|
| | Under the subtitle “Natural selection as a consciousness raiser” I quote Dawkins: |  |
| | | كاتب الموضوع | رسالة |
|---|
أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 52644
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: Under the subtitle “Natural selection as a consciousness raiser” I quote Dawkins: السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 2:38 pm | |
|
Under the subtitle “Natural selection as a consciousness raiser” I quote Dawkins:
―'Unconscious' is exactly right. That is where consciousness-raising comes in‖. (pp. 115)
I ask of every reasonable and sensible reader to notice how that after this vacuous campaign of pseudo-philosophy that he waged against the concept of “God” in the previous part, all that the professor can do now, is try to convince you that there is something somewhere in your “subconscious” level that has to be changed or “elevated” or perhaps “evolved” when you listen to the great teachings of Darwin, in order for you to accept them! You in fact may be getting convinced with Darwin‟s arguments, but unfortunately, this is only taking place somewhere beyond your consciousness; that‟s why you‟re somehow reluctant about it! So, you could either try to raise your consciousness high enough to grasp it, or you could just follow “the scientist” in your science class blindly and live on the hope that one day you will have it all figured out!
As you proceed reading this part, you‟ll find that the point he actually makes here can be portrayed with great fidelity in the thought that perhaps if you wrote down, for example, the word “designoid objects” underneath the images of a few animals and hanged them on a wall in your bedroom, then perhaps with time, long enough, (not as long as the timeline of natural
260
history I hope!), your consciousness will eventually elevate (evolve) high enough to grasp the Darwinist doctrine and accept it as it is!
So you see, the problem – as Dawkins teaches - is actually not with the theory of “natural selection” itself, but rather with our poorly evolved, (primitive if you may) and deceptive „consciousness‟ as human beings! YOU, my respectable reader, are the problem!
It‟s the same age-old ruse of every preacher of „nonsense‟ and irrational doctrine human history has ever known! „If you can‘t swallow it, then you can rest assured that the problem is only with you!‘. He even seems to mould this sham in a much more outrageous and offensive cast, justifying it by means of evolution itself! You are now supposed to find justification for this irrationality and logical incoherence characteristic of the basic tenets of Darwinism, in the claim that we, humans, are only beginning to evolve (rationally) to the level where we could fully accept the Darwinian creed! A typical case of circular logic! An outrageous one for that matter! You can only understand and appreciate the rational argumentation for Darwinism, if your mind is sufficiently evolved according to Darwinism!
It‟s funny and interesting indeed how he mentions that the idea of conscious raising struck him when he contemplated feminist ideas! Why is it, he complains, that the English language is so inclined towards the use of the word “man”, “mankind” and so forth in reference to the human race, and not the word “woman”, although demographically there may indeed be more women on earth than men? Why is it not called “womankind”?
Well, it only appears to be a very reasonable question to a mind that works the way the professor‟s mind works! It appears to be a “consciousness raiser” (to use his own terminology) only to someone who finds it meaningful to wonder why it was called “history” rather than “herstory”! In which case it should actually be “hertory” not “herstory” by the way, putting “her” in place of “his”, given that even by his own confession, the part “his” here has nothing to do with masculinity, but never mind that! It‟s to him a problem with the English language anyway! (And in fact all human
261
languages, as it happens!) A problem that made the “man” and the “his”, take dominion in such linguistic uses over the “woman” and the “her”!
It is of course nonsense to attack language itself in such a way, even though it does not surprise me a single bit, for the entire faith of atheism (and correspondingly Darwinism) is founded – as we discussed in detail earlier - upon outrageous crimes against human language and reason! All humans have agreed in a total consensus in all languages on Earth, ever since the dawn of mankind, on using the masculine pronoun in almost every general reference to the kind, or the race to which we belong, or the particular communities to which they belong, and never before the “brilliant” philosophy of feminism came to emerge, did anybody, male or female, think of this as some sort of unjust gender discrimination or offense to women!
