Thursday, July 10, 2014

Dawkins Is No Descartes

This seems a troll. It isn't. I'm a believer. 

I am also interested in how people rationalize their belief in God, or in fact, their absence of belief. I know the subject is controversial. (The article I reference below has about 6,000 comments.) I know also I lack the capacity to change anyone's mind.

I've read Hitchens. And Dawkins. And even everyone's super-crip, Mr. Stephen Hawking, who is either an agnostic or an atheist.

I'm still a believer, having modified that position through reading science to comprehend an omnipotent creator would certainly be able to construct, as an example, something so mind-boggling as a multi-verse.

That's why I found this piece, "Know Nothing," in Slate so interesting, particularly these words, which speak to the foundation of my own belief in God:
Quantum fluctuations, the uncertainty principle, the laws of quantum physics themselves—these are something. Nothing is not quantum anything. It is nothing. Nonbeing. This, not empty space, is what “nothing” signifies for Plato and Aquinas and Heidegger, no matter what Krauss believes. No particles, no fluctuation, no laws, no principles, no potentialities, no states, no space, no time. No thing at all.
The article is actually a book review that moves into literary criticism, while also addressing the issue of belief in the divine as a foundation of morals.

If you are interested in these existential questions and have slightly more than a few minutes, Robbins' piece -- referencing everyone from Dawkins to Nietzsche, Augustine to Spinoza -- is worth the time devoted.

No comments: