"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[جوري]

Great observation Keltoi, My friend states this to me all the time. My friend truly believes I'm brainwashed and continues to belittle me about how can I base my life around obeying an "Almighty Creator" that I cannot even see.

There comes a time in each man's life or woman... when s/he no longer gives a **** about what others think.......It truly is a wonderful place when you get to it......... They meet you with mockery and ridicule... you should desert them...... that is not saying not to be friends but there is a way to end a topic that will derange itself into an unpleasent place....

How many messangers in the Quran were met with the same? there really is a beautiful meaning to

وَاصْبِرْ عَلَى مَا يَقُولُونَ وَاهْجُرْهُمْ هَجْرًا جَمِيلًا ​

{10}
[Pickthal 73:10] And bear with patience what they utter, and part from them with a fair leave-taking.

I can't tell you how dignified that is!

 

[TheRightPathI]

There comes a time in each man's life or woman... when s/he no longer gives a **** about what others think.......It truly is a wonderful place when you get to it......... They meet you with mockery and ridicule... you should desert them...... that is not saying not to be friends but there is a way to end a topic that will derange itself into an unpleasent place....

How many messangers in the Quran were met with the same? there really is a beautiful meaning to

وَاصْبِرْ عَلَى مَا يَقُولُونَ وَاهْجُرْهُمْ هَجْرًا جَمِيلًا ​

{10}
[Pickthal 73:10] And bear with patience what they utter, and part from them with a fair leave-taking.

I can't tell you how dignified that is!

Salam, Thank You for the advice. The funny thing is, he has strenghtened my faith in Allah (swt).

 

[Curaezipirid]

Assalamu Alaikum,

good post PurestAmbrosia, but for:

The laws are set, and we have seen empires of Good and evil based solely on man's interpretation. They have set their mark on society.... there is no perfection, we can only strive for it......
QUOTE]

Just that there is need to be careful because "there is no perfection" can be read a little askew to what you might have been meaning. Factually there is perfection in Allah; but as you are clearly pointing to, that perfection is not yet attained in the modern Human condition, so we must strive for.

Greetings,

This is what he is, in fact, trying to do. He also gives examples of debates he has taken part in where he was the "token atheist" on a panel of highly religious speakers. Balanced? . . .

. . . As does Dawkins. In fact, he questions the very idea of "religious knowledge", which to atheists is an oxymoron.

Peace

I had no idea that there are atheists for whom there is a feeling of being disenfranchised and under-represented to the extent of an atheist point of veiw being named token. So sorry.

But what is an oxymoron? I thought it was a phenomena causal to atheism being forced upon others.

Actually it was in response to Manchester, not you. I should have made that more clear. As for being "daft" and member of the "Synagogue of Satan", I suppose if believing that religion and government function more properly without one controlling the other means I am "daft" then I suppose I am. Perhaps I think you are "looney" for thinking what you do. Perhaps instead of childish remarks you should focus on your point of view.

Hi Keltoi;

let me prefer to be childish, and in total ability to totally disregard all wrong opinion of me as looney.


Thankyou

Assalamu Alaikum

 

[Ulysses]

I've read several of Dawkin's earlier books. He is definitely quite knowledgeable about natural history. Too much else to read at present, and I shan't be picking up a copy of the Delusion. Too off topic for me in my own work I am afraid.

I strongly agreed with Dawkins in the Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker, but I will depart from him in his faith that there IS NO supernatural force. That to me seems to take the God Delusion to the other extreme.

However, from my vicarious readings of his central thesis, this much I can agree with: religions, because they are largely based on faith, a mental state that is antithetical to rationality, logic, and dialectic, do tend to promote intolerance.

Intolerance is, I would say, the bigger culprit in the World's history of suffering than is religion; although the two do go hand in hand, both epistemologically, and in historical precedent.

 

[Keltoi]

I've read several of Dawkin's earlier books. He is definitely quite knowledgeable about natural history. Too much else to read at present, and I shan't be picking up a copy of the Delusion. Too off topic for me in my own work I am afraid.

