What if Dawkins is a prophet?
Maybe thats the way it works! I mean, forget about all the incarnation stuff, it's just beyond the pale of reasonable discussion (i.e. metaphysics baby). Lets just call Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed and so on, some smart guy. Perhaps a person (all male in recent history, boo urns) just happens along. They are there at the right time and the right place, and they have learned some things along the way, possibly from other wise guys, possibly from sitting under a tree. They may stand on the shoulders of giants. But they are the ones that are listened to, that draw a crowd. Then the crowd goes off and tells others, and you have a movement. Over time, morphology generationally produces a religion. People follow that, for a while.
Then a man comes along. At the right time, and the right place. With some other message.
I wonder, is Dick Dawkins a prophet?
What a downer for him if he is!
12 comments:
[Damn, I can't seem to comment on the Dawkin's post for some reason. It's just not responding to my clicks. If you can move this comment there, that would be great - thanks!]
The conventional defining trait of prophets, as opposed to say, visionaries, is that they display *wisdom*. This is a trait Dawkins lacks, so I can't see him as a prophet at all... :)
However, that is not to say that he can't found a potentially disastrous cult, of course. You don't need any wisdom at all to found a cult, nor to have it go horribly wrong. >:)
Dawkins is a smart, one might even say *Bright* man, but there is more wisdom to be found in a pair of shoelaces than in his usual dogma.
It might be helpful for him forgive the vicar who (foolishly) sold him the teleological argument for God in his childhood (despite this having been shot through of holes for centuries) so he can move on emotionally. This chip on his shoulder is visible from space! :D
If the world needs "Atheist Pride" then what it needs is atheists who can sell atheism on its *strengths* - not anti-theists who will try to convert people to their beliefs by trashing "the opposition".
Who knows - perhaps you are such an atheist. ;)
Best wishes!
[Comment moved - I had added a new bit of fancy untested code and overlayered the links on that section of the page. Fixed]
"The conventional defining trait of prophets, as opposed to say, visionaries, is that they display *wisdom*. This is a trait Dawkins lacks, so I can't see him as a prophet at all... :)"
Well, that's as may be in your convention set, but I believe I was positing another - where one becomes a prophet simply by acclaim from those who believe that you've said something wise.
One might call this the Life of Brian theory of prophet-hood. So it isn't a new idea, but merely one we may see replicated in the near future, as people without sufficient understanding of the flaws of science (and to a lesser degree, reason), take science and reason to be their godhead. Naturally, they'll deny having such a thing as faith in the unknowable, justifiably (I suppose) citing the works of science popularisers out there who know so much, as evidence that science isn't a religion, and citing 2-for-1 science popularisers cum religion de-popularisers as evidence that religion is bad.
Meanwhile, they'll mostly be secretly praying that the hand of science reaches down, makes the future bright again, and gives them immortality tech so they don't have to die.
Hahaha! The blind always lead the blind. ;) - since we can never look past our own noses the path to enlightenment is probably no more than one elevation at a time. Introducing questioning for those who are unfamiliar with is enough to be a paradigm shift.
But to worship a "higher" mindset or to presuppose that a particular evolution of thought is better than another would certainly be coming full circle again. ;)
I'll listen to anyone preach for a few minutes, but the prophet status is nothing short of an ego trip anyway. People like ego trips. :P
(I know I do 0=)
"the path to enlightenment is probably no more than one elevation at a time."
Evolutionary enlightenment - an interesting notion. But kind of depressing - if evolutionary means are enough, then the highest state of mind we can conceive of is no more than simple recursion on a grand scale. Perhaps the mandlebrot set is enlightened?
"Introducing questioning for those who are unfamiliar with is enough to be a paradigm shift."
I quite agree - I usually refer to this as the difference between being awake, and being asleep. Some of my good friends are asleep, but when I try to wake them up they just sink into a deeper sleep. I suppose I'm not prophet material...
"But to worship a "higher" mindset or to presuppose that a particular evolution of thought is better than another would certainly be coming full circle again. ;)"
Yes, the irony of the Dawkins dogma. Not even what he wants, as far as i can make out. But his message sinks in, the dormant reader wakes up for a split second, sees nothing familiar or comforting, and promptly sets up his arguments as a fresh shell in which to hide while they go back to sleep.
Or maybe I'm just being cynical.
zB: Evolutionary enlightenment - an interesting notion. But kind of depressing - if evolutionary means are enough, then the highest state of mind we can conceive of is no more than simple recursion on a grand scale. Perhaps the mandlebrot set is enlightened?
Haha! My apologies, I was not intending to reduce the cosmos to linearity - although of course this is one way of choosing to perceive it. 0=) Mandelbrot seems like a more reasonable approximation to me too.
