1 of 2
1
Neale Donald Walsch takes on Richard Dawkins
Posted: 07 December 2008 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2008-12-06

From Ode Magazine, NDW says he had a dialogue with God and wrote quite a few books on the subject. Here he takes on Dawkins:

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


Neale Donald Walsch | March 2007 issue

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.

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: http://www.nealedonaldwalsch.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2008 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2007-06-23
selinakyle - 08 December 2008 02:22 AM

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.

About the same thing that happens when you insert the word “Catwoman”.

 Signature 

He who is not a misanthrope at forty can never have loved mankind  -Chamfort

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2008 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

As Dr. Stuart Kauffman has stated-the wonders of the natural world should be God enough for us. We, as evolved primates really do not need to add anything more to it. We just need to understand it better and put it into perspective.

When people actually study the sciences of the natural world and begin to understand them, they eventually come to the point where they do not need the delusion of a supernatural world anymore. The natural world has quite enough awe and wonder of it’s own. And we may in fact never understand it all completely.

This is what great scientists like Kauffman and Dawkins are trying to convey to people in their writings today. Sad that still, millions are missing it.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2008 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  663
Joined  2008-05-22

I believe in God because I have had a conversation with God…..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.

Thank you, Mr. Walsch, for solving this mystery that has baffled us for thousands of years. “God” is just a synonym for “life”; there you have it folks! If life is real, then God must be real…..we can all believe in God now! Yay!

And thank you, mpbrockman, for bringing Catwoman into existence for us in exactly the same way. While we’re at it, let’s make Cheetara (from Thundercats) real as well. They are both HOT! gulp

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2008 07:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

God is the evidence of the existence of God.—Neale Donald Fuckwit

“Truth is beauty, and beauty, truth; that is all ye know and all ye need to know.”—Keats

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2008 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05
Neale Donald Fuckwit 

cheese

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2008 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05

I can’t remember where I read this, but I believe that in one of his “conversations,” God told our friend Neale that the Holocaust was actually a blessing since He brought six million Jews closer to him.  How very touching.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2008 09:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2007-06-23
bigredfutbol - 10 December 2008 12:35 PM

I can’t remember where I read this, but I believe that in one of his “conversations,” God told our friend Neale that the Holocaust was actually a blessing since He brought six million Jews closer to him.  How very touching.

What does this remind me of? Oh, yes - Babylonian babies…

“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -Psalm 137:9

 Signature 

He who is not a misanthrope at forty can never have loved mankind  -Chamfort

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2008 11:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2008-12-06

Here’s another gem from Mr. Walsch and ‘God’:


Walsch: But those who have taught me all about the rights and wrongs, the dos and don’ts, the shoulds and shouldn’ts, told me all those rules were laid down by You—by God.

God: Then those who taught you were wrong. I have never set down a “right” or “wrong,” a “do” or a “don’t.” To do so would be to strip you completely of your greatest gift—the opportunity to do as you please, and experience the results of that…. To say something—a thought, a word, an action—is “wrong” would be as much as to tell you not to do it…. To prohibit you would be to restrict you. To restrict you would be to deny the reality of Who You Really Are.

God: Evil is that which you call evil. Yet even that I love, for it is only through that which you call evil that you can know good; only through that which you call the work of the devil that you can know and do the work of God. I do not love hot more than I do cold, high more than low, left more than right. It is all relative. It is all part of what is.

I do not love “good” more than I love “bad.” Hitler went to heaven. When you understand this, you will understand God.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2008 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2007-06-23
selinakyle - 10 December 2008 04:24 PM

God: Evil is that which you call evil. Yet even that I love, for it is only through that which you call evil that you can know good; only through that which you call the work of the devil that you can know and do the work of God. I do not love hot more than I do cold, high more than low, left more than right. It is all relative. It is all part of what is.

Along the same lines I would argue: only through the nonexistence of god/heaven does this life become truly precious.

 Signature 

He who is not a misanthrope at forty can never have loved mankind  -Chamfort

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2008 06:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Walsch’s concept and definitions of god remind me of the main moral in the film American Beauty: “Everywhere, Everything is beauty”—including murder and mayhem.

I detected a tinge of mormon doctrine in there too…
Particularly this part:

To prohibit you would be to restrict you. To restrict you would be to deny the reality of Who You Really Are.

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2008 06:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2008-12-06

Here’s more Neale on Hitler:

“The mistakes Hitler made did no harm or damage to those whose deaths he caused. Those souls were released from their earthly bondage, like butterflies emerging from a cocoon. ... When you see the utter perfection in everything - not just in those things with which you agree, but (and perhaps especially) those things with which you disagree - you achieve mastery.”[68]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2008 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2008-12-06

(Wow, he also has ‘conversations’ with Richard Dawkins!)


In Response to Richard Dawkins-Part 2


Categories: Life and the New Spirituality

by Neale Donald Walsh


I am sharing all of this as the beginning of Part II of my “debate” with Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. (See Part I in yesterday’s blog.)

God is Life, and Life is God, and there is no separation between the two. But not just physical life. God is metaphysical life as well. That is, God is that which is larger than the Life we see in physical form all around us. I propose that it is from this Unseen Form that all physical life as we know it emerges, and then, yes, evolves – and that as Life forms evolve they come to know themselves consciously. That is, they become self-conscious. They not only become aware of themselves, they become aware that they are aware of themselves.

