Is God a delusion? 

Neale Donald Walsch

This article appeared in Ode issue: 41

Neale Donald Walsch, author of Conversations with God, responds to biologist Richard Dawkins’ assertion that God does not exist in any form

English scientist Richard Dawkins ignited a fierce debate with his book The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—which is, as its title baldly announces, a refutation in exacting detail of the existence of God. The controversy shows no sign of dampening; Dawkins views continue to inflame strong opinions on all sides about our relationship to science, society and religion. This comes as no surprise to those who have followed the distinguished career of Richard Dawkins—an evolutionary biologist long known as “Darwin’s rottweiler” for his rousing defence of natural selection. His 1976 bestseller The Selfish Gene advanced the provocative and now influential idea that instead of using genes to reproduce themselves, organisms— including humans—are actually being used to satisfy their genes’ need to reproduce. Now Dawkins is back, this time asking readers to imagine that there is no such thing as the God we think we know. “If God created the universe,” he asks, “who created God?” He targets our collective belief in the existence of God as our culture’s most dangerous attribute. “As a scientist,” Dawkins writes, “I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect.” Religion, he adds, isn’t a reasonable explanation for anything. The embattled biologist dreams of a time when atheism is widespread and God has no role to play in our thoughts or our politics. We invited Neale Donald Walsch, author of the bestselling Conversations with God, to respond to Dawkins. While Walsch is no more popular among fundamentalist believers than Dawkins, he draws different conclusions about the meaning of existence in a series of books that have sold millions of copies and been translated into more than 30 languages. --The editors

 

 God does not exist. So argues Professor Richard Dawkins in his latest book, The God Delusion. And he claims to have scientific evidence to prove it. Should any of us care? Yes, because Dawkins is no ordinary person. He is an esteemed scientist from England’s Oxford University who has the ear of millions. I believe his argument that there is no God is a sad point of view which brings no benefit whatsoever to the human race. And that is why we should care. If the whole of humanity should ever adopt this point of view, I believe we will have lost our greatest asset, our greatest tool, our greatest advantage as we step more deeply into the 21st century. However, Dawkins is not entirely wrong. The God of which he speaks—of which most organized religions speak, the God I call Yesterday’s God—does not exist. In The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that science and not religion, evolution and not intelligent design, hold the answer to the greatest mystery of the universe: life itself, how it came to be and how it functions, in all its physical forms. And I believe he is right. It does, however, not explain life in all its non-physical forms. It does not explain miracles, or any other metaphysical experience, of which there is ample evidence in our world. In short, Dawkins has brilliantly told us what God is not, but has told us nothing of what God is. He assumes that since there is ample evidence of what God is not, then God itself does not exist. I don’t think the first position proves the second. Dawkins apparently does. And therein lies his disservice. I would have wished that a mind as brilliant as Dawkins’ would have gone about analyzing the extraordinary anecdotal evidence, available from any one of several hundred million people on the planet, of the existence of God… or of something, whatever name you want to give it, that even science cannot explain, but that shows up in the day-to-day experience of human beings as very real, very present, very reliable, and very useful.

I myself have had plenty of evidence of the existence of what I call “God.” I have seen from my own life that “God” is a power, an energy that can be used with consistent and predictable results. I agree with Dawkins that God is not a celestial superpower, vindictive except with those who love Him—in the way He wants and needs them to love Him. He is not a God that exists to judge our every thought, word, and deed, granting or failing to grant our requests and punishing or rewarding us at the end of our lives based on wholly unknown criteria. Dawkins has pulled all the stops to debunk that particular notion, to which I say bravo. But I couldn’t disagree more with what Dawkins writes in his first chapter: “If the word ‘God’ is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship.’” The opposite, I think, is true. Continuing to use the word “God” in the way people have generally understood it (as someone to worship) renders the word completely useless. I believe in God because I have had a conversation with God, an inner dialogue with an essence and a source that has brought forth information I would never, could never, have dreamt of on my own. That conversation has made it clear to me that God is a process—the process of life itself—and therefore that the words God and life are interchangeable. I feel the implications of this are staggering, earth shaking, paradigm-shattering. This is because everyone knows what is true about life. Everyone may not know what is true about God, but everyone knows what is true about life. What is true about life is that nothing stands outside of life. Nothing exists without life. We are the expression of life itself. So is everything around us. Even so-called inanimate objects are found, when examined under a microscope, to consist of particles constantly in motion. These particles and their movements are all part of life. Indeed, everything in the observable universe is life, in some form. The existence of life is confirmed by life itself. Life is self-referencing, self-confirming, self-sustaining, and self-evident. Life is the evidence of the existence of life. Everyone alive knows these things. But look what happens when the word ‘God’ is inserted where the word ‘life’ appears. That produces this result: Nothing stands outside of God. Nothing exists without God. You are the expression of God itself. So is everything around you. Even so-called inanimate objects are found, when examined under a microscope, to consist of particles constantly in motion. These particles and their movements are all part of God. Indeed, everything in the observable universe is God, in some form. The existence of God is confirmed by God itself. God is self-referencing, self-confirming, self-sustaining, and self-evident. God is the evidence of the existence of God.

