Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The God Delusion
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Let's not forget about militant theists...
I get that you have many atheist friends and you're super-devoted to creating positive change, and the implication seems to be that therefore nobody has any room to say that something you've said may not be a good thing to say. I hear that a lot when a marginalized person says, "Hey. Please don't talk about me like that." Rather than using your many atheist friends as an excuse to not listen to somebody who is trying to tell you that an approach you made is not helpful, why don't you check and make sure that the impact your words are having fits with these ideals and moral attainments you just talked so much about? I mean, goodness, right view isn't enough. Right speech matters, too.
I mean, if a gay person told me that something I'd said was actually worsening their experience of marginalization, I'd be missing the point if I replied with, "I don't know what you're talking about. I'm the least bigoted person ever, and gay people love me, except for those ones who are annoying and just too angry to be listened to." The appropriate response (the one that involves actually taking people seriously when they question something you've said) is, "I never want people to feel more marginalized when they're around me, so I'll be more careful not to be part of that even/especially when my intentions are to do just the opposite."
If your intentions are good (and I don't doubt that they are, if you say they are), then I'd think a misunderstanding of this kind would be super important to you and something you'd want to prevent in the future. I don't want my friends of color to feel like I'm racist, not because it turns me into a poor misunderstood victim of their assumptions, but because being around racism hurts and I don't want to be a source of that through my own carelessness or ignorance.
Truthseeker: You seem to be having some trouble with "is versus ought." In an ideal world, people like me (speaking from an Americentric view, with a mind for the fact that the USA isn't the only place dealing with this) wouldn't have to worry about what other people believed about the supernatural, because they'd all be super-rational and open-minded and compassionate about living out the ideals of that religion. However, I know that I don't actually live in that world. I live in a world where biology classes in my state have to give a caveat that evolution is "just a theory" and that there are other explanations that students should look into. I live in a world where the contractual rights of gay people are different than straight people.
I would love to make all of my decisions, assessments, and predictions based on a secular culture and government. However, both my education and my experience have led me to believe that if I make decisions as though I live in a world that I do not with a government that operates the way it should instead of the way it does, then I will be no use to anyone. Not even myself, even though I'm throwing reality under the bus ostensibly to protect my own feelings from exposure to a harsh reality.
porpoise: I dunno. I know people who sincerely believe that there are fairies in their office cubicles, and that these fairies are their real friends and to some extent are also their coworkers. This gives them a great sense of comfort and doesn't really seem to negatively impact their work performance. Are they delusional?
In the US, decisions about what is taught in classrooms is usually made at the state level. Some states have politically appointed superintendents heading a Dept of Education, some have appointed School Boards, and some have elected School Boards. Any controversial decision involves a fair amount of politics.
In the 1920s, John Scopes was prosecuted and convicted of teaching evolution in Tennessee. Nowadays, evolution is what is taught in the classrooms. Political institutions are more secular today in the US than they were previously.
At one time, there was a broad agreement among US voters about certain religious matters. They didn't need to become part of political discourse because there was agreement about them. That agreement has broken down. What you are seeing is the breakdown of religious consensus, not an increase in the influence of religion in politics.
Sure. The US is not Europe.
Lets' review some definitions. "Aggressive" means, among other things, making an all out effort to win or succeed, and being vigorously energetic. "Militant" means being vigorously active and aggressive in support of a cause. MLK made an all out effort to succeed, and he was energetic in his campaigns. He was vigorously active and aggressive, as defined above, in support of a cause. The term "militant" nicely summarizes MLK's career.
(BTW, I misquoted the definition of "militant" in a previous post.)
I have little in common with the New Atheists. What I agree with is their right to be militant. Stopping someone from doing something they think they have the right to do, such as enforce their religious beliefs on other people, requires boldly confronting them. It doesn't matter how sweet you are about it, you're going to get an angry backlash. Some people handle the backlash better than others, but telling someone who is struggling with the backlash that the problem is their tone or attitude is equivalent to saying "Don't defend your rights until you can be saintly about it." Few of us are capable of being saints. People who give condescending lectures about tone or attitude are certainly not saints, and are helping to increase the level of anger.
I am getting from the response that you consider our exchange, in this moment, to be ripe with this feeling of marginalization. From the way you've depicted my responses to the thread, I can understand why this could be.
