Professor Dawkins Hi
Why is there almost certainly no God?
This is the title of chapter 4 of your TGD put not as a question but as an affirmation without the ? sign
.
My question is why "almost"?
There is a saying that a woman can not be half pregnant, either she is or she is not.
So with the certainty .If we are only" almost" certain of the inexistence of God it is quasi equal to saying that we are not certain at all
I am saying that from the point of view of a 100% convinced atheist, who see the "almost' as a weakness in the disproval of God.
I have an explanation to it and would be happy to have your opinion.
In chapter 4 of the book you concentrated your arguments on natural selection of life ,on origin of life, on cosmological problems, etc.. ,rejecting the arguments of creationists, ID-ists ,theists agnostics and alike who are trying to attribute all those matters to the existence of an universal God
The "almost" to it is that science doesn't have all the answers.
For instance, in my opinion, what you call the anthropometric principle is beyond all the sophistical explanation, a mere declaration of ignorance of science .
I fail to understand why has science to be ashamed of this ignorance knowing that
modern science is only a link in the chain of an evolutionary knowledge of nature by human kind?
We have only to look back to the last 200 years in order to understand the improbable leap made by science.
It is not for us to foresee the future of science ,but it would be Darwinistically natural if lots of secrets of nature will remain hidden in the near or distant future or even not be disclosed for ever to the human brain.
So let's declare loud and clear for everyone to hear that there are a lot of undisclosed problems of science and will remain also undisclosed in the future for the simple reason that humans are not Gods which anyway do not exist.
But my point lays elsewhere.
The ancient Romans had a God they called Janus who had two faces.
In my opinion the representation of God in our time ,especially by Christians living in
the western free world is like that Janus, of a dual entity:
-one face is of an Universal God sustained by creationists, ID-ists, theists and alike who, up to them, has created the universe together with all it's laws of nature and is also the one to know why he did so, (he may be called the UG)
-the other face is that of a Humanly god ( he may be called HG),who was created by man "in his image" and not the other way around as written in the Bible.
Now, the disproval of UG generates this "almost "word as said above and I would be even more extremist by saying that as long as science will not have all the answers, this being highly improbable, there will remain a gap were religion in any form will penetrate her tail, trying to sustain the existence of God.
What is important in my opinion to atheism, is to climb the Improbable mountain by an other path.
That path should be the disproval of HG, which will implicit disprove also the UG.
The HG is the one who" created" holly scriptures ,he demands to be worshiped ,to be obeyed, to be afraid of, to be loved ,he dwells in Heaven between humanlike angels, he likes to dwell on earth in splendid buildings ,he wages wars and makes peace he is responsible for the fate of humans ,and so on.
Now, in order to disprove him we need to prove ,and that is not so difficult that HG is a clear creation of man.
All holly scriptures were written by men with provable social /political/religious purposes .
The main point to it is not only to disprove HG in a historical creationist way but to prove the undoubtful fact that UG is recreated in the mind of each religious believer the very moment he thinks of him. There is a magic circle: the believer needs him –creates him in his mind-believes that he is of real existence.
The prove to it is that for millions of people the "existence" of God is a deep rooted need which answers in a virtual way to their spiritual questions and in a large measure helps them in their daily struggle for survive.
In the chapters 5-9 of your book you have tried to diminish every advantage of religion but the real religious experience can not be denied.
So, in conclusion no way of disproval of God should remain untried, in my opinion the disproval of HG being the main trail to climb the Improbable mountain.
With all due respect
Josef
Why is there almost certainly no God?
This is the title of chapter 4 of your TGD put not as a question but as an affirmation without the ? sign
.
My question is why "almost"?
There is a saying that a woman can not be half pregnant, either she is or she is not.
So with the certainty .If we are only" almost" certain of the inexistence of God it is quasi equal to saying that we are not certain at all
I am saying that from the point of view of a 100% convinced atheist, who see the "almost' as a weakness in the disproval of God.
I have an explanation to it and would be happy to have your opinion.
In chapter 4 of the book you concentrated your arguments on natural selection of life ,on origin of life, on cosmological problems, etc.. ,rejecting the arguments of creationists, ID-ists ,theists agnostics and alike who are trying to attribute all those matters to the existence of an universal God
The "almost" to it is that science doesn't have all the answers.
For instance, in my opinion, what you call the anthropometric principle is beyond all the sophistical explanation, a mere declaration of ignorance of science .
I fail to understand why has science to be ashamed of this ignorance knowing that
modern science is only a link in the chain of an evolutionary knowledge of nature by human kind?
We have only to look back to the last 200 years in order to understand the improbable leap made by science.
It is not for us to foresee the future of science ,but it would be Darwinistically natural if lots of secrets of nature will remain hidden in the near or distant future or even not be disclosed for ever to the human brain.
So let's declare loud and clear for everyone to hear that there are a lot of undisclosed problems of science and will remain also undisclosed in the future for the simple reason that humans are not Gods which anyway do not exist.
But my point lays elsewhere.
The ancient Romans had a God they called Janus who had two faces.
In my opinion the representation of God in our time ,especially by Christians living in
the western free world is like that Janus, of a dual entity:
-one face is of an Universal God sustained by creationists, ID-ists, theists and alike who, up to them, has created the universe together with all it's laws of nature and is also the one to know why he did so, (he may be called the UG)
-the other face is that of a Humanly god ( he may be called HG),who was created by man "in his image" and not the other way around as written in the Bible.
Now, the disproval of UG generates this "almost "word as said above and I would be even more extremist by saying that as long as science will not have all the answers, this being highly improbable, there will remain a gap were religion in any form will penetrate her tail, trying to sustain the existence of God.
What is important in my opinion to atheism, is to climb the Improbable mountain by an other path.
That path should be the disproval of HG, which will implicit disprove also the UG.
The HG is the one who" created" holly scriptures ,he demands to be worshiped ,to be obeyed, to be afraid of, to be loved ,he dwells in Heaven between humanlike angels, he likes to dwell on earth in splendid buildings ,he wages wars and makes peace he is responsible for the fate of humans ,and so on.
Now, in order to disprove him we need to prove ,and that is not so difficult that HG is a clear creation of man.
All holly scriptures were written by men with provable social /political/religious purposes .
The main point to it is not only to disprove HG in a historical creationist way but to prove the undoubtful fact that UG is recreated in the mind of each religious believer the very moment he thinks of him. There is a magic circle: the believer needs him –creates him in his mind-believes that he is of real existence.
The prove to it is that for millions of people the "existence" of God is a deep rooted need which answers in a virtual way to their spiritual questions and in a large measure helps them in their daily struggle for survive.
In the chapters 5-9 of your book you have tried to diminish every advantage of religion but the real religious experience can not be denied.
So, in conclusion no way of disproval of God should remain untried, in my opinion the disproval of HG being the main trail to climb the Improbable mountain.
With all due respect
Josef
