Here mine's,

Injustice vs. an universal justice
Poverty vs. (unlimited) wealth
Unfortune vs. good luck

Where, what, how? did it come, from..

why?
For god's sake..

I don't know, but, hey, +you have to believe in something..
so,

Love, Passion,

Ah, deepak isn't gonna sue me,
so,
baby,
Why does your name mean 'wish' in..
I don't know.. Turkish,
but numerology..and Karma..;)

Into His Arms I Surrender
by Hope

Through the night he sang
Loving songs in harmony
While swaying to the beat
Fingers played sensually

Sweet sounds I embraced
Enthralled raptures I float
I felt love within my heart
As I caressed every note

Fingers glide on his guitar
Gentle rhythms he strums
Blissfully I am serenaded
His voice sensually hums

While gazing into his eyes
He sang Love Me Tender
As he set my soul on fire
Into his arms I surrender

Dawkins states-

"God didn't need to create the cosmos through the Big Bang and billions of years of evolution. He could have created it whole and perfect to begin with. Thus if we observe evolution at work--as of course we do--then God is irrelevant and unnecessary."

God is whole and perfect to begin with and must create the Big Bang and billions of years of evolution so that we may all experince what it is to be God.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4133

Dr Chopra

"Before talking about such a synthesis, let's see what responders think."

You obviously have no interest in what responders think: there were some interesting responses to your first posting - why don't you address them instead of pursuing your own ontology in the self-referential direction it appears to be headed.

By: cam at HuffPo

Just a logical observation here.

People who disagree with an opposing point of view, for whatever reason, as in this case, try and defend their position by turning someone's comments into something they are not. By extrapolating someone's words to mean something that they clearly don't mean. To put words into someone else' mouth.

If you read the Dawkins quote above at face value - the words that have been written - it's simply a statement, which is logical and true in and to itself.

They don't say that he's saying anything other than what he's saying, they simply state a single opinion.

This author begins by putting words into Dawkins mouth, positing that Dawkins is saying something here which he clearly hasn't stated at all and then uses that to go off and make his own case for a god, or whatever.

It's silly and it's intellectually dishonest.

Simon
Fresno, CA
By: simplesimon at HuffPo

The term God has yet to be clearly defined by anyone and with good reason. You can write all about what you think God isn't (or how someone elses's definition is wrong) but that doesn't really say what God is or why your definition should be accepted before anybody else's.

Anyone who claims to believe in God (no one really does, just like kids don't really believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, kids like chocolate and gifts and will put up with a lot of non sense to get what they like) has his own personnal definition of what the term means (usually someone very much like themselves without most of the limitations). God is wishfull thinking based on NO evidence.

As to the belief in science, well there is no such belief. Science exists and everybody knows it. It is a well defined methodology for gaining knowledge. No belief is needed.

Also there is nothing sweeping about Mr Dawkins claims, the claim that God is necessary carries a burdon of proof with it and is quite a bit more sweeping.

As for statements like "The universe is random".

"The universe operates entirely through physical laws"

they don't really mean anything (beyond one contradicting the other)

"So at bottom, the real question is this: Do we need an all-pervading intelligence to explain the universe?"

I'm pretty sure it will take some intelligence to achieve this goal and most of the work in this area is being done by scientists.

By: JackLewis at HuffPo

How does one tell the difference between a universe operating entirely through physical law, and one that operates through physical law but with an "all-pervasive intelligence"? Physical law is just a set of PDEs. There is no way that some supernatural agent can act from outside existence to guide nature without violating physical law. You either believe in physical law, or you don't. God can no more influence the rise and fall of empires than he can manipulate the regular ticking of a pendulum.

By: BarnacleJunior at HuffPo

“Choprian-Gibberish” and that ain’t no delusion!

Harbhajan Singh, has written a very interesting book. It has made great impact on me: "Self Designed Universe".

In short his theory is as follows (and i have given my interpretation on how i understood it):

There are three sorts of matter:

Matter of Spiritual Category - Mosc (Silence)
Matter of Virtual Category - Movc (Thoughts)
Matter of Physical Category - Mopc (Reality)

These three sorts of matter entangle and disentangle in the opposite direction through the four basic forces:
gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak forces.

He gives a very clear explanation on how the above can be understood by all 3 disciplines, i.e. science, philosophy and religion.

I envision it as follows:

When i am silent (either by sleeping or by meditation), i am empty, you could also say I am an empty screen.

Then i dream or think of something my thoughts are being made visible on the empty screen and i see a "picture", or i have a vision.
Dependent upon my perception this vision becomes my reality or my dream reality.
I get entangled in it through the four basic forces, and according to Harb each force has a separate more dominant meaning depending at what stage of my life I am in.

Because those three sorts of matter also work in the opposite direction i get disentangled from them in the same way. He compares this entire process amongst others with a normal day that contains 24 hours, which he divides in four parts and during those four parts i experience the entanglement in and disentanglement from those three matters, going through the four basic forces.

When i am a child i am unconscious of it all but when i grow older i become aware of the fact that i myself can have influence on my perceptions. I discover that I am the one that can choose to perceive my thoughts entangled or disentangled. So in some way i have influence on the design of my life. Not entirely, but it goes too far to talk about this in more detail here. For that i advise you to read his book.

There is a whole unique evolution theory in this book, also explained through the four basic forces and three sorts of matter.

You can read more about it on Harb's Website: http://www.selfdesigneduniverse.com and could contact him through his website.

biorę długopis i przeglądam kartek stertę
znajduje czystą pośród nich, i gdzieś kopertę
w to szare popołudnie miedzy grudniem a styczniem
chcę pisać ten list nawet hipotetycznie
nawet, gdy miejsce zamieszkania adresata
to adres mój, mojej siostry i adres brata
to strata czasu, wiem, ale odtworzenie zdarzeń w głowie
może dać mi to co daje spowiedź

(Blef)
odbiorca tego listu jesteś ty czyli ja dużo młodszy,
drzemie w tobie jeszcze nienawiści i pasji odczyn
powód tego listu masz by cię ostrzec dowód to instruktaż
te sytuacje są już dla mnie dużo prostsze, pisze bo to jakby standard
wiec szybko otwórz te kopertę jest tego warta

Ref.
teraz wysyłam list do ciebie tak jak robił to Stan
nie jestem fanem, ale teraz zagram jak fan
nie jestem pewien, czy to list do ciebie czy do mnie
bo znam przebieg spraw o których nie mogę zapomnieć

(Mes)
drogi Piotrze, ja napisze raczej ej Piotrek
zastanawiałem sie długo czy spisać twój portret
w formie listu, w formie tych słów,
które nie są pisane zza urzędowych biurek,
które biorą nade mną emocje, nie intelekt
bo do powiedzenia mam ci zbyt wiele
(weź uprościj) wiem co to masz w ręku list przyszłości
ktoś ci powie "daj spokój" ale ty użyj wyobraźni
przeczytaj list i szybko zaśnij
teraz masz chyba jakieś 14 i pół roku
blask ocen gaśnie, wokół ciebie full pokus
wokół atmosfera, ej ucz sie bez ustępstw
oni nie wierzyli, ja mowie - bądź oszustem
wciąż bądź sobą, chłystek, który rusza głową
pierdol system lecz rób to stylowo
i pamiętaj nie bądź taki werter młody
ta laleczka cię przekręci nim ja zdążysz zdobyć
teraz wiem i ty wiesz zostaw ja jak mowie
podpisano: Mes lat 20, proszę uwierz

Ref.
teraz wysyłam list do ciebie tak jak robił to Stan
nie jestem fanem, ale teraz zagram jak fan
nie jestem pewien, czy to list do ciebie czy do mnie
bo znam przebieg spraw o których nie mogę zapomnieć x2

(Blef)
chcesz pojechać za granice za nią - nie jedz
wiedz ze już niedługo nieczysto zagra twój anioł
w środku mówisz sobie znam ja, skucha
długo będziesz trawił ten goryczy puchar bracie
nie wyrzucisz tego jednym haftem
opuść na to ciężar zapomnienia, zasłoń i uświadom sobie
do ciebie jej uczucie zgasło i powtarzaj hasło: wzmocnię się jak Mike Tyson.
w reakcji na nakazy mów „strajk!" łajzo
a pamiętasz typów w Daewoo?? przestań się oglądać, co jeden lepszy eunuch
ktoś potem, kto myśli ze cię zna wciśnie cię w fotel mówiąc: "przestań grac
jesteś typem romantyka jak Izoldy Tristan
nie pasujesz na rapera i ten śmieszny freestyle".
wstań powiedz: "WEŹ SIĘ UDŁAW!"
jego wyższość to łamliwe szczudła
to ostatni apel, możesz pióra ostre mięć jak skalpel
nie przestawaj pisać i bądź twardy, trudny czas się zbliża

Ref.
teraz wysyłam list do ciebie tak jak robił to Stan
nie jestem fanem, ale teraz zagram jak fan
nie jestem pewien, czy to list do ciebie czy do mnie
bo znam przebieg spraw o których nie mogę zapomnieć x2

I don't believe in coincidences, baby, but I sure do, in..

Love, Passion, what song?

Hello Everyone,

Deepak asks," Must science absolutely exclude God in any form?

Science and God

sittin in a tree

k i s s i n g

first comes love

then comes marriage

them come little scientists

sittin in a carriage.

peace ruth

Perhaps it's true that Dawkins is needlessly derisive of people who hold religious views. That's a separate issue. But I think that Chopra misses the point by pretending that Dawkins' critique of religion is overly reliant on a parochial view of what religion is taken to be. Although Christianity's ideal of God--imagined by many as a bearded guy sitting on a cloud--may seem like a particularly silly example that underscores the irrationality of religious belief, I think there's a lot more to his arguments than that. It's also much more than a mere figment of linguistics (He, She or It vs. "The All").

Let's face it: the vast majority of people are religious not because existence somehow demands that there be a consciousness pervading the universe. They are religious because they were taught to be--either by their families or by their societies. Religions were invented by people, and the more we learn about them through science and archaeology, the more it becomes apparent that human fingerprints are all over them. There is no genuine evidence of divine intervention anywhere, nor does there need to be.
Even though Dawkins may be, in his own way, a bit arrogant and intolerant, at least he's trying to be intellectually rigorous. Much of his argument is based on the idea that invoking God--whether a person-like entity or something more mysterious and undefinable--is such a far-fetched notion on one hand, and so unnecessary to explain the universe on the other hand, that it's simply much more likely than not to be untrue. So it seems that the onus should not be on someone like Dawkins who simply believes that the universe is what it is. It should instead be up to those who make fantastic claims that the universe was designed and run by half-human/half-elephant deities, old guys sitting on clouds, mysterious and invisible entities that pervade the universe--or whatever--and how on earth they really know that it must be so.

By: fingerpuppet at HuffPo

Clearly the universe contains design, and science has enabled us to glimpse what it is. My own feeling is that we will never be able to comprehend it all, even in theory, but that is an opinion and could be wrong. But to stretch the existence of design to imply a designer, whatever you want to call him, it, whatever, is to speculate and I don't see how this can either be verified one way or another. Ergo, falsification is impossible so the notion contains no empirical content. And if want reality, there must be ewmpirical content.

All of Dawkins argument can be boiled down to this...to explain design by positing a designer is to argue in a circle (what is really meant be "begging the question" ) ... and so what designed the designer? You have explained nothing. Perhaps Dawkins' passion can be understood as a response to the immense harm wrought by those who claim certainty in this ultimately uncertain matter.

In this context, the very word "God" carries so much baggage that using it hopelessly confuses the issues.

By: jprfrog at HuffPo

reasons why people believe in God

some were simply born into a religious family, and have not dared to question the beliefs imposed upon them. or perhaps it had not even occured to them to question them. to question them would be risking their relationships with family and probably friends. just like in nature, the young are easy prey. they have not yet got the ability to think rationally for themselves. religion can be programmed into their mind and then it is may well remain there even when they exhibit rational thought in other ways.

some turn to religion after a psychological trauma of some sort. a breakup, a death, maybe even some medical condition or injury. maybe they had a near death experience that scared them. i can understand why people may find the thought of an afterlife comforting. but we live forever through our children and our good deeds/work. i find that more of comfort than some imaginary place in the sky. imagine an eternity with cliff richard and hitler. ummm no thanks!

some turn to religion during a period of depression or loneliness. it is easier to turn to a readymade support network then to actually face up to reality and deal with a deep-seated issue or issues. vunerable people are easily manipulated, just as weak animals are the first to be preyed upon, usually with great success. this is perhaps saddest of all. i think is awful that someone would delibrately do this to others for their own material gain. by facing reality, we can more easily understand and deal with the issues in our lives that need addressing. as adults, it's time to throw away that security blanket.

Dear Mr Chopra

Tjose who do not believe in the classical biblical God have not had our questions from your first thread answered. Would you do us the honour of answering some of those questions?

Regards

L

"2. The universe contains design. Physical laws generate new forms that display intention. Intelligence is all-pervasive.

The second worldview can be called religious, but it's a trap to say that only a Christian God explains intelligence in the universe. There is room for a new paradigm that preserves all the achievements of science--as upheld by the first worldview--while giving the universe meaning and significance. Dawkins shows no interest in uniting these two perspectives (he disdains the whole notion of a religious scientist), but many of is colleagues do.

Before talking about such a synthesis, let's see what responders think. Is God an all or nothing proposition as Dawkins claims? Must science absolutely exclude God in any form?"

1) Do not use the term "God" if you do not actually mean God in the biblical sense.
2) If you are talking about a belief in a supreme higher intelligent being, where is the proof for this being?
3) If what you are talking about is a general belief in an order, e.g. laws of nature, evolution, Dawkins does not even dispute these.

To continue this discussion you needs to stop being so delibrately vague and define your definition

"God is whole and perfect to begin with and must create the Big Bang and billions of years of evolution so that we may all experince what it is to be God."

how exactly did you come to this conclusion?

Why have you come, she asked?
to offer you my love, I said,
you came to me..
stressed..but,
Smiling..
smoking..
dancing..

Mhmmnn.. I'm calling it a night,
Ltz,
Love, passion,

As long as there is a reference to a "god" (an extremely popular word sadly misunderstood by many) of rituals, mythology and lazy "beliefs" then "god" has no right to be more than a delusion. On the other hand, basing a counter-argument on the concept of "god" (or whatever word you prefer) as understood primarily in the western religion (Christanity seems to be the primary focus here) is doing a great disservice to any other meaningful possibility. The only recourse is to go to a "god" that represents those principles of nature (some of which science has already discovered and still discovering; others that could be discovered as we begin to evolve within). Would a debate between science and "god" still continue then?

thats an interesting question karma yogi. mr chopra needs to define his "God" and furthermore should NOT confuse matters by using the term "God" if it is the biblical God he is referring too. I wonder why it is that he is trying to delibrately confude people?? if he means laws of nature and evolution etc he should say so. does dawkins refute evolution? certainly not, quite the opposite in fact! so what exactly is mr chopra's diuspute exactly?

i think mr chopra would like to confuse people by using the word God when he actually means laws of nature and science, and other thoeries such as evolution. he is trying to make the scientific somehow mystical. well, it's mysterious but in no way is it systical or susperstitious.

thats an interesting question karma yogi. mr chopra needs to define his "God" and furthermore should NOT confuse matters by using the term "God" if it is the biblical God he is referring too. I wonder why it is that he is trying to delibrately confude people?? if he means laws of nature and evolution etc he should say so. does dawkins refute evolution? certainly not, quite the opposite in fact! so what exactly is mr chopra's diuspute exactly?

i think mr chopra would like to confuse people by using the word God when he actually means laws of nature and science, and other thoeries such as evolution. he is trying to make the scientific somehow mystical. well, it's sometimes mysterious but in no way is it mystical or susperstitious.

opps sorry I meant he should NOT use the term "God" if it is NOT the biblical God he is referring to

Alex says “Dawkins shows no interest in uniting these two perspectives”

How can he be so sure about that?

Dawkins has said: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

Dawkins admits that he’s not 100% sure of God being non-existent, so he must still be open in some way to the existence of a God. He even says it’s an assumption he’s making about the non-existence of God, so he’s not claiming it to be an absolute truth.

In my mind the best scientists are the ones that are very much aware of the history of science and are constantly reminding themselves that many great scientific ‘truths’ have been subject to change.

The best scientists are the ones that continuously question their beliefs, their assumptions and their theories. They constantly challenge themselves and try to perceive things from a different perspective.

Aloha Deepak

Your friend Amit Goswami explained the illusion of truth telling. When someone says they are a liar, how can they can they be liar when they are telling the truth? It is to untangle the universe by remembering I am that I am. Ken Wilber says that the great chain is more like a nest where everything is inner woven. It is the dance of entangled minds. And the God of your understanding has your back. It’s you and him/her whatever you choose to call him/her. But it takes two of you to get to the God of your understanding and that is you and Dawkins. He is bringing you to your portal to realms you have never dreamed of or imagined could be there. Your world, universe is expending beyond communication. Enjoy every moment.

Love patty

p.s. Lars, Alex was quoting Mr Chopra! who says in his article "“Dawkins shows no interest in uniting these two perspectives”"

To perhaps clarify Dr Dawkins' view, here is a quote

"Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal."

He is right. The term God should be restricted to the Biblical God to avoid any confusion whatsoever.

Why ARE you trying to confude people Mr Chopra? Is that an ethical thing to do?

I think it is you who could be accused of mental trickery, no?

Apologies, Dawkins did noy that but quoted it! It is an extract from The God Delusion.