I am not asking you to speak to me differently. I am at peace with you, Cobalt, at least as so far as I can describe my side of things. When I look at the writings that inspired the OP, I feel the militant attitude and belittlement of other people's beliefs to be very sad, because they undoubtedly obfuscate the message from the people who could benefit from it the most. I have never seen a heart beaten open, nor a mind belittled into wisdom.
However, I do deeply respect your tenacity and intention. When it comes to debate, both sides get to speak in whatever tone they see fit, absolutely. If you do not agree that aggressive words and actions provide bitter fruit, then we are at the root of what we do not agree upon. Are you feeling directly attacked by my suggestion that aggression is unskillful? Do you feel my suggestion somehow invalidates your feelings? Do you really think that aggressive behavior is skillful? That Dawkin's words are helping to liberate people mired in religious zealotry?
In the same metaphor of your colored friends, if you saw them captured by their hatred for white people, would you lovingly address their hate? Perhaps look for a way to gently introduce them to the notion that their hate burns their own mind, rather than punishing the 'oppressors'? In the same way, I was attempting to gently and skillfully introduce the notion that compassion is better than aggression for creating lasting change, because anger compromises our wisdom and happiness. It is usually only when that anger is understood that we can go deeper and uproot the fear that generates it.
What I see is that debate is unskillful when it is a cathartic release of our inner turmoil into the ears of another. Activist personas often exhibit this pattern, in my observation. They become so fed up with the status quo (also read as "lack of acceptance for what is") that they get angry and create "negative negativity" or insistence that other people create their suffering. Its like getting so mad at the couch for stubbing our toe, that our mind simply cannot see that the pain is from our own unskillful interaction with it. This isn't to say that yelling at the couch is bad, just that it isn't helpful... for the toe, our mind or the couch.
If you somehow feel invalidated by my suggestions or view, I am really sorry. My only wish is for your happiness and success along the path.
With warmth,
Matt
I think I see some of the dissonance between what we are looking at, so as much as I do not want to quibble, I also find it important to properly understand the language we're using so the archetypal behaviors we look at are more directly comprehended. This is the definition of aggression I understand, from dictionary.com:
And militant:
In my view, aggression is not something to be harnessed, it is something to be penetrated, understood, and healed. Can't you see the difference between actions that are strong and well rooted in compassion and wisdom, and actions that are rooted in aggression and self-view? That social change can come from behavior that is not rooted in an attack?
With warmth,
Matt
Is that really what's at stake? The thread title is "The God Delusion" and the discussion has obviously moved quite a bit away from the book. So, please allow me to come back to it one more time. I was a not a little surprised by the best selling success that -let me say it politely- a not very original book had achieved, especially in America. Obviously it was the right text at the right time. However, the bestseller success must be seen in proper relation. The bestseller of all times is, probably much to Dawkins' annoyance, still the bible with over a billion copies sold.
Just to clarify my previous statements: I think that atheists should definitely participate in the debate, actually I wish there were more atheists in the American political landscape in the interest of a more secular and balanced government, but I strongly oppose Dawkins call to "militant" atheism. I am not prepared to accept militant people, whether they are theist or atheist. This is just the wrong approach, because the end does NOT justify the means. I consider militant atheism (or theism) to be in direct contradiction with the fourth precept, which is not only about lying but generally about unskilful speech, especially harsh speech. Matt has already expressed the same concern much more eloquently, so I will leave it at that.
Cheers, Thomas
Here are some examples of the use of "militant", as applied to King:
Erik Erikson's famous 1969 biography of Gandhi is named "Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence". EdSiteMent, a web site maintained by the National Endowment for the Humanities, states that King was more militant than Gandhi.
James Colaiaco's 1994 biography of King is titled "Martin Luther King, Jr: Apostle of Militant Nonviolence".
In the Dec 9, 2002 issue of Peace and Change, Thomas Noer writes
The website of the Martin Luther King Jr., Memorial says
And in regard to the word "aggressive", Ian M. Randall writes in the Journal of European Baptist Studies, September 2008,
You are trying to restrict the meaning of "militant" and "aggressive". They have wider meanings, and those meanings are well established.
As we speak women are being stoned to death in Iran.
P
P
It's also true that there are far more theists than atheists. But that has no relation to the existence or non-existence of God.
P
Dawkin's words do not ring like MLK or Ghandi, and I am simply using words to point to archetypes that I find collapse communication. I am not trying to restrict definitions, I am trying to aim with them.
