The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True - by Richard Dawkins

[ant]

ant, you say you believe in god.

Can you describe the kind of god you believe in, and does this belief include a literal historic Jesus and a literal interpretation of the virgin birth?

I'm not certain I can describe something I'll freely admit I more than likely would not understand if someone like Johnson was finally able to bring it into a lab for study, or place it on Youtube for all to see (cause that's what he wants, anything short and it's not worth consideration).
I also do not believe we can understand everything there was, is, or ever will be.

I do believe the universe appears to have a purpose.
Yes, I know the antithesis of that claim is that the universe/nature is cold and indifferent to our likes, dislikes, desires, dreams, love, etc.

Yes, I know purpose and design are nothing more than illusions created by man.., yada, yada, yada, so forth and so on.
And of course, don't kid yourself that your love for your family is deeper than what it really is from an evolutionary perspective - that being your "selfish genes" want nothing more than to see your kiddies survive; anything else is really just bullshit. And your wife is just a carrier for your offspring. It is not deeper than that.



I do not believe that purpose includes an answer to a prayer to find me a parking space this Saturday so I can do my Christmas shopping with a smile. Nor do I believe that "god" is on our side whenever we choose to go to war with another country.

I do believe the historical Jesus existed. I think you know that by now.
I do not believe in a blanket, literal interpretation of scripture.

It's obvious the the OT god is much different than the NT god.
The OT god is characterized as an authoritarian parent that will punish his child if said child does not obey His directives.
The NT god is a much more loving, lenient parent. A parent that you can have a much more personal relationship with.

Man's concept of something much greater than himself is a work in progress no doubt.

The difference between a believer and non believer is that the believer can step outside himself more easily than the non believer, who essentially believes there is nothing more to life than gaining an advantage over your fellow man so that his genes survive. Everything is relative to him. It can only be interpreted as a selfish, self centered existence. He thinks too highly of himself. That is why community building, charity, self sacrifice, and the like are much more common with people of religion than they are with atheists.

Atheists are poor at assembling for anything. Read some of Alain de Botton. He expresses this well. He's one of several atheists that I admire.

I detest the recent breed of atheists that are influenced by scientists like Peter Atkins. I hear them all the time. They are an all-knowing, arrogant lot. Their tone is condescending. Their minds are closed.
They have little to no imagination beyond their know-it-all knowledge base, and are uncivilized in their attempts at dialogue with people who think and feel differently.

I've seen the core atheist group here come down hard on people of religion. They are patronizing and condescending to them.
I am not moved or bothered by this type of treatment. It's infantile and foolish.

[etudiant]

ant, you say you believe in god.

Can you describe the kind of god you believe in, and does this belief include a literal historic Jesus and a literal interpretation of the virgin birth?

I'm not certain I can describe something I'll freely admit I more than likely would not understand if someone like Johnson was finally able to bring it into a lab for study, or place it on Youtube for all to see (cause that's what he wants, anything short and it's not worth consideration).
I also do not believe we can understand everything there was, is, or ever will be.

I do believe the universe appears to have a purpose.
Yes, I know the antithesis of that claim is that the universe/nature is cold and indifferent to our likes, dislikes, desires, dreams, love, etc.

Yes, I know purpose and design are nothing more than illusions created by man.., yada, yada, yada, so forth and so on.
And of course, don't kid yourself that your love for your family is deeper than what it really is from an evolutionary perspective - that being your "selfish genes" want nothing more than to see your kiddies survive; anything else is really just bullshit. And your wife is just a carrier for your offspring. It is not deeper than that.

I think your assessment of atheists is off by almost 180 degrees. I've heard atheists and agnostics revel in the mysteries of the universe, and certainly seen them engage in rich personal relationships. Indeed, the atheists universe is a far more rich environment than that of the dogmatic creationist. To the former, all is possible, even that beyond the envelope of imagination. To the latter, the limited knowledge base of the middle ages must apply (unless one pushes rationalization to something that may be described as "infinity").

I do not believe that purpose includes an answer to a prayer to find me a parking space this Saturday so I can do my Christmas shopping with a smile. Nor do I believe that "god" is on our side whenever we choose to go to war with another country.

I do believe the historical Jesus existed. I think you know that by now.
I do not believe in a blanket, literal interpretation of scripture.