These simple thoughts cause all the dogma and stricturese about God to fall apart. Everything crumbles. Not just a few of our beliefs about God, but the very basis upon which we have built so much of human society. It all comes tumbling down. The wonderful thing about this, the exciting thing, is that we get to recreate ourselves anew, and rebuild our human society—and a huge part of that process is our renewed exploration of the whole idea of God. Taking such a journey would benefit mankind enormously, for in doing so, we acknowledge something in the universe greater than we are. Once that acknowledgement is made, we can use God to create our most desired reality. Until we acknowledge that life is God, we cannot use this power, not turn to God as an ever present help in times of need. That is to deny our greatest resource. So, dear Professor Dawkins, if you are saying that Yesterday’s God is a delusion, you are right. If you are saying that God in any form, known or unknown, taught or untaught, understood or not understood, does not exist, you are wrong.

Neale Donald Walsch is author of many books on spirituality. His series 'Conversations With God' are the most popular.

More information: www.nealedonaldwalsch.com

"What if they threw a war and nobody came?" That question—popular during the 1960s among critics of the Vietnam War—touches the core of every international conflict. And now that question is being asked once again in light of Israel's counterattack against Lebanon. Ode recently published a portrait of Yonathan Shapira, the Israeli pilot who refused to heed his government’s call to serve. In 2003, when Palestinian civilian targets were hit, he turned against the army commanders. In a letter that was also signed by 26 others, Shapira wrote: "We refuse to take part in attacks by the Air Force on the civilian population and we refuse to kill or wound innocent citizens." Shapira was dismissed on the spot. But perhaps this represents a step in a new direction? Read the portrait of Yonathan Shapira here » Robert Hirschfield This article appeared in Ode issue: 30 Yonatan Shapira stood up for peace inside the Israeli Air Force Many in Israel are still trying to make sense of Yonatan Shapira, an Israeli Black Hawk helicopter pilot who in September 2003 made public a “pilots’ letter of refusal” which he authored and 26 other pilots signed. “We refuse to take part in attacks by the Air Force on civilian populations, and we refuse to harm innocent civilians. These acts are illegal and immoral, and the direct result of the ongoing occupation, which corrupts Israeli society.” This was too much for the pilots’ commanders in the Israeli military. Even though Shapira and his co-signers declared their intent to continue to serve on defensive missions, they were promptly dismissed from the Air Force. Two events led Shapira to pen the letter. The first was at Itamar, an Israeli settlement near Nablus. A Palestinian terrorist infiltrated the settlement, killing and wounding many children. Shapira ferried the wounded children in his helicopter to a hospital near Tel Aviv. On the way in, he noticed a Jewish wedding below. “The wedding party was unaware of the wounded children right above them, of the battlefield just to east of them. Inside me, there was also unawareness.” He began to rethink many things—including Israel’s use of targeted assassinations as a political tool. “In the beginning, I thought it was okay. But then it became a routine. First, it was a suicide bomber [who was assassinated]. Then it was a Hamas leader. Then a Hamas member, or a spokesperson. Then it was a mistake, and a whole family was killed.” On the night of July 22, 2002, in what was no mistake, a one-ton bomb was dropped by an Israeli F-16 on the house of Hamas commander Salah Shehadeh in a crowded Gaza neighborhood. More than a dozen people were killed, including nine children. “The children were just like the children who died a few weeks earlier at Itamar. Only these children were Palestinians. For me it was as if that bomb was dropped inside my heart.” Shapira is often asked what if Orthodox Jewish soldiers chose to do as he did and disobey orders to evacuate Jewish settlers from Gaza. Shapira replies. “I know the Ten Commandments. I know that one of the commandments is do not kill. I don’t know any commandment that says do not evacuate.” Reprinted with permission from Sojourners magazine (August 2005), www.sojo.net ~~~light opera

sfgate.com

George W. Bush Is Dead To Me
Nation cringes as the worst president ever continues long, painful slog to the end

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, July 7, 2006

 

It is like some sort of virus. It is like some sort of weird and painful rash on your face that makes you embarrassed to walk out the door and so you sit there day after day, waiting for it to go away, slathering on ointment and Bactine and scotch. And yet still it lingers.

