Now, the problem with Dicky is this. He has no concept of Spirtuality other than that of organised religion, which I have absolutely no time for. On that we agree. It is an evil corrupt brainwashing power game that takes away our must fundamental birthright. Our freedom to think and fathom for ourselves. He aims squarely at fish in barrels. I would genuinely be interested in his views on the deep philosophies of Taoism and Buddhism. These philosophies do not propose a 'God'. It is not necessary. They do propose the absolute sacred interconnection of all things, and that we are part of a higher universal creative energy. This is echoed in the Hindu concept of Brahamn - the supreme reality, not a God. Only in symbolic form on some levels to convey meaning. The parallels between the core concepts of Eastern mystical philosophy and recent discoveries in Quantum physics are striking. They new and understood these concepts thousands of years ago. So there is no need for an anthropomorhic policeman in the sky. So where does that leave us. A spiritual view of the world that has no God, but a vast living chain of sacred being. This is where Dawkins would most likely resort to cheap shots at 'New Ageism', excepth that it is ancient knowledge. Profound and beautiful.
Love and Peace
Dawkins did a beautiful series of programmes in 2006 called "The Root of All Evil?". It was an incredibly life-affirming, semi-spiritual experience just watching it. Dawkins looked at evolution, the inter-connectedness of all life on Earth and the sheer wonder, mystery and effort involved in its gradual ascent up the evolutionary slope.
Given that Britain had just been taken into a couple of wars by Tony B Liar (who told us he was only answerable to God) I don't think it is like "shooting fish in a barrel" to challenge religious hypocrits face on - not enough people do it. A US preacher claimed that "fear of God's wrath" was the only thing which stopped most of us being rapists and paedos! However the two part series was not an attack on organised religion and its questionable moralities. Dawkins simply based his statements on scientific facts and allowed religions to speak for themselves, climb into their own barrel and cock their own trigger themselves. And Dawkins didn't attack, he simply spoke as a scientist who knew his subject. He didn't ridicule anyone. It was not necessary.
Dawkins rounded off the first part with a presentation of Bertrand Russell's "celestial teapot analogy" - that just because science has not yet answered every conceivable question about the universe, there is no need to turn to "religious faith", which has never answered anything of significance. Evolutionary biology has better explanations of codes of morality than (say) bible texts and can be looked at more convincingly if seen in the light of primordial kin selection, survival strategies and "reciprocal altruism" (or as my granny used to say "A giving hand aye gets"). A morality based on empathy was discussed with author Ian McEwan I remember.
Dawkins made no cheap shots at New Age-ism, no pot shots at the philosophies of Taoism or Buddhism. No need to. I really rather think Dawkins would find plenty of common ground with New Agers, Taoists and Buddhists who see the interconnectedness of all life on Earth and who see wonder in the creative energies which have shaped our being. I do not think Dawkins would smirk, laugh or take cheap shots at anyone who found a "spirituality" in the mystery of life and who didn't feel the need to create a God in order to live with that mystery. Atheism, Dawkins concluded, is life-affirming in a way that religion can never be.
May peace and general grooviness be with you at all times you funky sea-cat sir!
Dawkins has a famously intolerance to anything that has not as yet been 'proved' by established science when it comes to 'New Age', a term that I don't like as it is too general and incorporates downright silliness with genuine knowledge. He proved this in a recent series where he seemed to deliberately target the deluded, and obvious charlatans. I meditate, have successfully used herbal medicine, cystal healing, homeopathy and acupuncture in the past. To the many cynics, of which he would be one, I would say 'ok then. Just exactly what is going on ?' The usual reply is the placebo effect. I'm fine with that, as it proves that conscioussness and the mind has the ability to influence the physical body in a profound way. However, the majority of scientists get in a bit of a flapdoodle here, as they grudgingly admit the placebo effect, but are not comfortable with the basic implications - energy conscioussness can profoundly effect the physical/material. This isn't supposed to happen.
Plants respond to musical wave vibrations, and to meditation. Animals, as well as people, respond to healing energy eg. Reiki.
It IS all in the mind. Wow. What resources have we yet to learn to
develop for the benefit nof all. It's only recent been lost, and only in the West. It's perfectly respectable in India, for example . Let's not forget how emminent the belief/science of reincarnation and karma is in that culture. They regard us in the West as not quite up to speed yet, despite all our material knowledge and advencement! Karma and reincarnation when understood properly, is every bit as beautiful as evolutionary biology, in my opinion. It's spiritual evolution, as we are after all, Spirit.
May the etheric winds fill your cosmic sails dude .