This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

archway's Profile

archway's Avatar Joined about 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by archway

More Discussions by archway

Latest Comments by archway

Go to: Q&A: Pell vs Dawkins - April 9, Easter Monday night

archway's Avatar Jump to comment 123 by archway

Sorry Sample. I'm not up to the standard required to be part of this debate. I never went along with Derrida's Postmodernist nonsense of the 1980s.

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:45:54 UTC | #934333

Go to: Q&A: Pell vs Dawkins - April 9, Easter Monday night

archway's Avatar Jump to comment 122 by archway

To Helena's comment 120:

Reality? You mean the illusion the quantum physicists have identified? According to philosopher Jacques Maritain, atheism starts in an act of faith in reverse gear and is a full-blown religious commitment. I could feel the patronising faith element in your summary dismissal of what you aren't open to, and of me as a contributor to the debate. You're right. I really am on the wrong site and I thank you for setting the admission qualifications. It'd be nice to see some rational thinking. Show us a sample. C'mon. Be a devil. Simplistic pseudo-formula is hardly rational thinking.

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:41:50 UTC | #934332

Go to: Q&A: Pell vs Dawkins - April 9, Easter Monday night

archway's Avatar Jump to comment 119 by archway

To answer Achromat's question, religion is really a process of education. It’s not a matter of what to believe or not to believe, of doing rituals or clinging to some superstitions; it's a process of educating ourselves in the ways of understanding so that our life becomes extraordinarily rich and we are no longer frightened, mediocre, secondhand human beings. Fake religion is obsessed with an after-life. There's only life, what Christ referred toas Life. The Latin 'educe' root of education means drawing out inner knowledge; our definition is ramming external knowledge in. The Latin root 'religere' meant 'for the part to re-link up with the whole from which it had become detached (a mental decline)'; our definition (employed in this Q&A) is for the part to blindly remain separate but take out an insurance policy with Pell's company or others, purveyors of quack religion. True religion is where we make ourselves initiates by refusing to participate in the fear on which our society is based. If I were to go further than this I'd be breaking a cardinal rule of Being. We're here to do the hard yards ourselves, not have esoteric secrets handed to us on a plate. As Christ warned, the hearers will turn and rend you. Basically what I hinted at in my earlier post was that we have to become authentic. The fake religion we're been brought up in is inauthentic and makes us the same if we side with it. Richard Dawkins and others are opposed to the false religion, and rightly so. Richard is aware that belief is corruptive. It is so because behind belief and idealistic morality lurks the ‘me’, the self – the self which is constantly growing bigger, more powerful. We think that belief in God is religion. This is the 'religion' that makes atheists of intelligent men and women. But it's all for nothing since the object of rejection is a furphy. For Richard to escape his conundrum, he'd need to work at becoming more of an initiate, where what he sees and hears around him is disregarded in favour of what lies within. He should read Jung, Tillich, Krishnamurti or others like them who've gone as far as humanly possible casting esoteric pearls before swine.

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:49:12 UTC | #934309

Go to: Q&A: Pell vs Dawkins - April 9, Easter Monday night

archway's Avatar Jump to comment 109 by archway

Becoming a scientist doesn't qualify one to be a seer into the mysteries of being, so Richard was really asking too much of us - and we him. Likewise, getting to the near-top of the Church bureaucracy doesn't make one an expert in what Christ taught about getting out of the 'normality' rut. If religion is to be debated on ABC-TV, why not have a two stage debate where the definition of true religion (as opposed to what most of us wrongly imagine it to be) is nailed down and then a discussion of the ins and outs of it by people who are versed in the subject? The ABC has a stupid show (The Inventors)where three brilliant inventions - all different - are compared and a 'winner' is selected. It took the same approach to religion (false religion, as it turned out if Pell and Dawkins were there) and we were expected to come away the wiser for it. I expect more from a publicly-funded national broadcaster than what we saw on Q&A. All we learned was how the ABC seems unable to prevent audiences being stacked and how a serious subject can be trivialised by making a peurile contest out of it.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:43:37 UTC | #934030

Go to: Q&A: Pell vs Dawkins - April 9, Easter Monday night

archway's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by archway

emphasized textBy Comment 8: ' ...when I talk about the invisible world I do not, as you assume, mean a supernatural world. The timeless facts which are symbolized by the multiplication table are invisible, but hardly supernatural.' J.B.S.Haldane.

Haldane, like most scientists, had to measure his words - as Christ did - so that dogs (uninitiated) don't make breakfast out of them. So he had difficulty talking about what his intuition makes fairly clear to any intelligent person and many not so cerebrally inclined. In the quote you submit (above), the word supernatural is used as though we all know what it means and can order another round of drinks. To me (and I'm sure it meant something similar to Haldane), it simply means the part of the natural world we don't yet understand, so we put the 'super' (meaning 'above') tag on it for tidiness (but not accuracy). We once regarded electricity as supernatural, and in many respects it still is, and will be till sicence understands it. The feel for this sort of intuitive reality comes out of this remark by Christian Morgenstern: "All secrets lie before us in perfect openness, only we gradate ourselves against them, from stone to seer. There are no mysteries as such, only uninitiated of all degrees."

If we could just get off our show ponies for a while and accept that we're all in varying states of ignorance and blind certainty, the ABC could cancel the coming Q&A debate and put on something of substance. Cartoons would be nice. As it is, we're going to be served up two black-and-whiters who can't stand truth and will bang their kerosine tins about it till the cows leave home again. There are no opposites except in this world of illusory dualism. In space there's no up or down lest we make it by a bit of sleight of hand, using our capsule designer's old notion of up and down, which is irrelevant in its new location. Grey is the mix of black and white; where both are not only tolerated but authentic contributors to the unified reality created. On Monday night we won't get closer to any truth, as promised, because the grey is intolerable to both participants. But as I said, reality is grey to our eyes, to diffuse the false polarity, but gorgeously colourful to those who sought out proper initiation.

The sad thing is that a genuine seer wouldn't get a look in at the ABC or any of the other more openly commercial anaesthetics put over our airwaves. We know what we want, and the lads will churn it out every time. We live in times when our ignorance of Nature is on the brink of deleting us and our home, and this is the best we can organize for a metaphysical discussion. God help us.

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:23:37 UTC | #932868

More Comments by archway