I strongly agreed with Dawkins in the Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker, but I will depart from him in his faith that there IS NO supernatural force. That to me seems to take the God Delusion to the other extreme.

However, from my vicarious readings of his central thesis, this much I can agree with: religions, because they are largely based on faith, a mental state that is antithetical to rationality, logic, and dialectic, do tend to promote intolerance.

Intolerance is, I would say, the bigger culprit in the World's history of suffering than is religion; although the two do go hand in hand, both epistemologically, and in historical precedent.

Exactly. It isn't that religion itself is the culprit, but people are imperfect creatures, and religion can be used to justify very vile deeds.

 

[Curaezipirid]

Exactly. It isn't that religion itself is the culprit, but people are imperfect creatures, and religion can be used to justify very vile deeds.

and exactly !

but the precise meaning in Religion is that within is a teaching of how to work upon our self toward perfection and evolution. If this aspect of Religion were not in existance none of us could believe through any Religious vehicle.

No believer doubts that ills and even vileness have been committed in the name of Religion; but all true believers believe that if we focus our concentration upon such things then that is more likely to more commonly manifest. Whereas when we focus our concentration upon the benefit to our individuality within Religion, the what manifests of Religion is a general improvement in self worth. This is usually not really noticable outside of Religion. But certainly you must be in no doubt of your self Keltoi? But others will no doubt have been forgetting the basic fundament of why Religions initially manifest and then also why any Religion has any continuance/or else we could not even have a mental category for atheists.

Assalamu Alaikum rvq

 

[Keltoi]

and exactly !

but the precise meaning in Religion is that within is a teaching of how to work upon our self toward perfection and evolution. If this aspect of Religion were not in existance none of us could believe through any Religious vehicle.

No believer doubts that ills and even vileness have been committed in the name of Religion; but all true believers believe that if we focus our concentration upon such things then that is more likely to more commonly manifest. Whereas when we focus our concentration upon the benefit to our individuality within Religion, the what manifests of Religion is a general improvement in self worth. This is usually not really noticable outside of Religion. But certainly you must be in no doubt of your self Keltoi? But others will no doubt have been forgetting the basic fundament of why Religions initially manifest and then also why any Religion has any continuance/or else we could not even have a mental category for atheists.

Assalamu Alaikum rvq

Athiests have a completely different frame of reference for religion. Instead of focusing on the message of God or the positive aspects of religious belief, they tend to look at religion as nothing more than a man-made social and political system. We who have belief in a higher power experience faith and the comfort that comes with accepting God's word. Basically, one view of religion is that it is an academic exercise(athiests) and the other view holds religion as the most important thing in life(believers). Neither side can "prove" the other wrong, and some arguments put forward by athiests about religion and global instability and violence have merit. Not that I think the world would be better off without religion, far from it.

 

[Muezzin]

Ultimately the world would be a better place. Without religious beliefs, there would not have been the massive upheavals we have seen in world history.

You cannot possibly know that. Massive upheavals happen for various reasons, religion being merely one among a pantheon.

Great statement. So called "religons of peace" have been the cause of billions of deaths. It is disgusting.

People who pervert such religions to their own violent ends have been the cause of billions of deaths. I tend not to blame the actions of a couple of fanatics on the religion they follow. I find it disrespectful to law-abiding adherents of such religions.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muezzin,

You cannot possibly know that. Massive upheavals happen for various reasons, religion being merely one among a pantheon.

So you would admit that religions can be responsible for massive upheavals? Would it not then follow that without religion, fewer massive upheavals would occur?

People who pervert such religions to their own violent ends have been the cause of billions of deaths. I tend not to blame the actions of a couple of fanatics on the religion they follow. I find it disrespectful to law-abiding adherents of such religions.

But how do religious adherents who claim a sacred motive for illegal actions justify themselves? By claiming that they had a divine sanction to do so. It is because they actually believe in the religion they profess, and they believe that they are acting according to its interests. George W. Bush actually believed he had divine permission to invade Iraq; Christians who murder doctors who practise abortion actually believe they are doing the will of god. I would argue that the more dedicated a person is to their religion, the more likely it is that they will ignore man-made laws and rationality in the face of the religious ideas they believe in.

Regarding the original topic of the thread, I don't have 'The God Delusion' to hand, otherwise I'd give some specific details, so I'll just make some general comments:

Having progressed beyond the introduction to Dawkins' book, I've been more impressed by the clarity and organisation of his arguments than I was earlier on. He covers some familiar ground, but so far he's done it in a refreshingly orinial way. The arguments and concepts he mentions that are new to me seem insightful and persuasive - I think that LI's refuters would benefit from taking a look at them. It would be interesting to see some responses.

In response to an earlier poster, I'd like to re-emphasise my claim that Dawkins' knowledge and handling of issues of philosophy are top-notch, with relevant references to philosophical ideas and thinkers old and new.

Peace

 

[seek.learn]

Salaam o alaikum,
Peace,

This is an article I was intending on linking here earlier but was unable to. This thread reminded me to do so. Possibly not in tone with the discussion Im afraid, in which case I apologize.

--------

The God debate
EVOLUTION | A pair of eminent scientists squares off in separate attempts to show why a supreme being — God — can or cannot exist within the boundaries of science; Patricia Pearson listens in and ponders why we're here
Oct. 15, 2006. 02:53 AM

If you want to really add some spice to the white wine in your book club this fall, may I suggest the raging debate amongst scientists about whether or not God exists.

A number of scholars — geneticists, astronomers, biologists — have come out of the closet of late by declaring their faith. Even the famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew switched to "deism" in 2004.

At the same time, a cadre of Darwinists have been shouldering past the newly faithful in the opposite direction, convinced that natural selection disproves God.

All of them have written books directed at a general audience to try and press their points. In today's head-to-head grudge match, we present a two-book bout between two of the better-known men of science, Richard Dawkins and Francis S. Collins.

The most vehement champion of atheism is Dawkins, Oxford's chair in the "Public Understanding of Science." Since his 1977 breakthrough book, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins has shifted from eloquent explanatory science to increasingly emotional attacks on religion. What motivates him is unclear, since his own justifications for despising belief appear irrational.

Consider the first page of his new book, The God Delusion, in which he fantasizes about a world without faith. "Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no crusades, no witch-hunts, no Inquisition ..."

Okay. Got my eyes closed, I'm imagining. Oh, I know! How about a world with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro and The Shining Path of Peru?

It is baffling that a man of Dawkin's stature could assert that religion is the root of all evil, and blow himself up on page one.

Yet such is his investment in atheism that he barges through history like an irate drunk with a two-by-four, taking broad swings at humanity's subtlest minds, dismissing Thomas Aquinas as "infantile," other theologians as "fatuous," and suggesting that Jesus Christ was "honestly mistaken" when he claimed to be the Son of God.

Sir Isaac Newton only declared faith, Dawkins hints, because, like 19th century homosexuals, he couldn't admit his preferences. Of the great biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote that "we simply can't comment on (God's existence) as scientists," Dawkins says: "I simply don't believe that Gould could sincerely have meant" that.

Good evidentiary points. Next?

Dawkins proceeds to offer startlingly amateurish examples of how religion doesn't make people more moral. He cites a police strike in Montreal in 1969, in which a whole number of crimes was committed. "The majority of the population of Montreal presumably believed in God. Why didn't the fear of God restrain them when earthly policemen were temporarily removed from the scene?"

Who does Dawkins imagine committed these crimes? Parishioners from Notre-Dame?

This kind of sloppy rhetoric takes place in every chapter of The God Delusion. While I am not, myself, a churchgoer, I'm astonished that one of the world's leading atheists would be firing such weak ammunition.