N: "Introducing questioning for those who are unfamiliar with is enough to be a paradigm shift."
zB:I quite agree - I usually refer to this as the difference between being awake, and being asleep. Some of my good friends are asleep, but when I try to wake them up they just sink into a deeper sleep. I suppose I'm not prophet material...
It's not that sweetie. While there's no point in preaching to the converted - the gap between your and their perspectives is probably too large. You can only step down a proverbial notch, and they only up one. Besides, the best prophets were never taken seriously. Nor would I suspect would they care if they were.
I find that the best teachers in any discipline are ones that are not too far removed from their pupils in knowledge. There are of course a spectacular few who can gradually elevate their pupils, abstracting each level along the way - but this is hardly the norm.
(Slogan strength and repetition is the characteristic of our modern day prophet. But does one need to have a large following to be one? And does it have to be during our life span?)
N: "But to worship a "higher" mindset or to presuppose that a particular evolution of thought is better than another would certainly be coming full circle again. ;)"
Just to clarify. The concept of up and down is very relativistic in this case. For all we know your friends may be enlightened in ways you are not yet able to see. (emphasis on the "may" ;)
zB:Yes, the irony of the Dawkins dogma. Not even what he wants, as far as i can make out. But his message sinks in, the dormant reader wakes up for a split second, sees nothing familiar or comforting, and promptly sets up his arguments as a fresh shell in which to hide while they go back to sleep.
Or the contrary - they find their perfect bedding before slumbering again.
Btw, started watching Terrorstorm yesterday. I cannot stand these conspiracy theories anymore, even more propaganda then the initiating process. I did get up an interest for false flags though. Trying to find some reliable source of what happened in the Tonkin incident. You got any reliable sources to share?
Or maybe I'm just being cynical.
Cut out the maybe. Of course you are.
That in itself doesn't make you a prophet though! ;)
Ahhh Dawkins...why does he rile certain people so?
For those who don't like Dawkins I recommend this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcab-tUV91M&feature=related
I found him annoying before I saw it also because he never seemed to be saying what he believed. This kind of gives a glimpse into why he is attacking religion and his own beliefs and I would say what he says contains wisdom. He does look a bit like an owl as well and if you are into your Greek gods you will no doubt know what I am implying ;) I wonder how he would feel about the suggestion though...
"the Life of Brian theory of prophet-hood."
Ha! This amuses me greatly! :D I accept that malcontent and prophet are oft transposed, but it's not something I'm willing to do with my own language game. (I don't think a prophet is ever recognised in their lifetime, either...)
"Ahhh Dawkins...why does he rile certain people so?"
A lack of tact, for a start, plus three decades of ideology masked as science. The root of the problems are right there in "The Selfish Gene" in that astonishing religious-like rant about mankind coming of age when they understand evolution. (As if scientific knowledge were more important than the behaviour of humans towards each other, to pick just one flaw in this claim!)
I have no problem with atheists (I have rather more atheist friends than theists, as it happens) but I do have a great problem with scientists who advance non-scientific concepts in scientific work e.g. memes, "mankind's coming of age" while simultaneously blocking access to the media for other scientists with equally strange (but less materialistic) ideas.
On top of this is this rather crassly negative view of religion that bespeaks of much deeper hostile biases (some of his side papers are especially bad for this) - in Dawkins' eyes it seems that science is forever blameless, while religion is responsible for all ills. And I think this double standard is one of the many reasons why he aggravates people both in the scientific and in the religious community.
(The head of one of the largest scientific associations in the US confessed an abiding dislike for Dawkins' recent behaviour, which he feels has had a negative effect on science as an endeavour; it's not just the spiritual community that find Dawkins' intolerance so intolerable!)
Dawkins middle works are rather good as far as popular scinece goes. But the work at the start and end of his career gives him a bad name, in particular by playing up the largely fallacious story of a war between science and religion, and pushing the "substraction story" that scientific materialism invalidates religion somehow.
For a comprehensive discussion of the real historical journey behind this oft-repeated but rather deluded account, I heartily recommend Charles Taylor's overlong but extremely well researched "A Secular Age".
Best wishes!
Chris,
I don't think Dawkins places his own beliefs in a realm beyond rational discussion. He has theories, but they are open to discussion. You can agree or disagree. You can mock them if you like. That is the scientific process, no idea is beyond criticism and if you cannot rationally explain why you believe what you believe in a convincing manner openly then it will not be accepted and (I think this is what Dawkins is getting at) it should not be accepted as Truth and should not be thought to children as Truth. (If my teachers had been able to rationally discuss why I should believe in god, perhaps I would not have become an atheist for several years myself).
I don't see why anyone should feel uncomfortable about their beliefs being discussed openly. Dawkins mocks people who don't have rational explanations for their beliefs. (Maybe he shouldn't, but then, he believes that allowing this to happen unchecked is damaging to people, so funnily enough, he may in a way be forced into this position out of an altruism for his fellow man. I certainly wish he had been there to defend my young mind from Carmelite priests who told me I had to believe in god without question).
