Book Excerpt on God
People who define reality based on what science has revealed and what can be detected with the five senses face three big barriers to understanding reality. First, science is always adding new knowledge and correcting previous mistakes. If you use science to define reality, it's like saying DNA didn't exist -- or DNA wasn't real -- until humans were smart enough to figure it out in the 1950's. That sounds a lot more like magic and superstition than religion does.
Second, if you say that reality is defined only by what's accessible to your five senses -- your eyes, ears, skin, tongue and nose -- then how do you know if your interpretation of reality is any more accurate than an animal's interpretation of reality? The five senses that cats and dogs use to interpret reality are the same five senses that humans use to interpret reality. Third, even if you say that humans are a lot more intelligent than animals, you still have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of very intelligent people out there who are very out of touch with reality. People who can't comprehend the reality of God or the reality of spiritual things are like cats and dogs who can't comprehend what's going on at the level of human beings. For example, Stephen Hawking, the famous physicist and atheist, is like the smartest cat in the world, but he just hasn't yet evolved far enough to understand reality at the level of human beings. Stephen Hawking is just like a little cat who's looking outside through a little window. He can see some birds flying by and he can tell that some are black, some are brown and some are blue. He can also see and hear cars and trucks and buses as they move along the street. He can tell that some of those things are bigger than others, and he can tell that some of those things make different types of sound than others. Then he uses his little cat brain to analyze everything he sees and hears. As a result, he writes books that describe reality from the point of view of a little cat who's looking outside through a little window while using his little brain to process all the sensory information that his little body absorbs through his little eyes and ears. Richard Dawkins, another "celebrity atheist" who is also an evolutionary biologist, has a similar sort of problem, but even worse. Unlike Hawking, Dawkins has become emotionally attached to his point of view about how to interpret "the data." Dawkins gets incandescent with rage whenever he's exposed to people and ideas that don't agree with his point of view. (Doesn't he know that emotions and science don't mix? Doesn't he know that scientists who get emotional about their subject matter can't be trusted as objective observers?) If you look at Hawking and Dawkins, it's obvious they disagree with each other on the question of God. One one side you have Hawking, who has analyzed "the data" and has come to the conclusion that the universe (reality) could have popped into existence without the action of some sort of big-super-intelligent-creator thing like God. However, Hawking is at least smart enough to know that he can't realistically say "God does not exist." On the other hand you have Dawkins, who has analyzed "the data" and has come to the conclusion that God does not exist, period. Please. Surely you would think that Dawkins (who's a biologist for crying out loud) would understand a) the biological limitations of sensory systems and b) the incomplete accumulation of knowledge generated by science. Where did this guy go to school? Maybe he just skipped out on classes when they covered this stuff. There's a story about cats and rats that shows why it's so incredibly stupid to think you can rely solely on sensory information to a) comprehend reality and b) decide what's "right" and "wrong." The story goes like this. (more free content at Amazon "Click to LOOK INSIDE") An overview of the structure and contents of my book (which is a mash-up) can be found in the About the Book section underneath my short bio. |
|
God
This chapter of my book uses science to disprove atheism. Hey, Mr. Dawkins, read it and weep!
