Quote of the Day (plus an argument against said quote, because Richard Dawkins is an ASS)

[edenfalling]

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
---Richard Dawkins



I resent some man who doesn't know me from Adam coming down from on high and telling me what my religious beliefs are, as if he knows them better than I do!

I am not atheistic about any god. I am agnostic about all of them. In fact, I have been known to swear thusly: "By all the gods that anyone ever held holy..." which tells you something about my attitude toward all views of the divine.

This is not to say that I believe in such gods in the way Dawkins means (and may I say he has a horrifically reductive view of religion? he's as bad as fundamentalists, just in the other direction!), but I am open to the possibility that they might exist -- it is, after all, impossible to prove a negative -- and I do believe that they were real to their adherents, in the same way that I believe all currently worshipped deities are real to their adherents.

(We can debate subjective vs. objective reality some other day.)

Anyway, I do try to respect everyone's religion or lack thereof, but holy fuck, sometimes people get my back up!

*spits in Dawkins's general direction*

Comments

[rurounitriv.livejournal.com]

Ah, now that's one that I like and I can agree with - to my mind, the universe itself can be considered the physical form of the Creator, and we are her children.

[vehrec.livejournal.com]

Oh come on. That's such a vague and useless definition of god as to find god in everything and nothing at all.

Or, to quote Dawkins quoting Steven Weinburg, "Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal."

[edenfalling]

And what is wrong with finding holiness in a lump of coal? I think if anything can be holy, everything can be holy -- everything is, after all, connected -- and a lump of coal is no less part of the universe than a cockroach, a supernova, or a human.

Also, please note the extreme Western Christian-centric POV of that quote: God is 'him,' God is singular, God is, above all, specific. Those are assumptions that not everyone shares! And if you are defining religion on the basis of those assumptions, you are naturally going to annoy and offend people whose beliefs, practices, ideas, values, etcetera, you are lumping in with that modern Western Christian-centric outlook.

[vehrec.livejournal.com]

But if everything is holy then functionally nothing is. Existence seems a pretty poor criterion for wonder and awe, let alone worship. And if it's the only criterion for holiness, then why worship anything? If everything is holy, that's functionally almost the same as saying that holiness does not exist. When you make a decision in such a system, the holiness seems to cancel out and you're left with the non-holy components to base your judgments upon.

And a non specific god is less ridiculous? "What is god?" 'I dunno, I worship a non specific deity that cannot be specifically described or defined.' Certainly, it doesn't fit every definition of everything that has ever been worshiped, but that doesn't make it an invalid argument for why we shouldn't be careful with our definitions.

[rurounitriv.livejournal.com]

First of all, note that I said that the universe "could be considered the physical form of the Creator" - which is not the same as "the universe is the Creator". I believe there is a consciousness behind but not limited tothat physical form, as I believe there is such a consciousness behind but not limited to me, you, and every other being in the universe, sentient and otherwise.

Second, you are falling into the same fallacy that Dawkins does, in assuming that all religions are monotheistic, "God as Other" dogmas. I am not a Christian. I am a Pagan. As such, I believe that we are all connected, and that God/Goddess/the Creator is in everything. Including things that most people don't think of as sacred, such as your lump of coal.

Third - do you have any idea how incredibly rude you sounded just now? If you don't believe in anything beyond the physical that's fine. I respect your belief, even if I don't share it. Please do the same for mine.

[vehrec.livejournal.com]

Firstly, I see no reason to distinguish between consciousness and form because consciousness without form is such an absurd idea based upon the evidences. If the universe was arranged in such a way we would expect to see some sort of effect upon the material caused by the immaterial. Because if the immaterial consciousness was incapable of interacting at all with the material, then we would be in a functionally monist universe which could not be affected by consciousness or other 'immaterial' things. So a dualistic universe must have effects that cannot be explained by an inspection of the material world. Thus far, I must say your evidence for such a universe is rather thin indeed.

Secondly, the specifics of your particular deity do not interest me except perhaps as ways to show how ridiculous an idea they truly are. Everything being sacred for instance, is little different than there being no sacredness at all. After all, if everything is sacred, then nothing is special in that sense and more worthy of consideration than any other thing. The logical net effect is not to worship anything, because all things are equally deserving and you could never in the lifetime of the universe give them due consideration. Do you see what I am saying? If everything is sacred, why would sacredness matter at all?

Thirdly, I intend the rudeness. Your ideas are laughable, and I find them about as worthy of respect as the concept of a flat earth or a geocentric universe. I expect you to show similar disrespect for my ideas if you find them similarly ridiculous. I do not expect you to show my ideas any respect they have not earned and I will do the same to yours. Ideas and people are only worth respecting if there are good reasons to respect them. If you do not share my ideas and you don't have any reason to respect them, the only reason you can have for respecting them is an attempt to take a non-existent moral high ground on this issue.

[edenfalling]

Three points. First, if you cannot be polite to the people you are directly addressing, I will ban you. This is not negotiable. (Given that I have been insulting Dawkins throughout the initial post and comment threads, you may or may not get away with being rude to people who are not participants in the conversation, depending on my mood and how hard I am trying to be fair. *grin*)

Second, I think part of the problem here is that you are looking at religion as if it is a pseudo-science, which must have specific tenets that must be logical and provable (or disprovable). This is a faulty assumption. Yes, some religions have some aspects that are psuedo-scientific, but that is far from the only element of religion, and disproving those specific claims does not invalidate religion in general.

Third, if everything is sacred, then everything is sacred. This is not a difficult idea. It means that everything matters. Everything is worthy of consideration and respect. That is not at all the same as saying that nothing is important or worthy of respect. Yes, of course it is impossible to give specific attention to every aspect of the universe within the finite boundaries of a human life and human mind. That doesn't mean the effort is not worthwhile, or that we can't give consideration in general.

Let me make an analogy: You cannot possibly personally understand every aspect of every science; does that therefore mean that you shouldn't try to understand any science? I think you would agree that that is a silly argument. To me, the argument sounds equally silly when you apply it to religion.

[rurounitriv.livejournal.com]

Apparently no one ever explained to you that it is possible to disagree with someone without being rude. Feel free to continue being disagreeable - I won't bother to listen to you.