So why did they all accept it so easily, and never had any hard feelings about it? Because they were all sexists, under influence – perhaps – of some sexist religious doctrines or social orders? Absolutely not! It‟s because quite simply, even from a strictly biological and physiological view, males are equipped the way they are, physically and psychologically, to take over the duty of building the community outside the home; to take the dominion over the land and defend the territory, to enforce order and system, to enforce justice and penalty – as a social necessity, using their naturally equipped powers for the purpose, even in species other than human kind – and to act as representatives of the tribe and the community. Whereas females on the other hand are fully equipped for the other half of the job! The half that should naturally be none but the female‟s job to do! The soft half! That is, the job of the home, the children, and the establishment of the very institution that males work on protecting and preserving: The home!
So males and females – in the natural order of things - complete one another! They are two parts that complete one another, not compete with one another in any one of the two clearly and naturally distinct fields of work for the two distinct sexes! Each one of the two genders has its exclusively natural job and specialty that has been recognized as such by all sane humans ever since the dawn of mankind! The job of the male only happens to be the one that takes territorial dominion and collective power. This is
262
why, quite simply, all languages use the masculine pronoun in reference to the race itself, or to general duties or rights of people that are not exclusively feminine! And at that, when the male pronoun is used, we naturally understand that both males and females (both halves of the race) are included (unless it is something that is exclusively for males, which is then to be indicated in particular)!
This distinction of duties, my kind reader, in its abstract meaning, is not “unjust discrimination”! It is not “Sexism”! It is nature! Healthy men are always happy and satisfied to do a man‟s job, and healthy women – on the other hand – are equally satisfied and fulfilled as they do a woman‟s job! Not the other way round! Healthy women are always satisfied and fulfilled instinctually as the females they are, as they feel the dominion of a strong overpowering man upon them; the man they love and desire! No healthy woman in her right senses would deny her natural need to feel contained under the power of a strong man who protects her, fathers her babies and becomes the only male holder of the keys to her female love and her sexual intimacy! Women are made the way they are, to follow men and to find it absolutely satisfactory, not the other way round!
So this terminology is the natural linguistic expression of a pure, unstained human consciousness and understanding of the way nature works! It is the way any healthy mind would think, and would apply language, with no reservations whatsoever! It is the way humans are!
Now how do I know that? How do I see those purely rational and natural meanings so clear? I do, not because I am a philosopher who has just come up with those meanings as some theory of philosophy of his own making that may be adopted by some and attacked by others, and eventually washed away by the waters of time! I do because I have learnt wisdom from its only pure and absolutely true source: The true teachings of the creator of man Himself, the one who tells us why we are here; the one who knows best!
This is indeed the way every healthy mind should view the way men relate to women in the body of the human kind! Pure, clear and simple!
263
However, there came a point in the modern history of the Western world, when all givens of rational discourse were questioned and attacked! It was the explosion of an oppressed mob that went out destroying everything in a fit of rage! An onslaught and a rebel on everything that was inherited from previous generations, based on nothing but anger! It was a blind rebellion; yes it was a reaction to a false unjust authority, but it was an utterly blind revolution all the same!
In the absence of the heavenly light of wisdom, and in vicious reaction to the tyranny of a corrupt church domain, all forms of heritage were dismissed! Even language itself was “deconstructed”! People felt that something was wrong, and yes indeed, something was clearly wrong, in the order of society ruled by the Church! However, this – by no means of reason whatsoever – means that every meaning that is passed down through heritage in the western world or anywhere else is false, or should be annihilated in favor of experimenting “new ways of life”! This is the blindness and sheer loss of those who know not! It is not to be turned into a standard for judging those who do know or claim that they do!
