Question for Christians and those Who Believe in a Personal God

[Rational Agnostic]

That is just embarrassingly silly.

You've offered a single, snarky, insulting sentence to attempt refute the decades of work that Dr. Dawkins has dedicated himself to to provide us with brilliant, new, and innovative ways of understanding evolutionary biology. That is embarrassingly silly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You've offered a single, snarky, insulting sentence to attempt refute the decades of work that Dr. Dawkins has dedicated himself to to provide us with brilliant, new, and innovative ways of understanding evolutionary biology.

As for Dawkins, I've read both The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, liked both, the latter more than the former. I appreciate him as an evolutionary biologist but prefer E. O. Wilson and (particularly) Stephen Jay Gould.

But, to canonize him as "one of the greatest scientists of our generation" strikes me as quaint and deeply biased hero worship. The bromance might be more tasteful were it not adorned with so much adulation.

 

[sun rise]

Have you ever thought that it is possible that this relationship could only exist in your imagination, and not in objective reality?

Coming in late since I missed the thread. I've posted this before but a summary:

I started off life as an atheist who over time changed into a believe but not a Christian. During the process I wondered if my new perception was real or not.

I'll also refer you the a PhD biochemist, Sy Garte, on his journey from atheism to belief.

Furthermore, if you are convinced that this god is objectively real and exists outside of your imagination, what are the events that have taken place in your life that have led you to this conclusion, and what demonstrates to you that this god is in fact a real being who answers your prayers and is personally involved in your life on a daily basis, even though others can't see this?

Events? Many. Here's three:

• Hearing Richard Alpert reading Avatar Meher Baba's message on drugs and realizing that what Meher Baba conveyed was exact truth based on my own experience.
• Challenging someone about how Meher Baba could espouse absolute honesty given things like surprise parties and receiving answers which made perfect sense and totally satisfied me.
• Experiencing Meher Baba's sister "flying" passed me saying "I go to God" at the time she died when I had no idea she was even sick.

But a couple of other points: "Answers prayers". There are two kinds of prayers. One is asking for a miracle. I don't ask for miracles. I ask to become more loving. And that kind of asking is not answered in a miracle but helps me remember to try to be more loving/kind/tolerant in every day life.

Personally involved? I'm not a dualist but roughly follow advaita - the understanding that "God" alone is real and our experience of the world is like a dream at night. "waking up" from that "dream" is my goal and I find mantras like "The Divine Beloved is always with you, in you and around you. Know you are not separate from Him." (and) Let these words be inscribed in your heart: Nothing is real but God. Nothing matters but love for God. These two were put together in this song:

 

[Rational Agnostic]

As for Dawkins, I've read both The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, liked both, the latter more than the former. I appreciate him as an evolutionary biologist but prefer E. O. Wilson and (particularly) Stephen Jay Gould.

But, to canonize him as "one of the greatest scientists of our generation" strikes me as quaint and deeply biased hero worship. The bromance might be more tasteful were it not adorned with so much adulation.

I don't worship Dawkins, that would be ridiculous. I do think his idea that natural selection acts at the gene level makes him the most revolutionary evolutionary biologist since Darwin. He's not the smartest scientist in the world in terms of purely quantitative intelligence but he certainly has some of the best and most revolutionary ideas and is also one of the best science communicators in history in my opinion. He also takes a very rational, common sense approach to *all* topics including politics and religion, and uses facts and sound reasoning to back up all of his claims. I suppose that's why many people like to criticize him because they are intimidated by someone who speaks his mind and stands up for the truth.

 

[sun rise]

Personally when it comes to evolutionary biology, I'm an agnostic. I don't have the background to judge who is the best and who is not. I will note that he does not appear on a few lists of evolutionary biologists I checked.

But what is clear is that most evaluate him on his atheism and not on his scientific accomplishments.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't worship Dawkins, that would be ridiculous. I do think his idea that natural selection acts at the gene level makes him the most revolutionary evolutionary biologist since Darwin.

