Saturday, August 11, 2007

Sufferin Delusions

The trouble with picking up a book like The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is that I now feel compelled, obligated somehow to him, to answer his general assertion that those who believe in God suffer, more importantly, cause others to suffer, under a harmful delusion.
I am not overly interested in science. I am fascinated by nature, but in much the same way that I love music. I don't necessarily wish to know how it works, I just enjoy the end result.
Having the question put to me, however, a few retorts leap to my mind; Antonin Scalia's biting sarcasm in describing the cunning deceit the disciples of Christ employed in order to have themselves crucified upside down, boiled in oil, or exiled to Patmos (talk about selfish motivation); the simplistic yet persistent question of the origin of that first indefatigable molecule ( I have heard artful and exceeding scientific attempts to explain away the origin of species, but only disinterested conjecture on the origin of life); or my own conversion experience, which Dawkins lists as the least convincing proof offered by theists.
This, by the way, could fill a whole book by itself, probably not written by Dawkins.
If he insists that I be a skeptic such as he is, believing only what I can personally experience, in regarding my supernatural experience versus his entirely physically explainable life, then, having been overwhelmed with my "own reality" wouldn't it be irresponsible to accept his in lieu of mine?
Anyway, I find myself doubting whether he has considered the implications or full consequence of his conclusions.
For example, despite the accolades of courage with which atheists and evolutionists glad-hand each-other, (they don't need no crutches, an irony in itself, after painting such a pitiful picture of delusional Christians suffering under the crushing burden of God, it hardly then becomes courageous or altruistic to deny God, in fact, it's only the selfish thing to do) I am wondering whether Dawkins is honest enough to admit that his life has as much meaning or future as a pile of dung.
And now I am sounding like the cool rationalistic Dawkins who alternately refers to God as sex-obsessed, misogynistic and sadistic, harsh words indeed for someone whose only misdeed has been not to exist. I do understand that his epithets are directed more at me, as one who has created God, than at God Himself. Still, his vitriol retains a curious forcefulness, and at best seems several notches below level-headed.
I digress, however. Indeed, I excel at digressing.
The original course I set out on is that if Dawkins is as intellectually honest as he says he is, he will find absolutely no meaning in life, for it was never anticipated, produces no results, and has no end other than procreation, which [PG-13 warning] derives its only pleasure from its result; offspring.
Yeah.
It's either a mind-numbing chicken-egg conundrum or way over my head.
In other words, he will be the most shiftless, positively uninspired atheistic apologist on the face of this pointless, coincidental earth. He will, as a natural result, have no use, in fact, no tolerance for music, art, poetry or beauty of any kind, and if he does, he will be at a dissatisfying loss to explain why.
Furthermore, he will cease to be, will have never become, the God-debunking zealot that he is.
We would only know his opinions on the matter if we were able to observe his thoughts, as he never would have had the motivation, the eagerness, or the God-given hatred of God to write down his thoughts. Or, had he, simply as a means of monetary pursuit, if we are to find his crusader's motives suspect, this again would end in confusion, since the pursuit of wealth is only an offshoot of the pursuit of happiness, which is unavoidably an offshoot of the pursuit of meaning.

Maybe more later.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I always have enjoyed a challenge, and reading with understanding your deep thoughts is a challenge I very much enjoy.

Blake Hunt said...

The blight of atheism is nothing new to me. However, a book which states that faith in God, (any god, I suppose) is the source of suffering for not only the believer, but the innocent witnesses which fill that believer's life, seems nothing more than a failed attempt at audacity. But not just any audacity, the kind that only Ivy League-educated athiests can manufacture. The brand that is deisgned to fly in the face of the American churchgoer, to release him from the primal chains which shackle his intellect, the ligatures of a blind faith. Enlightening, I'm sure, is this diatribe Dawkins calls a book. I assume it goes so far as to predict the faithful proletariat's response. That is that the truth, devoid of God, hurts the most. This world would be so much more convenient without the useful idiots who drag their infantile minds to sanctuaries from Bakersfield to Bangor every Sunday, like some sort of organized zombie hajj. Can one imagine world history sans religion? Think of the possibilities? The Christian caucasian male, without the burden of the Crusades creating a confused, guilt-ridden idea of theology? A borderless, peaceful super-planet would surely have been the result. One homogenized people. If we could just believe in each other, and nothing else. Who cares how, or even why we got here? If it wasn't for the scourge of religion Pangaea might still be around, and then maybe I could take the train to Belarus.

Nathan Carpenter said...

Thanks for the comment, Blake and thanks for reading.
It's been so long I was floored when I saw your name.
Did I hear you're in the military?

Michael & Ruth Anne Arnold said...

I have enjoyed finding and reading your blogs. You are a very deep thinker, and I enjoy being encouraged to deep thought. I have been considering the difference that a person's worldview makes in their perception of reality. Often, as I believe would be the case with Dawkins, those of us with a different worldview can clearly see the faults of his, but changing his view would be as futile as an optimist convincing his counterpart of how full the glass truly is. Yet, as Christians, we are challenged, even commanded, to go into all the world and "change their worldview." (my translation) Sometimes, though, it is still easier to see the futility of arguing with a fool than the hope of exposing them to the light. I appreciate your thougt provoking blog.