Feminism is the embodiment of this ideological nothingness, this total rebellion against everything that people of old used to think about a woman, absolutely everything! It‟s like saying: ―Let‘s do away with everything that our parents taught us, and let‘s do whatever we like! If what they made up suited them, then let‘s make up something of our own that suits us better‖
It didn‟t quite matter at that point, that they didn‟t really know what other path to take instead and what other social orders to establish in place of that which they have chosen to abolish! There would always be “philosophers” who would work to fill in the gaps! It‟s like saying: kill the enemy first, and ask questions later! They would feel free at that point to try anything at all and see what it does to them! Everything that people of old used to teach them was to be placed is some museum box and displayed as “History”! In the secular world of the west, nothing is sacred; nothing is binding or obligatory anymore! “Who are they – those elders - to force us to live the way they did?‖, they would say! Well; I couldn‟t agree more with the wisdom in constantly questioning the authority that is sometimes given
264
blindly to teachings of old and inherited laws! However, I condemn the very foundations of thought upon which those rebels founded their criticism and their eclectic attitude towards it!
To come to the conclusion that none of those laws of old is binding, and none of those stories or religions is anything but myth, and none of those orders is anything but the frail making of a primitive mind… is sheer extremism and blindness manifesting in an arbitrary reaction!
Based on what standards and laws did you make your judgment in the first place? And whatever gives your own manmade laws the upper hand over other equally manmade laws? Who gives you the right to even preach your innovations in this respect as though they were the truth, the path and the long awaited wisdom? Without an external reference that is unlike all others; one that is evidently not manmade; you are left with nothing but human try and error! Oh and what an error that would be!
You discover – after having done monumental damages to an entire human nation – that a certain law of punishment in the system of law that you devised for it was unfair, and that it caused more damage than cure, so what do you do? Instead of accepting the evidently perfect source of ultimate wisdom and justice that cannot be afforded by the limited mind of man (namely heavenly revelation in the true law of the Lord) once you have it revealed to you, you go on committing yet another similar crime, replacing that false “justice” with your own experimental “justice”! 21
------------------------------------------------
21 When people listen to the truth – the only reasonably and perfectly rational truth – about their Lord preached by one of His prophets, and yet reject his teachings of wisdom and justice (which is by necessity of definition: Ultimate justice) and insist on going on with their own manmade systems of justice and morality, they are – by definition – doing themselves and their subjects injustice! But when they have not listened to any of the Lord‟s prophets, and have not acquired a way to learn this ultimate wisdom, and they had no choice but to try to figure it out on their own, they are not doing injustice to each other by agreeing (the distinguished philosophers among them) to a system they call justice and committing to it, even though in reality it may not be justice at all! This is necessary to note here so that the reader may not be mistaken to believe that since Justice by its definition only comes from the Lord, then by letting some people die without ever learning it from Him, He is doing them injustice! Absolutely not! He would only be doing them injustice by not letting them listen to a prophet‟s message in their nation only if He were to trial them in the afterlife for what rulings and judgments they made in this life according to their own minds in acquiring justice and establishing it amongst them, but unlike what Mu‟tazilites believe, this is not the case! The Quran makes it clear in many occasions that the Lord only punishes in the afterlife only after He has sent a messenger (He punishes those who listen and reject)! So people of (Fatrah) – those who never received any messengers – will not be judged in the afterlife for what they called justice, since the
265
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 52644
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: Under the subtitle “Natural selection as a consciousness raiser” I quote Dawkins: السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 2:38 pm | |
|
Wisdom my kind reader is to say: let‘s examine the teachings of our parents, and see what proves to be wise and just, and what proves to be otherwise, and only eliminate that which is false and corrupt, taking the only evidently true body of wisdom and justice – that we know where we should expect to find - as our reference in doing so! This comes, by necessity, not before one has acquired this basis of knowledge that defines right from wrong, and wise from unwise, on rigid and solid grounds of evidence!
But is this what feminism – for example – is founded upon? No! It‟s an extreme spiteful reaction to an extreme action, that‟s what it is! It‟s a rebellion against nature itself! Thus, it‟s blatantly stupid to claim that this question of linguistic terminology we just discussed is “unfair” or “unjust” or is the outcome of some form of evil gender discrimination! But this is what “Extremism” really is! It is plain stupid and unwise, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the path of prophets and the teachings given to them by the Lord! It is a blind uninformed unscholarly reaction!