"The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory:

Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'."

ok guys, I don't really give a crap,
spirituality, The Law of detachement,
personally; We'll see. but these are,
;)

Gotta a couple of cases, win or loose, the unkown vs. the.. live, or die, retire, or kick, back, butt, love, or passion,
who cares? aside..

check these..

http://www.marefelix.com/
my favorite (Dutch) law professor, kicking butt after his retirement,

http://pooh-corner1980.spaces.live.com/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c01_memberprofiletile=showdefault&_c=memberprofiletile
isn't she..;)

made me,
smile,
;)
love, passion!

I am very familiar with Deepak Chopra's work. I'm also familiar with Dawkins. To be honest, to live in Deepak's world would indeed be nice. A wonderful life where this mysterious Hindu being known as "All" is not only presumed to be real, but also articulated and understood!

Let me address a few of Deepak's words:

"But God isn't a person in any strain of Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism, the branch of Hinduism known as Vedanta, and many denominations of Christianity--he's not a person in the Gospel of John in the New Testament."

Why not? How does Deepak know who or what "god" is or isn't? Deepak doesn't know any more than you or I. To state who or what god isn't is as presumptuous (and delusional) as stating who or what god is. At this point in history, a god (superhuman/supernatural being) is simply not known to be real.

Chopra continues:

"Einstein pointed out that he didn't believe in a personal God but was fascinated by how an orderly universe and its physical laws came about."

Oh, the Einstein card. I love the words of Albert Einstein. He was indeed fascinated by how an orderly universe and its physical laws came about. This doesn't imply or mean that Einstein looked at the universe and said, "I don't know how this came about, I guess a god did it." Einstein indeed understood this type of thinking to be a failure to investigate and discover how the universe operates. The lazy scientist (or thinker) comes to a road block and proposes that a god must be responsible. Forgetting that this unwittingly presents a bigger and more improbable problem: what or who designed this god? The lazy thinker fails to solve the problem and then further complicates it.

Richard Dawkins is not a lazy scientist; on the contrary.

-Gary Lenaire, author of "An Infidel Manifesto: Why Sincere Believers Lose Faith"
www.infidelbook.com
By: GaryLenaire at HuffPo

It's a false dichotomy Deepak claims here:

"The real debate is between two world views:

1. The universe is random. It operates entirely through physical laws. There is no evidence of innate intelligence.

2. The universe contains design. Physical laws generate new forms that display intention. Intelligence is all-pervasive."

The concept of an "all-pervading" or "all-pervasive" intelligence is a very "woo" sort of concept. The term "intelligence" is undefined.

Define intelligence.
The very concept of intelligence is anthropomorphic for most people. It usually means human-like intelligence, thus we're back to that anthropomorphic picture of a personal god.

Intelligence isn't this singular thing, what we know of as human intelligence is actually a collection of very different capabilities.

See Marvin Minsky's "The Society of Mind"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind_theory...

Ants and Octopi have different kinds of intelligence with different capabilities.

What properties of intelligence are all-pervading? Human ones? Ant-like ones?

By: normdoering at HuffPo

Lars "In my mind the best scientists are the ones that are very much aware of the history of science and are constantly reminding themselves that many great scientific ‘truths’ have been subject to change.

The best scientists are the ones that continuously question their beliefs, their assumptions and their theories. They constantly challenge themselves and try to perceive things from a different perspective."

Could not agree more Lars. When there is proof of God scientests and atheists will change their minds. But people have been searching for many many many centuries, so I wouldn't hold your breath :o)

As for being open-minded on the matter, sure, one cannot discount the idea of a biblical God or higher intelligent being entirely, but if we go so far as to assume that God exists, it would be like assuming that Thor exists, or Zeus exists, or indeed any manner of god or monster that has not been proven to exist. How about fairies at the bottam of the garden? People have claimed to see them, too. But due to the lack of credible evidence it is unlikely that they exist. Just as it is unlikely that God exists.

Just a song,
Just a tune..

Couldn't..

Billy's leaving today (don't know where he's going).
Holds his head in disgrace (he can't escape the truth).
He knows the price that he's paid.
He admits that it's too late to admit that he's afraid.
Tomorrow comes. Sorrow becomes his soul mate.
The damage is done. The prodigal son is too late.
Old doors are closed but he's always open,
To relive time in his mind.
Oh Billy.

Billy's leaving today (don't know where he's going).
He's got lines on his face (they tell the story of his pain).
He accepts it's his fate.
He admits it took too long to admit that he was wrong.
Tomorrow comes. Sorrow becomes his soul mate.
The damage is done. The prodigal son is too late.
Old doors are closed but he's always open,
To relive time in his mind.
Oh Billy.

Once he was a lover sleeping with another.
Now he's just known as a cheat.
And he wish he'd had a mirror; looked a little clearer.
Seen into the eyes of the weak.
Tomorrow comes. Sorrow becomes his soul mate.
The damage is done. The prodigal son is too late.
Old doors are closed but he's always open,
To relive time in his mind.
Oh Billy.

James Blunt - Billy Lyrics

Love, Passion, and goodnight,

Here's another good song

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE
LIVING FOR TODAY

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

For me, God does exist and I admire Deepak for attempting to prove it. I surely could not begin to prove the Source of intellegence. And the more I read and learn, the more difficult it becomes to try and explain God. God teaches me about God and that is my own proof and experience. How can one explain God? Whispers in the Wind ... "Never compare." That's my answer. My God is good and great and loves me and all of us very much. That's pretty much all I know and care about.

Deepak - I love you and I want to thank you for all you have done for many. You have the wisdom to explain God and that I admire.

Sorry, as I don't have the time to read all these posts.

Love, Char

l-

"God is whole and perfect to begin with and must create the Big Bang and billions of years of evolution so that we may all experince what it is to be God."

how exactly did you come to this conclusion?

answer: DeJaVu -you've found me, -yourself, -GOD

Quote North: "The only Godness that is logical to me, is that which is the highest degree of goodness and kindness of myself. If we all aspired to be our highest good; imagine the possibilities! It is difficult to achieve this, in our external environment; but, in our highest good intent; the proverbial mountain of just about "any thing" can be achieved in climb; with peace, as the highest example!"

It is time for the highest intent to raise:

los enpobrecidos!(those made poor)

with loving kindness,
North

reasons why people believe in God

some were simply BORN INTO A RELIGIOUS FAMILY, and have not dared to question the beliefs imposed upon them. or perhaps it had not even occured to them to question them. to question them would be risking their relationships with family and probably friends. just like in nature, the young are easy prey. they have not yet got the ability to think rationally for themselves. religion can be programmed into their mind and then it is may well remain there even when they exhibit rational thought in other ways.

some turn to religion after a PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA of some sort. a breakup, a death, maybe even some medical condition or injury. maybe they had a near death experience that scared them. i can understand why people may find the thought of an afterlife comforting. but we live forever through our children and our good deeds/work. i find that more of comfort than some imaginary place in the sky. imagine an eternity with cliff richard and hitler. ummm no thanks!

some turn to religion during a period of DEPRESSION OR LONELINESS. it is easier to turn to a readymade support network then to actually face up to reality and deal with a deep-seated issue or issues. vunerable people are easily manipulated, just as weak animals are the first to be preyed upon, usually with great success. this is perhaps saddest of all. i think is awful that someone would delibrately do this to others for their own material gain. by facing reality, we can more easily understand and deal with the issues in our lives that need addressing. as adults, it's time to throw away that security blanket.

May the force be with you!

Dear Dr. Chopra much as I like your articles I cannot digest that your post is any meaningful dialogue about Dr. Dawkins’ book God Delusion. I was anticipating a response from you to answer your critics from your previous post. Sadly you haven’t answered them. Further more you went on to make further unconvincing arguments against Dr. Dawkins without clarifying or refining your previous arguments. It looks like you are proposing your world view and your idea of God and mysticism at the expense of Dr. Dawkins! I have no objection if you propose your views of religion, science and spirituality but you are doing that in a supposed debate where your opponent’s views are grossly misrepresented. I agree with your world view more than that of an atheist’s world view. But, you are not justifying the cause with a meaningful debate with cogent arguments.

Apparently, you would go on to propose your world view contradictory to Dr. Dawkins and declare that you have won the debate? This is totally uncalled for. Sorry I have to say this but you are unfair, biased, irrational, intolerant, fuzzy, and illogical in your debate.

What is the point in anticipating the responses when you don’t address them with any meaningful dialogue and go on to justify your new age philosophy(which we all know from your 40 or so books) while caricaturing Dr. Dawkins by make him a scapegoat of an atheist who has a different world view!?

And why do you think that you have to debate Dawkins when you know that he is atheistic, a rationalist while on the other hand you are a new age guru who has written extensively on God. All your writings are filled with the underlying concept of God so why do you feel the need to write a few more articles to proclaim the same thing which you have said million times!?

Are you in a delusion that Richard Dawkins would change his world view after he finds that he was declared to have fallen short in an imaginary debate about God with you as an opponent?

On the contrary to providing any new insights into the nature of God (which hasn’t been already written by you are by theists) you are being detrimental to your cause by casting doubts in the minds of some about the validity of your writings on God by taking up issues in a rational debate about God while picking on the assertions of Richard Dawkins who is known to be an atheist.

Regards,

Tony

Growing up in a Southern Baptist Church that resides
in The Bible Belt(the heart of America), I did have
few choices, as far as beliefs were concerned.

This research about faith-based genes makes me wonder
if I really have a choice today...a free choice.
Granted, it is easier to be a slave to an idea
than it is to have to think for yourself.

Hey, all you new GUYS here...
If I have been re-born via a baptism,
if I gave my life to Christ when I was 6 yrs. old,
if I stood behind the pulpit one Sunday night,
if I took my life back when I was 14,
if I swore never to attend a church service again,
(other than funerals and weddings, duh!),
if I educated myself in the rules of math and science,
is it possible, or at all probable,
that you smart guys can un-born me back
to common sense, reason, rationalism and logic equations?
Or am I S.O.L.?(S.O.B., whatever...)

Who's kidding who here?
Are you here now to save Me2?
Can you cleanse me in the muck
and wash away my genetic inhertance without
performing some drastic surgery?
Shoot me up with some kewl D.N.A.?
Make me smart, nay...make me a genius?
Can I be like you when I grow up?

Oh, please say it's true,
please, please do!
I'm lost without sin.
O.M.G.!!!

Well you know the old saying, God doesn't leave a whole hell of a lot of proof laying around because it might find it.

Dr. PZ Myers on Deepak Chopra's article:

Chopra's latest attempt to critique Dawkins is as lame as his first. I summarized that first one as
"Well, you can't see love in your fancy microscope, now can you, Dr Smarty Pants?"; this one is the Incredibly Agile Evasive God trick. He's going to play a game and try to define his god and religion into a kind of vague god he's going to conveniently pull of out his pocket, one fuzzy enough that no one can criticize it, and he's also going to engage in some blatant projection:

“But Dawkins has pulled the same trick that he resorts to over and over. This is the us-versus-them trick. Either you think there is a personal God, a superhuman Creator who made the world according to the Book of Genesis, or you are a rational believer in the scientific method.”

I begin to have doubts that Chopra has even read the book. Right at the beginning, Dawkins carefully and plainly explains that he is not setting up this false confusion, where everyone who believed in an impersonal 'god' made up of cosmic laws was going to get lumped with the fundies and slapped around with a bible.

“By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the dis- tinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.

There is nothing comical about Einstein's beliefs. Nevertheless, I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle- wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.

My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse. In the rest of this book I am talking only about supernatural gods, of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.”~Richard Dawkins

Notice that Dawkins has already pre-empted Chopra's deliberate confusion.

I guess that since Chopra was getting whomped on for the silliness he was saying before, he felt the need to invent some silliness that Dawkins did not argue so he'd have something to whomp back. Pathetic. He's threatening to have another part to this feeble criticism…it sounds like he's already dribbling off into irrelevant nonsense.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/chopra_again.php

L,
I don't think the term God can be restricted to biblical God. Many other religions also use the term God and their God might not be that personalized. I did not have a concept of this personal God myself while growing up because my grandparents believed in Arya Samaj, which is a part of hinduism that doesn't believe in idol worship as such and counts more on the Vedas and their God is not that personalized. My parents weren't religious, we would'nt even goto the Temple for years at a time.
This personalized God of christianity or Islam can be a very foreign concept for a lot of people who do believe in God and do use the term God.
Islam talks of a God who is pretty judgmental, distinguishes between haraam and halaal but is still merciful to a certain extent, Christianity talks about this God which can be reached if you are "good" but even if you are not, god still loves you. Hinduism is a very broad religion, many forms of God exist, but the core of vedic teachings say that God is everywhere and in everything, even in that pile of coal, in you and in me. Every soul is a part of God, although it is tarnished with human conditioning to not realize that, but will eventually realize it. It doesn't say that God is there to punish you for your actions, but it talks of Karma. So you see the degree of personalization of God varies in every religion.

thought provoking post Deepak

You sure got me thinking...now

You have to go see "Stranger then Fiction"
great movie

ALL ONE but individuals... all the way
peace
Ashie

Nimita

Thanks for your reply. If we are to discuss God we need a definition or no rational discussion can take place.

Cheers!

Sth to think about.....

"some were simply BORN INTO A RELIGIOUS FAMILY, and have not dared to question the beliefs imposed upon them. or perhaps it had not even occured to them to question them. to question them would be risking their relationships with family and probably friends. just like in nature, the young are easy prey. they have not yet got the ability to think rationally for themselves. religion can be programmed into their mind and then it is may well remain there even when they exhibit rational thought in other ways. i.e. they have been indoctrinated"

L,
ofcourse many become believers bcoz of traumas, sufferings, depressions. Infact I have been recently reading "the way of suffering" by jerome miller which talks about suffering as a way to God and "a grief observed" by C.S. Lewis where he says in deep grief you tend to struggle to find God, only to find darkness. and then he says how u do find God but the notion of God changes. [I have to write an essay on it for a course]...
but apart from that, you are forgetting about the people who are born with this sense to search for God, who are just intrigued deeply by something and go on to lead a life of detachment, and join some sort of religion or go on to the himalayas to meditate. These people mostly defy their families who don't want them to do that and might not even be following that religion, they haven't gone through any sufferings or sorrows either.

yes i agree that since the term can mean different things to people it can become confusing.... and thats why deepak chopra said forget the personalized view of God...
He is trying to tell dawkins that dawkins is just basing his God view on this personalized God and that God doesn't necessarily have to be personal. I think dawkins is just not exposed to any other kind of God.

.
Reading the current article, I wonder if Deepak Chopra has read the book, or even the first chapter.

First Chapter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/chapters/1022-1st-dawk.html...

Post #41 explains it.

I begin to have doubts that Chopra has even read the book. Right at the beginning, Dawkins carefully and plainly explains that he is not setting up this false confusion, where everyone who believed in an impersonal 'god' made up of cosmic laws was going to get lumped with the fundies and slapped around with a bible.
“By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the dis- tinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.
There is nothing comical about Einstein's beliefs. Nevertheless, I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle- wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.
My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse. In the rest of this book I am talking only about supernatural gods, of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.”~Richard Dawkins
Notice that Dawkins has already pre-empted Chopra's deliberate confusion.

A UNIVERSAL GOD APPEARS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE:-

The magic and beauty of the biological world all around us have been slowly, randomly and tortuously weaving itself throughout the immeasurable ages since life's first progenitors appeared in the primordial broth more than 3,000 million years ago.

Natural selection has effectively weeded out the weak and the less-adapted by allowing the fittest and the strongest to carry on to the present, a remarkable biological fact indeed.

The vast distance of time lapsed since then and now cannot be grasped by us mere mortals, though we do have an elementary concept of what it is.

This shortcoming has, gratuitously, lent credence to the notion of a biblical go, as well as the insidious rise of religion in our cultures.

The near randomly perfect configuration of the earth and sun from each other in our solar system, coupled with the existence of abundant H2o, are the primary reasons why life arose in the first place and why it has sustained itself across the eons.

If the earth's configuration had been a few million miles nearer the sun, conditions would have been too inhospitable for life to exist.

Conversely, the same would have applied if the earth had been formed a few million miles farther away from the sun, as is evident by the absence of life on Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, etc.

Thus, the earth is the mother of life and the sun, the father. The notion of a universal god behind all this appears highly improbable. Your life began at conception and will terminate at death. To come to any other conclusion borders on wishful thinking.

interesting article gary. if dawkins says he is not discounting the other non-personalized God, in my opinion him and deepak chopra are saying pretty much the same things then.

The link in #47 doesn't work.
Try this for the first chapter of God Delusion:

http://tinyurl.com/ybsjev

After all these years...
The First Epistle Of Paul The Apostle To The Corinthians
Chapter Thirteen:

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2.And though I have the gift of prophecy,
and understand all mysteries,
and all knowledge; and though I have all faith,
so that I could remove mountains,
and have not love,
I am nothing.
3. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,
and though I give my body to be burned,
and have not love,
it profiteth me nothing.
4. Love suffereth long, and is kind;
Love envieth not;
Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.
5. Doeth not behave itself unseemly,
seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked,
thinketh no evil;
6. Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7. Beareth all things, believeth all things,
hoping all things, endureth all things.
8. Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail;
whether there be tongues, they shall cease;
whether there be knowledgw, it shall vanish away.
9. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10. But when that which is perfect is come,
then that which is in part, shall be done away.
11.When I was a child, I spake as a child.
I understood as a child, I thought as a child:
but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12. For now we see through a glass, darkly;
but then face to face: now I know in part;
but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13. And now abideth faith, hope and love, these three;
but the greatest of these is Love.

.

Guess I'll be a slave to scripture...
Have a better idea?
Peace, Keith~

thanks for posting up the imagine song. i just love that song and it brings back memories. i had to sing it in school when i was in grade 3. i still remember practising it, listening to the tape over n over again.

Hi nimita
"of course many become believers bcoz of traumas, sufferings, depressions. "

yup yup, when the mind is traumatised for whatever reason it is more suspectible to indoctrination. not a surprise! in a way, like a body with a weak immune system is more liable yo become infected. it's no coincidence.