My finger is still very directly pointing toward the archetypes I've been addressing, and your definition troubles appear to me only as attempting to keep your eyes closed to the destructive power of aggression. Your insistence that words do not mean what they mean are not important to me. It reminds me of a (Gene Hackman) Lex Luther quote from Superman:
"Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."
What you yield from our exchange it up to you. My confidence comes from much study of metta, which is considered the antidote toward aggression. For instance, Thich Nhat Hanh has a great book on cultivating loving-kindness, called "Anger: Wisdom for Cooling the Flames" and it speaks in depth about how aggression leads us into places that are disconnected and painful. Perhaps you could read it (its even available as an audiobook) and broaden your understanding of aggressive forces.
With warmth,
Matt
Yep. These "archetypes" are ways of viewing people that allow you to attack the people involved without actually addressing the issues.
"My" definition troubles consist of your refusal to acknowledge well documented and widely accepted definitions. This seems to me to be more your definition problem than mine.
After your repeated denial of well documented definitions, your insistence has somehow become mine?
And perhaps you need to reread it and consider it. You have a point of view which you have aggressively pushed in this debate (and other debates). Somehow, when this creates opposition, it's the fault of everyone one else because you're practicing metta and can't be blamed.
Seriously, anyone who engages in the type of ad hom arguments that you just posted is neither practicing metta nor being a very effective advocate for it.
However, you appear offended somehow, and have taken my writing as an attack of some kind. My goal is to look past the notions and see how Dawkins' call is an ineffective strategy for social change, and why... not based on some kind of Matt's clinging to definitions, but to the archetypes of dissonance that underpin my descriptions... based off buddhist ideals of acceptance as the vehicle for communication. Communication, the vehicle for dharma, then dharma the vehicle for evolution.
From my view, you keep punching me and then complain that I am somehow hurting your fist with ad hominem. I have no ill feelings toward you, Ren, and feel no aggression toward you or your words. I admit there is some confusion as to what motivates your responses, but I don't consider you at fault for any of what happens on my side of things. I respect much of what you've had to say in this and other posts, and have not for a single instant considered you anything but my family.
With love,
Matt
I said that you were trying to bias the debate in your favor.
What I actually said was that people respond to the indignities and injustices they experience as best they can, and often the response involves a fair amount of anger, or aggression. Social change occurs _because_ a large number of people are pissed off and are willing to act aggressively to bring about change. Telling people not to respond until they can do it in a saintly manner is equivalent to telling them to shut up and not change anything.
Rather like you and I when we're debating, don't you think?
Where you are wrong is in supposing that you are not the same. You use the labels "aggressive" and "angry" instead of "ignorant", but it comes to the same thing.
Why? Because I point out the errors in your logic and evidence?
What I know about Dawkins is that he's a rather ordinary human being, and when he's arguing about something he doesn't know much about, he does what the rest of us do; he makes bad arguments. Not only that, but he's rather competitive about it. Like aMatt and Ren Galskap, he wants to win debates. I've read what I believe are reliable reports about the way he carries out debates, and I don't think his methods are always valid. I've seen quite a lot of what you do in debates, and I don't think your methods are any better. I have always tried to avoid the things you do; lecturing people on their attitudes, arguing with them about their intentions, attributing their statements to anger or hurt feelings, etc. I probably don't avoid them entirely, because they are things that people feel inclined to do when they debate. But I know that I am ordinary in the way that aMatt is ordinary, and I know that I have the same tendency to do these things. If I catch myself doing them, then it's easy to stop myself because it's just ordinary. If I were special, I would have to go ahead and do them because stopping myself would be admitting that I was ordinary.
Dawkins, aMatt, and Ren Galskap--so ordinary it's embarrassing.
I apologize if my actions are lecturing, arguing, or making attributions. I admit I am ordinary, and pipe up readily and happily whenever someone says "hey, how is it that you're human?" I do try to practice my communication by avoiding saying "you said xyz and therefore you are angry" but rather "I am hearing xyz, and from that I am hearing that you're angry or upset". There is a world of difference in those, to me. I am simply attempting to relate to what I am seeing as best I can.... hoping that I am fluid enough to reverse or refine any observations upon receiving further information.