 

[Kenny]

I'm not sure you realize how much evil and suffering exists in the world already. There are people who have suffered unimaginably and lived through hell and all kinds of f**ked up evil things worse than anything you can imagine. Not to mention, the brutal suffering of animals that exists all around the world, where animals have to compete for resources, fight to the death, and starve. 99%+ of species that have ever existed have gone extinct. This seems a lot like a world where a god does not exist to me.

If you look very closely, you will see that all of the above is done by man and not by God.

Remember...

Psalm 115: The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. Can’t blame God for what man has the right to do, build or destroy.

This is another topic--evolution is an established scientific fact whether God exists or not. I can point you to some books that do a great job of explaining the evidence of evolution if you are interested.

I don’t think you read what I said. I didn’t deny evolution but rather “what would happen if there is not God”/

This is an interesting response. It sounds like you are saying that if God did not exist, we would see many of the same results that we have seen throughout history,

Not quite… I said it would be exponentially worse.

and you don't know whether or not you would believe in God in a godless universe or not. I appreciate your honesty on that. But here is my point: If you think that it is possible that you could still be convinced that a god exists in a godless universe, how is the fact that you believe in a god evidence that that belief is in fact correct and that a god does in fact exist in this universe?

First, you were obviously creating a “what if” scenario. The difference is that I know there is a God. I gave you a couple of examples (two of countless). Of course, these were “my experiences” and that won’t convince you.

Think of it this way, let’s say that I experienced a personal miracle and then you said, “There are no miracles”… wouldn’t it be too late for you to tell me that?

No, my friend, I have had too many encounters and manifestations for me to not to know that I am correct.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If you look very closely, you will see that all of the above is done by man and not by God.

Remember...

Psalm 115: The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. Can’t blame God for what man has the right to do, build or destroy.




I don’t think you read what I said. I didn’t deny evolution but rather “what would happen if there is not God”/



Not quite… I said it would be exponentially worse.


First, you were obviously creating a “what if” scenario. The difference is that I know there is a God. I gave you a couple of examples (two of countless). Of course, these were “my experiences” and that won’t convince you.

Think of it this way, let’s say that I experienced a personal miracle and then you said, “There are no miracles”… wouldn’t it be too late for you to tell me that?

No, my friend, I have had too many encounters and manifestations for me to not to know that I am correct.

I'll respond in more detail later, on my phone now and not the computer. I am definitely interested in your experiences, like I said before, peoples experiences with God are intriguing to me and why I don't consider myself a hard-line atheist. Although I don't believe you've actually interacted with God, I am open to the possibility. I think the first question I would ask is if you dismiss others' experiences with other gods, or only believe in the Christian God. For instance, Tom Cruise swears that the scientology god is real and miraculously saved him from his addictions. Cat Stevens swears that he had a personal experience with the Muslim god while almost drowning and converted from Christianity to Islam. Another person who posted in this thread claims to have interacted with some god or divine being that I've never even heard of. Do you believe that these other gods are real or that these people are deluded but you are not deluded? Or do you believe that the people who claim to have had experiences with other gods are being deceived by Satan?

 

[Kenny]

I'll respond in more detail later, on my phone now and not the computer. I am definitely interested in your experiences, like I said before, peoples experiences with God are intriguing to me and why I don't consider myself a hard-line atheist. Although I don't believe you've actually interacted with God, I am open to the possibility. I think the first question I would ask is if you dismiss others' experiences with other gods, or only believe in the Christian God. For instance, Tom Cruise swears that the scientology god is real and miraculously saved him from his addictions. Cat Stevens swears that he had a personal experience with the Muslim god while almost drowning and converted from Christianity to Islam. Another person who posted in this thread claims to have interacted with some god or divine being that I've never even heard of. Do you believe that these other gods are real or that these people are deluded but you are not deluded? Or do you believe that the people who claim to have had experiences with other gods are being deceived by Satan?

Certainly! Spiritual experiences are real no matter who experiences it. (Of course, I am not talking about hallucinations but rather spiritual experiences).