"you are forgetting about the people who are born with this sense to search for God,"

yup, we are naturally curious, as we have been gifted with intellect. however, we are not always rational. we search for meaning of life, we are not born knowing about god! it is not an instinct or anything to be religious.

"who are just intrigued deeply by something and go on to lead a life of detachment, and join some sort of religion or go on to the himalayas to meditate. These people mostly defy their families who don't want them to do that and might not even be following that religion, they haven't gone through any sufferings or sorrows either."

and what percentage of religious people, say, Christians and muslims do you think this applies to? I did not realise the the himalayas was a centre of christianity or islam! (sorry i shouldn't be so facetious, but hopefully i illustrate my point)

as for people who go off and join religions i am assuming you actually mean cults. they also most probably went through some trauma or loneliness or met someone who indoctrinated them after "befriending" them and isolating them from friends and family. not good!

ciao ciao nighty night!

nimita - yup yup i totally agree that chopra most probably does not in truth disagree with dawkins, but he needs to confuse people by using the term God in his arguments to sell his own books! Sad, but most likely true.

cheers nimita, yeah i love Imagine too, I wish more people would contemplate the lyrics though, then we really would be living more in a more peaceful harmonious world.

People should read the book before they criticize Richard Dawkins with flawed arguments.

“bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.” ~Richard Dawkins

“The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle- wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.” ~Richard Dawkins

“My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section.” ~Richard Dawkins

Nimita:“in my opinion him and deepak chopra are saying pretty much the same things then.”

Not exactly the same thing.

Deepak Chopra’s idea of God as can be seen from many of his books is not the same as a pantheistic God of the physicists.

Spinoza’s God for instance is alternated with “nature” in its meaning as defined by spinoza. There is no concept of freewill in Spinoza’s idea of God. Everything is deterministic including human actions. When Einstein said, God (metaphorical) doesn’t play dice; he meant that the universe is deterministic. According to Spinoza, soul is not different body. As body dies soul dies. Einstein did not believe in afterlife. According to there is no soul which survives death and therefore there is no afterlife which gets influenced by Karma or the moral doings in our present life.

well ok, sure u can say they join different "cults".. but no, not bcoz of some trauma.
i know that the percentage of these kinda people is really low, but i have met many like these in india. these people who get involved in some sort of cult or religion.. like i met this woman in bhram kumari's organization... she was barely 20 and had decided to devote her life towards this, which meant she won't even get married and so her parents were not happy about this at all. Another person I met was from the "radhe-krishna" group, this seemingly good-looking guy who had shaved his head, stepped into orange robes for the rest of his life and had renounced all social life. These people don't do it because someone tells them to do it or shows them the "way out". But its something they always wanted to do and they themselves (or God for them) found the way out. There are many who say that we(the people who don't renounce their social life for God) are the ones in delusion, bcoz we suffer in this physical world and don't realize how unreal it is.
And then there are famous people like Paramhansa Yogananda, who had this intense desire for the search of truth and God.. not really influenced by anyone from outside.
I personally don't know of any christians or muslims liek these, but i have heard of Sufism and the followers tend to be similar.

Fun from God-
Numbers -- draw a cube divide it with six lines verticle and six lines verticle to equal 49 spaces. fill in the number 1 once the number two twice 22 the number three three 333 times keep going to nine nines 999999999 which leaves you with four spaceces left now we will switch from "base ten" to "binary, computer language 0 1 -on or off" since 0 represents 0 the next four spaces will read 1111 thats eleven eleven the magic of our lives. did you find that seven fills the exact middle of your square?

http://www.1111spiritguardians.com/

post # 48

Dear Ron,
You know so much, and I admire you, your knowledge,
and your care,
comes shining through.

When you say, natural selection has weeded out the weak

Can you not not consider that children born with deformities, down syndrome, and other challenges,
any less, than strong children.
Do parents not love their children, as most do, and I am one, with a child considered 'less than' whole, perfect, strong.

With love,
~ Kate

"So ... the real question is this: Do we need an all-pervading intelligence to explain the universe?

Forget the image of God sitting on a throne, forget Genesis, forget the straw man of a Creator who isn't as smart as a smart human being. The real debate is between two world views:

1. The universe is random. It operates entirely through physical laws. There is no evidence of innate intelligence.

2. The universe contains design. Physical laws generate new forms that display intention. Intelligence is all-pervasive."

Dear Deepak,
I wrote a note late last night, and these very points, lend themselves to what I was contemplating, and wanted to convey, the question that both science and religion seek to answer.

It shall be answered, and I believe, it is revealed each and every moment we live, breathe and have our being,
in essence,
born of desire,
and love
both irrational, hmmm ...
and so
natural and
rational,
Intelligent
with design
and Purpose.

as dear Keith
posted in
# 51

...faith, hope, love...

I choose Love,
and that is both
illogical, perhaps,
(God knows :)

and so
Logical.

With love,
~ Kate

If you love you've got it.
You already know.

"Fundamentalism hasn't played a role in scientific debate for generations."

Dr. Chopra, two points. First, the Fundamentalists work day and night here in America to impose their religious dogma onto our secular institutions, claiming their version of creation is a scientific theory on par with evolution. Their dogma makes its way into almost every piece of legislation that comes down the pike. They have made themselves part of the debate whether you like it or not. Dawkins isn't worried about pantheists such as yourself, so please get off the defensive.

Second, and I'm really tired of having to type this, it's a good idea to read and comprehend an argument in its entirety before attempting to refute it. What you call "all or nothing" is deliberate misleading. But it is easier, isn't it, to refute an argument you have made up rather than to go through the trouble of comprehending what Dawkins is actually saying.

By: wednesdayguevara at HuffPo

Dear Kate,

You state:-

"When you say, natural selection has weeded out the weak

Can you not not consider that children born with deformities, down syndrome, and other challenges,
any less, than strong children."

Kate, I don't quite understand your question. But I am not saying that any child born with a biologiacal disorder is any less than one born with all the faculties for survival.

I am looking at the long, long, incredible journey of life on earth, going back to a time span that is beyond our grasp: unfathomable. Try to imagine what is meant by hundreds of millions of years.

Regarding loving our children, it is also unimaginable that a loving parent would treat a handicap one any less than a non-handicap one.

My argument is not limited to only human survival, but to all life-forms on earth.

With kind regards...

Hi Nimita, actually it occured to me that we are in fact talking about Dawkins's book The God Delusion. Dawkins is disputing the view that there is one God in the classic sense. I guess Allah would be lumped into this category too. So the examples that you provide do not apply. However, as you rightly say, the percentage of the people you state is very small if not insignificant anyway.

So in summary this is the question,

what percentage of people who believe in God/Allah did not come from a religious family or suffer some psychological trauma, medical condition/severe injury, depression, loneliness, or meet someone who isolated them from friends and family?

In summary the answer is an insignificant percentage. This is no coincidence! The mind has been in doctrinated when vunerable or when rational thought was not yet possible, usually for material or political gain. Is this not unethical? Sometimes the religious leader is just plain crazy or perverted, but this is quite rare (I hope!)

You should check out the documentary "Jesus Camp" SCARY.

A way to describe GOD would be as a form of very subtle energy. Wherever, matter organizes itself into a stable organism, consciousness appears spontaneously

Consciousness (GOD) is the subtle counterpart of matter. Just as inertia and energy are attributes of matter, so does love manifest itself as consciousness.

.

-correction horizontal but you already know

Fun from God-
Numbers -- draw a cube divide it with six lines verticle and six lines horizontal to equal 49 spaces. fill in the number 1 once the number two twice 22 the number three three 333 times keep going to nine nines 999999999 which leaves you with four spaceces left now we will switch from "base ten" to "binary, computer language 0 1 -on or off" since 0 represents 0 the next four spaces will read 1111 thats eleven eleven the magic of our lives. did you find that seven fills the exact middle of your square?

http://www.1111spiritguardians.com/

p.s when i highlighted the passage that some people are born into religion, i was doing so to subtly highlight that the fact that you are probably religious as your family come from a religious background.....

Premakesh

"God" must be defined properly, it is not possible to have a rational discussion if one says God is anywhere and everywhere and anything!!!!!! God can obviously then mean anything making discussion ridiculous. From the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (my CAPS):

""The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory:

Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become COMPLETELY USELESS, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'.""

Apparently it's ok for Deepak to say that the universe contains design, but if organized relgion or horror of horrors Christians say something similar, then they are dismissed out of hand. If someone who is within the site of a bible or professes to believe in the bible or any other mainstream religion says a peep, forget it, sorry you don't count, Deepak is the only one capable of presenting God to a disbelieving world. If this is the case, then I'm on the side of Skep and gasp, ol' Ron.

I'm sorry Deepak, just because you take on this cause and the fact that you are basically an internist doesn't put you on the level of Einstein or even Carl Sagan. You can't be an expert in everything you touch, it all starting to sound the same after a while. The delusion is starting to warp.

Regards,

Steve

God wants your argument - always and forever

and btw, this god as person thing is so prevelant in Hindusim, not only known as Brahman, how about Krishna, or the other avatars? Ever visit a temple in India? I have and plenty idols sure have human features, plenty by golly, in fact millions. Heck Virgin comics is all about these forms. We are suppose to forget about God sitting on a throne ala western religions, dear Deepak, have you forgotten your own Vishnu or Shiva sitting on snakes, or riding some animal vehicle? Oh , it's symbol forgive me, of the universal design or what does the Maharishi say "laws of nature"?

I know you will have an answer for this and most everything else, just can't take it too seriously, smile.

Steve

Ref: #41

"Chopra's latest attempt to critique Dawkins is as lame as his first. I summarized that first one as
"Well, you can't see love in your fancy microscope, now can you, Dr Smarty Pants?"; this one is the Incredibly Agile Evasive God trick. He's going to play a game and try to define his god and religion into a kind of vague god he's going to conveniently pull of out his pocket, one fuzzy enough that no one can criticize it, and he's also going to engage in some blatant projection" ~PZ Myers

-----

"I think Chopra fails to earn passing marks, not just in biology, but in theology as well. Dawkins makes clear distinctions, and the thing that really frosts Chopra's chaps is that this clarity threatens to lift the fog of self-satisfied, unquestioning assent favored by much of Chopra's readership....SH" ~Scott Hatfield

-----

"You can't honestly believe a shaman/guru would not use deception to make a point.

I don't think most of the believers can argue their way out of Dawkins' way... they have to project and build straw men.

And to we non-believers their arguments are as solid as quicksand." ~Steve_C

------

"Cheapact Dopra's strawman is on a rampage, looking for Dawkins' strawman.

Doprra's strawman swings --- and Dawkins' strawman is missing.

Dopra's strawman declares victory over a strawman that never existed!!" ~natural cynic

------

There you have it a nutshell Deepak chopra's arguments....

This I found funny from Dawkins "God didn't need to create the cosmos through the Big Bang and billions of years of evolution. He could have created it whole and perfect to begin with. Thus if we observe evolution at work--as of course we do--then God is irrelevant and unnecessary." My response: who says it isn't perfect and as it should be? What is the meaning of billions of years? Sounds like Dawkins is ruled by his wristwatch, what an unimaginative view of time. Also while disagreeing with people I also disagree with L's reasons for believing in God; again narrow view. I believe in my concept of God because I do, because it/she/he is.

acrystal-

welcome home you've got it :)

"Therefore, reducing God to a Sunday school picture and claiming that the Book of Genesis--or creationism in general--competes with science isn't accurate. Fundamentalism hasn't played a role in scientific debate for generations."

While fundamentalism has not played a role in forming consensus within the scientific community, it most certainly has played a role in the response to that consensus by the public at large. This is, ultimately, Dawkins' area of concern. As it is for Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and many others. Fundamentalism has repeatedly attempted to devalue science as a font of knowledge for public policy. The most glaring example is the fundamentalist stance on contraception as it pertains to reducing the spread of HIV, and the efforts of religious organizations to see that stance be the singular standard in HIV prevention. Efforts that, in Africa, have amounted to nothing more than genocide by proxy.

"1. The universe is random. It operates entirely through physical laws. There is no evidence of innate intelligence."

The bulk of scientific consensus does not back the first sentence of this claim. Neither, specifically, does Dawkins, as he repeatedly states throughout both The God Delusion and his previous works that evolution by natural selection is a non-random process. The "God works through evolution" subset of creationist thinking is, as Dawkins and others illustrate, a result of the human mind tending to ascribe characteristics of intention to both random and non-random phenomena around us. Within the sphere of biology, this "intention" takes the form of the illusion of design.

"Dawkins shows no interest in uniting these two perspectives (he disdains the whole notion of a religious scientist), but many of is colleagues do."

Dawkins has also repeatedly stated that he finds great difficulty in holding propositions as true based solely on the fact that they are emotionally comforting. The allowance of unverified or unverifiable conclusions for the purpose of maintaining one's preconceptions is a cognitive bias, and works against the goal of science: to eschew assumption in favor of fact. By: BadFaith at HuffPo

Why people DON'T believe in God:

{These are not the only reasons but covers many}

1) They were raised by a religious family and couldn't live up to the standards imposed and rejected all in their rebellion.
2) Don't want to take any responsibility for adding to the crap in the world and so if they pretend there are no consequences and no God/Universe etc. then they can do as they please and hurt as many people as possible in their struggle for cash.
3) Don't understand the law of manifestation, blame everyone else for their failures and poor lot in life and feel like denouncing God is somehow getting even with him/her/it.
4) Are exceedingly jealous of the good people who live in the light .
=========
They are so twisted with envy and anger and greed they really can't believe anyone is happy to sit in a room and meditate.
5, extreme versions of #1) have tried and failed at fundamentalism and born-again type religions where glomming on to a personal saviour absolves them of all their sins. They feel too guilty for their crimes and know that this won't save them from the punishment meted out by their chosen religion; so they find comfort in science. If no God whew, they can just die someday and be done with it.

No such luck people heaven or hell whatever you create you are here for all eternity, so stop mucking about and help somebody already. Do something constructive and stop trying to block others from doing good!

"Is God an all or nothing proposition as Dawkins claims? Must science absolutely exclude God in any form?" Deepak Chopra

I have learned to see the state of the world as a symbol of what is happening inside me, inside us, human beings. And what I observe now is a seeming conflict between people who are mainly functioning from the logical mind, from reasoning – let’s call them scientists, and people who are mainly functioning from the heart, from intuition- let’s call them religious people. This is a symbol of our inner conflict between mind and heart.

I agree with Deepak that this conflict is not real. There is no conflict between the mind and the heart when both are in harmony and agree to serve the entire organism in truth. We are wasting our energy orating on the superiority of the one or the other, when the obvious truth is that creation has already included both. We have both mind to reason with and heart to receive guidance from, and our job right now is to bring them together. Our job is to bring science and God together -- in ourselves and also “out there”, which is not separated from “in here”.

The conflict is unreal, because we can neither exist without the heart nor without the mind. There are lots of scientists with a heart and religious people with a mind out there. Those of us who still insist on “shooting” the other organ in this body of ours… they need to take a deep breath and… look again. Look at the fear that keeps us from welcoming a part of us that can open the doors to wholeness.

lets leave God out-
light or dark take your pick

Indeed my friends, this discussion has devolved unto endless circles. I like Deepak's approach moreso than the traditional Christian, Muslim, or Judaist angles, in that he at least comes of as not being so judgemental, you know, do this, don't do that (can't ya read the signs . . .); but then again, what does a bad guy like me know . . .

Eschatological verification anybody: I'm down!!!

Peace

This may be neither here nor there, but as a religious person I happen to find Deepak Chopra to be a perfect spiritual spokesperson for late capitalist America. Though I couldn't bring myself to read very much of his writing, it seems to be entirely oriented toward success, health, beauty, dream-fulfillment, etc. In other words, the cult of self-gratification and new-age ego stroking.

Just for the record, this ain't mature or original religious thought. It's just the power of positive thinking dressed up in the cheapest faux-trappings of the wisdom of the East.

If you want to read a real religious thinker, check out Martin Luther King, Gustavo Gutierrez, Thich Nhat Han, Joan Chittister, Mahatma Gandhi, for starters.

None of them bothers (or bothered) much with theological debates. They're too busy with real worship: self-sacrificial service to humanity. Maybe there's something we can agree on?

By: NoNukes at HuffPo

God is a mystery.
Life is a mystery.
You are a mystery.
I am a mystery.

Maybe someday science will explain everything and there'll be no mystery left.

We're a long way from that day.

Not to mention that science itself keeps uncovering new mysteries...

An interesting quality of a mystery is that it can be experienced but not explained.

Like life. Like Existence.

This discussion is sure getting a lot of hits.

The mind loves a mystery. The mind hates a void.

The more unexplainable, the more people rush in their favorite explanations.

So science is going to explain it all. The theory of everything...we're still waiting on that one.

In the other hand, we're still waiting to see the proof of god too.

But, you know, I'm not going to lose sleep over either one tonight.

When everything is explained, and all the mysteries are solved ... please shoot me.

What kind of life would that be?

Deepak,

You have got yourself into a stew with the majority of this audience.

To start with, in your first post you failed to set up an hypothesis of GOD. As a result you have been fairly criticized. In your second post you have attempted to correct this and in doing so have disqualified yourself from the argument you are trying to make - Richard is not criticising your definition.

Second, you are criticising Richard Dawkins for things he has never said and are misquoting others eg Einstien.

Have you read his book? If you say no, I understand your ignorance regarding his arguments and intention But that still begs the question, "why leap into a debate like this and condemn Richard for making arguments he is not making", If anything his is on your side in his expose of radical fundamentalists.

However if you have read his book then you need to have a serious look at the word "intelligence".