Some days the pain is so searing and hot you want to cut off your own head with a nail file. Other days it is numb and pain-free and seemingly OK, to the point where you think it might finally be all gone and you allow yourself a hint of a whisper of a positive feeling, right up until you look in the mirror, and scream.

George W. Bush is just like that.

Everyone I know has had enough. Everyone I know is just about done. There is this threshold of happy deadened disgust, this point where the body simply resigns itself to the pain, a point where the disease, the poison has seeped so deeply into the bones that you just have to laugh and shrug it all off and go for a drink. Or 10.

I was having cocktails recently with a group of people, among whom were two lifetime Republicans, each in his 60s, corporate businessmen, one admittedly slightly more moderate than the other (to the point where, after once hearing a senator read off a long list of Bush's hideous environmental atrocities, actually let his conscience lead his choice and ended up voting for Kerry) but nevertheless both devoted members of the party.

Bush came up, as a topic, as a cancer, as a fetid miasma in the air. They were both shaking their heads. They were sighing heavily. They were both, in a word, disgusted. The more staunchly conservative of the two even went so far as to say he was so embarrassed and humiliated by this president, by this administration, so appalled at all the war atrocities and the wiretapping and the misuse of law, the fiscal irresponsibility and the abuse of the lower classes and the outright arrogance, that if the Dems could somehow produce a decent moderate candidate with a brain, he'd have zero problem switching allegiances and voting for him. Or her.

It may not sound like much. It may not seem like a major shift. But it is, in its way, sort of massive. For thoughtful Repubs with a conscience (they actually exist, I have seen them), there is little left to defend. There is little this administration has done among all categories of ostensible GOP values that they can look to with any sort of pride. Medicare? Shrinking the budget? Smaller government? Less intervention in our lives? Reduced spending? Increased respect in the international community? Responsible international citizen? Ha. Name your topic, BushCo has failed. Spectacularly. Intentionally.

Indeed, countless Dems were disappointed with Clinton's behavior during Monicagate. Many were ashamed that he would cheapen the office so badly by such trashy moral behavior.

But that was just a cheap little affair (our allies never understood all the fuss anyway). This was never the attitude toward Clinton's politics, his capacity to understand complex issues, his astounding political savvy. No one anywhere doubted he made the country richer, more environmentally conscious, more stable, more respected and admired. Clinton was globally adored not only for his charisma but for his contributions to world peace. Plus he could actually point to Afghanistan on a map.

What a difference a handful of years makes. Now, overseas, we are a joke. A threat. A toxin. We are considered reckless and arrogant and ignorant, dangerous not just to the rest of the world but to the overall health of the planet. No one anywhere understands how a man like Bush can be the leader of the Free World, stolen election or no.

Sure, smarter Europeans know full well that the United States is deeply divided between the pseudo-religious right-wing warmongers who control a tiny cadre of the powerful elite, and, well, everyone else. It does not matter. America's reputation as a powerful and respected diplomatic peacekeeper, as the nation that sets the standards for human rights and economic freedom and choice, is hobbled. Crippled. Is very nearly dead. How quickly can we recover? How much damage has been done? History will tell, and it will be ugly indeed.

Interesting feature interview with Al Gore in Rolling Stone recently. Gore mentions two amazing things: one is the discussion he's had with generals regarding Iraq, with one coming right out and admitting that Bush's disastrous Iraq war will go down as the worst invasion in American history, our greatest misstep, our most costly and debilitating mistake. Among top brass in the know, of this there is little question.

The other was about the discussions Gore's had with various major corporate CEOs about Gore's pet issue, global warming, and how obvious it is that 15 minutes after BushCo leaves office, we will have a radically new global warming policy. In other words, Bush won't do a thing about it in the next two years, despite how obvious it shall become that we are in crisis, simply because he can't risk finally coming out and admitting yet another enormous policy disaster. Not to mention how nearly six years of enviro policy abuse, from air quality to water to forestry to pollution deregulation on all his industrial pals, can't be undone with a smirk and a prayer.