Yes indeed there were many innovated orders that did wrong to a woman in the Dark Ages under the Church in Europe! In fact almost all laws of the Church were innovated (manmade) under the claim of (Holy Ghost) authority, and they lacked evidence from authentic heavenly revelation!
Why does a society – they would say - ask of a woman to stick to taking care of the kids – for example -, or to taking care of her husband, or to keep from provoking sexual desires by exposing her female charms (which are basically biological tools for reproduction) in places other than her bedroom
--------------------------------------------------
obviously did what they could, and they had no clue! They tried their best to achieve the closest thing they could to what justice is supposed to be, so even though it was not really justice, the Lord will not punish them for not acquiring the code of perfect justice: They did not have any way to acquire it on their own! But when they do have that one true way revealed to them (As an act of grace and special mercy from their Lord), and they do get a chance to listen to His messenger; it‟s all different then! They should know by necessity of reason that they cannot afford to place their own manmade conjectures of justice at the same caliber with what is indeed the teaching of their creator Himself in definition of Justice! And by insisting on keeping their manmade systems after the truth is revealed to them; they are – then - doing great injustice to each other, continuing to rule and judge amongst themselves by those laws of their own making, instead of the Lord‟s revealed laws! So bear in mind – my reader – that when I say that people who commit themselves and their followers to other laws than those of their creator are in fact doing great injustice to one another, this is in the context of our current status as human nations: a world that is indeed addressed by a perfect message of wisdom from its only true creator; a message that once received as it was originally reveled; it cannot be mistaken for what it really is!
I shall further my discussion on the concept of morality and justice in Volume two.
266
and to people other than her own wedded spouse, or even to being part of any such commitment as marriage to begin with? Feminism in its broad meaning is a rebellion not only against wisdom and everything that a healthy reasonable man cannot escape identifying as morality; it is a rebellion against everything that really gives the word “female” – not to mention “human” - its very own natural meaning!
But here we are, reading a man who finds great inspiration in the way “feminists” raised his consciousness, and questioned the norms of English language!
Now, I feel I have to excuse my reader since I may have started writing about this issue (the question of justice and morality), somehow early in this literature, for there shall come a chapter in Dawkins‟ Delusion – and naturally my response to it - that addresses this issue exclusively, and it is there – in volume two - that we shall drive deeper and further into it; but I found myself compelled to write those words here nonetheless, as I was agitated by the way he speaks of how inspired he was by the “consciousness raising” that feminist approaches to language give him!
Just take a look at this statement:
―When I was young, it never occurred to me that women might feel slighted by a phrase like 'the future of man'.‖ (The Delusion p.115)
Well, in fact, this only indicates how far away you have gone with Darwinism, professor, from the pure and natural way all humans would view those meanings! None but an atheist or a feminist man or woman (or a follower of any similar philosophy) would think of it this way! And the reason you did not find anything wrong with it back then, is not because you were illiterate or uneducated at the time, but because you were much closer to the pure sensibility of humans than you are today!
The future of “man” is naturally the future of both males and females of the human kind! As long as the discourse is not gender exclusive, it addresses – as a rule - all humans! If we said “the future of woman” instead; the mind would naturally and automatically take it to be an exclusively female issue!
267
The last thing that would come to your mind when you hear this word, even if you are an ardent feminist, - maybe especially if were indeed a feminist - is the fact that the speaker means the entire human race, not just women! He wouldn‟t use this word if that‟s what he meant! It‟s only natural that when we need to refer to human beings regardless of gender we use the masculine pronoun! This is also why any intelligent being – in general - is addressed by the masculine pronoun – by default – unless it has a gender and its gender is female! I mean even when people speak of those they claim to have been abducted by aliens, they naturally speak of the alien in male pronouns, even though it is possible in theory that it might be female or even asexual! Unless precisely informed that this is a female creature, they find no reason to use female pronouns. This is exactly why we address the Lord the creator in the masculine pronoun, because He has no gender; not because He is a male! This is just the way human language works! It‟s the way of all languages ever known to man! The same goes for His Angels; they are all addressed in the masculine pronoun because they have no gender! To use the female voice would only mean a particular gender; the soft gender that carries the babies and mothers them! This is what would naturally come to your mind. It is a rational meaning that language recognizes and expresses naturally: that women follow men, and that they are the “other sex”, there‟s no degradation of women in this mere fact, and no woman – prior to the advent of feminism – ever felt offended by it!