To take your line of argument - buddhism, adviata, sufism etc, "intelligence" according to these world views can work in two directions - the first is to look for differences when we compare objetcs. The second is to look for similarities between those objects. When we focus on differences we end up in conflict. When we focus on similarities we feel connected (connection is another definition of love, but thats another word that is equally loaded as the word god and look where that has got us). How would you classify the direction your "intelligence" has taken in this venture? - to use your own words, ...... the real debate is between two world views ..... Is that focusing on differences or similarities?

Personally, I feel science on balance is reductionist and in that sense it leads to conflict. On the other hand it is subject to crictism and questioning that it has to answer for. In that sense it is not stuck in blind faith.

I'm a yogi Deepak. We are looking for freedom. As flawed as science is, it's not dogmatic even if it might appear so. These guys have to compete and prove what they say. And if they have got it wrong they move on,

At some level I understand where you are coming from - or delude myself that I do - but on this one I'm with Richard

Deepak,

You have got yourself into a stew with the majority of this audience.

To start with, in your first post you failed to set up an hypothesis of GOD. As a result you have been fairly criticized. In your second post you have attempted to correct this and in doing so have disqualified yourself from the argument you are trying to make - Richard is not criticising your definition.

Second, you are criticising Richard Dawkins for things he has never said and are misquoting others eg Einstien.

Have you read his book? If you say no, I understand your ignorance regarding his arguments and intention But that still begs the question, "why leap into a debate like this and condemn Richard for making arguments he is not making", If anything his is on your side in his expose of radical fundamentalists.

However if you have read his book then you need to have a serious look at the word "intelligence".

To take your line of argument - buddhism, adviata, sufism etc, "intelligence" according to these world views can work in two directions - the first is to look for differences when we compare objetcs. The second is to look for similarities between those objects. When we focus on differences we end up in conflict. When we focus on similarities we feel connected (connection is another definition of love, but thats another word that is equally loaded as the word god and look where that has got us). How would you classify the direction your "intelligence" has taken in this venture? - to use your own words, ...... the real debate is between two world views ..... Is that focusing on differences or similarities?

Personally, I feel science on balance is reductionist and in that sense it leads to conflict. On the other hand it is subject to crictism and questioning that it has to answer for. In that sense it is not stuck in blind faith.

I'm a yogi Deepak. We are looking for freedom. As flawed as science is, it's not dogmatic even if it might appear so. These guys have to compete and prove what they say. And if they have got it wrong they move on,

At some level I understand where you are coming from - or delude myself that I do - but on this one I'm with Richard

So...our Dawkinite friends DO believe in God, they only wish to quibble about about the nature of it...a "metaphorical" God is okay, but not a "supernatural". I'll take some time to look around the universe tommorow and try to find some natural metaphors before commenting further on that.
Also, another important clarification: The Dawkinites are merely stating a "probability" that God is a delusion. This is, however, not a mathematical probability, as expressed in a statistical study. Basically, its just an opinion, perhaps a belief, not based on any science and/or knowledge at all.
Well I think I will think about all of this some more as well.
Another note for tonight: while the general topic here is of interest to me personally, the ego-centric Chopra-v-Dawkins aspect is generally not. I know I can't set rules for the other bloggers to follow, but my real interest is in the topic, not the personalities. I haven't read any books written by either of them (and don't plan to), but still feel I might possibly have something intelligent to add to our discussion of the topic. I hope others like me will be interested to join in as well if they feel the same. For my tastes there's too much of what Dawkins has said-v-what Chopra has said happening.

What the Hell do YOU think?

Our discussion should not be limited by the constraints of what these two fine individuals have previously stated, as I am sure they would both agree. If you can't think on your own two feet, that's fine, but please don't live in the delusion that your limitations should constrain others.

Dear DK and Colleagues

I am indebted as we all are to Dr Chopra for his intelligent and insightful response to Dr Dawkins views.

The debate really hinges on individual preference and subjectivity. For my own part the issue is a no-brainer in the sense that once you have defined God as Love , you can hardly deny His existence. Enough people have defined God as Love for me to be very comfortable that God exists but virtue of this definition of what He is. But to a certain extent I agree with Dawkins that God does not really exist. The word “ God “ just happens to be a convenient synonym for Love, joy, peace , Truth and all those other laudable spiritual qualities which we appreciate. Taken by itself the word is virtually meaningless just as much as a Picasso painting is virtually meaningless to a Bushman in the Kalahari desert. The bushman cannot appreciate the value of what he is seeing because he has no educational, historical or artistic references with which to judge the issue. (I am sure our chairman will remind us however that there is nothing to stop bushmen having good taste!)

The debate must sure also hinge on the utility of what we understand about God. If that understanding helps and assists in some way then obviously an understanding of God has some utility. Dr Dawkins obviously believes that it has no utility. That is his choice. Nonetheless , when you read the testimony below of a devoted Christian about to be put up in front of a firing squad ,whose understanding of God allowed him to be saved from that predicament then I would venture to suggest that understanding the nature of the divine does have some utility. Some people, and I imagine Dr Dawkins is among these, don’t experience a necessity for God. The mistake, I would submit, is to then assume that God does not exist.

Sincerely

Anthony Whitehouse

WHEN DIVINE LAW STOPS A FIRING SQUAD

This is the authentic experience of Antonio Gonga, a spiritual healer from Luanda, Angola. The event described below took place during the civil war in Angola.

Total civil war had started in my country. I had no food supplies at home apart from some sugar and some water. The rebels had surrounded the (capital) city (Luanda, PP), and had occupied it, cutting water and electricity. The city was in the dark and bullets sped through the sky like as many phosphorescent rain drops. For four days, I fed myself solely with water and sugar, till none was left.

The shells were so close to the roof of my house that I was obliged to lay on the ground. At one moment, despair and fear invaded my mind. So I opened my Bible to find inspiration, and fell on this passage from Isaiah 8: 11-13:

For the Lord spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying ... neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid, Sanctify the Lord of hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread

This passage meant to me: « Do not walk with the collective thought, do not fear the arrogance of evil which world thought fears, for all evil, being the opposite of good, God, is nothing because God is one and all. It is the Lord of Hosts, the only Mind, that you must adore and in front of which you must bow in thought ».

I also saw clearly that I was to fear neither the rebels, nor the missiles or the rockets, but rather fear to disobey the first commandment and to have another God than good, the only One and All, in my thought.

In my favourite Bible commentary , I found the following: « Truth has no beginning. The divine Mind is the Soul of man, and gives man dominion over all things. ...his province is in spiritual statutes, in the higher law of Mind »

Filled with this understanding, I decided to leave for the neighbouring country (DRC, at the time called Zaire, PP). I left my home and the streets were filled with numerous dead bodies. I was able to find a lorry that was leaving the city. As we arrived at a forest, our lorry was stopped by the rebels. They made us descend.. After having checked our identity, their chief gave his men the order to take the eight men (from the truck, PP) to station 2 in the shooting range, where all those who came from the capital were put to death. They left the women and children aside.

On the way to what was supposed to be the place of my final demise, I refused to have another God than the only God. My thought was clear. I immediately remembered a passage from the same book which states: »Can a leaden bullet deprive a man of Life, - that is, of God, who is man's Life?» (358:2)

I understood that my imperative duty at that moment was to stay faithful to the First Commandment. « Thou shalt have no other gods before me ». In understood that God, the Only Life, is One and All. He was my one and only Life. He was the Life of the rebels, even the Life of the tommy guns... This Life which was One could not menace itself. Therefore no life could be lost, and I had no life to lose because God was my only Life.

I also understood that because God is One and All, there were not rebels on one side and we on the other, but there was only one side, God's side, the side of Love. There was only one being, one man, who was incapable of hating himself. And that is how I should see him in the Science of God’s understanding.

I understood that to obey anything else in my thought was to disobey this fundamental rule « to have only one God ». This would open a breach in my thought through which evil could base itself to influence my present experience. Let us be clear about this. Evil could have no basis of operation anywhere because God is All-in-all and good fills all space. It is only because of our ignorance of the truth that we manage, and that only in belief, to give evil a fictional basis of operation to influence our experience.

While I was meditating these truths, we were opposite our supposed killers, their weapons aimed at us, on the shooting range. They were given the order to shoot. But not a single bullet came out of the guns, they were stuck in the barrel. They repeated the operation for 15 minutes, but nothing happened.

At that moment I understaood that God was in control. One of the rebels said in Portugese « Deus esta com vosco » which means God is with you. They released us all and communicated to their base that we were all innocent. Our lorry was able to continue on its way so as to leave the country.

As for me, I unceasingly sang hymns of praise to the only God. »

Antonio Gonga

Kind regards
Anthony Whitehouse

This is the second post of Chopra that simplifies and distorts Dawkins argument. His first post he says the bedrock of Dawkins argument is this: "1. Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge. Nothing about God is needed to explain the world. Eventually science will uncover all mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist."

First let us notice the first fallacy which is that Dawkins doesn't say that science will uncover all mysteries and that those it can't explain don't exist. That is bullshit. He even notes in his book that there are some things that are proper to remain permanently agnostic about because they cannot be explained.

So right away you know Chopra either hasn't read The God Delusion or he is distorting the truth. But let us disregard that and move onto the more important distortion. He says that Dawkins believes that nothing about god is needed to explain the world. FALSE. Dawkins point is that using God to explain things in the world that are unknown only raises a more complicated question, which is who created god? This is a question that Chopra doesn't answer.

In his second post he says: "2. God is unnecessary. Science can explain Nature without any help from supernatural causes like God. There is no need for a Creator." Actually this is the same thing as first post, it's just worded differently. There are same flaws with it and same fallacies.

So Chopra either read more closely and comprehend Dawkins arguments or stop lying about his opinions. In any case I would suggest people join me in disregarding Chopra's further mistruths and/or lies. By: AgnosticVegetarian at HuffPo

Chopra sets up a false premise. He says "Science can explain Nature without any help from supernatural causes like God. There is no need for a Creator."

That's wrong.

Correct: Science looks for explanations of natural phenomena in nature.

It was only when science stopped attributing natural phenomena to supernatural beings that any real progress was ever made.

DEEPAK CHOPRA IS A FRAUD.

By: Maezeppaat HuffPo

"But Dawkins has pulled the same trick that he resorts to over and over. This is the us-versus-them trick. Either you think there is a personal God, a superhuman Creator who made the world according to the Book of Genesis, or you are a rational believer in the scientific method."
...................

Strawman alert! I don't think Dawkins ever said that the idea of God he's arguing against was necessarily a "personal god" the Christian idea of God. You're arguing against ultraspecific claims that Dawkins never made.

"There is room for a new paradigm that preserves all the achievements of science--as upheld by the first worldview--while giving the universe meaning and significance."
.......................

Why does the Universe require the existence of design or a "designer" to have meaning and significance. Most non-religious people would argue that the Universe can have meaning and significance without the existence of a creator.
By: Quaoar at HuffPo

Of course we don't believe in god as the grey bearded guy on a cloud! -Deekpak

Most believers do envision their imaginary daddy that way, and attribute "his" intentions into even random events (putting yourself in the small minority of theists). This argument just shifts the goal posts. If you are going to argue for its existence, you should start by defining it.

If you are saying that your god doesn't intervene in human affairs, do miracles, grant an afterlife, answer prayers etc. then I have to ask "why bother"?

You say your god is not a person, but you can't know what's true. You only think you know -the definition of delusion.

People don't care about an impotent god. They want the whole enchilada; partying with their friends and loved ones after death. And yes, on a cloud.

By: Expletivedeleted at HuffPo

To assert that the universe is pervaded by intention is an abuse of the commonly accepted meaning of the term "intention." And it is a product of the human predeliction, one Dawkins discusses, to attribute intention to patterns in nature. It's convenient for human beings to think of things as being products of intent, but the facts that it's convenient to do it and that we are naturally inclined to do it do not provide evidence that the attribution is in any sense worth troubling about true. Of course, Chopra's reaction to Dawkins is a reflex compelled by his own impulse to believe in the meaningfulness of things--he can't CHOOSE NOT to believe what he believes. (I dare him to try--belief is not a voluntary function of the mind, except in cases where we have been manipulated, as in Stockholm syndrome, and he will fail if he tries to change his mind by a simple determination to try it out on the other side of the fence.) But those of us who are not compelled to believe in that dispersed, decentralized God, nor the perhaps more often dangerous highly personal Fellow both Dawkins and Chopra parody, Chopra makes no important contribution to restraining the excesses of the lunatic fringe who do believe it's Them versus Us and perforce make their own nightmare come true, to all our cost.

By: johnnypanic at HuffPo

Even if God exists, why should I care? As an atheist it makes little difference, seriously.

As an atheist I not only don't believe there's a God, I'd be unimpressed EVEN if you could prove he existed. I don't care. I would still shake my head at people who choose to worship him.

It's the worship part that sticks in my craw. What pathetic excuse for a human would WORSHIP something simply because it's superior? And what pathetic excuse for a deity would demand that I worship it?

That makes about as much sense as my demanding the worms in my garden worship me, purely because I landscaped their habitat. It's just a little bit needy don't you think?

And so what if God created the Universe? So - effing - what? I am NOT impressed. For God, that would require the same amount of effort I exert when farting. God can kiss my ass, any God.

The question is WHY do so many humans NEED their God to exist? What is missing within them that requires belief in super beings?

Here's a question. Say it was proven God exists, without a doubt, but the bad news was either A; we're so inconsequential he doesn't care if we exist or not? Or B, he's a bad guy. He's our creator but he gets his kicks from making us miserable.

If either of the above were true, would people STILL choose to worship him? Probably.

Spirituality is the by product of our evolved animal brains. We can use our brains to solve many questions, but that same brain turns itself inside out trying to deal with that which we cannot even begin to comprehend. And just like our brain can make out patterns in a random collection of tea leaves, It makes up shit just to placate the major question marks about existence.

Mr. Chopra, your entire piece makes you an apologist for God. And the fact is, if he exists he doesn't need it and most certainly doesn't deserve it.

I'm done. God, kiss my ass. By: Scottishscript at HuffPo

Well this dabate is a little too heavy for this dude.

But from what I can see, maybe the Indian Guru should stop being such a sadistic whippin' boy! Everybody is beatin' up on the Guru! Rodney used to say, "I get no respect." The Guru is getting little respect! Whoa! Its all about respect, dudes! and dudetts. Guru, you payin' attention?

Whoa haha! haha! Whoa!

CTO,

Do u really think anyone likes reading spams, dude? or takes u seriously? Get serious, dude! U must have plenty of free time on hand! No?

Whee, whee..haha...hoe, hoe! bye, bye!

L,

You’ve argued that since we still haven’t been able to scientifically prove the existence of God after many hundreds of years of trying to do so, the probability of ever being able to prove the existence of God must now be very small.

How can this argument be valid in a historical context? Can you imagine someone saying, before Newtonian physics was seriously challenged, that since Newtonian physics hasn’t been seriously challenged for x number of years, the probability of it being challenged must now be very small! Science has time and time again been able to radically challenge the status quo in a way that few people would have been able to imagine.

Do you think Einstein told himself he had practically no chance of persuading people to perceive things in a radically new way? I think he strongly believed he could turn scientific knowledge on its head otherwise he wouldn’t have found the motivation to persevere like he did. It’s just simply impossible for us to predict with probabilities what science will be able to prove in the future! The possibilities are endless and could go beyond what we can currently imagine.

CTO

Why do you feel compelled to re-post all the unfavorable remarks against Dr. Chopra from Huffington post here on Intentblog. It seems to me if these bloggers wanted to post here they would. Did they authorize you to be their echo?
The number of posts you have made, 17 so far on this thread, borders on spam. I suggest you get a life of your own.

Cheers
Stan

1 John, Chapter 4:

7. Beloved, let us love one another:
for love is of God; and every one that loveth
is born of God, and knoweth God.

8. He that loveth not knoweth not God;
for God is love.

Hello All,

Stan, Thank you, I was just going to ask CTO the same question.

What gives CTO? are you running out of material of your own to counter with? If so, then maybe it is time for a breather.

Breathe deeply, now, one, two, three Ommmmmmmmm.

peace ruth

Richard Dawkins AND ALL
God is within YOU!-

One searching for God or trying to define God will never find an answer unless they look within themselves -you are Gods house open your curtains and let some light out.

the truth is ugly but the reasons i stated above as to why people turn to God and religion are true, people are converted when their mind is vunerable or too young to rationalise. some people would prefer the beautiful lie to the terrible truth i guess. if you were told you had a tumour and the doctor knew it was malignant, would you rather he just said everything is ok just because that is more comforting or would you rather know the truth and DO something about it? i'd rather know the ugly truth thanks.

anyhoo in response to your kind porst acrystal
"Why people DON'T believe in God:
{These are not the only reasons but covers many}
1) They were raised by a religious family and couldn't live up to the standards imposed and rejected all in their rebellion."

Hehehe couldn’t live up to the standards, or would not blindly conform to the faith?? In truth we all know what is more likely, no?

"2) Don't want to take any responsibility for adding to the crap in the world and so if they pretend there are no consequences and no God/Universe etc. then they can do as they please and hurt as many people as possible in their struggle for cash."

Au contraire it is those who believe in God who say that all their sins will be washed away by repentance. Including peadeophile priests. We believe in consequences in THIS life, NOT a judgement on our death. How could youir logic possibly be more wrong?! Heheheh I laugh but it’s tragic that religion allows people to literally get away with murder but it’s all oki as long as you admit. Well its not. There are consequences in this life for the victims.

p.s. i particularly liked this line "and hurt as many people as possible in their struggle for cash."

do atheists demand 10% of YOUR income? look up the word TITHE in the dictionary. it's imaginary money that funds religion is it? hmmm i think not.