Obviously, this is the Christian perspective. An example: 2 Cor 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. So the spiritual being, Satan, can certainly manifest himself and people could even think he is “God” or an angel of light.

A friend of mine had a beautiful “spiritual guide” - it was very spiritual until he began to want to get rid of her. Then she transformed into a horrific spiritual demon that had possessed part of his body. He went through a deliverance that set him free with the pastor that I was serving at that time.

So, yes, there are people who have spiritual experiences—not deluded even as I am not deluded. The issue, then, is what is truth or who is truth. Satan always tries to imitate God as do his principalities, powers and rulers of darkness et al.

So, your last statement of “ Or do you believe that the people who claim to have had experiences with other gods are being deceived by Satan?” would be my position.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Certainly! Spiritual experiences are real no matter who experiences it. (Of course, I am not talking about hallucinations but rather spiritual experiences).

Obviously, this is the Christian perspective. An example: 2 Cor 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. So the spiritual being, Satan, can certainly manifest himself and people could even think he is “God” or an angel of light.

A friend of mine had a beautiful “spiritual guide” - it was very spiritual until he began to want to get rid of her. Then she transformed into a horrific spiritual demon that had possessed part of his body. He went through a deliverance that set him free with the pastor that I was serving at that time.

So, yes, there are people who have spiritual experiences—not deluded even as I am not deluded. The issue, then, is what is truth or who is truth. Satan always tries to imitate God as do his principalities, powers and rulers of darkness et al.

So, your last statement of “ Or do you believe that the people who claim to have had experiences with other gods are being deceived by Satan?” would be my position.

Thanks for the response. The question I would have at this point is, why should I conclude that you experienced the true god while others who, with just as much sincerity and conviction as you, also believed that they experienced the true god, but that the god they experienced was different than yours. Why should I believe you and not them? Or why should I not dismiss all of them as hallucinations? I'm not trying to be confrontational or dismiss your experiences, I can tell you are a genuine and honest person. But I think that there are many other genuine and honest people who adhere to different religions than you do and would say that you are being deceived in the same way that you say that they are being deceived. At that point, in your view, how do we decide who is correct, who is being deceived, or if all are simply hallucinating? I don't think there is any mechanism to determine this with certainty. I would definitely question the conclusion that there is a single, one, true God that has allowed so much confusion and differing ideas about who he/she/it is. If God were imaginary I would expect that there would be many different views about who God is, since every person could create a separate conception of God in their own imagination. If God were real and wanted a personal relationship with his creations, I would expect that this ambiguity would not exist.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Do you think he is wrong and natural selection does not act on the gene? Or do you not think that that was a revolutionary idea? Please elaborate, I would love to hear your thoughts and analysis.

 

[sun rise]

why should I conclude that you experienced the true god while others who, with just as much sincerity and conviction as you, also believed that they experienced the true god, but that the god they experienced was different than yours.

God is God. Experiences are different. Read or watch "The Blind Men and the Elephant" for a valid metaphor. It's not ambiguity but the reality that our minds cannot experience God's true nature just as an ant cannot experience what it means to be a human. I accept @Kenny 's experiences are utterly valid and his desire to honor and serve Christ as wholly admirable. The woman's experience he describes at satanic would in my frame of reference be malevolent astral entities but the words don't matter - the need for careful discrimination matters.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you think he is wrong and natural selection does not act on the gene?

I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Or do you not think that that was a revolutionary idea?

The Wikipedia entry suggests as much.

Please elaborate, I would love to hear your thoughts and analysis.

I seriously doubt it. I simply find your adulation to be silly and your request for "analysis" even more so.

As for my thoughts:

• "one of the greatest scientists of our generation" is a heady claim. I can't wait to peruse the list of his prestigious awards.
• I remain a Stephen Jay Gould fan. This bias rests on a couple of things: (1) I rather like the dialectical flavor of Punctuated Equilibrium, and (2) I suspect that Gould was a better human being.
• My attitude toward Richard Dawkins is more a response to his anti-religions zealotry and his apparent xenophobia than anything else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He also takes a very rational, common sense approach to *all* topics including politics and religion, and uses facts and sound reasoning to back up all of his claims.