So what Dawkins is doing here by invoking the impact of feminism on language, is like saying, if now you people no longer take this linguistic norm for granted (dealing with the words man and woman) – under influence of feminist philosophies – then you should not find the Darwinian language (dealing with the words design, chaos and so forth) improper or irrational either! It‟s just another step on the path of “raising human consciousness”!
So take a long breath, close your eyes, and keep “rising”!
268
He goes on to say:
―Natural selection not only explains the whole of life; it also raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance.‖
What a monumental fallacy added upon an equally monumental lie! Natural selection explains “the whole of life”? I can‟t believe a proclaimed “scientist” could actually say that! What an extremist position towards a theory of biology! Even though he knows that the actual origin of life – for example – is not within the domain of natural selection, he still finds himself justified when he makes such a brave statement!
But forget about its origin, what about its actual meaning, its actual nature? What is “life” professor, in its very simplest of meanings? What is it that really separates a dead being from a living being on the onset of it, and what – on Earth – does Natural selection have to do with explaining that? I am so offended by the way he undermines the mentality of his reader in such a way! Does he think that the more he repeats his claims, over and over again, and the bigger he expands them as he goes, the more his reader will be convinced with their validity? Is this how he believes people‟s consciousness will be raised by Natural selection?
I may not have been that much astonished or offended if he said that it explains – for example – how certain species emerge from previous ancestral species, or even if he said “it explains how life emerged on earth” (and of course it does none of that, with regards to what he means by “explains”, or to any other use of the word “explains” at all)! But to claim that it “explains the whole of life” …! How bold indeed!
He then boasts about the way he converted Douglas Adams, the radical atheist, and quotes his words, in an attempt to raise our consciousness the way he is so proud to have raised his!
269
Of course we then have to bear with him as he praises his prophet, his master Darwin, in attempt to show humility and attribute the “marvel” of the new religion to its true founder!
I quote:
―Darwin's discovery of a workable process that does that very counterintuitive thing is what makes his contribution to human thought so revolutionary, and so loaded with the power to raise consciousness.‖ (The Delusion p. 117)
What he calls “counter-intuitive” is in fact, “counter-rational” by every sense you can put in this word! It‟s in fact counter-linguistic as we explained! And oh yes indeed it is full of power to change people‟s understanding of life! It is so full of potential to destroy all norms of reason that define the human mind itself, and the way it works, and indeed it does! So clearly what he calls consciousness raising here, is actually consciousness inversion! Or should I say consciousness “erasing”?
Watch how he speaks of Fred Hoyle:
―At an intellectual level, I suppose he understood natural selection. But perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power.‖ (The delusion p.117)
Oh yes indeed you do! Just like all forms of irrational fallacies that have ever come to stain the cloth of human knowledge (and in this particular case: Burn it)! Just as it is the case with every false religion or false tenets of faith in some false divinity! You need to believe, so strongly, that with time and constant sincere effort, you will eventually be blessed by understanding it and overcoming the clearly irrational tenets it is built upon, and your consciousness will eventually rise high enough to grasp it! Like I said earlier, you‟d listen to the very same „apology‟ from a priest of a false religion, telling you; “it‟s all rational! It all makes perfect sense! You just have to work your way with it a little harder and you will eventually capture it! Perhaps you need to do more prayer!”
270
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 52644
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: Under the subtitle “Natural selection as a consciousness raiser” I quote Dawkins: السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 2:38 pm | |
|
Yes indeed, if you are to convert to the religion of Darwin, you do need to immerse yourself in it, from head to toe, just as it is the case with every false religion! You need to get yourself baptized in fossils and the writings of Darwinian apologists, answering to their rivals from other faiths! And under the canopy of a heart that strongly desires to see it as the truth, and is strongly urged to search for a way out of any other faith you hate to see yourself embracing, you will have room in your life to accept the religion of Darwin and accept his “counterintuitive” conceptions and even start fighting for them! You just need to be motivated; and it‟s then, only a matter of time before you have fully converted!
Well, I ask, had it been the truth, the meaning that fits in ease and perfect simplicity with the way man understands words and reasons what he perceives in the world, the meaning that you should truly feel makes perfect sense at all levels, would it have demanded such an “immersion” and painful struggle before one could really “appreciate its power”? I think not!
The truth is not at all challenging to understand! It cannot be “counterintuitive”! To counter our intuition is to counter the very tool by which we make sense of things, and by which we know the truth to be what it is: the truth! What confidence should we then have in the very way we see things or reason things? What meaning would we then still keep for anything that is science, knowledge, or even “understanding” and “conception” in our notion of the world around us? What sense should we then have in the very meaning of truth itself, if to accept it, we have no choice but to counter our own natural intuition and reverse the tuning of our mind; our very own natural tool of understanding and judging?
How pathetic is a preacher who has no better argument to offer now to convince his followers with his teachings, than ask them to “raise their consciousness” on the hope that eventually they could “counter their intuition” and accept his claims!
Once you‟ve managed to see the black white and the white black, the right wrong and the wrong right, the positive negative and the negative positive, the perfect imperfect, and the orderly chaotic; you‟ve boosted your
271
consciousness to the level where you can really appreciate Natural Selection! It takes time, effort, training and exercise of course, but it‟s absolutely worth it, says our preacher here!
I say – and I hope I no longer need to say it - the truth has to be in perfect accordance with every standard of human reason; no conscious countering or alteration or immersion demanded! Its perfect rationality is, by definition, part of the many things that make it the truth! We should not have to swim or fly or jump or dig or do any such crazy thing on the hope that one day we may fully understand it and appreciate it!
Apparently, my kind reader, we are now going through the part of Dawkins‟ book where the priest is doing everything in his power to cover up for the messy and irrational tenets of the corrupt faith he is preaching! ―Raise your consciousness and you will accept it!‖
He then carries on another “smoke cloud” effect, in attempt to convince the reader that what he means by “consciousness raising” is actually the same effect that any reader of scientific literature would get when he reads any brilliant idea that any scientist has ever proposed to his field of science! Well, I say, by what sense of reason could the theory of natural selection be analogized in its rationality to the example he gives here when he speaks of the way we have come to realize how tiny we are in the great vast universe, thanks to the contributions of astronomers like Hoyle? Yet among the examples he gives, he fails not to quote some atheist scientists as they claim that their consciousness arose only when they let go of religion (or the supernatural agent), and who celebrate the influences that Darwinism has had on their fields of theory!
He then proceeds to criticize a sect of Christian biologists (Old-Earth creationists and the likes) who find it acceptable to propose that evolution, even natural selection, is “the way” the Lord created living species! Yes it is indeed one pathetic position to take, I agree! And it is a natural outcome of a profound weakness of argumentation and of knowledge of the truth! I do sympathize with them though, because despite the corrupt image they made
272
up, at least they still respected their own minds, and held on tight to the way human rationality works, and to the rational and intuitive necessity of there being a supreme creator beyond all this, and they persistently refused – which is what Dawkins condemns the most about them – to “counter” their reason, bite their tongues and let go of the concept of “God” entirely! They refused to “raise their consciousness” the way he teaches, for the sake of Darwinism!
But let me ask you this, my kind reader: for a man who holds some corrupt theology in his religion about the creator, believes his book to be open to any new interpretation that suits him best, accepts the general concepts of evolutionism, and sees the rational necessity of there being an external initiator, coordinator and sustainer even for a pathetically irrational process like natural selection, what is it really that an atheist could hold against him when he claims that natural selection may be the very means by which the creator created new species?