Dawkins's explanation for how religiosity in humans came about, as an accidental "by-product" of genetic evolution, is merely a wild guess. "Natural selection builds child brains with a natural tendency to believe whatever their parents and elders tell them," he declares. This keeps them safe from crocodiles, but you can also announce there is a God, and they will believe you.

To illustrate his theory, Dawkins recalls a sermon he was made to sit through at the age of 9, how he believed every word, and how vehemently he now resents what he was told.

Evolutionary psychology is a very new field, with no proven theorems. So I feel comfortable as a layperson speculating that natural selection would have favoured the wilful and curious child — for instance, the one that most parents encounter, who is about as obedient as a Jack Russell terrier on amphetamines — because mortality in early hominids was extremely high. The child who relied upon the wisdom of elders was a goner if those elders died. Children who survived, like hatchlings who can fly from the nest, were able at a very young age to deploy their own resourcefulness.

Just a thought?

Who knows? And of course, that's the point. Who knows? Dawkins insists upon proof, and then offers absolutely nothing but guesses.

Dawkins's fury with religion reminds me, from my days as a crime journalist, of a psychopath's contempt for love. Because they cannot experience it, or empathize with those who do experience it, they have no way to accept its existence. Talk of it exasperates them. They want proof. But you cannot confirm, scientifically, that you love your father, or your best friend. Like faith, love is subjectively experienced.

Stephen Jay Gould was right: science cannot comment on God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet scientists continue to try. Among those on God's side is Francis S. Collins, head of the international Human Genome Project, a former atheist whose immensely sophisticated understanding of DNA has done nothing to undermine his faith.

In The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins explains his belief in Theistic Evolution, or what he chooses to call BioLogos (God's word as revealed through biology). He is as Darwinian as Dawkins, in that he fully accepts natural selection, only he views it as the mechanism by which God chose to set life in motion.

Collins perceives a deity "outside time and space" who created several governing laws when He set the universe off with a bang, including not just the law of gravity but also that of Moral Law.

I can't possibly do justice to this concept of Moral Law (first articulated for Collins by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity) here. But it pertains to humanity's capacity to observe a law of right and wrong. At its simplest level, it has to do with altruism, which is a yearning that defies evolutionary explanation. Why did my 6-year-old feel compelled to rescue a dying tent caterpillar whose nest I destroyed this summer?

Obviously, I didn't teach her to rescue the leaf-gobbling pest, and she gains no genetic advantage in this act of cross-species empathy. There is nothing in evolution that would favour the genes of a child who pitied a bug. Indeed, pity would have been disadvantageous — just as it would be for a lion that felt empathy for a zebra.

What she is responding to, according to Collins, is the Moral Law, and he thinks that human beings evolved to perceive it just as surely as they evolved to discover the law of gravity. God intended one of his creatures to witness Him, and to act as His steward. It could have been the dinosaurs, Collins writes, but for that meteor hurtling down on the Yucatan. As it happens, it was homo sapiens who became receptive to spiritual truth.

I'm providing an embarrassingly cursory summary of a complex idea. Suffice to say that this is thought-provoking stuff, to which Dawkins has his own response. It's been a long while since I've read a pair of books that made me want to call up my friends — for the sole purpose of inviting them over to hash out life's most abiding question.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Pearson is a Toronto author, novelist and freelance writer.

Source
----

Peace,
Alaikum Salaam

 

[Woodrow]

If I am understanding what I am reading here, the issue being debated is the role religion has in causing war.

For sake of arguement I am going to say that religion is and has been a factor in every war. Yet, in looking closer it seems that war is caused by a series of factors, that need to occur together.

It is very difficult to conduct a successful war without some sort of centralised system, which would probably be a government. If my thinking is not to far off then for us to have a war we will need a religion and a government.

Now I believe a government needs to have financial support in order to function. So that means taxes. to pay taxes people need jobs. Now I am seeing 3 factors required to conduct a war. Religion, Politics, employment. Well people can't simply get a job out of no where. They need skills. Skills come from training which is education. I got it !!!!! wars are caused by Religion, Government, employment and education.