Which is just another way of saying we are currently stuck. We are swirling around the bottom of the drain, clinging on to anything that might hold us from going under for just a little while longer. We have to let the neocon disease run its course, and just pray that at the end of it all the scarring and the pain and damage will not be so permanent, and so hideous, that we can't be seen in public for a decade.

This is where it stands: Bush can in no way risk alienating the ultra-right-wing bonk-job contingent that put him in office (they are, considering Bush's 32-percent approval rating, the only ones left even remotely supporting him -- even though, according to many estimates, they're starting to abandon him, too), and hence all policy and all agenda items from here on out will be even more vicious and desperate in an attempt to shore up the base. Hence trying to mutilate the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Hence attacking the New York Times and claiming newspapers are endangering American lives.

In other words, Bush's latest nasty, Rove-designed salvos and upcoming attacks to save a sliver of power and pride and sneering GOP control are just the beginning.

However -- praise Jesus and pass the scotch -- they are the beginning of the end.

---

Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.

sfgate.com

When Speech Becomes a Crime

Cinnamon Stillwell

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

• Roman Catholic Robert Smith is fired from an appointment on the Washington Metro transit authority board by Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich for the crime of saying that he doesn't approve of homosexuality.

• Journalist and author Oriana Fallaci cannot visit her native country of Italy for fear of being thrown in prison because of a lawsuit brought against her by the Italian Muslim Union for the crime of "defaming Islam."

• British neo-Nazi David Irving is sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for a 1989 speech in which he committed the crime of Holocaust denial.

• College Republican Steve Hinkle is found guilty by California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo) for "disruption" for the crime of putting up a flyer advertising a black conservative speaker.

What do the above examples have in common?  They are the logical outgrowth of a dangerous trend sweeping the Western world: the criminalization and censorship of speech.

Outright censorship and draconian speech codes have long been a staple of Third World authoritarian regimes. But Western democracies and in particular the United States (where the First Amendment is supposed to reign supreme) have always prided themselves on protecting free speech. Yet because of the creeping reach of political correctness, one can now be put in prison, lose a job, be kicked out of school or be otherwise censored simply for uttering an unpopular opinion.

It's called hate speech. If there ever were a more Orwellian concept, it would be difficult to find. For much like the concept of  "thought crimes" in George Orwell's novel "1984," hate crimes and hate speech suppose intent on the part of the "perpetrator" that may or may not have any basis in reality. What is often mere criticism or disapproval is labeled "hatred" and thus made worthy of punishment. Such a perspective demands that one think only nice thoughts about others. But when it did it become law that we have to like everyone?

While bigotry is indeed unpleasant, it is not in and of itself a crime. Whether one acts on that bigotry or incites others to violence in accordance is another matter. The old adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," comes to mind.

Creating Revisionist Martyrs

Even highly objectionable speech such as Holocaust denial should not be criminalized. Such speech would be better fought on the battlefield of ideas than in the courtroom. The academic frauds and conspiracists pushing Holocaust denial should have their work thoroughly discredited and challenged, not censored.

Furthermore, throwing Holocaust deniers in prison merely creates martyrs, which is quite obvious upon perusing any one of the many Web sites that push such views. David Irving, for instance, was turned into a folk hero by his fellow neo-Nazis after being sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for Holocaust denial. While Irving has a long history of promoting Nazism, anti-Semitism, and, yes, Holocaust denial, whether such beliefs constitute criminal acts is questionable.

Author and Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt agrees. Lipstadt knows David Irving well, having gone head to head with him in a libel suit that dragged on for years. In the end, Irving lost the suit against Lipstadt for accusing him of Holocaust denial, yet she too is opposed to the sort of speech codes that sent him to prison. As Lipstadt told the BBC: "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship. ... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth."

Far from protecting those on the receiving end, in this case Jews, such restrictions on speech may actually provide succor to worldwide anti-Semitism. It has certainly given anti-Semites within the Muslim world yet another "Jewish conspiracy" to focus on. Instead of accepting responsibility for the intolerance and backwardness demonstrated in the reaction to the manufactured Danish cartoon "controversy," such Muslims instead point to the hypocrisy of Jews in Western countries who promote free speech in some cases while advocating the imprisonment of Holocaust deniers.

Protecting Islamists From Criticism

Meanwhile, the push to silence what's been labeled "Islamophobia" is giving rise to further restrictions on speech. In the United States and Canada, groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations have instigated numerous lawsuits and brought pressure to bear on writers, radio talk-show hosts and anyone else guilty of criticizing Islam or Islamic culture in any way, shape or form.