"3) Don't understand the law of manifestation,"

What LAW, there are laws of science that are scientifically verifiable and repeatable.
blame everyone else for their failures and poor lot in life and feel like denouncing God is somehow getting even with him/her/it.
Since when?! It is those who believe in God who abdicate all personal responsibility and transfer it to Him! Could you possibly be more wrong?!

"4) Are exceedingly jealous of the good people who live in the light. They are so twisted with envy and anger and greed they really can't believe anyone is happy to sit in a room and meditate."

Heheheh I’m more than happy for people to sit inh their room and meiditate but when one persons groundless religious beliefs affect another adversely e.g. peaophile priests, holy wars, denial of contraception and abortion, the spread of aids to name but a few! this is when there are grounds against religious practice i.e. the abuse of religion. that is when we get angry.

"5, extreme versions of #1) have tried and failed at fundamentalism and born-again type religions where glomming on to a personal saviour absolves them of all their sins. They feel too guilty for their crimes and know that this won't save them from the punishment meted out by their chosen religion; so they find comfort in science."

Au contraire it is those who believe in God who say that all their sins will be washed away by repentance. Including peadeophile priests. We believe in consequences in THIS life, NOT a judgement on our death. How could youir logic possibly be more wrong?! Heheheh I laugh but it’s tragic that religion allows people to literally get away with murder but it’s all ok as long as you admit. Well its not. There are consequences in this life for the victims.
"If no God whew, they can just die someday and be done with it."
Face facts we do die! There are corpses to prove it!!

"No such luck people heaven or hell whatever you create you are here for all eternity, so stop mucking about and help somebody already. Do something constructive and stop trying to block others from doing good!"

I’m not trying to bock anyone from doing good, I’m trying to get people to think rationally and act ethically in this life rather than transfer all their sins i.e. wrongdoing onto an something else i.e. god.

“So...our Dawkinite friends DO believe in God, they only wish to quibble about about the nature of it...a "metaphorical" God is okay, but not a "supernatural". I'll take some time to look around the universe tommorow and try to find some natural metaphors before commenting further on that.”
Why use the term God when you do not mean the biblical God? Define your God or rational discussion is impossible. It’s like saying lets discuss the possibility of the Hubu monster, but the Hubu monster is everywhere and everything! Makey no sensey.

”Also, another important clarification: The Dawkinites are merely stating a "probability" that God is a delusion. This is, however, not a mathematical probability, as expressed in a statistical study. Basically, its just an opinion, perhaps a belief, not based on any science and/or knowledge at all.”

We will change our "opinion" when proof is forthcoming. I could say to you that the flying spaghetti monster exists, are you going to believe me? Why do you think it improbable that such a monster exists? Do you see that it is irrational to simply assume that sth such as God exists without any evidence whatsoever.

does this apply to you?

some were simply BORN INTO A RELIGIOUS FAMILY, and have not dared to question the beliefs imposed upon them. or perhaps it had not even occured to them to question them. to question them would be risking their relationships with family and probably friends. just like in nature, the young are easy prey. they have not yet got the ability to think rationally for themselves. religion can be programmed into their mind and then it is may well remain there even when they exhibit rational thought in other ways.

some turn to religion after a PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA of some sort. a breakup, a death, maybe even some medical condition or injury. maybe they had a near death experience that scared them. i can understand why people may find the thought of an afterlife comforting. but we live forever through our children and our good deeds/work. i find that more of comfort than some imaginary place in the sky. imagine an eternity with cliff richard and hitler. ummm no thanks!

some turn to religion during a period of DEPRESSION OR LONELINESS. it is easier to turn to a readymade support network then to actually face up to reality and deal with a deep-seated issue or issues. vunerable people are easily manipulated, just as weak animals are the first to be preyed upon, usually with great success. this is perhaps saddest of all. i think is awful that someone would delibrately do this to others for their own material gain. by facing reality, we can more easily understand and deal with the issues in our lives that need addressing. as adults, it's time to throw away that security blanket.

And may the force be with you!

Hi Lars

"You’ve argued that since we still haven’t been able to scientifically prove the existence of God after many hundreds of years of trying to do so, the probability of ever being able to prove the existence of God must now be very small.

How can this argument be valid in a historical context? Can you imagine someone saying, before Newtonian physics was seriously challenged, that since Newtonian physics hasn’t been seriously challenged for x number of years, the probability of it being challenged must now be very small! Science has time and time again been able to radically challenge the status quo in a way that few people would have been able to imagine.

Do you think Einstein told himself he had practically no chance of persuading people to perceive things in a radically new way? I think he strongly believed he could turn scientific knowledge on its head otherwise he wouldn’t have found the motivation to persevere like he did. It’s just simply impossible for us to predict with probabilities what science will be able to prove in the future!"

eisnstein worked with what was laws and evidence was there to begin with. however there is no evidence of god. do you see the difference? when evidence is forthcoming people will change their minds anyhting is possible. but so is thor, zeus, the flying spaghetti monster, the hubu monster, fairies etc etc. why is the probability of these beings existing any different to the probability of God existing? it isn't!

in the name of the father

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5402928.stm

i'd highly recommend the dalai lama's books or better still paul mackenna's books & cd's for those who have turned to religion but see that it could be irrational.

ITS SCIENCE vs SPIRITUALITY (not RELIGION)

Dr. Chopra:

I think the problem remains that the West, which was the birthland of "Religion" - an organized form of beliefs - cannot reconcile to the merger of the two.

To me a spiritual (and I do feel that spiritual is by default agnostic from the current standpoint of debate) - is NOT in conflict with Science. For Spirituality pushes a seeker to seek and explore from the empirical to the unseeable.. to get the answer for one basic question - What/Who created it all and Why?

Science is a rigid form of that exploration in the sense that it necessarily involves "demonstrable evidence".. Spirituality looks for experience and is individual and personal.

I tend to believe that the Goals of Science and SPirituality are Knowledge and Truth respectively! Knowledge is an Estimation of the Truth. Truth is the Experience that cannot be translated for someone else and transmitted. In order to seek "Knowledge" through "evidence", Science has undermined itself!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Desh

Please let me clear a few things up for you

1) this is a discussion of The God Delusion. Dawkins the author of The God Delusion disputes the existence of the biblical God that tells people to do things, and NOT your "spiritulaity"

2) you say "Truth is the Experience" well it's not, it is whatever is the reality. The biblical God either exists or he does not, this is the topic of discussion.
To the extent that the so-called "truth" varies from person to person this can only be applied to subjective (emotive) matters such as love, fear, art, political beliefs etc. This is NOT the topic of discussion.

3) "In order to seek "Knowledge" through "evidence", Science has undermined itself!"
It does not undermine itself at all as it continues seeking to find the reality of our world. Were it not for science and technology we would still be living in caves, and believing the Earth to be flat and at the centre of the universe.

Be in awe of the Real Truth. It is even more mysterious than the mystical.

Live this life to the full and act ethically in this life, for we do not know for sure that we have another.

Dr, Chopra I agree with Desh Kapoor’s comment, that you are bunching all religious practices, beliefs and dogma with spirituality and distorting the debate as it goes off target of what Dawkins says about supernatural beliefs of religion as practiced by most people, which is root of many conflicts.

Although spirituality is the way and it's not often I find myself praising a religious leader, but at time when all the bloody bishops in Britain - Catholic and Protestant -- are getting together to rail against secularism, the dreaded enemy, it's refreshing to hear such sense from Dalai Lama:

Secularism is the basis of all religions: Dalai Lama

By Tsering Tsomo, Phayul, November 10, 2006
Tokyo, Japan -- His Holiness the Dalai Lama said Friday that secularism is the basis of all religions.

“Secularism does not mean rejection of all religions. It means respect for all religions and human beings including non-believers,”

he said speaking to a crowd of 8,000 Japanese and foreigners at Ryogoku-Kokugikan stadium in Tokyo.

"Love and compassion attracts, hatred and anger repels." ~Dalai Lama

The exile Tibetan leader in his lecture on “A Good Heart – The key to Health and Happiness” emphasized on cultivating secular ethics which he said has nothing to do with religion but benefits all human beings. He said strengthening inner values of warmheartedness and compassion benefits both believers and non-believers in leading a happy and meaningful life.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=44,3407,0,0,1,0

I wish Deepak Chopra respects the views of non-believers, atheists and skeptics and doesn’t resort to the tactics of tit-for-tat in criticizing them in a debate and there by creating a further drift. I wish he be a true secular both in word and in deed and transform into a true spiritual master.

Durga

Some of u are reaptin' yourselves. It's time to move on!

It has been mentioned several times in this thread that Deepak Chopra has completely mischaracterized what Richard Dawkins actually says. This happened after Chopra was criticized for his first part in doing exactly the same. He doesn’t stop here but promises to present his mystical view in his upcoming post (as part of a debate!). The reason for Deepak Chopra arguments can be put forth in this fashion:

1) He did not read the book. (or selectively read some reviews or some pages.)

2) He is a liar and a manipulator and is intellectually dishonest.

3) Probably, whatever he reads goes over his fuzzy, may I say deluded head?

4) More likely, he is in a deep denial of reality in his version of mystical world view.

5) And he may be justifying the incident where he labeled Richard Dawkins as a “fundamentalist and a bigot”; these are but ego driven posts more than anything else. If this is the case he may be given a benefit of doubt for his intellectual inadequacies and short comings in his arguments.

In “Choprian Gibberish” one talks a lot, says very little and doesn’t prove anything. In short, one is intellectually bankrupt!

The God Delusion:
Is God an all or nothing proposition as Dawkins claims?
Must science absolutely exclude God in any form?

I have given up on religions but not on God. There is a common ground somewhere between “God: an all or nothing proposition” and “exclude God in any form”, and we must find it. For me, that common ground is a blend of science and spirituality.

What if God is all of it; the inside and the outside? Then science is mastery of the world outside the flesh and half of what we must know and spirituality (all matters pertaining to life and the living thereof) is mastery of the world inside the flesh and half of what we must know. What if a human being is a focal point where the inner spiritual realm meets its mirror image, the outer world of substance and matter and the goal has always been to bring the inside and the outside into perfect balance? Perhaps achieving an optimal blend of spirit and matter; God and man, is what opens us to a new frontier.
Of course, this argument stands on a supposition. “What if God is all of it; the inside and the outside? And that flies in the face of the long standing idea that man and God are separate. What if we rethink that?

The Oneness of God is the fundamental tenet in all monotheistic religions. It is the belief that there is only one God. What if the Oneness of God does not mean there is only one God? What if it means there is only God? What if it is all God; inside and out? That subtle change, changes everything.
In this construction it is impossible for man and God to be separate. Man is still free to think he is separate from God and if he does that for a very long time he may even become certain of it. But that doesn’t change the Truth of it. It just means that he will continue to create his reality without any apparent input from the God part of him. Consequently, he will create a lesser world than what is possible. We need an understanding and a good working blend of science and the God part of us before we can be all of it and step up to the next level of global civilization: peaceful co-existence.

Every human being is one with God.
Until we see God in ourselves, we remain unwilling and/or unable to see God everywhere, in everything, and in everyone. When we grow as individuals, we will grow as a civilization.

God is only a delusion to those still captive to the illusion of being separate from all else and thus separate from God. You and I are separate and you and I are one. There is Truth in both perspectives. A closed mind holds to the extreme that is obvious in this reality. A mind that has merged with the Soul opens to a Higher Mind, has dual perception, sees the higher in the lower and recognizes the oneness of you and me as a Truth. Then, knowing the oneness of us all, they teach God stuff to those who still think all God stuff is delusional. In the art of surrender to God on High such sacrifice is common as we seek to reach a critical mass of collective consciousness in the awareness of the oneness of us all.
Thankyou

freeyeshua

Why use the term God when you do not mean the biblical God? Define God or rational discussion is impossible. It’s like saying lets discuss the possibility of the Hubu monster, but the Hubu monster is everywhere and everything! Makey no sensey!

Have you even bothered to read any of the thread? Here is a quote from The God Delusion

"The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory:

Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'."

As one responder responded with the sentiment: "CTO is posting only unfavorable replies from another site and he is spaming". If CTO posts the supposedly favorable(as sound in reasoning as Deepak Chopra's) then I have to post the refutations also which aren't considered favorable but reasonable. Also in respecting these sentiments I will be more interactive in contributing something original in the future.

I would like to share one such post which may be helpful. (I know atleast some if not many of the people who visit this blog read these comments even though some may want to skip it. This isn't spam because if you read them you will find that they answer many of the questions raised in this thread from time to time.Also in respecting the sentiments of some responders I will be more interactive in contributing something original in the future.)

MTGradwell wrote:
"Deepak is not trying to define God narrowly at this stage,..."

At what stage will he, if ever? In the end you can't have a scientific integration without getting into things that math can measure.

MTGradwell wrote:
"...beyond saying he believes such a definition would involve a synthesis of science with a worldview involving meaning and significance."

That only proves he has no conception of how science works or even what it is.

MTGradwell wrote:
"For now, Deepak is describing the dichotomy between Dawkins and the notions Dawkins opposes."

No, he's not. And that's how Dawkins anticipated Chopra's attack. Unfortunately, Dawkins uses the same tactic Chopra does, and you noticed Chopra using it, and defend it:

"If you divide worldviews into just two categories, at least one category must necessarily be broad."

One broad and one narrow category where you fight for the broad and defeat an as wrong as possible narrow category is a rhetorical trick both Chopra and Dawkins use.

Dawkins does not fight for a narrow category in atheism as Chopra pretends, he even admits to not knowing a lot.

MTGradwell wrote:
"Deepak lays down basic premises, and these are treated as if they are his conclusions."

Deepak's basic premises themselves are wrong.
Intelligence is not a singular, indivisible, thing. It's a thousand things, even several billion things if we consider each individual neuron in the human brain.

There is no one thing called intelligence or intension. Intelligence is the result of a lot of dumber processes working together.

Read Marevin Minsky's "The Society of Mind."
http://www.amazon.com/Society-Mind-Marvin-Minsky/dp/1559406828...

Our world is full of alien intelligences, from ants to octopi. While Chopra denies fundamentalist Christianity, where God looks and acts human, he still has an anthropomorphic God. The intelligence and intension Chopra is talking about is human intelligence and intension. It's just as anthropomorphic as God's with white beards.

Or do you think Chopra is talking about ant intelligence and intension?
By: normdoering at HuffPo

L,

It’s interesting that you say in your post # 102:

The Dawkinites are merely stating a "probability" that God is a delusion. This is, however, not a mathematical probability, as expressed in a statistical study. Basically, its just an opinion, perhaps a belief, not based on any science and/or knowledge at all.”

If what you are saying is correct, then I find it baffling that even though Dawkins’s admits his own belief in the non-existence of God remains unproven, he thinks he still has the right to ridicule religious people on the grounds that their beliefs are scientifically unproven! This debate will just keep going, as it has for ages, since there is still no-one that can claim to prove scientifically the existence or non-existence of God…

You also said that “it is irrational to simply assume that sth such as God exists without any evidence whatsoever”.

Can’t we say that it is irrational to simply assume that there isn’t a God without being able to scientifically prove that assumption?

Don’t you make assumptions in your life based on feelings? I would find it hard to imagine that you don’t because most people do no matter how intelligent they are.

For example, it seems most people believe in free will, but if we’re going to be open-minded about this, what evidence is there to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have free will? Our lives could be completely pre-determined. But most people would say that they feel they have free will and I am completely prepared to respect that just like I am prepared to respect people who believe that life is predetermined. There are many successful people that had a very strong conviction that they were born to achieve certain things and achieved them despite the fact that some people thought those achievements would be impossible for them to accomplish. So just the assumption that we may make that we have free will is a belief and we can’t prove it, yet we find it natural to live with it and we don’t question it.

There are many things in life for which we can’t find definitive answers and forces us to make assumptions based on what feels right. The religious person chooses to believe in God he intuitively feels there must be a God. The atheist chooses not to believe in God because he intuitively feels there can’t be a God. I hope that you’ll see that BOTH sides are choosing to base their assumptions on feelings.

Rationality is not for everyone. Especially for those who don't read the book they debate upon, or for those who don't read the blog post before they comment in the thread. And also for those who repeatedly choose not to discuss the particular arguments made by the contributor in the blog post.

Dawkins likes his science to define reality.

Let's define Dawkins:

He is a Christian, whether he likes it or not.

Christianity has defined reality as (God), humans and inert matter. Dawkins accepts this, just leaving out God.

Dawkins avoids what all fundamentalist scientists do: consciousness.

Spirit is simply consciousness. We can't see our consciousness. Why would we be able to observe God's? And no one wants to be defined by a theory. We are not objects, like everything outside of our invisible consciousness. We're special.

Dawkins is a typical civilized human. He is human-centered. As such, he has domination issues. Domination, in modern parlance, means abusive dominance. He has not heard of dominance with wisdom.

Science relies on numbers, equations, measurement. It requires stability and reliability in its perception before it allows knowledge to be passed into reality. It is the sole arbiter of what reality is.

But numbers are invisible, just like human consciousness and God. Dawkins merely replaces an invisible God for invisible numbers. They are easier to control.

Reality is only what can be seen, observed, controlled. Reality is only natural law. Anything that does not fall into its confined definition is disregarded, confident that the future will explain all anomalies.

Dawkins is your typical civilized human. Though science can use instruments to see the tiniest molecule and the furthest galaxies, humans remain the center of consciousness in the universe.

Reality is only humans and inert matter.

Ugh!

No wonder, given Deepak Chopra's arguments some who commented here grossly misrepresent what Richard Dawkins says.

Post 76,

dude, you make no sense... did you misplace your medication this mornin'?

Hi Lars

No - I didn't actually say that! I quoted that and then responded that assertion.

"Can’t we say that it is irrational to simply assume that there isn’t a God without being able to scientifically prove that assumption?"

No.

