Dear BAC,

God is not an idol.

Early man believed that his own creations - wood, stone, metal, silver and gold statutes, were gods. In time, as man's understanding of God was refined, physical aspects of those man-made gods were shed off one by one. First the gods were placed above the clouds so no-one could see them, then material, texture and family-connections were gone too, so the first monotheistic god of the early Jews was believed to be of no visible form, but he still had human-like emotions and until Maimonides (12th century), most Jews still believed that he has a body and a size (1/3 of the universe). Maimonides preached against those beliefs, but even he still believed that God exists, gave the Torah to Moses and can be physically heard by prophets. With the advance of science and logic, we can finally remove the last primitive/superstitious attribute of God - existence.

Indeed, seriously comparing God to objective matter is an insult to His holy name. Only objects have attributes, only objects can exist - how shameful was it to reduce God to the level of an object!

So you want me to demonstrate why God cannot be removed? but that's too easy - only things that exist and take space can be removed.

That doesn't mean that "God is nothing" either - nothingness is also a physical attribute, so it is nonsensical to try attaching it to God.

God isn't an idea either - the fact that we also have [various] ideas of God (or gods) has nothing to do with God Himself - these are merely mental objects.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Regarding religious techniques, you got me right - any method which brings one closer to God is valid, but there is more to it: some methods work for some people and other methods work for others - there is no "universal" method. So yes, for SOME people, believing the impossible is helpful, for others it isn't. it DOES matter what attributes or words (if any) are used to describe God, but it also depends by whom.

I did not claim that God is real (that would be a meaningless statement, only objects can be real), but rather that there is nothing but God. So if anything whatsoever (including ourselves) is real, then it is God, if there is any reality whatsoever, then it is God.

How do you tell whether there is a reality or not? Unfortunately there is no objective/scientific way, but you can experience the reality of something for yourself, directly and subjectively: even one thing would do, so why not start with yourself (it's probably the easiest)? Are you real? Take the time to look inside, who you are, what you are: Once you experience yourself (or any other thing) directly, you will also know clearly what I mean by God (but unfortunately there is no way you can explain it to others).

Dear david f,

Whatever you mean by “attitude by religion”, or “attack by religion” is this not some unjustified generalisation? True, one of the most vociferousI deniers of evolution are the (American) Christian fundamentalists, and they do not touch Einstein, or cosmological theories, perhaps because of the mathematics involved. As a student I once came across a book in the University library (published in German in the thirties!), harshly criticising special relativity theory, one “argument” being that Einstein was a Jew (no God involved here). It was obvious that the author had problems with understanding Minkowskian geometry.

Thus, I agree that there are more zealots attacking evolution theories than Einstein’s relativity theories. However, besides the mathematics, is it not also because Einstein - unlike Dawkins - never claimed that the scientific theories he was the author (or supporter) of somehow led to the conclusion there was, or was not, a God; not even indirectly by associating his gravitation theory with such basic questions that - if at all satisfactorily answerable - lie outside the competence of physics? People, if they do not like a conclusion (about the existence or not of a God) would often rather attack the premise (e.g. evolution theory) than the "implication", that in fact is no implication only a non-sequitur.

Even Pius XII made this mistake, claiming that because of the Big Bang, there was a Creator, until the very author of the theory, Georges Lemaître, pointed out the non-sequitur to him. Had Pius XII kept on claiming that Big Bang implies God, he probably would have received the same kind of reactions that Dawkins complains about.
ctd

ctd
I think that is the main difference between Einstein - who did not need a Lemaître to point out the non-sequitur to him - and Dawkins - who does not want to see his non-sequitur because he sees only the zealots emotionally reacting to his non-sequitur by attacking the premises. Dawkins would have as many sympathisers among (scientifically savvy) Christians as Einstein has, had he restricted his rhetoric only to the defense of the theories of evolution against these zealots instead of making sweeping generalisations about religion.

The zealots might not be that zealous and anti-science without religion, as there would be no Hiroshima without mathematics and physics, and probably no gas chamgers without chemistry. Nevertheless, we do not attack mathematics, physics or chemistry because of that, only the abuse.

>>Right now one of my concerns is the intolerance of theists. My youngest grandson is bullied in school partly because his father is an atheist.<<

I think I understand what you mean, but am disappointed you had to formulate it this way. The problem is bullying at schools, not theists or atheists. As you might remember, I grew up in Stalinist Czechoslovakia, and at the age of 10-12 I was also bullied (by a mob led by the son of a local Comrade) for not willing to renounce Jesus (or God, I don’t remember). Nevertheless, it would never occur to me to put bullying in connection with atheists. I do not know of an adult theist or atheist who would support, or even encourage, bullying at schools

Yuyutsu,
Thats pretty close to a perfect definition of pantheism.
:)

Viewing Jesus of the New Testament we see he taught against Jewish religious orthodoxy by his practices and teaching e.g. "love your enemy", compared to the zealots who gathered against Roman occupation. He was able to accommodate gentile Romans, Assyrians, Samaritans and Africans etc in his Church. This managed to have him ostracized from the religious community and called a heretic because he stood out against established religion for a universal truth. He was radical in his time in an endeavour to bring about social and religious change. However his message and actions were based on human dignity and positive views.