Oh boy. Have I been writing this for a long time. I have taken notes and at first wanted it to be like a travelogue of the book, trying to give a brief overview of what the book is talking aboot,...Oh boy. Have I been writing this for a long time. I have taken notes and at first wanted it to be like a travelogue of the book, trying to give a brief overview of what the book is talking aboot, glossing over each major point.
Then I was having trouble with the 'hook'. Which narrative framework would I use?
I thought aboot my schpiel on belief systems. On how we are all story machines.
I'd get started. And it never quite jelled.
So, I think I'll try to stick with 'keep it simple, stupid'.
Fundamentally, I think what Dawkins is pointing out with his book "The God Relusion" is that, whatever the supernatural believers believe in, it is them and them alone that are moral creatures who do good acts. That whatever the holy books say, the holy books are books and have no especial power over their adherents, neither does the God. In that the moral acts come from the people, that everything they do is their interpretation.
He also makes a notion that when someone believes in something that cannot be proven or disproven and there comes the time when, as a result of that belief, they are in a bad situation, it becomes very difficult if not well nigh impossible to extricate themselves from that.
I also note that Dawkins is very specific in his book that when he means religion he means belief in a supernatural God.
And that is it. The man has developed a doppleganger as a lot of famous people do that is not the man himself. I've read him defend and admire religion and religious organizations and people. He has a quick wit and, like everyone else, has a Belief System. His seems to be Logical Positivism, but I also see him, like Carl Sagan, willing to be wrong.
I have heard people go on aboot some variation of 'Oh, he thinks that if religion were to go away, then all human violence would go away' and here I think what he is trying to say is that the by definition the instances of violence would be lessened, because that cause of violence would no longer be so strong or there at all.
If people were able to think their way through their belief, were able to take responsibility for their beliefs, instead of automatically foisting it off on some outside source, which I have indicated in some of my previous posts isn't copacetic with "reality", then these specific instances of violence would be lessened or gone.
The belief in God can still be there. But something more robust, more...liberating will be in its place. Like some Christianity I have seen. Like I suspect (anecdotal, don't quote me on this) most of the world's religions already are. We are co-divine, we are co-creators, we exist in a relationship with everything else, everything is interdependent. Life doesn't happen to us it happens *with* us and what we may think of as the unchangeable reality ('we are destroying the environment', 'our skies are polluted', 'everything we do is tainted') are just B.S. that can change by trying on different B.S. and action.
Hmm, I think I may have rambled again. Oh, well. At least I finally got the darn thing out :3
Peace be with you and yours,
ps I know I said earlier I'd talk more aboot the PAP stuff, but for the life of me I can't think how to include it here. If you want to understand, just read the book and try to read it with an open mind first, and then after, you can start reading it for different reasons.
pps so the other bits in the book, like him disproving the existence of God and showing the horrors in the Bible, is to show that it is your interpretation that makes you who you are, your responsibility.
ppps I think that is one way to take the Myth of the Fall: that we are no longer perfect, but we now have the advantage of being able to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions.
pppps I'm finished now. I think :3