Do you assume that The Fantastic Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? If not, Why not? According to your thinking it is rational to believe he/she/it exists.

"Don’t you make assumptions in your life based on feelings? I would find it hard to imagine that you don’t because most people do no matter how intelligent they are."

No I can't think of any examples where I do. I calculate probabilities based on evidence and act accordingly. Emotive subjects such as love fear are totally different to actually saying a specific higher being i.e. God exists.

If you want to find out more please do read upthread or on part 1, as pretty much everything has been covered and I am merely having to repeat myself.

I have, Apocalypse Now, the moivie on the background,
and a 1001 parties on a saturday night,
but..
Just like my favorite law professor/judge said, in a lecture,

Evertime you read the (same) case, you notice something new..
isn't that..

made me think..
and,

In the madness, insanity of..
isn't it..

your innerchild?

Lost Love
by Rose

To brokenhearted women,
please heed these words I say,
the pain you think eternal
will come to rest one day.

Your destiny has whispered
he wasn't the one for you,
true love would never allow
the pain he's put you through.

A soul mate will always protect you,
he won't hurt you in any way,
and the bond that forms between you
will grow stronger every day.

Don't shed your tears in silence,
there was nothing you could do,
God gave you the strength of a woman,
and your faith to carry you through.

Time is so short and precious,
so make every moment last,
live today, tomorrow,
don't dwell upon the past.

The one who left you broken
will come to rue the day,
and the pain you thought eternal
will slowly fade away.

Dobranoc, buzka,
Love, Passion,

Everyone of us and everything in the universe is made of God. Some of us have discovered it and some have not realized it yet. But, in any case, we are all God, whether we believe in God or not. I don't know how to prove it to you scientifically or otherwise...yet...but maybe someday.

I think the argument here that Deepak wants to point out is that we must not exclude certain groups of people because they do this or that, believe in this or that, for we are all one, made from the same cloth. And for a distinguished scientist like Dawkins to play the role of "us vs them" is deplorable, and needs to be pointed out and thrown into the wind for examination.

Ok, she's not giving up..
without a..
fine!

You want me to draw a picture?
need a soundtrack?
Website?
Here! you know I not ..untill a court..and than still.. higher appeal..
http://marekdariuszpodsiadlo.shutterfly.com/

Expensive promises i made,
all the chances that i take
never learn to appreciate our time,
lie awake all through the night
memories by candle light,
keep them safe locked inside my mind

(chorus)
i heard you calling to me
you come to me,
i know now i am complete
i am complete,
was lost in the moment got carried away,
heard the sound of you calling my name
now i am complete,

misplaced trust and honesty,
should have known my time to leave
close my eyes and imagine i was blind,
open up and say too much,
thoughts of us remained untouched,
keep them safe locked inside my mind

(chorus)
i heard you calling to me
you come to me,
i know now i am complete
i am complete,
was lost in the moment got carried away,
heard the sound of you calling my name
now i am complete,

now i am complete x3

unsaid words communicate,
things that time will never take
look for me and i'll do the same in time
now tomorrow seems so clear,
whisper softly to your ear
keep me safe locked inside your mind

(chorus)
i heard you calling to me
you come to me,
i know now i am complete
i am complete,
was lost in the moment got carried away,
heard the sound of you calling my name
now i am complete

i heard you calling to me
you come to me,
i know now i am complete
i am complete,
was lost in the moment got carried away,
heard the sound of you calling my name
now i am complete
~lyrics Jaimeson - Complete

Love, Passion, I'll keep ya informed..;)

L:

Thanks for your comments but you jump to conclusions too fast and too soon!

YOU SAY: "this is a discussion of The God Delusion. Dawkins the author of The God Delusion disputes the existence of the biblical God that tells people to do things, and NOT your "spiritulaity"

I dont care what Dawkins talks about or what you talk about.. what I am saying is that none understand the value of free and open exploration! That is where spirituality comes in.. but I personally feel that it is PRIMA FACIE very tough for a Westerner to think of SPirituality as in Zen or Vedantic tradition.. because that is NOT how the age old thinking has been fashioned here. So, I dont really blame you. And as Dr. Chopra says very correctly, Dawkins just simply talks of ONE idea of "GOd" - he either doesnt care.. or as I suspect doesnt get the other ideas... and in that sense in my view he is kind of irrelevant to debate on!

YOU SAY: well it's not, it is whatever is the reality. The biblical God either exists or he does not, this is the topic of discussion.
To the extent that the so-called "truth" varies from person to person this can only be applied to subjective (emotive) matters such as love, fear, art, political beliefs etc. This is NOT the topic of discussion.

L you are quite a patronizing guy.. who goes on to decide the TOPICS for others... well you better make sure buddy that I DECIDE MY TOPIC and the way I discuss this topic!! So stop being everybody's SPOKESMAN. .. will you?!! I am saying and very clearly.. that KNOWLEDGE is the product of the DISTANCE between Observer and the OBSERVED.. the moment OBSERVER becomes the OBSERVED.. it is an EXPERIENCE!! So you can either BE JOYFUL.. or have the KNOWLEDGE OF JOY... in no circumstance can you accurately explain the EXACT feeling of JOY to anyone.... far from that make your audience EXPERIENCE that SAME JOY you did!!!

I dont expect you to get the distinction..

LASTLY you say: "In order to seek "Knowledge" thro

ugh "evidence", Science has undermined itself!"
It does not undermine itself at all as it continues seeking to find the reality of our world. Were it not for science and technology we would still be living in caves, and believing the Earth to be flat and at the centre of the universe. "

Well that is NONSENSE... West lived in caves before the current "Science" came on.. from the Vedic descriptions none of that happened in the East - for one.. and second.. it is better to live in a cave and be Happy than to live in a high-rise... with a Merc.. and a Personal Plane.. and taking Anti-Depressants and Sleeping pills on an hourly basis.. so it all depends on WHAT you call Progress!!

I had once done a paper during my MBA class.. on the BASIC and FOUNDATIONAL difference between the Modern Science and VEDIC Science...

.... my contention was that while MODERN SCIENCE assumed "God" to be an anti-thesis of Science...so if they could describe scientifically how the lightning was created they could disprove the existence of God!

... Vedic Scientists, however, assumed that study of Science was a step to understand the mystery of "God"... so if they could understand how lightning was created.. they could probably understand a bit more of the mystery of "God"...

THAT IS WHY.. Modern Science is so polluting.. and Eastern Practices are so in tune with the nature.. because modern science FELT the need to REPLICATE everything.. while Eastern practice was content to work with the nature to get to the next step.

Now, that is why.. Eastern Science - in the period of last 3-400 years periods time may seem like "Out of Caves nonsense" ... but if you were to increase the temporal span of your analysis to a few thousand years.. you will in all sense have a different conclusion!

So, dont care to describe the "GREATNESS" of Science to me.. I want to instead challenge you to save your energy for the day when you are on your deathbed and your Grandkid is near you.. and YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO him that.. if he willing to listen to it.. given the messed up environment that you leave for him!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Hi MarthaD

R Dawkins:

"If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them? If we are allowed to relabel scientific awe as a religious impulse, the case goes through on the nod. You have redefined science as religion, so it's hardly surprising if they turn out to "converge."

Another kind of marriage has been alleged between modern physics and Eastern mysticism. The argument goes as follows: Quantum mechanics, that brilliantly successful flagship theory of modern science, is deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Eastern mystics have always been deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Therefore, Eastern mystics must have been talking about quantum theory all along.

Similar mileage is made of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ("Aren't we all, in a very real sense, uncertain?"), fuzzy logic ("Yes, it's okay for you to be fuzzy, too"), chaos and complexity theory (the butterfly effect, the Platonic, hidden beauty of the Mandelbrot Set--you name it, somebody has mysticized it and turned it into dollars). You can buy any number of books on "quantum healing," not to mention quantum psychology, quantum responsibility, quantum morality, quantum immortality, and quantum theology. I haven't found a book on quantum feminism, quantum financial management, or Afro-quantum theory, but give it time.

The whole dippy business is ably exposed by the physicist Victor Stenger in his book, The Unconscious Quantum, from which the following gem is taken. In a lecture on "Afrocentric healing," the psychiatrist Patricia Newton said that traditional healers "are able to tap that other realm of negative entropy--that superquantum velocity and frequency of electromagnetic energy--and bring them as conduits down to our level. It's not magic. It's not mumbo jumbo. You will see the dawn of the 21st century, the new medical quantum physics really distributing these energies and what they are doing."

Sorry, but mumbo jumbo is precisely what it is. Not African mumbo jumbo but pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, down to the trademark misuse of the word energy. It is also religion, masquerading as science in a cloying love feast of bogus convergence. "

Desh

Thanks for your kind response, it amused me greatly! Hehehe.

I should first like to point out that you say "I dont care what Dawkins talks about or what you talk about""Dawkins just simply talks of ONE idea of "GOd" - he either doesnt care.. or as I suspect doesnt get the other ideas... and in that sense in my view he is kind of irrelevant to debate on!"

Ummmmm well this is a debate on Dawkins' views so I should think discussion of his views is highly relevant, no?! Especially as he is the bestselling author and Oxford Professor, and not you.

"I DECIDE MY TOPIC "

ummmm then why not start your own forum?

...P.S shouting is rather rude...

My personal favourite is how you hold science in such high contempt "Well that is NONSENSE" "THAT IS WHY.. Modern Science is so polluting.. ""So, dont care to describe the "GREATNESS" of Science to me.. "

heheheh well, umm, I presume you are using a computer to present your thoughts in this forum heheheh! Do computers grow on trees? Are there computer trees where you come from? Heheheheheh You don't use any form of transport apart from your own legs or those of an animal? You wear animalskin only, fashioned with your own bare hands? Hhehehehehehehe You live in some mud/straw/wood/animalskin hut?? Heheheh I can imagine it now.

For someone with an MBA, you're not too intelligent are you?

Thank You Thank You Desh!! It's been fun.

Ciao Ciao.

It would be better if we follow the secular world view of Dalai Lama.

"L you are quite a patronizing guy.. "

ummm I haven't had a sex change recently as far as I'm aware! Exactly who is jumping to conclusions now?

Yes, I like a lot of what the Dalai Lama says, Buddhism is very tolerant. If find those who believe in God to be less so :o)

One mans definitions of two words. C.G Jung

Consciousness: When one reflects upon what consciousness really is, one is profoundly impressed by the extreme wonder of the fact that an event which takes place outside in the cosmos simultaneously produces an internal image, that it takes place, so to speak, inside as well, which is to say: becomes conscious.

For indeed our consciousness does not create itself-it wells up from unknown depths. In childhood it awakens gradually, and all through life it wakes each morning out of the depths of sleep from an unconscious position. It is a like a child that is born daily out of the primordial womb of the unconscious.

.

God-image(imago Dei): It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us, but we are unable to distinguish whether these actions emanate from God or from the unconscious. We cannot tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities. Both are border-line concepts for transcendental contents. But empirically it can be established, with a sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness which manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc., and a tendency, independent of the conscious will, to relate other archetypes to this center. Consequently, it does not seem improbable that the archetype produces a symbolism which has always characterised and expressed the Deity...The God image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with a special content of it, namely the archetype of the self. It is this archetype from which we can no longer distinguish the God-image empirically.
One can, then, explain the God-image...as a reflection of the self, or, conversely, explain the self as an imago Gei in man.

From(Psychology and Religion: West and East)

Typo-(image Dei), last line, my bad!

And a definition, especially for "L"...C.G. Jung

Inflation: Expansion of the personality beyond it's proper limits by identification with the persona or with an archetype. It produces an exaggerated sense of one's self-importance and is usually compensated for by feelings of inferiority.

If the shoe fits...

L,

U tell them, L. Y do we need someone to tell us about their MBA or BS (as bull s..t) to qualify their bs? hehehehe! hahaha! Whee, whee! hoe!

My interpretation: God is a human construct

I Thank You!

I don't believe in God, why would I think that I am God? Hheheehehe!

You Funny!

L:

I like that you are having fun here.. I am having some fun too... here is what you say:

"The argument goes as follows: Quantum mechanics, that brilliantly successful flagship theory of modern science, is deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Eastern mystics have always been deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Therefore, Eastern mystics must have been talking about quantum theory all along."

Now, I am not sure about you.. but I do understand very clearly of what I read of the Eastern mysticism.. but I rather get amused by your logic:

I dont understand A.. and I dont understand B.. so whoever is saying that A does not equal B.. must be talking nonsense!

I am using a computer for sure.. but I dont revel in the modern science saying it is the best thing to happen to mankind... unfortunately we are stuck with it.

Yes, what I dont have at the moment is the moral strength to get away from it all... but I do realize the mess I am creating in this world. Your problem is that you dont even know that. I wonder if you find that tragic or hillarious!

And lastly, credentials of Dawkins' college are not something that make me or anyone else any lesser.. and as far as best sellers go.. well that is not a very scientific way to gauge the greatness of one's arguments anyways...

.. and I dont believe the main topic here is Dawkins.. it is the argument of God vs Science.. now.. that explains my contention "Knowledge is an ESTIMATION of the Truth".. everyone .. like an asshole has it.. and none have it right.

You can laugh and I would encourage that.. because it can at the very least help your health!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Anyhooo the God archetype is actually representing our need to comprehend the universe, to give a meaning to all that happens, to see it all as having some purpose and direction.

Still a delusion though :o)

Typo:

"so whoever is saying that A does not equal B.. must be talking nonsense!"

should have been A does equal B..

Diablo: I was narrating an incident.. you choose to interprete it in your own way by reading just ONE line out of my entire post.. its not my vanity but your insecurity that you establish!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Desh -

How's the loincloth? Do hope it's not too itchy. You are incapable of rational discussion and resort to insults and shouting, thus I choose not to have any further discussion with you.

Goodbye.

Insecurity, what insecurity?

All things are relative, dude! dont need to know about letters behind your name... that is weak stuff, dude...hehehe! you can show your stuff without qualifying it with MBA or NBA of BBS...hahaha... hoe, hoe, hoe, hoe! wheehe! Are we havin' fun yet?

You know what? guys,
In The Netherlands, the dutch are, famous, for,
and proud of, for saying it, as (they think) it is, what's on their..
mind, and all,

In Polish dictonary.. it is considered rude, unthoughtfull, unconsidered.. unpolite.. not dilligent..

But the joke is..

in academic cyrcles, they have a 1001 points of
critics, when you.. but when in medical, cases, they have a recipy, written, before you have, told your story,

That's my truth.. seriously..

I'm gona kick some Dutch medical ass, American way, in legal style, 5 cases interwined,

funny.., they've lost.. before..

but it's more an insurance case, than. Ego's

still, the time, stress, amount of.. is gonna cost them..Injustice.. No Mercy! F#@$ 'em,

(I always get a bit emotional.., flying into new legal spaces, so don't sue me..;)

Keep ya posted, I think I'll put up a website with the legal correspondence, just for..the..
Heck! fun of it, they'll know my signature,

those morons, med and psych dumbo's!

I take my cases, on-line, just for the
edu-tainement value..

of..
Love Passion, and goodnight,

need a song..

Lay your head on my pillow
Here you can be yourself
No one has to know what you are feeling
No one but me and you

I won't tell your secrets
Your secrets are safe with me
I will keep your secrets
Just think of me as the pages in your diary

I feel such a connection
Even when you far away
Oooo baby if there's anything that you fear
Call 489-4608 and I'll be here

I won't tell your secrets
Your secrets are safe with me
I will keep your secrets
Just think of me as the pages in your diary

And only we know what talked about baby boy
Don't know how you can be driven me so crazy boy
Baby when your in town why don't you come around boy
Be the loyalty you need you can trust boy

I won't tell your secrets
Your secrets are safe with me
I will keep your secrets
Just think of me as the pages in your diary
~ Diary Lyrics - Alicia Keys
;)
Buzka, dobranoc,
marek,

Soul: If the human soul is anything, it must be of un-imaginable complexity and diversity, so that it cannot possibly be approached through a mere psychology of instinct. I can only gaze with wonder and awe at the depths and heights of our psychic nature. Its non-spatial universe conceals an untold abundance of images which have accumulated over millions of years of living development and become fixed in the organism. My consciousness is like an eye that penetrates to the most distant spaces, yet it is the psychic non-ego that fills them with nonspatial images. And these images are not pale shadows, but tremenduously powerful psychic factors...Beside this picture I would like to place the spectacle of the starry heavens at night, for only the equivalent of the universe within is the universe without; and just as I reach this world through the medium of the body, so I reach that world through the medium of the psyche.
(Freud and Psychoanalysis)

It would be blasphemy to assert that God can manifest Himself everywhere save only in the human soul. Indeed the very intimacy of the relationship between God and the soul automatically precludes any devaluation of the latter. It would be going perhaps to far to speak of an affinity; but at all events the soul must contain in itself the faculty of relation to God, i.e. a correspondance, otherwise a connection could never come about. This correspondance is, in psychological terms, the archetype of the God-image.
(Psychology and Alchemy)

Spiritual experience and scientific observation depend on the existence of consciousness. If nothing is known then...

I have had profound spiritual experiences throughout my life and know that there is a real process of spiritual transformation that is valuable to me. I do not need to prove the value of these experiences to anyone, nor do I need to tie them to a definition of God to validate them.

It seems to me that both spiritual and scientific exploration of life are valid without reference to any external authority. Both sides of the "debate" seem to be engaged in a struggle to validate their point of view and achieve superiority and they use the proposition that an external authority validates their position. Religion posits authority in God, science posits authority in matter, both attributions of authority are subjective (based on self reflective consciousness). Neither attribution of authority changes the experienced reality of spiritual or scientific ways of exploring life.

