Postscript
The piece I wrote about God/no-God the either day continues to exercise my mind.
I was brought up as a 'Scientist', which means, although I didn't realise it at the time, as a 'Materialist'. As a youth, I didn't realise there was a clear distinction to be made between the two terms, and nobody ever thought to explain it all to me, because nobody had ever explained it all to them.. and so on.
I imagine that a lot of the people who read this will have had the same experience. It is an unfortunate truth that to society in general 'Science' means 'Materialism', and this lies at the root of many of society's ills, it seems to me.
Everything from drug abuse to road rage, right through to pollution and global warming can be reduced to the same root cause: lack of respect.. for ourselves, for each other, and for the planet itself.
Why do we lack respect? Because we are constantly told by Science (via people like Richard Dawkins, and all of the media's 'science correspondents') that everything happened by chance and accident, from the Big Bang onwards, right through to Self-Consciousness. Thus, nothing can possibly have a fundamental or transcendental purpose as the universe itself is purposeless. Thus, purpose has been replaced by gratification (and consumerism, as a logical extension). 'Greed is good', and the vapidity of Thatcher's 'There is no such thing as society' follows on naturally from this. We become more and more miserable, purposeless, and socially isolated from each other, despite all the extra money that politicians think will solve 'everything'.
Mr Dawkins quite rightly points out that much of what Religions tell us is nonsensical, or contradictory, but I wish he would take time out to look at the huge contradiction which lies buried at the heart of his own philosophy (which I wrote about in that previous blog entry). It is this paradox ('How can Life arise spontaneously from solely non-alive Matter/Energy, which does not itself contain the potential essence of Life in some form?') which makes Materialism a fallacy, and I can find no rational resolution to this. I've tried very hard to falsify my own logic, and can't do it; I've asked a number of intelligent (and sceptical) friends to find the flaw, and they can't either. Perhaps you, dear reader, can find the flaw. Please let me know! (But only if you have found a flaw in my own logic; I'm not interested in other theories or expectations. See below…)
Meanwhile, it seems to me that every other argument and dispute about God/no-God, (ie, Idealism/Materialism), becomes unnecessary and a ground for misunderstanding and confusion. People have argued for centuries and clearly haven't solved the issue, or we'd all know about it by now.
To me, it's all a waste of time. What matters is the simple piece of logic I point out above and elsewhere.
For an opinion or argument in these matters to have any validity, it must cope with this simple logical challenge, and must either find a flaw in my logic, or accept the conclusion that Materialism is not a valid philosophy, and that thus Idealism (in some from or other, as yet undecided) must therefore be valid.
The implication arising from this is that Religions, for all their funny little ways and occasional gross abuses of humanity and reason, must, at heart, have something to be said for them. I've spent several years looking into all this, and I reckon I've found the solution. It's there for you to find too, if you have the patience, and the will to think clearly as you go!
As I said before, I'm working on a book which will explain what I mean.
Hey, Dook.. what do you make of all this?
I was brought up as a 'Scientist', which means, although I didn't realise it at the time, as a 'Materialist'. As a youth, I didn't realise there was a clear distinction to be made between the two terms, and nobody ever thought to explain it all to me, because nobody had ever explained it all to them.. and so on.
I imagine that a lot of the people who read this will have had the same experience. It is an unfortunate truth that to society in general 'Science' means 'Materialism', and this lies at the root of many of society's ills, it seems to me.
Everything from drug abuse to road rage, right through to pollution and global warming can be reduced to the same root cause: lack of respect.. for ourselves, for each other, and for the planet itself.
Why do we lack respect? Because we are constantly told by Science (via people like Richard Dawkins, and all of the media's 'science correspondents') that everything happened by chance and accident, from the Big Bang onwards, right through to Self-Consciousness. Thus, nothing can possibly have a fundamental or transcendental purpose as the universe itself is purposeless. Thus, purpose has been replaced by gratification (and consumerism, as a logical extension). 'Greed is good', and the vapidity of Thatcher's 'There is no such thing as society' follows on naturally from this. We become more and more miserable, purposeless, and socially isolated from each other, despite all the extra money that politicians think will solve 'everything'.
Mr Dawkins quite rightly points out that much of what Religions tell us is nonsensical, or contradictory, but I wish he would take time out to look at the huge contradiction which lies buried at the heart of his own philosophy (which I wrote about in that previous blog entry). It is this paradox ('How can Life arise spontaneously from solely non-alive Matter/Energy, which does not itself contain the potential essence of Life in some form?') which makes Materialism a fallacy, and I can find no rational resolution to this. I've tried very hard to falsify my own logic, and can't do it; I've asked a number of intelligent (and sceptical) friends to find the flaw, and they can't either. Perhaps you, dear reader, can find the flaw. Please let me know! (But only if you have found a flaw in my own logic; I'm not interested in other theories or expectations. See below…)
Meanwhile, it seems to me that every other argument and dispute about God/no-God, (ie, Idealism/Materialism), becomes unnecessary and a ground for misunderstanding and confusion. People have argued for centuries and clearly haven't solved the issue, or we'd all know about it by now.
To me, it's all a waste of time. What matters is the simple piece of logic I point out above and elsewhere.
For an opinion or argument in these matters to have any validity, it must cope with this simple logical challenge, and must either find a flaw in my logic, or accept the conclusion that Materialism is not a valid philosophy, and that thus Idealism (in some from or other, as yet undecided) must therefore be valid.
The implication arising from this is that Religions, for all their funny little ways and occasional gross abuses of humanity and reason, must, at heart, have something to be said for them. I've spent several years looking into all this, and I reckon I've found the solution. It's there for you to find too, if you have the patience, and the will to think clearly as you go!
As I said before, I'm working on a book which will explain what I mean.
Hey, Dook.. what do you make of all this?
posted by Chas Griffin at 7:36 PM
1 Comments:
Chas, hmmm i have your reply printed out and on my desk, i mean to go through it with my pen and underline some questions i have on your thoughts, I basically want to get it clear in my own mind what i think on this big question, so for instance when the Jehovahs Witnesses come round i know what im on about. Unfortunately i keep getting side tracked by books turning up from Amazon... Right, thats it im going to get to grips with it over the weekend and let you know, it was a great answer you gave me and i want to make sure i do it justice, hold onto your hats.
Post a Comment
<< Home