Simple solution. Eliminate order and restore chaos. Chaos and anarchy are the tools to peace.

Excuse me it is time to eat. I have to go next door and murder my neighbor for a meal. I hope he tastes better than the last one. It sure is nice to be at peace and not have to worry about war, now that I have eliminated the causes of war.


Yes, I wrote that tongue-in-cheek and as sarcasm. Now I will agree that Religion has been an issue in war. But, religion is not the cause of war. I doubt if a single war would have been prevented if religion was eliminated. people have tried to use their religious beliefs to justify artrocieties, but the religion did not cause the atrocities. In the world, religion is the basis for organised civilization. Without our religious beliefs, we would be using pure physical logic for civilization and it would eventualy become very similar to the rediculous sarcastic scenario I depicted.


We can not survive without religion. To me the fact that we need religion to even survive, is very strong evidence of the existance of Allah(swt)

 

[Keltoi]

I agree Woodrow, it isn't that religion itself is the cause of war but that those who wish to have war see religion as a way to galvanize people into action. There are obviously many factors that contribute to conflict and many different ways of galvanizing a population.

 

[Curaezipirid]

Just a few points. (I can be a bit pointy huh) I stated elsewhere that we have no evidence of what the world would be like without Religion, within which to base any thought against Religion. However, I have reconsidered that situation after watching a television show about The Cultural Revolution in China. They say Mao did try to immortalise Revolution and in so doing ended Revolution. But whether that is true of course depends upon including torture within the definition of Revolution. Mao certainly may well still be there in the fire of Hell working through that matter of the ending of all torture in Revolution. However that is a bit off the point. The point is: Eastern Asia is where Islam had not been; is where Buddhism is believed possible without any manifestation of belief in God; is where Taoism is mistaken with Confucianism; is where they only know false teachings in Jesus and only through missionaries whom came for the opium to trade by; is where the existing Muslims should be told in the end as real heros. So try to compare the situation of the Cultural Revolution with Iranian Revolution before deriding Religion's means in war as causal to lack in Peace.

Also:

Athiests have a completely different frame of reference for religion. Instead of focusing on the message of God or the positive aspects of religious belief, they tend to look at religion as nothing more than a man-made social and political system. We who have belief in a higher power experience faith and the comfort that comes with accepting God's word. Basically, one view of religion is that it is an academic exercise(athiests) and the other view holds religion as the most important thing in life(believers). Neither side can "prove" the other wrong, and some arguments put forward by athiests about religion and global instability and violence have merit. Not that I think the world would be better off without religion, far from it.

good point except that believers in Islam, unlike in any other Religion, believe we can convince atheists by proving them wrong


good article seek.learn; but I am only quoting a little piece of and it may be askewed contextually by its choice here:

.

Stephen Jay Gould was right: science cannot comment on God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet scientists continue to try.

Reality: scientists continue to try because science can comment on God, and because SCIENCE IS THE EVIDENCE IN ALLAH THAT HE IS!

eg what is a 1 or a 2 or 3456 etc, then what is a zero all about, huh? What about: 67892345; that is a sequence that does it for some folk when nothing else will do. And unstickably too

wasalam (atheists are such a good resource when my temper is poorly) an'salam (mu'asalam?) weirdo smilie needed here

 

[Muezzin]

Greetings Muezzin,

Hey! Long time no see!

So you would admit that religions can be responsible for massive upheavals? Would it not then follow that without religion, fewer massive upheavals would occur?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is merely speculation.

But how do religious adherents who claim a sacred motive for illegal actions justify themselves? By claiming that they had a divine sanction to do so.

I would say they are simply finding an excuse to justify their violent tendencies, rather than taking certain sections of a religious text too literally.

It is because they actually believe in the religion they profess, and they believe that they are acting according to its interests. George W. Bush actually believed he had divine permission to invade Iraq; Christians who murder doctors who practise abortion actually believe they are doing the will of god.

Though it's entirely possible that their beliefs are misplaced. And yes, I fully realize this is what atheists quite probably think of their religious counterparts, but I don't care.

