (I guess I have Peter Pan Syndrome…the Med Pros call it bi-polar dis-order !) It appears to me “We are born smart,and grow up to be stupid !”
I really love your pureness.
** Pure ?…Naw ! I’m just as dirty as I can get, jumpimg up and down in a mud puddle … Any of you ever done that ? Funny thing, my mom never told me “Grow Up and be adolt !” But she did say “This is a wonder-full Life, if you don’t take it serious !”… and I never did !
LUV 2 U /LUV 2 ALL
Wisdum
Walter | October 15, 2007 2:19 PM
posted October 16, 2007 at 2:08 pm
If we follow Dawkins we lose our greatest tool for the 21st century…. I take that to mean hanging on to bronze age myths and superstitions will propell us into a better place in the future. I believe it’s that mentality that will be the impetus for our demise, keep the sheeple stupid enough with religion and you can do anything you want with them. The time for intelligence is now
posted October 16, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Neale,
Great post. Well said.
Good on ya’!
Greg
posted October 17, 2007 at 3:25 am
Might it be that it was always intended that One might accord more understanding and appreciation for the word ‘GOD’ by regarding it as the acronym for ‘Graciously Organized Design’? I observe that all systems are puzzles resolved for purposes of appreciation. I observe that all puzzles are Graciously Organized Design. Life, evolution, and the laws of the Universe are all expressions of the Graciously Organized Design of One Awareness. We are all One. One designed this Universe One graciously shares for purposes of appreciation before embarking on the journey of many. One would not have designed it any other way. Namaste.
posted October 17, 2007 at 6:56 am
Re – amilius | October 17, 2007 3:25 AM
Wow! … Cool!….Right on!… I couldn’t have said it better myself (yeah right !)… Let the Pendulum Swing !
Have a grate Dei
LUV 2 ALL
Wisdum
posted October 17, 2007 at 4:51 pm
In response to John Connore:
You make the same mistake as Richard Dawkins in assuming that only the ignorant or unintelligent believe in God or profess a faith. I know many intelligent people who believe in God and are deeply spiritual/religious. This includes even followers of what you would call “bronze-age myths”: intelligent people have found these deeply meaningful and fulfilling by interpreting them in light of their own life contexts.
posted December 29, 2007 at 12:04 pm
While I find the ‘debate’ about the existence of God interesting, in the manner I would find a good tennis match interesting, I believe it is time to drop the idea that progress can be made toward enlightenment by continuing it.
Thinking that this debate will solve or ‘cure’ people’s thinking is like saying playing tug of war will solve something or cure something. At best, it will give a brief feeling of either accomplishment or failure, depending upon which side of the rope someone is holding. At worst, it will create the ongoing need to keep at the game which usually results in merely deeper ruts in the ground. In most cases, people simply loose interest in the game until they find another similar game that has the appearance of being different. This just takes the cycle one step further on the circular path.
I believe it is time to stop worrying about what naysayers, or ‘disbelievers’ say and have more faith in the power of expressing what we all feel to be true, whatever that is. Then trust that the God within us will know exactly how to deliver this into the greatness of our collective selves.CWG books speak magnificently well for themselves and have helped people advance significantly on their paths like a pure drink of water would to a thirsty person.
If Dawkins book is a drink of water to someone, let them find out where that will lead. Only our faith has the energy and power to truly awaken or inspire anyone. Be free in knowing that the more we feed our faith and only our faith, the greater is the gift we give to All That Is.
Let us lay down the sword, and even the pen used as sword, and bask in the freedom that can be shared about what God is. Let those who choose to bask in ideas of what God is not do so until they realize they can come in from the cold whenever they are ready.