We do obviously disagree on where the best form of social change occurs, and I am ok with that. I do find it interesting that so much of your post is dedicated at discrediting my communication style, and that saddens me a little, because if you are accurate in your observations of how I talk, then much of the reason I am attempting to put my love into words in the first place is invalid here at Newbuddhist.com. Perhaps I was not as ready to come out of the cave as my teachers and I had thought. I've had a great deal of positive feedback, and only a small bit of negative, but still, I will sit and open to your ideas and see what is born.
Like I have said, I have no intention of winning a debate here, but rather have been hoping to appeal to those who might try to use aggression to win, offering an alternate path of compassion and understanding. Not because I wish them silent until saintly, but because from what I understand of Buddha's teachings, aggression leads them to manifest unhappiness in their life. Seeing as this is a Buddhist board, it seemed an appropriate appeal toward compassion. I would much rather see people rally to the cause of "meditative awareness" than "militant anything else", and I admit that is a personal longing.
As I said, I will contemplate your dissection of my communication style, and if you have specific examples of my "poor debating" style, I'd love it in the form of a PM, so that I can properly put your observations into context.
With warmth,
Matt
What a very heavy burden that must be for you. I say this with absolutely no mean-spiritedness intended.
That's not what you did. You tried very hard to deny that the term "militant" could be used in the way that I used it. You're way of doing this was using MLK as an example. When I pointed out that MLK was militant, you denied it and insisted that the term couldn't be applied to him. You were actually trying to enforce your definition. You weren't just explaining what you meant.
It doesn't matter how you bring your perceptions of another person's emotions into a discussion if those perceptions aren't relevant. If a person has a valid point, and you choose to bring up your perceptions of the person's emotions instead of dealing with the point, you are doing what I pointed out before; ignoring the issues and making personal comments.
You lost a disagreement over the meaning of a word, and your response was to post personal comments. The fact that I disagreed with those personal comments and pointed out where you were wrong doesn't mean that I was angry. It just means that you were taking an argument that up to that point had been about definitions and making it personal. That was your behavior, and it doesn't indicate that I was angry.
This is another misrepresentation. I have never said anything about the "best form of social change". What I said was that social change is messy and imperfect and most people aren't going to make the necessary effort and undergo the inevitable stress unless they have strong motivations, and frequently these motivations involve anger over the way they've been treated.
And yet another misrepresentation. I haven't said a thing about your "communication style". I've limited my self to the content of your communication. That content frequently avoids the issues being brought up and addresses irrelevant personal matters.
Why bring up your teachers? Do you need justification for being out of the cave?
I don't see anything about a public forum that prevents you from putting my observations in context.
I feel you're inaccurately describing my actions... for instance, I've never thought you were angry, nor could I find where I described you as such... and you keep saying I've lost something which really doesn't make sense to me. I try to put this into some kind of debate context, but my "competitive behaviors" continue to allude my perceptions. But, however it has been between us during this exchange, I do accept we've veered off topic. I will continue to contemplate your observations, thank you for them.
I suppose where I would like some clarity, if you'll go back to the OP... is that: do you consider Dawkins' methods, including his call for militant behavior from atheists to be a precursor to positive change? I've not read these debates you have, and as I have read his words and other people's reactions to his words, I would not have considered him a beacon of compassion, to say the least... he has routinely appeared to me to enjoy cutting at other's beliefs.
When you said you agreed that people should be militant, I checked my brain to see what that pointed at, then upon disagreement checked the dictionary, and did not find the label you ascribe to it. Not that I wish to dominate the market for what words mean! Just, if you can be patient with me, have no reliable source that says militant behavior is different than I have been describing! Some writers describing MLK for instance, did nothing to steer my mind away from the dictionary. I suppose I cling to dictionary.com, but it has not usually steered me wrong. Anyway, for my understanding, do you feel Dawkins is calling for a peaceful, strong and loving response to theists? That is the version of militant you feel Dawkins represents?
I understand what you're saying:
and wonder if this reconciles with Buddhist teachings. Would you then say that when anger is a motivator for action, the actions might produce healthy realities? I admit I have not considered an action motivated by anger to be healthy, at all, ever, but am certainly willing to undergo some further observation in order to understand your view, if that is indeed your view... which I am simply unsure of based on your comments.
I do accept people have anger, but do you feel it would be better if they nurtured that anger, and then acted? This was the teaching I was talking about in the book I mentioned, and wonder if your attitude matches the teaching in the book, or if it is "well that teaching is nice, but lets be real about how action happens" or whatever.