I would argue that the more dedicated a person is to their religion, the more likely it is that they will ignore man-made laws and rationality in the face of the religious ideas they believe in.

I see what you're saying. This does not always manifest itself in violence though.

I still firmly believe that people who are inherently violent find verses from certain texts that justify their behaviour, rather than committing violence because they are acting on a mistaken interpretation of such texts.

I.e.

'Man: Grr, I'm so angry, I want to hurt someone - ooh, look, this particular verse says 'kill all the disbelievers'

Man 2: Yeah, but you're taking it out of context--

Man: SHUT UP! You're weak! You're one of them, an uncle Tom! We have to kill them all! And if you don't agree I'll kill you too!'

Rather than:

'Man: Oh, I so want to be a good (insert religious follower). Hmm, this verse says something about killing unbelievers...

Man 2: Yeah, but you're taking it out of context--

Man: But it looks quite clear...

Man 2: You're wrong.

Man: But God wrote this. Are you saying God's wrong?

Man 2:... Why do I bother?'

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muezzin,

Hey! Long time no see!

Good to talk to you again. I've been ridiculously busy with my new job (at a boarding school - I've now learned the definition of 'long hours') so I've not had time for LI. Half term is upon us though, so I'll be able to stick around for a little while.

I'd like to air some of the arguments in Dawkins' book a bit more fully so that hopefully we can see some decent attempts at refuting them. He answers pretty much every point that's been raised against him here in the book. I find him convincing (surprise, surprise), but it would be good to see some detailed responses from members here.

One accusation often levelled against Dawkins is that he has become the very thing he opposes: a fundamentalist atheist. He answers this in the following way: a fundamentalist is someone who carries on clinging to a belief in the face of any or all available evidence. He gives the example of a religious scientist saying that, despite all he has learned about geology end evolution, he still believes in young earth creationism because that is what scripture tells him to do. Dawkins on the other hand, adopts the standard scientific approach, which is to hold a belief, pending further evidence. If there was conclusive evidence that atheism was wrong, or that evolution via natural selection was wrong, then he would gladly abandon those beliefs. It just hasn't happened yet.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is merely speculation.

It's an entirely plausible and indeed logical speculation, though, isn't it, given what you've said?

I would say they are simply finding an excuse to justify their violent tendencies, rather than taking certain sections of a religious text too literally.

So do you deny that they are indeed taking religious texts too literally? It seems like that's just what they're doing.

Though it's entirely possible that their beliefs are misplaced. And yes, I fully realize this is what atheists quite probably think of their religious counterparts, but I don't care.

Their beliefs certainly are misplaced, from a religious and a non-religious point of view. Also, I'm not sure that the 'I don't care' approach to argument will serve you well during your illustrious legal career!

I see what you're saying. This does not always manifest itself in violence though.

Correct. It often results in people filling the minds of children with palpable falsehoods, such as the inclusion of intelligent design in school science curricula, among other examples.

I still firmly believe that people who are inherently violent find verses from certain texts that justify their behaviour, rather than committing violence because they are acting on a mistaken interpretation of such texts.

If you want to find peaceful verses from the Qur'an, you will find them; if you want to find violent verses, you will find those too. It is strange that, among god's many perfections, clarity of thought, or the ability to write a coherent narrative (which most people are able to do by the time they reach secondary school) are not among them.

Peace

 

[glo]

It is strange that, among god's many perfections, clarity of thought, or the ability to write a coherent narrative are not among them.
Peace

Hi Czgibson

Can I ask you if this is taken from Dawkins, or if it is your own argument, or both?

thanks

 

[Woodrow]

Greetings Czgibson,

Interesting thoughts. Logical and written with care. Understandable.

Now why would anyone disagree with them? What is there not to agree with?
Probably nothing. But, then again what do they actually mean and why do they have little impact on a believer?