I think this mocking is what riles them so much, because the positions he attacks are indefensible (like not showing pictures of mohammed...like, grow up, is your authority so weak!?). And indeed, beliefs in the supernatural, whether true or not, should not be placed in the public forum for that very reason. The public forum should only be open to theories that can be discussed, until some kind of equilibrium comes about...an agreement. And the scientific method is the best means I can see for that agreement to come about.
Also, for those who do have a belief in something, call it what they will, which is greater than themselves or provides some kind of peace then no words Dawkins can say should be able to rile them, surely those who believe in god have a stronger faith than that? If their god(or ideology) cannot protect their mind from becoming riled by Dawkins jibes I would recommend they find something else to believe in that does. And I think that is the best lesson Dawkins can give!
All the best :)
I'm rather sorry I used Dawkins to illustrate this point, since I should have known he'd end up dominating the post.
On the other hand, maybe I just haven't been clear about what I'm trying to say - and that may be because I haven't clearly defined it for myself.
I didn't want to make a point about Dawkins, but rather about the nature of how belief - and also by corollary: non-belief - forms and is formalised. I was questioning the validity of certain forms of organised religion, by positing the ridiculous notion of the Life of Brian type prophet (I only realised that my reductio ad absurdum corresponded to the Python's after I wrote the post). This I see as a great (if not fatal) flaw in prophet based religions, and is only compounded by the unscrupulous power-manipulating propagators of the religion who invariably come after the prophet, distorting any original message for their own gain (Constantine and the Japanese Emperors spring to mind). How can anyone trust organised religion under these circumstances?
But thats not to say there is no worthwhile messages there, distorted or no. The teachings of Jesus are inspirational even devoid of divine status. One just has to find the wisdom oneself, in a journey of mental and emotional effort that essentially requires, not an organised religion, but merely an organised education (in the broadest sense). One needs to be able to learn, and I freely admit that organised religion has been the only source of the necessary spiritually-related learning for most of the world (i.e. the poor) for most of it's history.
Therefore arises my second point, the reason I brought in Dawkins - if you set up a truly exemplary method (i.e. the scientific method) of achieving self-education and thus the possibility of self-realisation as a sort of god head, then people can/will just choose to sidestep their journey of discovery, and take the answers from others further along the path as gospel. The wisdom that the process is supposed to reveal is turned to dogma.
Something powerful is available by freeing the mind from belief in the absolute, because even if such a thing as Oneness or the absolute exists, the self if separate from it and must question everything if it is to realise its nature. Somewhere along the line, the message of modern atheists (let's get over Dawkins here!) has become less about the honesty and productivity of questioning, and more about dogmatising of denial. Possibly this is a reaction to renewed religious fundamentalism, but it only points atheists too lazy to think for themselves toward their own fundamentalism. Thus is new organised religion born!
"I'm rather sorry I used Dawkins to illustrate this point, since I should have known he'd end up dominating the post."
Wasn't the original point about
Dawkins being a prophet?
Perhaps there should be no doubt left in the the mind when faced with a true prophet?
As for the point by Ben:
"if you set up a truly exemplary method (i.e. the scientific method) of achieving self-education and thus the possibility of self-realisation as a sort of god head, then people can/will just choose to sidestep their journey of discovery, and take the answers from others further along the path as gospel. The wisdom that the process is supposed to reveal is turned to dogma."
Well, those that fall into this trap willingly do so. I wouldn't equate all religion with dogma though. Perhaps a religion can be found that fits the example given here:
"Much that was called religion has carried an unconscious attitude of hostility toward life. True religion must teach that life is filled with joys pleasing to the eye of God, that knowledge without action is empty. All men must see that the teaching of religion by rules and rote is largely a hoax. The proper teaching is recognized with ease. You can know it without fail because it awakens within you that sensations which tells you this is something you've always known."
- Conclusion of the Commentaries in "Appendix II: The Religion of Dune"
I would recommend the story of Nachiketa in the Upanishad for anyone on the difficult and treacherous road of self realisation. A questionnaire like thee...
And of all the prophets, and kings horses, and kings men and giant vibrating eggs, at least Buddha had the sense to tell people:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
End ramble...
"Wasn't the original point about
Dawkins being a prophet?"
No.
The original point was as I laid it out in my last comment, which, when I wrote the post, I hadn't any intention of laying out in such detail. I had hoped that the tongue in cheek tone of the post would highlight the presence of a serious point hidden 'between the lines'.
Frank Herbert seems a far better candidate for prophet-hood than many, expecially a certain other [deceased] science-fiction author who has actually achieved that title!
Post a Comment