My hope is that the exchange can be salvaged, because I feel there are some important lessons in both content and form going on between us. But, if your next post turns into another list of all of my shortcomings... well, good grief. Doesn't your arm get tired of swinging?
With warmth,
Matt
My OP question was really just asking what people thought about Dawkins' idea that belief in God is a delusion.
I'm inclined to think that belief in God is a delusion, while recognising that we're all delusional at a deeper level.
P
Could you say what you think the message is?
P
Dawkins has called his book The God Delusion, not "The God Illusion", and I think that most theologians today would agree that all attempts to define "God" are, indeed, delusions. I find it interesting that Dawkins, of all people, should use that particular word: after some decades of studying Christianity, Sufi Islam, Hinduism, neo- and classical 'paganism', myths and legends, together with Buddhism and a daily practice of study and meditation, it is very clear to me that all these are attempts at dissolving delusion.
The difficulty arises when we are obliged to use the language of delusion to try to describe what is perceived/grasped/understood once the deceit of delusion dissolves (alliteration's artful aid). Just look at how much poetry and music are produced by those who are trying to convey the Real: prose just doesn't cut it, although storytellers like Jesus have a good try.
The problem for Dawkins and the strident atheists is the same as that for the proponents of the theodicies: they are all trying to define a particular delusion and present it as reality.
I, too, reject the strawman God that Dawkins et al. set up but I see it as a waste of good time and fine minds. I am continually minded of what St Thomas Aquinas had to say about the value of what he had written and I know that the Real can only be experienced, not described.
I would add a few words about what I think goes wrong with the God debate. As old friends here will know, I am an amateur historian and an amateur de l'histoire, and I am convinced that the error crept in (as with so much that is wrong with us today) with the Romans. They were, by and large, as a society, among the most secular and most superstitious of all time. They were also supremely 'unspiritual'. The creation of the Imperial Cult and deification of emperors devalued older spiritual understandings. Take, as an example, the Egyptian Ennead. Whilst rituals, both public and domestic, celebrated, appeased and conjured many different gods, it was clearly understood that they all, even the Great Nine, arose from a primordial Abyss, a God-beyond-the-gods. The same notion is still present in Hindus theology. The Romans, however, ignored the 'Abyss' notion, the fons et origo of divinity, and set up their pantheon as being 'free-standing'. By the time the Christian church had trimmed and dodged and woven to become state religion, it had adopted this view of the divine. No longer was there an unknowable Abyss out of which the knowable gods arise, only God.
When I first heard the phrase "a finger pointing at the Moon", it struck me that all the gods and Gods that I had encountered in prose and poetry, music and song, painting and sculpture and dance, all of them were just such "fingers". But that doesn't fit very well with either the atheists or the believers: both appear to want definable deities to embrace or to reject.
Delusion indeed!
How is Dawkins attacking a strawman God? He attacks the traditional God of the monotheistic, Abrahamic religions which is believed by the majority of the believers. Of course the believers are going to cry foul because they are embarrassed by the traditional idea of God and try to assert a God-concept that sounds more sophisticated and mystical, but ends up being a meaningless and vague assertion.
.
Good point. Dawkins is questioning the kind of God most people actually believe in.
P
So would calling God an "illusion" be any more acceptable? It sounds like a magic trick.
P
But the atheists have to base their definitions on what the believers believe. So who is delusional?
P
A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception.
Does that help?
P
In a Buddhist view, we are deluded about the world around us but the world is not an illusion.
Does that help?
My point is that well educated and studious Christians, Jews and Muslims do not believe in the "redneck God" that Dawkins et al. set up to criticise. They choose the old tribal deity instead. The work of Tillich or Cupitt passes them by. They are just so old-fashioned and fail to notice that what turns them off is clericalism - about which I entirely agree with them, although I also acknowledge that much that is good about our civilisation is the result of committed religionists, including the abolition (at least in theory and overtly in our countries) of slavery.
The polemic is partial, too. Hindu and Sikh mysticism are left out. probably because they are not the simplistic belief systems of the ill-educated.
Attacking the medieval/pre-industrial notions of God (to which so many 'believers' appear to cling) is as outdated as criticising pre-Newtonian physics or equating Buddhism with "worship of the fat man".