I guess you haven't kept up with him in recent years. He's kind of went off the rails about a decade ago, starting with his comments about "mild pedophilia" and his "Dear Muslima" open letter where he chirped Rebecca Watson for complaining about being hit on at a conference.

He's contributed a lot, but lately, he keeps just doubling down on irrational positions.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

God is God. Experiences are different. Read or watch "The Blind Men and the Elephant" for a valid metaphor. It's not ambiguity but the reality that our minds cannot experience God's true nature just as an ant cannot experience what it means to be a human. I accept @Kenny 's experiences are utterly valid and his desire to honor and serve Christ as wholly admirable. The woman's experience he describes at satanic would in my frame of reference be malevolent astral entities but the words don't matter - the need for careful discrimination matters.

Do you think it is possible for someone to hallucinate an experience of God that is not real? If so, how do you determine which experiences are hallucinations and which experiences are real?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I seriously doubt it. I simply find your adulation to be silly and your request for "analysis" even more so.

As for my thoughts:

• "one of the greatest scientists of our generation" is a heady claim. I can't wait to peruse the list of his prestigious awards.
• I remain a Stephen Jay Gould fan. This bias rests on a couple of things: (1) I rather like the dialectical flavor of Punctuated Equilibrium, and (2) I suspect that Gould was a better human being.
• My attitude toward Richard Dawkins is more a response to his anti-religions zealotry and his apparent xenophobia than anything else.

I definitely would be interested in your analysis if you have some to contribute, I'm not being sarcastic. As far as awards are concerned, I don't think that awards should be used as a metric to judge a scientist's competency or achievements, since they are subjective. But since you asked, he has won the International Cosmos Prize, the Nierenberg Prize, the Royal Society of London Michael Faraday Prize, the Shakespeare Prize, the Lewis Thomas Prize, the Kistler Prize, the Silver for Significant Contribution to the Field of Zoology, and the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic, among others.

As far as how much of evolution is gradual, and how much is fast (and how the division between "fast" and "gradual" is even defined), I don't know enough to comment on that for certain, in terms of specific rates of change or what the average rate of change is, although of course different species evolve at different rates depending on the strength of the selection pressures involved. If there is strong, sudden selection pressure that favors certain traits over another in an animal (like the introduction of a predator to a population to use an easy example), then evolution will occur faster than if there is weaker selection pressure (like some gene that changes the phenotype and leads slightly increased fecundity, like leaving 10% more offspring). This is pretty obvious and of course Richard Dawkins doesn't deny this.

As far as xenophobia goes, I've never seen any evidence to suggest that Dawkins is xenophobic. He has pointed out that fundamentalist Islam is extremely oppressive to women and a force for evil in the world and I agree with him 100% on that. But I see no evidence that he hates Muslims or any particular race, I think that's an oversimplification made up by radicals who don't care to understand his arguments and just want to label him as a racist.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I guess you haven't kept up with him in recent years. He's kind of went off the rails about a decade ago, starting with his comments about "mild pedophilia" and his "Dear Muslima" open letter where he chirped Rebecca Watson for complaining about being hit on at a conference.

He's contributed a lot, but lately, he keeps just doubling down on irrational positions.

Can you elaborate? I remember him stating that he was a victim of pedophilia, and of course he condemns pedophiles. I remember he stated that ALL pedophilia is evil and should be punished but that, like with anything, there is a spectrum in terms of some abuse being worse and more traumatic than others. This is why we punish all crimes but have different sentences depending on the severity. I don't think he is wrong on that.

As far as the Rebecca Watson thing goes, I think his point there was to illustrate the hypocrisy of some people being so quick to condemn an American man for flirting with a woman (and perhaps missing some social cues and making her uncomfortable), but refusing to denounce the obvious and horrendous misogyny that occurs in Islamic regimes. I think he was a a bit sarcastic and rude in the way he delivered this message and it could have been delivered in a more respectful way but overall I agree with the intent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I definitely would be interested in your analysis if you have some to contribute, I'm not being sarcastic.