Oh dear. I had not read this far down. The rationalization has begun. You believe in a metaphysical being, but not one that takes all minor personal behaviors into consideration. Well, that was the understanding until very recently- what is your basis for the change?

You believe in the concept, but not all aspects. OK- how do you decide which is true, and which is distortion or falsehood? If it's just intution, you are guessing. If you reject the scientific method, then you have no tools for deciding.

It's obvious the the OT god is much different than the NT god.
The OT god is characterized as an authoritarian parent that will punish his child if said child does not obey His directives.
The NT god is a much more loving, lenient parent. A parent that you can have a much more personal relationship with.

Man's concept of something much greater than himself is a work in progress no doubt.

There is actually essential information here if you think about it. It's projection- human social, familial, and personal relationships projected onto the cosmos, the basis of relgion.

The difference between a believer and non believer is that the believer can step outside himself more easily than the non believer, who essentially believes there is nothing more to life than gaining an advantage over your fellow man so that his genes survive. Everything is relative to him. It can only be interpreted as a selfish, self centered existence. He thinks too highly of himself. That is why community building, charity, self sacrifice, and the like are much more common with people of religion than they are with atheists.

Atheists are poor at assembling for anything. Read some of Alain de Botton. He expresses this well. He's one of several atheists that I admire.

If you believe in God, and evidence arises that says there is no God, How easy would it be for you to "step outside" this belief, if you had based your life, family and personal relationships, etc, on it? Science says all theories are debatable, and should be thrown out as soon as something better comes along. And they have.

As for atheists not having a sense of community, there are many items I could list here, but I will leave you with just two. In "atheistic" Cuba, all citizens are included in a community that exceeds what is available in the US in this context, including institutionalized education, medical care, and food security. Compare this with your uber-religious Republican Party, that urges such programs be at the wim of the affluent, and heaps scorn on the idea that community, in this sense, should be so important as to be inscribed in law, and overseen by said community.

I detest the recent breed of atheists that are influenced by scientists like Peter Atkins. I hear them all the time. They are an all-knowing, arrogant lot. Their tone is condescending. Their minds are closed.
They have little to no imagination beyond their know-it-all knowledge base, and are uncivilized in their attempts at dialogue with people who think and feel differently.

I've seen the core atheist group here come down hard on people of religion. They are patronizing and condescending to them.
I am not moved or bothered by this type of treatment. It's infantile and foolish.

We all have notions that arise from the subconscious, and that may be appealing to various degrees. But accepting them without some sort of rigour can be highly problematic. Just ask anyone that works in the addictions field for example.

The religious insist that the intutive should be accepted without question, but history has shown this to be a disasterous course, and also one that limits our true understanding of the universe.

[Robert Tulip]

in "atheistic" Cuba, all citizens are included in a community that exceeds what is available in the US in this context, including institutionalized education, medical care, and food security.

Well that certainly is relevant to the thread title "How we know what's really true".

How many universities in Cuba are world ranked?

Does not the phrase "institutionalised education" fill you with a shudder of dread when you think of Fidel Castro?

Why do you think Cuba has food shortages? Hint - see http://www.economist.com/node/15769891

I recently read a superb book by Robert Conquest, the renowned historian of Russia, titled Reflections on a Ravaged Century. Conquest explores the psychological problem of why communists have been able to convince people in the West of the truth of flagrant lies. It seems the romance of Che is still too powerful for some to base their opinions upon evidence.

[etudiant]

in "atheistic" Cuba, all citizens are included in a community that exceeds what is available in the US in this context, including institutionalized education, medical care, and food security.

Well that certainly is relevant to the thread title "How we know what's really true".

How many universities in Cuba are world ranked?

How many universities in El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama, or Guatamala are world ranked? These are examples of similar, but capitalist countries in the region.

Does not the phrase "institutionalised education" fill you with a shudder of dread when you think of Fidel Castro?

Do the concepts of education that insist on religious dogma, nationalist xenophopia, and daily swearing allegiance to a flag give me a quiver? Yes.

Why do you think Cuba has food shortages? Hint - see http://www.economist.com/node/15769891

I recently read a superb book by Robert Conquest, the renowned historian of Russia, titled Reflections on a Ravaged Century. Conquest explores the psychological problem of why communists have been able to convince people in the West of the truth of flagrant lies. It seems the romance of Che is still too powerful for some to base their opinions upon evidence.