I personaly have come to a conclusion that trying to compare beliefs between non-believers and believers is very similar to comparing carrots and igneous rocks. Although physical and measurable differences can be seen and even some intangible concepts about both can be made, one will have no bearing on the intrinsic value of the other. What we are looking at is a belief and the absence of a belief, not the legitimacy of either.

Religious beliefs are based on many factors that go beyond the realm of the quantifiable. It requires a "spark" of an unmeasurable charecteristic. Without that "spark" I doubt if a person would have any desire to seek guidance from an invisible entity or even believe the entity exists.

I can not say that your not being receptive to that "spark" or that my receptiveness is a deliberate act of volition. However, I do believe that when a person is faced with that factor, it does become a choice of acting upon it or ignoring it. Those that act upon it become endowed with an insatiable curiosity to seek Allah(swt) in all aspects of life, those who either miss seeing it or ignore it, retain the desire to find pure physical explanations for all things. I do not deny that all of creation is subject to the physical laws of matter. I will even agree that all events that can be measured can be explained solely in terms of those physical events.

I just feel that I have seen evidence of happenings that have no physical explanations and have no need to be explained in terms of physical observation. I believe that Allah(swt) has revealed himself to mankind. That revelation makes it impossible to believe that He would reveal information that is not in accordance with His purpose for us.

I desire that one day you will experience that spark and when you do expeience it, I pray that you will make a deliberate effort to nuture it.

I have no doubt that you are a very decent person with high standards and a very workable ethical code that you adhere to. May your days be filled with happiness.

Peace,
Woodrow

 

[czgibson]

Greetings glo,

Can I ask you if this is taken from Dawkins, or if it is your own argument, or both?

I haven't seen it in Dawkins but it's an idea that came from reading his book, so perhaps a bit of both.

Greetings Woodrow,

Religious beliefs are based on many factors that go beyond the realm of the quantifiable. It requires a "spark" of an unmeasurable charecteristic. Without that "spark" I doubt if a person would have any desire to seek guidance from an invisible entity or even believe the entity exists.

I agree, although I have never understood exactly what this "spark" is - probably because, as you say, it's unquantifiable, unmeasurable and so on. However, if I told you that I believed in an unquantifiable, unmeasurable force that determined how I should live my life, and the rituals I should follow, what would you say? We're talking about psychological events here, and I'm convinced that what's happening can be explained (in theory) by reference to the operations of the brain, rather than anything supernatural.

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

Greetings glo,


I haven't seen it in Dawkins but it's an idea that came from reading his book, so perhaps a bit of both.

Greetings Woodrow,



I agree, although I have never understood exactly what this "spark" is - probably because, as you say, it's unquantifiable, unmeasurable and so on. However, if I told you that I believed in an unquantifiable, unmeasurable force that determined how I should live my life, and the rituals I should follow, what would you say? We're talking about psychological events here, and I'm convinced that what's happening can be explained (in theory) by reference to the operations of the brain, rather than anything supernatural.

Peace

I spent a good bit of my life as a Psychologist, although my forte was primarily in the field of Physiological Psychology, at least some of my background did entail Behavior Modification and Theories of Belief and Attitudes. A few years ago I would have given you a very good basis to show that a religious experience was primarily a learned process combined with physical sensation reflecting changes in the limbic system.

However, after becoming convinced of the existance of a higher power and an understanding that it was He who we call Allah(swt) that revealed Himself to us, I am now convinced that what I had learned was merely the physical methods of allowing us to experience what is beyond the measurable.

However, if I told you that I believed in an unquantifiable, unmeasurable force that determined how I should live my life, and the rituals I should follow, what would you say?

I would say that I have no reason to doubt you and that only you can decide what it means to you and to how or why you will respond to it. I can only explain how and why I do.

 

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam

It is funny,but devout people think about allah all the time.

Atheist think about Allah all the time too.

But one beleives while the other disbelieve.
One has faith the other has no faith.

But both still think of Allah always,LOL..

isnt it great,no matter how theyn ry to disprove Allah,they will still think of Allah CONTINUOUSLY..