You want my "analysis" of your belief that Dawkins is "one of the greatest scientists of our generation"? Really?

I claim no expertise in either biology or psychology. At the same time, I recall noting that "I can't wait to peruse the list of his prestigious awards," and I remain hopeful that you might supply some references.

As far as xenophobia goes, I've never seen any evidence to suggest that Dawkins is xenophobic.

​

“Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding ‘Allahu Akhbar.’ Or is that just my cultural upbringing?” [source]​

​

“All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.” [source]​

Of more general interest ...

American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins​

You do you, but you might also consider a better focus for your adulation.

 

[Kenny]

Thanks for the response. The question I would have at this point is, why should I conclude that you experienced the true god while others who, with just as much sincerity and conviction as you, also believed that they experienced the true god, but that the god they experienced was different than yours. Why should I believe you and not them?

You shouldn’t just “believe Ken and not them”. If I can “convince you”, then someone else can “unconvince you”. You should seek yourself.

Maybe do a comparative study? Maybe sincerely ask “Whoever you are God, if you are real, you need to help me, guide me, show yourself to me in some sort of way because - I want to know!"

I remember when Jesus "stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.”

I find interesting that he didn’t say “If any man thirst, I will come to him”. I realized that there are many people that are thirsty but fill it up with other things like self. It takes a decision to “come and follow me”.

That’s how I came. Thirsty.

For my personal journey, I realize that there is a major difference between the faith called Christianity and the rest of all religions and that being (as I understand it) the Christian faith is about God coming to help man as a gift vs man attempting to please God or read goodhood by human works. Additionally, the prophetic capacity found in the TaNaKh helps me in my foundation of faith. Of course, I also don’t believe any other religion purports a dead defeating death itself.

Or why should I not dismiss all of them as hallucinations? I'm not trying to be confrontational or dismiss your experiences, I can tell you are a genuine and honest person.

You could! It is your decision as to whether how many people have hallucinations.

But I think that there are many other genuine and honest people who adhere to different religions than you do and would say that you are being deceived in the same way that you say that they are being deceived. At that point, in your view, how do we decide who is correct, who is being deceived,….?

Every person has to decide for themselves. It is called “free will” as we as the right for someone to become an atheist.

I don't think there is any mechanism to determine this with certainty. I would definitely question the conclusion that there is a single, one, true God that has allowed so much confusion and differing ideas about who he/she/it is.

What you call “allowed” - another person will call free will. Let’s look at it this way… when a son becomes hooked on drugs, is it really because their parents “allowed it” or because of the self-will of the son. Looking at my life, I would say my self-will was the problem and not my parents (obviously there are exceptions)

If God were imaginary I would expect that there would be many different views about who God is, since every person could create a separate conception of God in their own imagination. If God were real and wanted a personal relationship with his creations, I would expect that this ambiguity would not exist.

Again… it is two people looking at the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion.

If, and I say if, the word of God is the word of God, then we have something to use as a standard to find out what parts of other religions are true and which ones are not. (Of course other religions can say the same thing - thus study and find out for yourself)

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You want my "analysis" of your belief that Dawkins is "one of the greatest scientists of our generation"? Really?

I claim no expertise in either biology or psychology. At the same time, I recall noting that "I can't wait to peruse the list of his prestigious awards," and I remain hopeful that you might supply some references.

​

“Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding ‘Allahu Akhbar.’ Or is that just my cultural upbringing?” [source]​

​

“All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.” [source]​

Of more general interest ...

American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins​

You do you, but you might also consider a better focus for your adulation.

I gave a list of his awards but like I said I don't really consider awards to be important in terms of who is a good scientist or not. As far as those quotes go, I can't say I disagree with him although he could perhaps do a better job with choosing his words and being a bit more sensitive but overall I think he is correct and has good intent. We can agree to disagree about him though, I don't really have an interest in debating this anymore and it's off the topic of the thread.