My point here is not to hold up Cuba, or communism, as prime examples of how to organize society, but to illuminate the absurity of suggesting that atheists do not have a sense of community or the ability to come together in supportive ways, whereas those invested in religious dogma always do.

Being supportive and helping others is a human attribute, one not necessarily tied to religious belief. Cuba is an extreme example of people who are hanging together, in an almost complete absence of relgion. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the Christian right in the US, one of the more voracious exponents of religion in the world today, and the community they advocate is one in which community, that is, the spirit of a common bond, identifying with each other, having empathy for others, helping and sharing, is one best left to the discretion of the well to do, and not something important enough to formalize in law.

Ant is offering a view of the world that is loaded with his own projection, which is actually the basis of religion: take a gut feeling, and just assume that it is true. This is a practice that is highly problematic.

[Chris OConnor]

This book will be on the next poll.

[sonoman]

"As for atheists not having a sense of community, there are many items I could list here, but I will leave you with just two. In "atheistic" Cuba, all citizens are included in a community that exceeds what is available in the US in this context, including institutionalized education, medical care, and food security. Compare this with your uber-religious Republican Party, that urges such programs be at the wim of the affluent, and heaps scorn on the idea that community, in this sense, should be so important as to be inscribed in law, and overseen by said community."

Ant is right about atheist lack of community empathy when it counts. Studies show this to be true of American atheists who are three times less likely to volunteer for community aid projects although in the U.K they are almost equal to theists. And only idiots would consider having atheism as a national non religion considering what has happened in each and every case of atheism becoming the states official ideology, Cuba including. People die when atheism rules society. Because at heart atheism is a fundamentalist belief system that can only be held by irrationality that can and will become dangerous when given its head to control other people's thinking.

[youkrst]

to me talking about "atheists" is like talking about "religion" is like talking about "god" is like talking about "food" or "guitars"

way too general

take "food", are we talking about a really nice meal or that crap they actually expected me to pay for at that diner next to the gig.
take "god" are we talking about "old man in the sky" or "the mystery behind everything and us all"
take "religion" are we talking about a "sufi mystic" or a "loony jihadist"
take "atheists" are we talking about an "atheist who murders" or an "atheist who helps others"

to say "atheists lack community spirit" is like saying "dogs bite"

some dogs bite sometimes
some atheists lack community spirit sometimes

so what! (as miles davis might say)

someone (not me) might argue "atheism leads to a decrease of altruism"
someone else might argue "religion leads to mental illness"

but these statements are WAY too broad.

instead try these formulations

"something about some atheism may or may not lead to a decrease of altruism in some, what would that something be?"

compare these two approaches

"religion is bad, it makes people think dumb"

to

"dogmatic literalism is the poison that ruins the human experience of the numinous"

as always the devil revels in the detail (metaphorically of course)



i think bad atheism and bad religion have their roots in the same ground
i think good atheism and good religion (non literalist) have their roots in the same ground.

atheist thinking and theist thinking are two broad schools of trying to parse the experience of life

it is true i prefer a level headed atheist to a loony fundy but it is also true i prefer a theistic mellow mystic to an atheist nickelback fan.

people are people, it's what they think about things that is part of what can help or hinder them having a good day

an accurate map is way better than an inaccurate map, but either way you have to try to find your way to the actual destination on that map.

if a map is so bad you keep getting lost, discard it and get a better one.

Studies show this to be true of American atheists

yes but is it true because they are "atheist" or because they are "american" or is it because they are both.

and which particular aspects of atheism or americanism lend themselves to this.

surely consumerism leads to coldness quicker than either atheism or americanism.

[Chris OConnor]

Sonoman, atheists have explained to you over and over what atheism is all about and yet you still don't understand.

[Dexter]

Sonoman, atheists have explained to you over and over what atheism is all about and yet you still don't understand.

You mean it's not a fundamentalist belief system most notable for its fundamentalist fundamentalism?

[geo]

Sonoman, it seems to me your concept of atheists is seriously biased. As such you think of atheists in a very negative light. I know many atheists think of theists in equally black and white terms, and I would say the same thing to them. People are people whether they're atheists or not. They're much more complex than such simplistic labels will allow. In my view, whether someone is an atheist or theist is not really that important in the grand scheme of things.