The title of this post is taken from Karen Armstrong, who gets mentioned here by Dawkins. The video should be set to play at One hour, 6 or so. They talk about physics before that, then Brian asks the God question
Dawkins says he would want to get rid of it. If this was fundamentalist interviewing him, things would get heated and we’ve seen it all before. But they clarify that they want to get rid of the ideas of having an alternate explanation of life, origins and reality. Greene goes on to say the things Dawkins doesn’t like are the recent and minority views on how God acts in the world. Dawkins disagrees. It’s a nice sorting out, in only about 8 minutes, of something that gets quite muddy when scientists talk to religious people.
Seems so much easier to start with the realization that all our knowledge about God comes from within our own human minds. In fact, that it is we, or if you want to trace it back further, that it is biology and the imperative of life that created God.
Following that line of thought it becomes apparent that God is something that is within us humans.
God can be as real as anything within your mind,
which is what makes God powerful within the “real” physical world.
But, in the final analysis it is we who create our own Gods.
I guess you didn’t listen to it. Dawkins wants to get rid of the anti science stuff, and of religion as an alternative to reality. I suppose thinking of gods as constructed by our minds would fit with that
God is God, is there more to him that we don’t know. He created more universe we don’t know and he does things we cannot see he is God. He is the lord, humans cnanot go where he goes in hsi mind, neither angels, the devil wanted to be God and take his throne. He failed and that’s the thing he construct things we cannot do becuase we are unworthy. Only God judges God we are just human beings who cannot go as far as him but he does tells us what he made himself and what we don’t know. The universe is like him and he lets us see what he does to other planets.
Recently I’ve had a seminal thought, maybe it happened while listening to David Sloan Wilson (hat tip to Lausten), or while working with Daut’s book,
philosophers and theologians always seem to want to find our Gods somewhere out in the stars up there in the heavens.
Turns out that if science is your guide, the only realistic place for God to have originated, or coagulated, from - was somewhere within the birth of biology and birth of the imperative of life and living, where a notion of God formed. In this case God actually would be something more than simply a product of your mind, God would have evolutionary roots into your very being. Tamp that into your pipe and puff on it a while
God perhaps evolved with living creatures. After all look at the Judaic God, that’s a dynamic character learning as he goes along - that is evolution!
Hopefully this comment is not too much of a digression, but IMHO Richard Dawkins, being a British subject, is worthy of a knighthood for his accomplishments within science as considered totally apart from his activism as an atheist. The problem which develops with this idea, however, is easily determined by anyone having watched the recent spectacle of the coronation of King Charles (as for his mother before him) which was dominated by long established, totally religious symbolism and dedications of fidelity thereto. Consequently, the Good King Charles cannot so honor such a well known, outspoken and effective atheist. Pity. Perhaps Dawkins should reconsider his strong stance, you know, for the sake of culture?
Scientific inquests notwithstanding, there is a well established hierarchy for the British Empire whereby all power and glory is invested into the establishment of “The Divine Right of Kings” which certainly requires the maintenance of a divinity as the precept for continuance of the status quo. Although quite evident and well documented for the British Crown, a somewhat less obvious hierarchy of a similar sort is nevertheless basic to all human civilized societies, even when the top of such hierarchy is dominated by “mere” human beings who are totally reliant upon their three and one-half pounds of electrochemically activated meat brains.
Unfortunately, it often proves true that power corrupts. The top tier of any such fully human hierarchy ultimately comes to assume for themselves their own sort of divinity, meat brains and all. It bears remembering that such categorization covers the good and the bad, the beautiful as well as the ugly. Perhaps an unimaginable “God Beyond God” towards whom even Kings need bow is not such a bad idea?
Q. Will evolution ultimately produce God, and at such point is the timing thereof not moot?
Look at us, visiting space, traveling down to the ocean’s floor, able to transplant organs like they they were so many Lego blocks (okay I exaggerate a bit), able to manipulate DNA and produce new forms of life, we able to put a fetus into a woman and watch it become a person, then manipulated the kids gene to cure some diseases, we can engineer amazing structures, etc., etc…
We have become God, unfortunately our version of GOD contains zero wisdom or humility.
We have technology now where if you are in distress, you press a button, no matter where you are, a rescue team will come and save you. Angels basically
Wow, that is a remote interpretation of spiritual beings dwelling in humans.
Personally, I believe that angels and demons are expressions of human characters and behavior.
God is a spiritualization of the ideal human, of our idealized Image.
So yes, from that perspective I can see that spirituality is about human foibles and fables.
Carl Jung’s archetypes are universal symbols or patterns that are present in the collective unconscious of all humans. They are innate and inherited, and they shape our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Jung believed that by understanding these archetypes, we could gain insight into the human psyche and better understand ourselves and others.
Jungian archetypes include the persona, the shadow, the anima/animus, the self, and the hero. The persona is the mask we wear in social situations, while the shadow represents our repressed or hidden aspects.
The anima/animus represents the feminine/masculine aspects of our psyche, while the self is the true, integrated, and balanced self. The hero is the archetype of the journey and represents the struggle and transformation that we go through in life. …
In my late 20s I completed an EMT course, with the finale being a few shifts with an ambulance crew, dealing with emergencies, which included time in the ER assisting as requested. The most moving experience, even more impactful that the sad old over-weight lady who’s sternum I had to bust to do compressions, which continued through the ride back to hospital and into ER, where doctors pumped her full of medication that would bring her heart back and we’d watch it fade away - don’t know how many cycles we went through before they gave up.
That was somewhat impactful, but nothing like recognizing and then soaking in the compassion that permeated these hard-bitten professionals. It took a little to become cognizant of it, but once I did it really blew me away and helped me understand how some people are made for this work and can deal with the pressure and heart-ache and mind bending experience. Year after year. Then they retire and many spend the rest of their days dealing with the submerged memories that start resurfacing like so many coffins after a Louisiana flood.
Our 2nd nearest neighbor/friend retired a few years back after 39 years EMT, much as supervisor - Farmington, NM., one time capital of head-on-crashes, not to mention pickup filled with kids in back and such horrors. On the outside he seems about a together and tough as a person can be, but sit around enjoying a couple beers with him and (…cut)… no, actually stories don’t seep out very often, it’s more a matter of the specter of horror’s shadow is palpable. It’s heart breaking, one needs to care to do the job, but caring will batter the hell out of your insides.
I think I went a little beyond what you were wondering about, but the comments got me to remembering, so there . . .
The rich Kootenai Valley became known as the “Nile of the North,” while the Bonners Ferry Lumber Company grew to be one of the world’s largest lumber mills.
Yo, well okay, I’ll name no names, but it’s worth noting
this is how real Americans act, community means something, including pluralism. Look it up if you need.
Me I’m on a much more modest level, though I can say I’ve spent past couple days putting together new library shelves. It’s local thing.