As I said before, believers replace the traditional God for one they believe to be more sophisticated and mystical, when it's really just vague and meaningless. "Oh, I don't believe in the man in the sky, I believe in a higher power or spiritual force." Or "I believe that there is a creative force or a first cause." In many cases, this is all to avoid ridicule and is theologically dishonest. I know there's a few advanced apologists like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, etc., but they are a rarity and are philosophically equipt to justify God.
The Bible states that "The Lord is a MAN of war, the lord is his name." It describes him as omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc. (I know those words aren't used, but I've seen the verses that reference it.) as well as God even having hands ("right hand of the father") and taste buds ("it was a sweet savor unto the Lord").
This version of God is the one that Dawkins attacks. The Abrahamic God. It's not a strawman in anyway. Not to mention, he merely rejects that God that other's propose, so it's impossible for him to strawman anyone.
.
Where Dawkins et al. err, I believe, is in the approach that shows, very cogently, that the god of the Old Testament is as unreal as Tiamat or Ra or any other prehistoric superstition and, from that, concludes that all gods are pre-scientific nonsense. It is that leap which concerns me.
I am glad that you admit, Transmeta., that there are post-industrial models of divinity and mystery which are held by Christian, Jewish and Muslim apologists and which are philosophically and scientifically respectable. These, I maintain, are worthy of respect and unhysterical study, even if our conclusion may remain "Not Proven". I also appreciate that you live in a country where, apparently, some 50 million people believe in the "End Times" - and where some of that belief appears to have infected the political process. I think it is important to go on trying, however unrewarding the task, to tell such people that their 'God' is not so much dead as never existed in the first place.
To come back to Dawkins and God, I repeat that my reading of him and of Hitchens is that it is religion that they really abhor. Some of us, whilst unable or unwilling to reject notions of transcendent mystery, go along with Martin Buber when he says: "Nothing hides the face of God from us as much as religion."
No creator god insight however.
Wait, so do I want to do not-so-good but not-too-bad karma, rather than good karma, in order to be reborn as a human, the only rebirth in which it is possible to attain Nirvana? Good karma will just prolong my samsaric existence?
Depends upon the dedication, It would be terrible to accumulate vast amounts of Good karma only to enjoy the higher realms before crashing back down to the lower realms after aeons of burning our fuel....
I always dedicate it so i may find Pure Buddha Dharma life after life.
None of the strident atheists appear to be prepared to address the 'supramundane' aspects of Buddhism or the complex theology of Hinduism. They simply dislike the 'Abrahamic' belief systems, whilst cleaving to Western post-Enlightenment rationalism, itself a challengeable philosophical position.
Their answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a sort of shrug and an appeal to irrational randomness, whereas Buddhism appears to offer a system to be comprehended once the practitioner has reached a certain 'level' or received certain 'empowerments', depending on tradition.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins and Hitchens believe in causality which is what karma is.
"Why is there something rather than nothing" and "is the Universe random" are two separate questions. I've never heard either one of them explain that the Universe exists because everything is random.
Rather than claiming to know things they couldn't possibly know, they simply say that they don't know "why" the Universe exists.
Well, Dawkins accepts the Multiverse theory which is consistent with Buddhism. But yeah, I agree that Buddhist wisdom provides a much better explanation than the bare atheist philosophy.
According to Dawkins: "The third explanation, I think the one that is probably favored by most physicists, is the Multiverse theory. ... I actually think it's rather an elegant explanation, and I think it's probably true."
.
This takes the biscuit! The "God delusion" is to be replaced by an unproven 'multiverse' hypothesis (not theory)? Where's the rationality in that?
So are you suggesting that people who believe in God are deluded about what God is, but that God actually exists? That sounds like an agnostic position.
I suppose it depends whether you favour "God made man" or "Man made God";)
P
My point is that the majority of people who believe in God do have a fairly simplistic way of looking at it.
P
The point is that science proceeds by setting up theories and then seeing if the evidence fits. People who believe in God don't do this.
P
Porpoise,
I'm truly not sure how true this is. When I have been interviewing or just talking to Christians and Muslims, as well as Hindus (but not, to the same extent, Jews), the general attitude was that they had "experienced" their deity in some way. This is, surely, the basis for the "born again" movement, based entirely on the individual's direct experience. I fail to see the difference between this and the personal experience criterion adduced for the truth of Buddhism - but I do admit that I am slow to understand sometimes. Perhaps you can show me why the experiences are to be considered differently.