Attribution of authority is only important to the people who have something to gain or loose, I don't, so it means nothing to me personally. I am only concerned with this type of debate when someone else uses their "truth" to damage my ability to trust and express my own, everchanging, point of view. When religion or science is used for suppression then I object, otherwise, debate as you feel inclined.

"Religion posits authority in God, science posits authority in matter, both attributions of authority are subjective (based on self reflective consciousness)."

I don't understand. So it is the same thing if I imagine slapping you and if I actually slap you?

"When religion or science is used for suppression then I object, otherwise, debate as you feel inclined."

I agree. That is the whole point of monotheistic religions is blind faith, they demand compliance to the holy scripture and strongly encourage their followers to demand the same. What about suicide bombers? Anti-abortion campaigners killing doctors and their bodyguards? The crusades? The spread of AIDS? Protection of paedophile priests?

On the other hand science is all about debate and furthering human knowledge. Does that sound like supression to you?

Post 145 is leans toward realty, post 144 is pure bibberish. hoe, hi yo, man! dont shoot me!

Sometimes, to make a new paradigm, ya just gotta take those old ideas apart and try and figure out what makes them tick.
Now to me the notion of a metaphorical god would most likely refer to an existence of god only as a construct of human intelligence, an idea in people's thinking, that otherwise does not exist in any other way.
A Universalist God, on the other hand, is a lot more than that. Aquinas would have no trouble classifying it as supernatural: interaction with it is possible, even if its not anthropomorphic. It is something more, however, than just an idea people think about - its an actual force in the universe.
In the old paradigm, one is either atheistic or theistic. As ideas about the possibilities surrounding the God idea (or hypothesis if you prefer) have matured and variegated over time, a general tendency seems to be developing in new ideas which take us further and further away from the old standard dichotomy. This is encouraged nowadays by a renewed intellectual interest in the "universalist-type" ideas of the Far East. In other words, on what is hopefully the cutting edge of the evolution of spiritual thought, persons interested in the prospects of a new paradigm are slowly developing a Syntheistic body of thought, a host of new ideas about the nature of God that don't easily fall within the parameters of the old constructs.
To try and state this differently, Aquinas divided his universe into two realms - the Natural and the Supernatural. Into the realm of the supernatural fit neatly God and into the realm of the natural went humans. Into one bin the physical/empirical and into the other the spiritual/mystic. As frequently expressed lately here, science and religion fell into separate bins, thus "one cannot prove scientifically" that God exists, etc. etc. This is standard fare under the old paradigm and those who subscribe to it have probably done their library reading well. The new paradigm idea, however, may turn out not to be so interested in creating arbitrary realms of division. For some who blog here regularly, what Aquinas would separate into mutually exclusive catagories can happily co-exist as elements of the same reality. For example, one might ask not IF "miracles" exist but rather HOW, and any notion of science as something that is unable to address that question is, well, perhaps just a weak notion of what science might be capable of, if freed from the constraints of these old habits of thought, which preclude possibilities without any actual manifest effort to explore them.
For me, there is not a lot of difference in mentally living in a mindset from the Dark Ages on one side of the theist-atheist dichotomy or the other. Dawkins and crew are as antiquated and essientially irrelevant to the future as any churchly hierarchy they rail away at.
So go ahead and charge me with "Intellectual High Treason" and call your Thought Police out to dog me down. I'm not running. If you newcomers just want some christains, or muslims, or jews or whatever to throw to the lions, then TAKE ME FIRST.
Or you may prefer to hang out for awhile and join in the ongoing effort. You see some weak points in the new construct? Help us strengthen them. Act like its important. The road you are on now goes nowhere you want to be.

Dear All

People who object to Science say that it had ruined mankind with pollution, weapons of mass destructions, wrought diseases etc and that it created more problems than solutions. It has to be noted that traditionally it is the practices of humans following Religions, Political ideologies, Capitalist economies etc which used (misused) Science to create these problems.

It is not Science which is accountable; it is the practices of humanity which misuses it.

So how can we not misuse science and there by aspire for a peaceful world?

For example, Richard Dawkins advocates reason (with science) and shuns religious beliefs. Deepak Chopra advocates spirituality (with science) and allows religious beliefs.

(Bear in mind most people of religions are not spiritual in practice. If they were there would only be peace in our world.)

It would be ideal if both non-believers and believers practice love, peace and tolerance.

That is ultimately the practical aim of spirituality or that of humanism.

So the humanistic, rationalistic world view which advocate science and reason and spiritualistic world view which desires to integrate all religions aim for the same values in practice.

Ultimately they aspire for world peace and a world where free-thinking is encouraged to choose whatever path that encourages more harmony and more free thinking.

Dawkins and Chopra stand for the same practical ends; their paths are different. The question arises how practical are these paths?

That would be an interesting debate. Theological debate about God, its definition, existence etc goes nowhere. Deepak Chopra should know that better being a spiritualist. Philosophical debates run into nonsensical terms at times. (Remember the duality and non-duality debate which goes on for ever?)

So what can one do practically for a peaceful world where free-thinking is encouraged?

Would being a rationalist and an atheist encourage a better world as Dawkins argues towards the end of his book? Can the people following their religions bring about this change as Deepak Chopra hopes?

The secular world view of Dalai Lama which advocates respect for the views of both believers and non-believers can be a practical solution. Spiritualists like Deepak Chopra should practice this secular view even IF atheists like Dawkins don’t. In this aspect I feel wee bit let down by Deepak Chopra. The moral high ground of a practicing spiritualist is lost in this theological debate with a non-believer.

love, Heather

Desh,
i liked ur comment 107... i think spirituality and science can go hand in hand....

it seems that (as mentioned in earlier posts) that dawkins' is talking about a personal/biblical god vs science... for which i think he can gather a lot of convincing evidence...(not read the book yet though, so cant say what he wrote)

but deepak chopra is talking about a non-personal god, which is harder for science to refute and i think eventually some-day they can even prove...

L,
I think we shoud start using the term personal/biblical God or non-personal God to distinguish... coz i think the term God itself is pretty broad so it is getting confusing like in some of ur earlier posts too.. i dunno if ppl got tht u meant biblical god, where u just used the term God.

148 isn't me

This is me, and this is what I feel about this debate:

The debate's content: I'd rather read serious stuff like Rahul P's reporting on difficult realities. The lightweight ego wrestling over abstractions and terminology going on here is pretty boring for the most part. Sorry guys, but it's true. Nimita's comments are honest and clear, Keith's and Desh's comments have an inner weight that excludes them from being boring, and Marek's punctuations insert humor and heart into these threads. There may be good stuff in the CTO comments, but I don't read them so I'm not including them. If I want to read HuffPo stuff, I'll go there on my own. Someone pasting HuffPo stuff into muultiple IB comments is not part of a debate, it's an attack.

The basic question: I agree with Deepak that science and God are not mutually exclusive. I've read some Dawkins, and from a science point of view, think he's brilliant. I've read some Deepak Chopra, and from a spiritual point of view, think he's brilliant. The task Deepak has set himself, of trying to prove by argument something unprovable to someone who does not believe in anything unless it's provable, is impossible. The only thing Deepak can be successful at with Dawkins is introducing doubt into Dawkins' mind about Dawkins' denial of God's existence. Generally speaking, anyone who denies the possibility of existence of something it's impossible to either prove or disprove at this monent -- like God -- is trying to justify and excuse his or he own experiential ignorance. This is what Dawkins is doing. He uses his valid scientific accomplishments in an attempt to give weight to his arguments, trying to justify his personal disbelief in God. This is what peeves Deepak so much - that Dawkins doesn't play fair. Many commenters here who are hanging on the Dawkins side are doing exactly the same, except they're hiding behind someone else's wall while throwing stones at Deepak, who's not hiding at all. At least Deepak and Dawkins have personal courage. One is right, the other is currently close-minded, but at least they're not hiding behind other people.

love, Heath

Science is really fun. It is playing with God, calling it inert matter and natural laws.

Who can respect something that is 'invisible' and doesn't exercise his power?

Dawkins exercises his power of consciousness to control reality. He is powerful. Look at what he can perceive!

The power of momentary consciousness, a human life, adding up to nothing in the end.

Such is the depth of playing with God as inert matter. It is like he was never conscious in the first place.

After all, consciousness is all we have. So we can move around some molecules and perceive mathematically precise theory. We control reality, not someone else.

And then we die. The truth of our consciousness never realized. But we perceived some meaning while we were here.

Bravo!

Nimita;

Thanks! I agree with you. But I also like the way Dr. Chopra handles this saying that his definition of God is also limited and does not have a Universality about it, if you will. Here's what he says:

"But God isn't a person in any strain of Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism, the branch of Hinduism known as Vedanta, and many denominations of Christianity--he's not a person in the Gospel of John in the New Testament."

There is one major thing that I have observed - which is the difference between Vedanta and other religions that Deepak has cited...

... while in Abrahamic religions, the followers "extrapolate" what this non-personal God does or thinks and thereby reducing "Him" to a person in his basic characteristics though without form...

.... Vedanta often describes it as Unknowable or beyond knowledge and only an experience...

So in that sense, I would tend to argue that biblical God and that in Islam and Judaism may not be very different.. he is different only in nuance!

Until we approach God as a question mark - not understood, I feel in the basic sense Scientists and the Spiritualists are talking the same thing.

The main issue is however as I would argue the basic approach and construct of the path of science like Deepak puts it also:

"Science can explain Nature without any help from supernatural causes like God. There is no need for a Creator."

The Modern Science for some reason did start with the assumption that Science was an Anti-thesis of God because they could only fathom God as a biblical god.

But that is not the only way to approach Scientific exploration.. I do tend to believe that Vedic Scientists went the other way.. to "Get" to God through understanding the Science behind nature and the world! Thinking, probably, that if they could understand nature and this world in its logical sense.... then they could fathom God better!

There lies the entire difference!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Another thing - the "biblical God vs Science" scientists somehow do not get the basic verity that Involution and Evolution go hand in hand.

The question is Darwin was looking at 'Living Beings" and creatures when he postulated his theory.. is what he said aboutthe creatures also true of the stars and the other parts of Universe? Was darwin talking only about the evolution of the creatures or of the creation itself? Somehow, I believe, that the Scientists tend to create a Halo Effect of the Darwin's Theory about the creatures to cover the Universe in general too!!

When an apple seed grows to be an apple tree - the wiring or the "Intelligence" to help it along its way in its evolution was encoded in the seed... how does the seed "know" it has to grow to become an Apple tree and NOT an Orange tree? DNA/genetics etc are a manifestation of an "Intelligence".. .and Intelligence that somehow works to keep a balance!

Every great Saint and Prophet has come proclaiming they have learnt from the past "mistakes" and hereby they show a new path that will turn the mankind around.. did it ever?

Great Scientists came promising to bring to the mankind the greatest progress.. has it really progressed?

Great statesman came promising to take the world to greater peace and aerguing to learn from past "mistakes" and not to have more wars.. have they succeeded?

What is it that despite our Knowledge of our past - and deep, well educated one at that - cannot stop us from the same mistakes as our forefathers made? The pendulum of balance and inevitability, if you will, keep swinging from one end to another without regards to the nature or the results..

... the swinging of this pendulum is the Intelligence... that OVERRIDES the combined Knowledge, Power and Greatness of all the Scientists, Religious Fountainheads, and Statesmen (and women) COMBINED!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Heather: You know I hate being a bore, sorry.
I got carried away with the idea of "Christian Apologist".

Ron: Just a fyi, since you seem to be concerned about it...
I would be proud of my kids if they earned "A's"
in their science courses(any class, actually).
I will allow them to make up their own minds on
the God issues, I attempt to tell them both sides of this story when they ask the "tough" questions.

They know what love is, it has meaning for them.
Good social qualities and good manners are important
and education is the #1 priority 'round here.
My daughter is 11 and the boys...you know...
curious, but they pay little attention to a girls "feelings".
My work is cut out for me, she's a cutie...and friendly.

I understand your concern over religious education.
I wonder if you are a teacher, perhaps?
No worries mate!
Love...being peace-makers, good citizens, yeah...
we are raising the future's hopes.
We must take care of our own.
Take care and don't worry, be happy!

Dear Keith

So sorry you're not able to toe that line. Innately impossible, I'd say.

love, Heath

L,

I know that you just keep on repeating yourself and I think I understand what your perspective is like but it seems to me you don’t understand exactly what I am saying so I am going to try to explain it in a slightly different way this time.

Imagine that we’re on a desert island in the middle of nowhere and we don’t know anything about what’s outside of that desert island – it’s completely unknown to us. Some people would say, we’ve studied this island and we believe that the rest of the world must be exactly like things are on this island. Other people would say my intuition is often right and it tells me that the world out there is somewhat different from what it is believed to be here.

In this example, a wise person would say that you can’t make accurate predictions about the unknown because it is simply unknown. It may have nothing to do with what we know. If we have any idea about what the unknown is like or isn’t like that cannot be proven, we simply have to conclude that we don’t know. That includes the atheist’s perspective because he cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is right.

The idea of the unknown can be scary so many people find it hard to admit that they don’t know if God exist or not. Let’s be open-minded and admit that anything could be possible, God could exist in whatever form or he could simply not exist. All speculations could be right. We simply don’t know. People can choose to believe or not believe - in the end they’re all beliefs to make us feel better. The atheist feels better because he’s convinced himself perhaps that his belief makes him feel more in control or intelligent. We cannot prove if the atheist is right or not because, scientifically and logically speaking, we simply don’t know.

L,

One last thing, you wrote:

“No I can't think of any examples where I do [make assumptions in life based on feelings]. I calculate probabilities based on evidence and act accordingly. Emotive subjects such as love fear are totally different to actually saying a specific higher being i.e. God exists. “

What did you think about my example about ‘free will’? It's not an emotive subject about love or fear - it’s an existential question.

Everything in your life, every thought and every move you make including questioning if you have ‘free will’, could be predetermined. You cannot “calculate probabilities based on evidence and act accordingly” when you make assumptions about having ‘free will’. If you choose to believe in free will it is perhaps because it makes you feel better because it gives your life more meaning. That assumption is made on feelings not evidence because you cannot prove that you have ‘free will’ or that everything in your life isn’t predetermined.

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Still going at it, I see.

L, quotes S. Weinberg from (God Delusion Part 1), "Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal

See, Steven Weinberg actually knows, exactly, what God is, he just doesn't realize that he knows.

If you can't find God in a lump of coal, well I quess you ain't going to find God anywhere.

have a great day..peace ruth

Dear Deepak

This debate is dragging into a popularity contest between the personalities. People seem to be taking sides and reacting emotionally. They are straying away from the particulars of the argument in the debate. Please address this point in your next post otherwise there could be not much meaningful debate in your threads.

Clay

God vs. Science, a Time Magazine Debate

“We revere faith and scientific progress, hunger for miracles and for MRIs. But are the worldviews compatible? TIME convenes a debate.”

This debate can be found at:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

Lively debate between Dr. Collins and Dr. Dawkins.

It would be more appropriate if Deepak Chopra has one such civilized debate with Dawkins in person.

Many of the points raised here in this thread are covered in the debate.

Here are the last exchanges in that debate:

COLLINS: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn't able to provide about the natural world--the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I'm interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

“A religion that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by traditional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.”
Carl Sagan

Dear Keith,

You affirm:-

"Ron: Just a fyi, since you seem to be concerned about it...

I would be proud of my kids if they earned "A's"
in their science courses(any class, actually).

I will allow them to make up their own minds on
the God issues, I attempt to tell them both sides of this story when they ask the "tough" questions."

Dear Keith,

What do you mean by "both sides of this story"?

If you refer to the appearnance of life on earth, there is only one way. "Both" cannot be right! So, can you please explain!

Regards...

Still going . . .

K. Maybe one day we will scientifically discover God, like, we will locate his exact morphic 'frequency,' universally tune in, and then whammo, we will then be little (physical) godlings: whoo-hoo.

Or, as people like Michael D. Evans are expecting, one day "Realize, also, if that [The Rapture] happened today, it would take our president. Who else would it take? How many members of the Senate? The House? How many judges? How many governors? How many mayors and city council members? How many firemen and policemen? How many military personnel? How many teachers and college professors? How many presidents and CEOs of companies? How many of our national leaders would disappear in a day?" And of course, "What would happen to our economy on such a day?"
(256-7: The American Prophecies, 2004).

Watch out people, these uber-Zionists are crazy, and they demand nothing less than unconditional support for Israel, and yet of course the last thing they actually want to do is rebuild the Temple, b/c then they would have nothing else to do than clamor for more laws & wars!

And of course; "The Bush administration is preparing its largest spending request yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proposal that could make the conflict the most expensive since World War II."
http://[DELINKER]www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-16-iraq-costs_x.htm

Peace

L,

You made another interesting point in post #104:

“…anything is possible. but so is thor, zeus, the flying spaghetti monster, the hubu monster, fairies etc etc. why is the probability of these beings existing any different to the probability of God existing? it isn't!”

In a way your argument is sound but it’s also unfair. What’s unfair about this argument is that there seems to be no value in believing in the “flying spaghetti monster” while there are millions, if not billions, who find that religion gives added value to their lives. So one could argue that it makes more sense to believe in a religion than to believe in the ‘spaghetti monster’.

It seems one of the biggest problems with “The God Delusion”, which most of the reviews of the book I have read pick on, is that Dawkins is being very subjective and one-sided when he critisizes religion and claims that it's detrimental to society.

Dawkins even writes at one point: “I’m inclined to suspect, that there are very few atheists in prison.” What’s truly shocking is that he makes this absurd speculation without giving any hard figures to back it up.

Just because a small minority of religious fundamentalism have proved to be dangerous, it doesn’t mean that religion is bad. It could be argued that if religions didn’t exist, fundamentalists would find other ways of misinterpreting things and projecting their fears onto other people. The problem violent fundamentalists have is of a psychological nature. I can’t believe that the vast majority of religious people are more dangerous than atheists. But then again I’m speculating here as well! This debate will go on forever because it’s almost impossible to take an objective view of the benefits of religion. I hope, though, that we can all agree on the fact that Dawkins is very subjective when he talks about religion.