Talk-show host Michael Graham was fired by Washington radio station WMAL for calling Islam a "terrorist organization" on his show, after CAIR instituted a letter-writing campaign and demanded an apology. CAIR has used a series of libel or defamation suits to go after those who dare bring to light some of the group's own unsavory ties.

On an international level, the specter of speech codes governing "Islamophobia" has grown exponentially. The United Nations has become the repository for international laws banning the publication of anything deemed insulting to religion and, more specifically, Islam.

Born out of the flap over the Danish cartoons, a series of investigations by the United Nations at the urging of Muslim leaders has led to a slew of resolutions aimed at controlling speech. European and other Western newspapers that dare to publish images of Mohammed in the future or to simply criticize or question aspects of Islamic religion and culture could find themselves on the receiving end of U.N.-sanctioned censorship. Were the United States to adopt such international laws, as some have urged, Americans too could be bound by such restrictions.

Prison for 'Homophobes'?

Gays are another group included in the growing ranks of the "protected classes," as columnist John Leo has noted on several occasions. While one can be sued, fired or expelled from school in the United States for expressing disapproval of homosexuality or what's come to be known as "homophobia," in Canada one just might be thrown in prison.

In 2004, Canadian "genocide and hate crimes" legislation was amended to make it illegal under certain circumstances to "incite hatred" against gays, bisexuals or anyone else based on their sexual orientation. Although the law allows an exemption for religious expression, Christians in particular fear that they will incur the bulk of such offenses, with the citing of biblical passages forbidding homosexuality being the most common "crime." Indeed, even before the amended law went into effect, job loss, fines, censures and visits by the police were part of the repressive political landscape. One need only turn to the European Union, where clergy find themselves the targets of speech code laws intended to protect gays.

But as in other cases meant to shield one group from offense, the freedom of all is compromised in the process. It's no coincidence that Canada's and Europe's descent into speech-code mania began with restrictions on anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Even leftists are not immune. University of British Columbia professor Sunera Thobani, a self-described Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, was hit with a hate crimes investigation several years ago for a lecture in which she harshly criticized Americans and American foreign policy.

The PC Left

 Here in the United States, leftists often decry what they see as censorship emanating from the right, when in fact most of the true silencing of speech has come from within their own ranks. These days, liberal-dominated universities and colleges are one of the major promulgators of speech codes and draconian punishments for hate speech. Beginning in the 1980s, campus speech codes took on a life of their own, leading to countless trumped-up cases based on misunderstandings, perceived insensitivity or the ever-elusive crime of committing offense.

All too often, those on the receiving end are conservative or Christian students who are falsely accused of hate speech when they exercise their rights to free speech. It seems that putting forward a political or religious viewpoint on campus that is considered politically incorrect is now grounds for persecution and possible expulsion. Students have found themselves so beleaguered by what often appear to be politically motivated witch hunts that they have felt the need to turn to organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for legal assistance.

In what may be a good sign, the group has been highly successful in protecting students' rights to free speech and religious freedom. At least one judge has barred the implementation of such draconian campus speech codes in the interest of protecting students' First Amendment rights. In a 2003 lawsuit brought by a conservative student at Shippensburg University in Philadelphia and supported by FIRE, federal judge John E. Jones III ruled against enforcement of student code provisions that prohibited racist, sexist and homophobic speech. As he wrote at the time, the speech code may have been a well-intentioned means of achieving "a utopian community," but it "prohibit[ed] a considerable amount of speech" in the process.

It is indeed the pursuit of a utopian society from which such speech codes emanate. For when George Orwell wrote "1984," his dystopian vision of a future society governed by totalitarianism, it was the excesses of communism he had in mind. Orwell's novel foreshadowed the current movement toward thought control. Except that today's "thought crimes" are called hate speech and hate crimes.

Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com

Being on Blogstream has been worth it if just to meet you, ColoConnect!  You are one special lady, CC, smiles... And...YEAH, I AM telling the world what I think! No be shy. You have earned every bit of ground you have taken, and you do stand tall up there on this high spot. 

You right: I have been a struggling over here.  And though it has not been all bad, my daughter HAS moved to Washington state and taken both my grandsons with her, along with my mechanic ( her hubby) , lol.   I am SO happy for her, and for the boys and my son-in-law....But I miss the 15 year old terribly, and the face of the 10 month old, comes to me in my dreams.

But I am steady on the trail of my life.  All is as it should be. I am blessed.

 Posted by Light Opera at 7:44 PM - 1 Comment   Add a Comment