Nothing! He would easily accuse him of failing to understand Natural selection, because by “natural”, Darwin actually meant “self operated”, “self maintained”; an operation that needed no external force to initiate or to run it! But then, how can the atheist prove this position of his to be true about evolution or natural selection?
Suppose I told you I‟m prepared to accept natural selection, only if you proved to me that there is no other collective universal law or force beyond the visible universe that runs it according to a collective plan that makes it appear to us the way it does, could you – the atheist – do that? Forget about the rational necessities here, let‟s just say that I‟ve managed to “raise my consciousness” to the desired level where I could accept the proposition that there is no initiator or keeper anywhere, and that there could be a system without a designer! What evidence can you offer me now at that point? Or am I supposed to accept and believe in it only because it appears to be “an elegant” “simplistic” theory that just might be a good alternative to the concept of creation, and because Darwin finally managed (according to your faith) to offer a proposition that leaves us in no “need” to “propose” a “designer”? Is that it?
273
Well, yes! That‟s it! At the end of the day, atheists do admit that they have no evidence to prove that there is no creator! So all they‟re really asking is that you “fall in love” with Darwinism on one hand, and “hate” all religions on the other, and join their pathetic club! Which is in fact the reason why Dawkins wrote and chaptered his “Delusion” here the way he did!
He plays his game in the book in this order:
- First, you – the reader – are to be shaken with doubt by means of the attempted refutation of some theologians‟ and philosophers‟ arguments for the existence of “God”,
- then you are to be shown that one might as well believe in a spaghetti monster or a flying tee-pot revolving around our planet, and that you have no evidence to prove that your god is this god not that god, (which is of course true for all false religions),
- then you‟re made to believe that Natural selection is not at all a bad idea, and that it gives you a “consciousness raising” alternative that gets you out of the embracing position where you fail to prove that your god is the true god and your faith is the true religion,
- then you are bombarded with quotations from atheist scientists celebrating Darwin‟s ideas, and introduced to the idea that you have to “elevate” your consciousness to fully accept those ideas! If you wish to join the elites of academia, this is your ticket!
- Then you‟re bombarded with a barrage of accusations against various religious texts (both, truly corrupted texts along with texts misunderstood by an uneducated author) that leaves you incapable of defending your false faith whatever it is… and that‟s it!
The author believes that at that point, you will have no choice but to believe that there can be no creator, and that all religions on earth are plain myth and bedtime stories all the same, and that you will not need to ask for any more evidence for atheism! This is all that he has to offer, and to justify the twist or “countering” of reason and intuition he‟s asking you to do here in order to accept Darwinism and become an atheist!
274
So, as a matter of fact, although I pity those “middle-ground” creationists he laments here and the flimsy theoretical compromise they attempted to make, I find them to be far more true to themselves and to their minds than evolutionist atheists!
If I were in a position where I have two theories before me to select from, one that embraces a “creator” with certain details about Him that make no sense, and another that denounces the creator altogether, and I have no evidence on any of the two sides, I would easily tend not to deny the clear rational necessity of there being a creator, and I would not choose to let go of it for the sake of the other position that counters basic reason by denying the creator altogether! Moreover, I may even find it a plausible position to amalgamate the two approaches one way or another, and find me some middle grounds to stand! I will have gathered – in doing so – whatever rational pros I may see in both positions, and evaded the cons!
Now, what part of such a process of theorization do Darwinians view as false or unwelcome, and why? In reality the only reason they will have to reject such a proposition, is because it puts “God” back into a model they believe they have finally managed to get Him out of (which they did not of course)! The only reason why they accept and fight so strongly for Darwinism is their claim that it offers a plausible explanation that needs no intelligent determinate agent in the beyond to justify it! And we have effectively proven that this is absolutely false; and that even as pathetic as it is, it still necessitates such an agent!
Even with this pathetically corrupt story they propose for natural history, they cannot escape the necessity of a governing intelligence! I always like to say that instead of disproving God, all that Darwinians do is actually attribute “ignorance”, “blindness” and “erroneousness” to Him, denying Him much of His attributes, in attempt to restrain Him, (May He be praised) because whatever they do, they cannot escape the clearly rational meaning of order and governance, and its naturally corresponding meaning of intelligence in whatever story or model they propose! They cannot even speak against it, without having to bite their tongues!
