Excellent Dawkins video (wierd universe)

[_Sethbag]

Here's a talk Richard Dawkins gave somewhere. It's fascinating. I knew most of this stuff already, but he puts together a lot of things that really make us appreciate our place in the universe. I'm thinking especially of Tarski and the threads he's started in the past over on MAD about things like how unlikely it is that a God who existed would be a homo sapiens. We so totally have constructed a God in our minds who looks, and more importantly, senses like we do, and that's telling. It becomes obvious how man-made this concept of God is when you consider the kinds of things Dawkins talks about. It's really great, and I recommend it to everyone. Think about this next time Tarski asks people about, say, whether God's eyes perceive color by photons hitting eye cells and God's brain constructing a "colorful" view of what's around us by the means of these sense signals. It's interesting that bats might actually "see", in their brains, the whole world around them, by constructing the view of it in their minds based on sound input.

Link

[_truth dancer]

Hi Sethbag...

I love this video clip! (I'm a huge fan of TED)!

It speaks directly to my number one difficulty with the church.

I just cannot imagine how it could possibly be that God is a human man (advanced male primate, Homo Sapien Sapien), like those of this particular moment in time.

It just makes no sense whatsoever.

To think that we have it all figure out is just so ridiculous... and more improbable is to think it is all figured out and God is just like the men of this particular blink of a moment in time... with our type of body which was invented to manage our world, with issues like the men of the last six thousand years, (authority, power, ego, control, sexual desire, etc. etc. etc.) I just absolutely cannot grasp this at all. It makes no sense whatsoever!

The issues of church history, Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith's innapropriate behavior, Book of Mormon non-historicity, male dominance, abuse of women, etc. etc. etc., pale in comparison to this foundational issue, in my opinion.

Thanks for posting this! :-)

~dancer~

[_Mercury]

the construct of God, constructed from whole cloth is in the image of man. This personification is turned up to eleven in teh Mormon religion.

What you end up with is another hateful sonofabitch melded in joes perverted mold posessing unlimited wives and super magical powers. But the most powerful spirit still needs a hokey method to "save" his "children" from a situation that he created.

God is an a$$hole if he exists, which he does not.

[_The Nehor]

We imagine God as a human because we have nothing else to compare him to. The best most people can come up with is a nebulous spirit image.

I believe God has a body of flesh and bone but I don't think that limits him. I see nothing insisting that he inhabit it and only it.

The claims that God has morals, understanding and senses beyond humanity's is almost certainly true. Knowing that is about as far as we can go. God can't talk about them to us in our language without making up words. If he did that he'd be talking gibberish to us. It would be akin to me explaining to my dog the joys of reading. No comprehension on the receiving end. We can't describe God without falling back on lots and lots of metaphor.

The God that others try to create seems to be one that lacks the senses we have making him less than what I see. God must have senses beyond photons hitting his eye to perceive the Universe but if he chose to inhabit a body would he deny himself that sensory perception in addition to his ability to perceive all of creation completely and continuously.

One day when I have some time I'm going to try to describe God and heaven on here more completely as I understand it. When mocking God so many people fall back on caricaturing the metaphors God uses when communicating to us. They serve their purpose.

[_Sethbag]

I believe God has a body of flesh and bone but I don't think that limits him. I see nothing insisting that he inhabit it and only it.

I think this runs counter to established LDS doctrine, where the "soul" in LDS-specific jargon is the spirit and body together as one, and that God is a resurrected soul whose spirit and body are permanently fused together as one living and glorifed, exalted soul. I don't think you can get away with, in LDS doctrinal terms, the notion that God's spirit need not inhabit his physical body of flesh and bone. It's simply a non-starter. Of course, if you accept your particular view as heretical, than you can believe anything you want, as you apparently do.

The claims that God has morals, understanding and senses beyond humanity's is almost certainly true. Knowing that is about as far as we can go. God can't talk about them to us in our language without making up words. If he did that he'd be talking gibberish to us. It would be akin to me explaining to my dog the joys of reading. No comprehension on the receiving end. We can't describe God without falling back on lots and lots of metaphor.

This is very much like what Dawkins points out in this talk, where he cites J.B.S. Haldane's quote that says that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but it's queerer than we can suppose.

[_Loquacious Lurker]

I read a book a while ago by some philosopher/mind study dude (can't be bothered to go look it up just at the moment) who postulated rather amusingly that, if cockroaches had a god, why, he would look like a cockroach. Not a man.

Of course a god is fashioned in our own image. It's the ultimate in vanity. The gods of Egypt had animal heads in many cases, but still they had human bodies. Greek gods could take the form of animals, but they were essentially (super)human. Deep in the Paleolithic, god was a....woman.

Incidentally, I happen to prefer someone like Dawkins over a Hitchens or Harris because the latter two deal mainly in the realm of philosophy, while Dawkins has concrete science (read "fact") as his operating language.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Nehor...

We imagine God as a human because we have nothing else to compare him to. The best most people can come up with is a nebulous spirit image.

The problem comes in when people claim that God IS a human male, rather than saying... God is more than we can imagine. There is a big difference in my opinion.

I believe God has a body of flesh and bone but I don't think that limits him. I see nothing insisting that he inhabit it and only it.

This is what I just don't get. Our flesh and bone is so much about our earth and our ancestors... why in the world would the God of this universe have the exact body of humans on this particular world who have had our particular ancestral DNA invented for the environment of particular environments? It makes no sense to me.

One day when I have some time I'm going to try to describe God and heaven on here more completely as I understand it. When mocking God so many people fall back on caricaturing the metaphors God uses when communicating to us. They serve their purpose.

I would be interested in this! :-)

~dancer~

[_The Nehor]

Hi Nehor...
The problem comes in when people claim that God IS a human male, rather than saying... God is more than we can imagine. There is a big difference in my opinion.

This is what I just don't get. Our flesh and bone is so much about our earth and our ancestors... why in the world would the God of this universe have the exact body of humans on this particular world who have had our particular ancestral DNA invented for the environment of particular environments? It makes no sense to me.
~dancer~

Calling God human does seem kinda demeaning. I would prefer something more like superhuman. In the Scriptures he is sometimes described as a man but also as a man so far beyond us it is ridiculous. If God is human as some would prefer we are very, very subhuman.

I am not sure God has one and only one body. Appearing in our form might (this is a private opinion and I may be wrong) be a means of convenience. Just picture Joseph's reaction if Ganesha and Christ had appeared in the grove. This is not saying in any way that God leaps from body to body. He may use more than one simultaneously. I'm reasonably sure God is also omnipresent but I haven't been able to figure out how he can be in the full meaning of that word yet.

[_The Nehor]

I think this runs counter to established LDS doctrine, where the "soul" in LDS-specific jargon is the spirit and body together as one, and that God is a resurrected soul whose spirit and body are permanently fused together as one living and glorifed, exalted soul. I don't think you can get away with, in LDS doctrinal terms, the notion that God's spirit need not inhabit his physical body of flesh and bone. It's simply a non-starter. Of course, if you accept your particular view as heretical, than you can believe anything you want, as you apparently do.

This is very much like what Dawkins points out in this talk, where he cites J.B.S. Haldane's quote that says that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but it's queerer than we can suppose.

I didn't mean that his spirit and body are ever separated. It always inhabits it. Is it limited to it? I don't think so.

I agree with Dawkins on this point and I look forward to learning all about it. One of those things that makes me eager to die.