O yes! The great FSM does provide meaning! Pastafarians shall gorge themselves, free of charge, on spaghetti and meatballs for all eternity, and never grow fat!
http://[DELINKER]www.venganza.org/

O yeah!

Believers may liberally demonize the atheistic Dawkins for being snobbish but that doesn’t add legitimacy to Deepak Chopra’s criticism which is filled with bullet holes full of loopholes within a laughable cache of clichéd arguments making a lot of noise,imagining blowing a truth trumpet but proving nothing, except the inherent ineptness to participate in a decent debate.

I find it rather odd that a man could write all this %&#&, and not even bother to respond, at any point, to the responders. I find this rather unusual and bizarre. What's his point, anyway? Does he actually read any of this stuff?

A Guru in Disgrace, a poem

GOD IS HIS EQUAL

the guru preaches
his distorted
views of the world,
including God,
to everyone.

the ones with
lesser intelligence
buy whatever he
sells.

but the ones even with
some commonsense
don't tolerate his
nonsense.

they ask him questions.
he answers to no one
but keeps on preaching
further his nonsense.

He only talks with God --
his equal -- 3 hours a
day in deep meditation.

and always shows his
bitterness exposing further his
foolishness to people like
Myers and Dawkins.

~white wings

BY

Did any of you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? It makes all these discussions unnecessary, especially since the guy who wrote the critique of this wonderful read does not address your challenges.

But these exchanges are fun to read, so please keep it up!
But not for too long, the “Grey Cup” kicks off in this Country in less that an hour!

Sorry Ron, you already posted something similar!

Ron, dude...
You don't answer questions I ask, and I think you are lookin' in the wrong place for buyers.

Dave told me once, after our first confrontation,
that you were a gentleman among few around here.

That's part of the confusion, for me, about why you,
Skeptisch, Amba, Alex, L, CTO, choose(???) to post here.

My kids know...that in this country, the citizens have the freedom
and the "right" to believe and practice religious "concepts",
according to their preferences(or faith cells).

Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Music, Visual Arts...
these are the sciences of life, the "humanities",
and it's all about therapy, or well-being.

We don't know which is the most effective, as of yet.
In "A Brave New World", we just pop a pill that science
researched, and then a salesman lobbies in the doctor's office,
and the doc gives you the "latest" breakthrough!

Everything we need to kill off our species is now at our disposal,
thanks to scientist, and their "methods".

Ethics, morals, proper social behavior, charity...
none of these are necessary in "your" world,
a world where evolution luckily fixes everything,
for no real reason, or tangible goal, being simply
a "blind" force forging ahead it's genetic mutations
and intelligent genocide of the weakest.

And you wish to call that something other than a "story"?

You know what I mean by "two sides to every story",
so why did you ask anyway?

You tell me(us) what you are doing here, and why
you choose to stick around(your intentions),
and I'll write a dissertation of my opinions
on the reality of duality, or Janis, a coin(god) with two sides.

Such a kidder...you are, and I hold you to that "gentleman" remark.

The regulars here already know me,
cuz I'm foolish enough to spill.
What did you miss?

Keith,

I am sorry if you were unable to get my point, i.e., the grander picture. But take heart, pal, you are not alone. The world is full of people like you.

It is clear that the view of the universe, shared by a handful us in this forum, might not necessarily be the same as those to which most of you subscribe. That's alright, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to see the order of things the same way.

I regret if you took offense to any of my assertions when none was intended. With that, have a great life, Keith.

Cheers.

Two sides to the story:-

For some, the universe is 6,000 years old.

The 'Garden of Eden' is where human life began. Adam & Eve were the first people on earth. They had only male offspring. Their god told them to procreate and populate the world, incestuously.

But the first woman was created as an after-thought. Though their offspring were all male, they were still able to propagate the species.
So, we are all related regardless of any thing else. So says the Bible.

After Adam, came Eve. They had Cane and Abel. Population doubled. Now there are 4 people on Earth. After Cane slew his brother, population reduced to 3.

Then killer Cane left the Garden, leaving an empty nest. Imagine 3 people on the Earth.
Cane then went to the City of Nad where he met his wife! Magic.

Adam and Eve were the first authors on Earth. They recorded all this stuff for us to understand. Wow!

Evolution is a myth. Those who hold this view are arrogant, ignorant and blasphemous.
There was this flood when god was angry at the sinners of the world.

He punished them. But he saved all species, in pairs, tigers, giraffes, lions, hyenas, dinosaurs, elephants, cows, horses, hypos, donkeys, camels, anacondas, monkeys, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, crocodiles, alligators, gnus, mules, all related species, millions of them.

He also loaded the Ark with hundreds of thousands of food to feed the hungry animals: meats, hay, rats, cockroaches, spiders, ants, killer bees, centipedes, worms, gofers etc.

And Noah and family put up with the stench for 40 days and 40 nights. Then the water receded and the land dried out and the trees and grass instantly grew back to feed the lucky ones. The landscape was full of corpes that had perished but the lucky ones lived amongst the wasteland.

This, folks, is reality. Not science, not evolution.

Evolution never happened. It’s just a myth. There is no fossil record to show that there are species now long extinct. All things on earth were created when god snapped his finger.

Scientists are dreamers. The Earth is 6,000 years old. Just as O.J. Simpson was not the killer of Ron and Nicole.

Man never lived amongst the other animals in the wild, in trees, in caves. We have always had TVs, radios, computers, automobiles, airplanes, telephones.

The stone age, Iron Age, Bronze Age is all myths. We have always sped down freeways, rode on ships, read books. None of this happened because of science.

Jesus, Mohammad, Guru Nanak, Confucius and Siddhartha Gautam were all prophets; not men. God inspired man to write the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita etc.

There are two truths to our origin. We must tell the two sides of the story to our children so that they can choose for themselves. After all, this is America, a free country.

Nicely done Ron.

The sad thing is, if a parent or a person of authority like a teacher, president, priest, pastor or parent tells this story to a child, it will believe it.

In later life a human being may alter his or her perception of the “truth” somewhat, but the seed that there probably is something supernatural in the Universe has been planted and it will take a lot to convince anybody that there may not be anything of that sort at all!

Deepak Chopra claimed that PEAR lab results supported his religious ideas. Jeffrey Shallit reports that PEAR is closing after 27 years of embarrassing futility:

The PEAR Has Finally Rotted

From the November 8 Princeton Alumni Weekly comes the welcome news that PEAR, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory, is closing.

Don't be fooled by the fancy name. "Engineering Anomalies" is just a fancy name for good-old-fashioned parapsychology. PEAR's director, Robert Jahn, has been trying to show psychic phenomena are real ever since I was an undergraduate. But with funding reportedly drying up on his unsuccessful efforts, PEAR could no longer be sustained.

PEAR has been an embarrassment to Princeton alumni since day one. Jahn and colleagues never succeeded in demonstrating any significant effect; even the strongest results they claimed were on the order of an 0.2% advantage in coin flipping. And to my knowledge no one has succeeded in replicating their results. Jahn claims "it has been the most personally stimulating and rewarding intellectual activity I've ever been involved in". Pitiful.

Jeffrey

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2006/11/pear-has-finally-rotted.html

http://skepdic.com/pear.html

princeton.edu/~paw/

Ron,

The great and all-knowing and all-powerful FSM declares that you are evil; therefore, for all eternity--no garlic bread for you.

The Lord Parmesan shall ill tolerate your unfaithfulness any longer!

(Uh . . ., would that be red wine or white sir) . . .

(see what you hath done white wings, now they have to preview our posts again: woe unto thee!)

Peace all

Skep,

Congratulations on the Lions winning the Grey Cup this afternoon! You got it right again, my friend, just like the opinions you regularly assert and proffer here.

Indeed, the seed of fantasy is deeply rooted in the fabric of our culture, thus, allowing liberty to some blue-collar dilettantes to blow off rubbish with apparent angry convictions!

Regards...

Keith: I see you've found yourself in Socratic Dialogue with my buddies, and dear friends, Ron and/or Skeptisch--whooo.....Keith, find me as much of a loon as anyone here--but....like Norm, they still tolerate me, if not "love me as a brother," anyway!!!---as do you!

But...I would remind you all that there are indeed "three sides to every coin," as is shown about life in this apparently three-dimensional world (with time being thought of as the fourth dimension---at times!!!, and 'from within time's framework'), and as Buddha pointed out with his "middle road--the narrow middle path."

If you do not believe me, and need evidenciary proof, then a little balance will help---that is to say, just find a level bar-counter, and even, if not especially after your nerves are more relaxed from a few beers after a "long hot one"--and balance a quarter on it's "third side"--how do you choose up sides on a round planet?!

And another one for you Keith--required reading at Ramtha's school also, like "Nine Faces....." and "The L&T of The Masters of the Far East"---I'm quoting an interesting tidbit of astrological truth for those who find "co-incidence," (a geometry term as well as....) in the following fact, which I request anyone to Dis-Prove as being true:

"You will have to wait many earthly years in anonymity, unknown to the world. Then will come the Time when the Star appears while Saturn is in conjunction with Jupiter, in the sign of Taurus. The Cosmic Gate, which admits only Him Who Is Sent, will open. Only Hermes Trismegistus, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Lao-tze, Zoroaster, Mohammed, and Christ have entered through this Gate: now someone will follow them...." Page 375, from the epic masterpiece known as "The Red Lion," by Maria Szepes--another one for you Keith--Your Friend, Dave

"From the November 8 Princeton Alumni Weekly comes the welcome news that PEAR, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory, is closing."#178

Lies As Proofs of Life After Death

LIFE AFTER DEATH, PROOF # 2

"Besides the various experiments in telepathy and 'remote viewing,' which are much more credible than skeptics will admit, there is a replicated study from the engineering department at Princeton in which ordinary people could will a computer to generate a certain pattern of numbers. They did this through thought alone, having no contact with the machine itself."

~Deepak Chopra gives proof of life after death scientifically
intentblog.com/archives/2006/11/what_happens_af.html

***
It is concluded that the quoted significance values are meaningless because of defects in the experimental and statistical procedures.

~George P. Hansen, Jessica Utts, Betty Markwick
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm
Originally published in the Journal
of Parapsychology, Vol. 56, No. 2,
June 1992, pp. 97-113.

***

to cite unproven proofs
of psychokinesis
as proofs of afterlife --
misleading and telling lies --
is chicanery in itself
and is punishable for
charlatanism in this life,
and for rotting in hell when
Yama presents the guru's
soul to the maker of life.

~white wings

BY

David, the Great!

Nice to see you checking in with us, friend! Hope all is well with you and loved ones!

You are one of the true gentlemen here whose posts are usually flavored with a fair measure of timely wisdom from which there is always something to learn, much to your credit, sir!

Regards...

David, The Missing Link: Hello!
How are you? Happy Thanksgiving to Patzi and yourself.

What have they done with that cosmic camera that
projects the past right before our eyes, allowing
all of us to see exactly what happened throughout History?

The "Red Lion" will have to wait. The library is taking
practically forever to get me Deepak's book.
That one is next. Whilst I've been waiting I've read one by Dr. Weiss and J. Van Praagh.
So when I see you in the spring, well...
If this is what you go thru you have my sympathy.
My doubts now rest on your visit.

Give me some advance notice, please, when that time comes.
I am anxiously, patiently awaiting this crossing of two paths.

Ron and Skeptish: How did I intuit the truth?
I knew you wouldn't spill, so suspicion reigns.
Why do atheist feel the need to hide "personal" matters?

I'm here to learn and observe, a layman, in all
occupations, except maybe driving a fork-lift or
being a counting clerk.

There are many stories and tales and myths.
Man would not be here now, if indoctrination
had not implanted their memory banks with
rules of behavior.

Anthropology is a scientific endeavor, IMHO.
Why people "do what they do, and believe what they think",
has been an interest of mine since I was a pup.

Mostly, I wish my brain could make a distinction between the facts and truths vs. falsities and lies,
told by humans about their past actions and
current doings.

Unfortunately, I cannot.
Since I wasn't there, or don't remember any past-lives
that would have put me there,
I can't say that I know for sure what happened,
either way or all the many ways possible.

Have a nice day all! Peace, Keith~

This debate is dragging down into silliness with people taking sides on God vs. religion with an attack on science or an attack on Richard Dawkins to support the arguments of Deepak Chopra. No wonder some may have taken the cue from the two posts of Deepak Chopra to discredit his opponent’s views by labeling people, shifting prejudice, baseless argumentation, knee-jerk ego reflexive responses etc.

If I am not mistaken that was the same Gentleman who was ‘offended’ when he had an argument with a lady and since then not had that sibling relation in which the ‘personal’ admirations were openly shared. Oh yes there are infinite sides or perspectives to a story, not just a ‘narrow’ two or three. You can see it in whatever way you ‘choose’ especially if you believe blindly in infinite possibilities of anything and everything. And who I say is sharing their personal life…except a few who aren’t phony and fake behind the facade of a real name. This doesn’t have to do anything with a person of a certain belief system. And yes a person who doesn't have experiences or 'other' mysterious and paranormal experiences but speaks from what he gathered from books and from culture should endeavor to be rational.

Dear Dr Chopra,
I see that you have already moved on to part 3 of this interesting subject. Let me quickly add some comments to this part 2 and hopefully I can catch up to part 3. I have just returned from a trip to the Far-East and must quickly find time to read up on your arguments.
Once again allow me to quote what some have already said better than I. Like I mentioned in part 1 Science if seen as an objective tool does not indeed need a God or Higher Entity to function. If I do agree that it is foolish to think of God(s) as a person there is some ambiguity in your perception of God as giving the universe ‘meaning’ and ‘significance’ and as being some sort of ‘all-pervading intelligence’. These are subjective perceptions of some sort of ‘purpose’ and ‘intention’ which refer more specifically to a human person.
All of this is very close to the Intelligent-Design Hypothesis that has caused much to-do for nothing. Let us focus if you will on the first element of discussion you bring up: that of ‘God not being a Creator standing somewhere outside the universe’. You say; ‘God, if he exists, is universal, existing at all times and places, pervading creation both inside the envelope of space-time and outside it’. This is far from being quite that evident from every point of view. Here is an excerpt from Dominic Dunherst’s “The Man Who Thought He Knew”:

“The Nature of God

‘Without change, there would be no growth, no life, no death _ nothing.’ (in “Confirmation”, page 258, by Khephra Burns and Susan L. Taylor). Time is perpetual change.
We are the children of Time. If Time didn’t exist, neither would we. If time were to ‘stand still’ at this very instant, I would be “frozen” in front of my typewriter forever and ever. I would no longer write, no longer grow, no longer breath, no longer live. The Earth would be an inert chunk of matter forever stopped in its orbit like some sort of ball pinned to a giant blackboard.
If then Life and the universe are in perpetual change, then what has been, can never be again, except perhaps in memory. Therefore if we are reborn after death, it can only be as something different than what we were, by law of change. This doesn’t mean that something of what we experienced here and now or of what we ‘remember’ of now doesn’t follow us elsewhere, but that is another matter.
When we consider our situation as living beings on Earth we are comparable to people on a runaway train that never stops. Every now and then some of us fall off the train and are left behind forever at a station that has an arrival but no departures. The train is called the “Time-Express” its destination is “the Future-Past” and its structure evolves as it catapults onward. Oddly enough every now and then we can see re-appear remnants of those left behind at the whimsy of geological erosion. We call these ‘fossils’.
Time and metamorphosis are one and the same. Nothing really dies or is newly born. Everything merely changes incessantly from one form to another. That is the magic of Time and Nature.
Mountains will rise, others will erode away, continents will drift, divide and collide, oceans will be born others will recede and shrink away. Even diamonds and gold can be melted away, dispersed, broken, and transformed by Mother Nature. ‘Diamonds are forever’ is a human expression that exacerbates the brevity of human life. But on a universal scale not only diamonds, gold, seas, mountains but planets, suns and galaxies are melted compressed, evaporated, recycled into myriads of cosmic forms and substances.
We can comprehend at this stage that there is no change without time and no time without change. We can ask, what came first, time or change? Did time appear at the ‘big bang’? One thing is certain, if time appeared at the ‘big bang’ so did change. And if time existed before then, there must have been change there too, where ever ‘there’ was.
This scientific reflection on the process of time has inferences for religion.
If there is a relation between time and God, and between God and creation, then we can establish certain connections.”
If God exists (in the unique God hypothesis) and if God is timeless (a-temporal or eternal) then God is not of this universe. This world being of change and therefore temporal, an eternal God cannot be of this world.
Secondly, if God is of this world, if He is temporal then God is of change. In other words, God must also follow the laws of change. Whatever the forms, shapes, and matters He may be made of, accumulated or condensed into one ‘bundle’ or not, He must undergo change. He will undergo changes in aging, deterioration, regeneration and so on.
Reciprocally, if we were to become eternal, we would have to be of another world, the one of timelessness because this one is of change and time. In a timeless world, nothing changes, nothing moves, everything is petrified, lifeless (in as much as change and movement are characteristic of life). So such a thing as an eternal Heaven seems of little interest and seems improbable at least in this world.” (End of Quote).
As for the question ‘do we need an all-pervading intelligence to explain the universe?’ and the second world view, I will respond to this in your third part because I have not only taken much space here but I think they pertain more to the third part anyway.

Very Truly Yours,

Maurice Guy

"1. The universe is random...."

Whose theory is this? Is this idea posited in the God Delusion? If so I missed it. I thought Dawkin's belief was that universal evolution was NOT random but the result of incremental change 'guided' by relative success...?