275
It is thus quite understandable, how and why philosophers of materialism, as mentioned by Dawkins here, believed that the more natural laws they discover, the less it leaves “God” anything to do! They believe that once we prove – for example – that lightning is caused by natural causes, then “God” is put out of this process, and has nothing to do with it! Now what kind of reason is this? How do believers in Him think of Him and the way He relates to the world, and according to what system of faith and what evidence to begin with? The “god of the gaps” image is only true, as we discussed in another section, to particular systems of faith; basically pagan religions, or ones with pagan influences (like Christianity), where corrupted texts, written by ignorant men, not inspired by the true creator, naturally allow for new discoveries to refute those texts!
The reason for this position by materialists as I pointed out in an earlier section, is the pagan image of “god” as some super human being laying over a cloud, doing this part of the process that scientists discovered is actually done by means of humidity, air pressure, temperature, and other “natural causes”! What they fail to realize is that this pathetic image of a god is already self-evidently false and corrupt! Any sane man needs not see scientists discovering that there is no council of gods somewhere atop the Olympus, or palace of Zeus above a cloud there, to realize the basically corrupt reasoning underneath this pagan imagery of the deity!
Nevertheless, this conception of a pagan god that hides somewhere within the universe, in gaps of scientific knowledge, waiting for some discovery to disprove him and get him out of the picture sooner or later, is what encouraged some of them to claim that if indeed there is a god, then he must be doing little next to nothing at all, in running the Universe!
What they fail to realize is that the ways of the supreme creator, in the light of the perfect attributes that He should be expected to have, must be, by all means, out of any form of analogy to the human ways! The way the entire universe is – by pure reason – expected to be maintained and run is not in such a pathetically anthropomorphic image, so pathetic that they expect to see – for example - a human figure of a god blowing the winds from behind
276
the mountain, and once they prove that some other physical phenomenon causes the winds to move, they rejoice in proving that there is no creator!
All natural and physical causes we know and those we yet know not are governed and controlled by metaphysical forces that are created and constantly maintained exclusively by the Creator of the system from beyond! Lordly control does take place from far beyond the visible universe, over each and every cause and effect that takes place in it and on all levels, but it certainly is not in the form of some white bearded old guy lying over some cloud, doing what pagan religions imagine their pity deities to be doing! The keeper sustainer of this infinite universe is to be praised high above this pathetic imagery, or any other humanly affordable image for that matter! This is a necessity of reason, and it is indeed what Islam teaches.
So how does He run the Universe? How does he do it from far beyond all those levels of natural causes? Well, we don‟t know, we cannot know and we need not know! It‟s quite okay not to know that, and it‟s quite natural that we couldn‟t! We are obviously not here on this earth to create universes and play gods on them! All we can figure out by the tools of our science is a series of those natural causes from our small earthly end of the process, causes that we were only enabled – by creation - to learn and discover, for the sake of the purpose for which we were made into this world!
So to sum it all up, I‟m not at all in favor of what those so called “Old-Earth creationists” are claiming; there is no “middle ground” or “compromise” between truth and fallacy! God is not a witless being who knows not what He‟s doing, may His names be praised! A system built on inherent chaos is obviously not the work of a perfect creator, and is obviously not the way the universe is actually built. Holders of the truth accept no “half-true, half-false” stances! The only authority of knowledge from which we may take any valid account of origins of species and of all creation is the true revelation of the creator Himself, and no other! I was only making the point that evolutionists, who have no choice but to believe in a “blind watchmaker” beyond it all, couldn‟t possibly have any solid argument by which to refute those people‟s position, just as well as they have none to validate their own!
277
|
| | | | | | Under the subtitle “Natural selection as a consciousness raiser” I quote Dawkins: | |
|
| | صلاحيات هذا المنتدى: | لاتستطيع الرد على المواضيع في هذا المنتدى
| |
| |
| |
