Has it forgot to take its Prozac? What a load of drivel is exhibited by the above post. I agree with another poster who told it plain and simple: It's usually the other way around. When a man like Dawkin's or Sagan or Dan Barker writes a book questioning the tenets of religious dogmas-- which of course, may or may not be true---or the existence of God---who may or may not exist---the Fundies arise en masse and blast the guy, and hurl insults like "Satanist", "In league with demons", "God-hater", "Communist" and what not. As for myself, who has posted a few times here and there, I am often confused with an atheist which is not exactly true. Like Spinoza, the heretic Jew wrote: Nature, the Universe has most or all the qualities attributable to God . It is my Ultimate Cause, my Ultimate Source, and to which I'll return. However, like Spinoza, I have serious doubts over survival of death. Nature's way has never been to retain the old, but rather replace the old with the new. Old creatures die out to be replaced by the New, and so Evolution moves on. However Nature has virtually every quality God is usually claimed to have. People say, but who created Nature or the Universe and if you say "God", you have a problem because if Nature cannot exist in se without requiring a creator, than neither can God and you end up in an infinite reqress. That goes nowhere like the belief that the World rested on the back of an elephant who stood on the back of a Turtle and as Russell pointed out we end up in a nightmare, because then what does the Turtle rest on? Is it "turtles all the way down" as one lady suggested? If you say the Universe is too complex, especially the living things in it, to be a result of change and invent a "God" as creator, you are in a similar bind, as God possesses too high a complexity to have resulted from chance as well. So "God" as an answer to "Who made me, or Who made the Universe?" is a cop-out, and answer that tells us absolutely nothing. In reality, the Earth does not require the support of anything as it basically floats in space held in orbit by the gravitation of the Sun. Just as the Earth does not require support, and note the Bible refers to the Earth resting on "pillars" as opposed to Atlas or Elephants, a common error in the thinking of ancient peoples everywhere. Likewise, it is not really necessary that Nature or the Universe have a creator, in fact Nature is OUR creator. Nature made us. And technically speaking the Universe in the definition of "The Ultimate System that contains all things that exist, if so would include God, and therefore be bigger than God." By Cantor's set theory, if Set A contains C,D, and E and set B contains only C and D, then A must be greater than B. The Universe containing God would be primary and God secondary, himself a creation of Natural forces. Either way, Nature is primary, and there is no other Ultimate cause for the existence of you or anyone else, but for a proximate cause, the question "Who made me?" is rather simple, so simple most blockheads can't see it. The answer is simply "My parents" without them, Nature, God or not, there would be no you. And it is a simple fact, that even if your parents planned on having a child, instead of your conception catching them both unawares, they still didn't plan on having YOU. They had no idea what or who they would get. Maybe in time science will allow a couple to chose the sex, race and complete DNA of a child with harmful defects or genes edited out. Still, your existence was not planned or intended by your parents in anything more than general details. They got you simply by the luck of the draw. Likewise with Nature. Nature is the Ultimate Power. The Sun itself is a tiny fraction of the power that is Nature's and in a single second releases more energy than what would be released by all of mankind's nuclear arsenals going off at one time. But did Nature plan you, have you in mind from the start? Why it is impossible to prove this is false, it is easily seen as highly improbable. Your existence is caused, but not planned. It is, simply, happenstance, a roll of the dice, a draw of the cards. Your exact DNA sequence is largely randomized. And those who known Nature know that she has no regard whatsoever for the individual. I and you can love Her, but she cares not one whit for any of us nor is concerned to keep our existence beyond the tiny fraction of time we have as ours.
In this sense Neale Walsch is right. We have total control over our lives and our destiny. Whatever we want for us is what Nature[God] wants. What is objectionable is Neale Walsch's claim to essentially be a prophet receiving a revelation from God. His claim that his message, however good some of it may be, is from God is necessary for any sane person to challenge and question. I have read the CWG trilogy and some of the supplementary volumnes. There is absolutely nothing new in it, in fact God acts more like the type of motivational speakers with a mild blend of New Age philosophy that are so common in some corporations to instill some spirit, some cooperation in their employees. The use of Acronymns like F.E.A.R or False Evidence Appearing Real is the norm by these platitude speaking corporate revivalists. However, one thing is certain, God should be able to get his facts right, and would not hold as factual every ridiculous miracle story from the past. To accept everything from Altantis to the Flood, to Reincarnation, to Jesus walking on water or born of a virgin, to Sai Baba's divinity is merely the grossest form of credulousness, rather common in New Agers, but not exactly of God. Also "God" in one of his later books uses the term "Light-years" as a time not a distance, a rather juvenile mistake, but one that would be impossible with God. Email me if you want the exact instance of this little "Snafu" on "God's" part.
In fact, most atheists are not opposed to the concept of God, it's just that every "god" that people come up with and claim, "This is the One" turns out to be faulty, hollow, stupid or just plain cruel, vicious and evil." As one of the Greek sages wrote "He is not impious who criticizes the gods. He is impious who holds the crowd's opinions of the gods." Actually, the atheist give God the benefit of the doubt. They say that if there were God, they'd have to be a lot better, wiser, and intelligent than mankind's mythological gods who behave like a bunch of imbeciles. It is the Clergy, the Devout who have made God into a monster, a laughing stock, an absurdity no sane person would want. But then I care not, neither holding Theism or Atheism, but rather knowing that Nature made me, and when I die, I'll return to same, or a least the elements making up my body will return to the ground to be eventually recycled. As for beyond that, I can speculate as well as anybody, but that'd be absurd, pointless. The agnostic stance is the most logically tenable when it comes to some questions where we really don't have enough evidence to base anything on.
So who is the God of Neale Walsch? Where does the message come from. It comes from his own unconscious mind, it comes from everything he's seen and read and heard. The unconscious mind is extremely powerful and can easily do and say everything in the CWG books. The farthest I or anybody could rightfully go is to say he was connecting with the highest or deepest or wisest part of himself. Beyond that I will not go. Some of it is good, some of it great, but a lot of it is absurd, and some of it just plain wrong. God is not the likely source, unless God is seriously messed up. Here is one place I agree with the Bible. God is not going to be one thing in the past and another thing today, but will espouse the same philosophy always and not go from maniacal self-righteous murderous tyrant to a blend of Dr. Phil and some corporate New-Age motivational speaker. Have no doubt, Neale Walsch is a very intelligent guy and has made himself a bundle from his writings. But I'll tell him and the whole world this, once he has created a religion based on this book and has the status of a clergy, which is close to actuality, his message will be turned into just another chain on the minds of mankind, and we'll all be less free, less enlightened than when we started. I've heard these motivational speakers, these guys who think positive thinking and creative visualizations can accomplish anything like the guy who made millions off his book "Think and Grow Rich". Well, he got rich from the book, not visualizing wealth in some quasi New-Age claptrap as he instructs his readers. It's like buying for $19.95 the Easy Money Making Secrets and Guide to Wealth by some WallStreet Maven. They'll get rich from all those people buying their product, but you'll be $19.95 poorer.
Philosophy: questions that may never be answered. Religion: answers that may never be questioned.
reply
share