First of all, yes it is a theory backed by some minor evidence. Second of all, you completely strawmanned Dawkin's position. He said "The third explanation, I think the one that is probably favored by most physicists, is the Multiverse theory. ... I actually think it's rather an elegant explanation, and I think it's probably true."
He weighed out the three most plausible possibilities for what came before the Big Bang, and he concluded that the Multiverse theory is the most probable. He didn't state with certainty that the Multiverse exists (like Theists assert with God), but that it is the most plausible and supported by cosmological experts and physicists (which doesn't constitute as an appeal to authority in this case). So please tell me, what part about this is irrational?
And might I add, that Buddha himself believed in the Multiverse.
"Disciples, ... nowhere in all the infinite worlds that stretch right and left, is there the equal, much less the superior, of a Buddha." - Apannaka Jataka
.
I think they should be considered the same. In the knowledge that as humans we desire and cling to illusions of permanence and security, internally and externally.
Obviously if we have a strong belief in something we're quite likely to create experiences which support that belief.
Seeing things as they really are actually means throwing out beliefs and assumptions, not clinging to them.
P
The math that the Multiverse is supposed to explain produces accurate probabilistic predictions, so most physicists are content to use the math to do their work and leave the explanations to others. So Dawkins' statement that Mulitiverse is "probably favored by most physicists" is probably not true. Furthermore, among physicists that do favor the Multiverse explanation, not all agree that it is actually true. For example, Hawking has said that it is "trivially true", meaning that there are not actually multiple universes, but thinking as though there were helps deal with certain problems.
The irrational part comes from making generalizations about physicists without taking into account the available evidence about physicists.
If, as you say, Dawkins is basing his claim for the Multiverse on the claim that it is "supported by cosmological experts and physicists", then he is making an appeal to authority. That's what an appeal to authority is; the claim that a position is supported by someone with expertise.
I think Simon is basically right. Dawkins is doing what he accuses religious people of doing; filtering out evidence that doesn't support the position he favors.
That has the Buddha believing in infinite worlds, not multiple universes.
You have to be careful with anachronisms. The term "Multiverse" was created by William James. When you encounter a passage that uses the term "universe", there's the question of what exactly the translator is using this term to translate, and how far we can go in projecting the concepts involved with "universe" and "multiverse" onto another society with a different level of scientific knowledge and a different philosophical tradition.
It's not that there aren't any other explanations, but that it's the most plausible. Physicists don't play the "God of the gaps" game.
Btw, there is evidence:
- The University of Minnesota discovered a massive void of space that measured a billion light years across in 2007. Physics Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton asserted that this discovery is "the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own." - http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/11/the-great-nothi.html
More evidence: http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/03/evidence-grows-for-multiverse.html
Major scientists who support Multiverse: Isaac Newton · Einstein · Hawking · Friedman · Lemaître · Hubble · Penzias · Wilson · Gamow · Dicke · Zel'dovich · Mather · Rubin · Smoot· others - Michio Kaku
This is what Stephen Hawking said in full context: "It is well-known that if the quantum formalism applies to all reality, both to atoms, to humans, to planets and to the universe itself then the Many Worlds Interpretation is trivially (obviously) true." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-Worlds_Interpretation#Reception
Seems like you are just looking for something to criticize, because your statement is simply false. He was very cautious with his wording: "I think the one that is probably favored by most physicists..."
Strawman. That's not the basis for his claim, though he used the claim to show that the position is credible. What he actually said was "I actually think it's rather an elegant explanation, and I think it's probably true." So his basis is his own reasonings.
[Exception to] Appeal to Authority fallacy: "Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Again, you misrepresent his position. He simply said that the Multiverse is PROBABLY true. He didn't filter evidence to support his preconceived notions to reach that conclusion.
When Buddha said "worlds" he referred to universes and I'll explain why. In the Agganna Sutta he said "There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period, this world contracts. ...But ...after a very long period, this world begins to expand again." [Agganna Sutta]
This universe that we live in is expanding. And his use of the word "this" indicates that there are other "worlds" that expand and contract as well. This is precisely what the Multiverse is.
Not to mention, the Multiverse is most commonly referred to as the Many Worlds Interpretation, so I really see no conflict here.
.