Richard Dawkins, pictured, is wrong.Stripping away the tedious arguments, his position is that a) God does not exist (as any of the major religions imagine such a being) and that b) belief in God is damaging to society, particularly as it leads to conflict and to fundamentalism that is anti-rationalist. Dawkins is one of the leading atheists of our age. And one of the richest.
My position is antithetical to his.
Taking a), first. It is impossible to prove, using scientific method, the hypothesis "God does not exist" - just as it is impossible to prove the opposite (logically unverifiable) statement. The best a scientist can do is accept an agnostic position - that there is no way of knowing whether or not a God exists. Agnosticism is a sound position. Atheism is an irrational one.
Now, b). If there was no belief in God (i.e. no religion) there would still be conflict and resistance to reason and science. Conflict, between humans, as individuals, tribes and nations (wars, ultimately) is driven by power relations and the need to control a limited supply of desired resources and objects, including other people. As most natural resources are finite, and becoming more so, conflict is likely to continue, with or without any religious sanction. Indeed, from a purely rationalist standpoint, conflict is sometimes the only logical away to defeat one's enemy, subjugate their people, and possess their resources (sadly). Furthermore, regardless of contrary claims, leaders simply use religion (and other causes and belief structures) to drive their own agendas. Other terms like "Freedom" or "Nation" or "Reason" can and have been used in place of religion, to justify the conquest and liquidation of millions of persons. Indeed, the worst atrocities of the 20th century were mediated by ideological and racist positions that had, at base, no religious cause.
There will always be an impulse within humanity to withstand a totalizing definition from Science for all we do and are - irrational, artistic, or spiritual as it may be. The fact is, those "scientists" who refuse to factor in the Religious impulse are only studying half of the human experience, and are therefore unable to make convincing statements about existence, or reality.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/hay2007/story/0,,2089947,00.html
Comments
DW
It remains a logical and epistemological fact that the idea of a supreme being is neither inherently counter-factual or impossible, but nor is it unprovable.
"God" as an idea, if not a living presence, remains a possibility on the horizon of utopian ideas that must always stay open to those who do not choose to close their minds, or hearts.
"...a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for [reasons that depend] on how God is being conceived."
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109479/atheism
Many people, such as myself, choose to wear the label "atheist" because of the ambiguity surrounding the word "agnostic". Some people use the word agnostic to say they are unsure whether or not *man-made* gods such as YHWH exist; others use it to say they are unsure whether there are any higher powers at all.
I would fall into the category of the latter, but since atheism better fits my stance against man-made religion, that's what I call myself. Most atheists don't claim to know for a fact there are no higher powers; if they did I would think them idiots. I strongly believe, however, that YHWH, along with Ra and Thor, is an invention of man.
To quote:
"That you cannot prove God's non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things."
The only other point I would make is what's the point of believing in a higher power, as you state in the comments, that does not require worship? Is there any benefit to believing in something you have no proof for but just think is true based on no evidence whatsoever? Intellectually, it doesn't make any sense -- especially given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
Scientology aside, I personally can't see much to choose between the different myths -- which means Pascal's Wager is far from fifty-fifty for me. In fact, it looks like a losing proposition all round.
It seems to me that in an eastern forum, he would be politely ignored, as one who speaks from an inflated ego, and little else.
Ancient wisdom and daily life in a place like India, takes the invisible world as a given. A world that cannot be put into the confines of a test tube, to satisfy the equally confined thinking of an egotistic individual.
To make the kind of statements that Dawkins and his kind have been ranting, requires a mindset that assumes it has exhaustive knowledge of the universe and make dogmatic pronouncements about it, a la ex cathedra. It is doubtful that people like Einstein would feel comfortable in such distinguished company.
Dawkins ravings are rehashed, obsolete arguments, and it seems to give the man some reason to live, some meaning to his otherwise meaningless life.