Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Richard Dawkins Tells it Like it's Not.

You come across curious things on the internet as a matter of course. Some of them don’t stay with you very long and some of them make you wonder. I can’t remember how I arrived at this site that is set up for promoting one Richard Dawkins but there I was and so I wound up watching him being interviewed by some lady in Vancouver.

I’d never heard about this fellow before but I guess he’s pretty well known. The site says that he’s sold 1.5 million copies of one book and he’s got a lot of other books and DVD’s. In the thread below the video there is one ASMarques who may be one of the smartest people I have come across in many, many a day. He gets roundly hammered by the other residents but it’s clear that he is very clear on what he is saying as it is clear that his opponents have no argument worth mentioning and that they are not bright enough to get his points.

The thread doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the video so, that’s another curious thing one runs across while surfing on the high seas of the vast internet and it’s not relevant to what I’m going to be talking about here today anyway.

Let’s talk about Richard Dawkins. He’s a debonair, professorial kind of a guy which that particular preening vanity that we encounter in academic circles. I get the feeling that Mr. Dawkins thinks he’s an erudite and powerful voice of reason in an age of religious superstition. I watched the video because I was curious to see an atheist argue his take on the indefinable incomprehensible.

I’ve been aware, for a long time, what the main argument of most atheists is based on. In one form or another, from one position or another, it is all about religion. There are some of a scientific nature who may use evolution or the lack of empirical proof as their argument but generally it’s all coming out of the shortcomings of religion as an impossible representative of the divine.

So I listened to Mr. Dawkins only to be gravely disappointed at his performance. I have never seen anyone argue for the cause of atheism who was as shallow and superficial in his presentation. You’ll have to see it to believe it. He doesn’t seem to have an argument at all. To be brief, which, in his case, is the desirable thing, he just basically says, “This is how it is. There’s no God.” And that’s that.

Yes... he’s an evolutionary biologist so he throws in some elements of the other arguments that are not just based on the absurdities of religion. I haven’t read his books or seen his DVD’s. I’m just going on what I have heard him say in the video. However, listening to Richard Dawkins it is apparent that he knows as much about his subject matter as Daryl Dawkins.

Well, you’ll notice if you watch this video that Dawkins just isn’t very interesting. He says nothing new and for a scholar with his credentials he’s an even bigger disappointment. It comes as no surprise to me that he is extremely successful. The secular humanist crowd would certainly appreciate his take and in this age of celebrating the trivial he fits right in with that superficial glibness that earmarks the spokes ‘persons’ of our time. He says pretty much nothing and evades what physicists have already proven about the world being ‘thought born’ and doesn’t enter into the realm of metaphysical inquiry at all. It’s true that the interviewer doesn’t ask him anything that would open to door for this but his evasion of certain considerations makes you wonder. Surely he has a cogent argument for these vast areas which have attracted some of the greatest minds who have ever appeared here and in whose company he is surely not to be counted.

As I’ve said before, the God that the atheist does not believe in does not exist. The God whose existence he is disproving... never was ...and Richard Dawkins isn’t necessary to make this known. This God is just as much of a fantasy as the God of the religious fundamentalists. They are both anthropomorphic absurdities. What Dawson and Christopher Hitchens, what Christian and Muslim fundies refute and believe can be seen as a private cage match that has only to do with each other and upon whom they both rely for their existence. It’s a self contained world that is the theater in which a peculiar karma works itself out over time.

Whether God does or does not exist is not the issue. Science has proven the existence of a mysterious something that interpenetrates everything and there are many examples in many lives over the course of recorded history which stands as definite evidence of some unknown force. The question really is, “What is God?” or “What is this mysterious something that contains everything and made everything out of itself?” We’ll never know that. We don’t need to know that. What we need to know is who we are and once accomplished that will answer as much as anyone will ever need to know about what God is.

The primary and most important area of inquiry is the self. Self inquiry is the only pursuit that anyone who aspires to a greater understanding of life need engage in. The whole of the mystery of life and its creations can be resolved by answering Ramana Maharishi’s question, “Who am I?” If you did no more than to ask, “Who am I?” for as long as it takes to get an answer you will receive the answer. Does that make sense? It wouldn’t to Richard Dawson. It does to me.

I have not the slightest shred of doubt that there is a God. I have seen some of the personalized representations projected outward by my mind upon the world of appearances. I have seen holographic Buddhas in the garden among the plants and I have seen them many times. I have seen Hindu deities at various times and though that may well be a projection of my mind they are no less real. In a certain sense, the mind is everything.

You are, each and every one of you, free to believe or disbelieve as you like. It is not my concern either way. Refuting Richard Dawkins is not the point of this post. He refutes himself very well without my help. This is just to say that you can’t argue about apples and insist that your argument applies to oranges. You can’t deny, without even much of an argument, a false God and expect that this would also apply to a real God. Well, you can but it won’t mean anything.

People find justification and examples that prove anything they want to believe. Logic and reason can be manipulated to prove or justify anything; any behavior and any point of view. The evidence of this surrounds us. The important thing, it seems to me is to separate the real from the false first, before you choose to believe in anything. What is real? ...That which endures. What is not real? ...That which does not endure. Yes... there is relative truth and absolute truth. You may treat with this according to your own way of seeing. One thing is for sure, Richard Dawkins will not endure but that which he has no knowledge of ...that will surely endure. It always has and it always will.

Have I proven anything here? Have I proven anything more than Richard Dawkins has disproved anything? Probably not. My job is not to prove anything to anyone except myself. My life and every life will be the proof of what it believed according to what it proved to itself. Wherever I will wind up and wherever Richard Dawson will wind up will not be known to anyone but the one involved. I wish you all good fortune in your pursuit and it is my sincere hope that you find what you seek, if what you seek is real.

Visible sings: When I Lose You by Les Visible♫ When I Lose You ♫


Please note that if you want to leave a comment on this blog post,
you do not have to provide an email address.

...and you don't have to create an account with anyone or anything; just comment "as a guest".

(though it's quite cool to have an account with Intense Debate. Makes the whole commenting lark a bit more social. Still, that choice is yours...)

You'll find the comments submission box below.
Please feel free to use it, thank you...

The 3rd Elf