Further, I believe that as they become aware that they are aware, the part of themselves that lives in this Awareness also becomes aware of how to use that Awareness – which is a non-physical attribute of the highly conscious – to produce physical attributes and manifestations in day-to-day life. And I believe that the highly conscious can, and have, produced such manifestations with consistent and predictable results.

How does the Power of Positive Thinking (to use the wonderful phrase of the late Rev. Dr. Norman Vincent Peale) work if there is not something other than the physical, which acts upon the physical? Or is it Richard Dawkins’ point of view that…

...such things never occur, and cannot, unless there is a cause in physicality?

If that is his idea (and I wish not to put words in his mouth), then I have to tell him that from the evidence of my eyes and my own experience, he is profoundly mistaken.

“Oh, well, if you are going to define God in that way, then I agree,” I can almost here Richard saying (but with, perhaps, a trace of a scoff). “If you are saying that God is life, then how can I disagree? God, by that definition, must exist, since life itself clearly exists! But,” I can hear Richard going on patiently (or, perhaps, not so patiently) “that is no definition of God at all in the traditional sense, and is simply the pronouncement already offered by Naturalists, who say that everything is God.”

Yet if Richard did say that, I would counter that what I am suggesting goes way beyond what most Naturalists believe. Again (and not to be minimized), I am suggesting that God is a process that produces consistent and predictable results.

Here again Dawkins might not like calling it “God,” but might agree that indeed, such a nearly infallible process does exist. He might say that Life does the same thing. Quantum mechanics, to take one aspect of Life, offers results predictable to the breadth of a human hair across the span of the north American continent – a point he makes in his text.

Yet I am also saying that God can be used to produce those results intentionally. God is therefore not only a Process, but a Mechanism. A Device with which to produce (or make manifest) physical realities and physical outcomes. A Tool with which to seemingly create out of thin air.

I am not sure that Dawkins would agree with that…but I certainly would have loved to have heard his take on it, rather than over 400 pages debunking traditional, outdated, outmoded, and outdistanced concepts of Deity no longer embraced by those Cultural Creatives who, I suggest in my book Tomorrow’s God, are in fact creating a new God and a New Spirituality even as we speak.

So Richard, 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. A rose by any other name…

Humanity seems to me to be like children who have learned their addition and subtraction but have not yet discovered multiplication and long division – yet who loudly insist on declaring that addition and subtraction is all there is, and that there is nothing more to know on the subject of mathematics.

In my conversations with God I was invited to consider the possibility that there is something we do not fully understand about God, the understanding of which would change everything.

It was in my book What God Wants that I wrote:

“If God is not the highest point in a pyramid that passes authority down the line, but is, rather, the power that exists in the whole line, and is, therefore, in a sense, the line itself, what does that do to the Top Down, Power Over structures upon which so much of human society is built?”

The answer, Richard, is the same answer that you gave: The God of Our Fathers simply does not exist. But the answer is not that some sort of God cannot exist: a God that we have only just begun to conceptualize, and surely do not fully understand.

I am telling you, kind professor, that this kind of God does exist. It exists as an impulse and a process and an experience within all of us. It exists as the process that is Life Itself, and there is no need to declare that God does not exist simply because we agree that God does not exist in anthropomorphic form.

Again from What God Wants:

“If the words ‘God’ and ‘life’ are interchangeable, the implications are—if it’s possible to imagine this—more than enormous. They’re 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, and life does not exist if nothing exists.

“You are the expression of life 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 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.

“Not only does everyone know these things, everyone agrees with these things. What makes what is being said here so dangerous is 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, and God does not exist if nothing exists.

“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.

“Do you see the problem now? Those three paragraphs cause all the paragraphs in all the other books 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 this whole idea of God…”

Sadly, this is an exploration that brilliant Prof. Dawkins has not sufficiently undertaken. As I have earlier noted, he seems satisfied with having thoroughly disproven the existence of the Yesterday’s God and speaks little or not at all of Tomorrow’s God. What he does do, and magnificently, is call religion and religionists to task for their almost always life-sapping, life-negating, life-destroying views. His section on Absolutism is worth the price of the entire book. It could have come straight from the pages of What God Wants – and so, of course, I agree with Richard here completely (Neale said with a smile).
Yet now the larger discussion must begin, Richard. I am not content to let things lie where you have left them. I offer this, once more from my own writing, as a beginning exchange:

“If in fact the words ‘God’ and ‘life’ are describing the same thing…well, we have some major, major theological implications here.

“Do we need more evidence of the existence of life than life itself? No. And what does life want? Nothing. Life simply is.

“Life is an energy, a power, to be used. And it is being used, freely, by all. It has no expectations, no desires, no demands, no requirements, no need to be worshipped and no need to punish those who fail to worship it. Life is a singular and unemotional reality. Life is the creator, and it’s that which has been created.

“Life is the source of life, and it’s That Which Has Been Sourced. Life produces life, and life informs life about life through the process of life itself.

“Life is, in a few words, the Alpha and the Omega, the All in All. There is nothing that IS that It is not.

“If this is not the definition of God, then what is?”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2008 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  254
Joined  2008-09-06

Wow. A man with overwhelming self-righteousness and no morals whatsoever. If that’s the New Age give me the Dark Ages. At least the Church believed in humility, charity and love for one’s fellow man. How much these were honored in the breach is a separate issue. It’s light years ahead of this crap.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2008 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
selinakyle - 08 December 2008 02:22 AM

  Walsch: 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.

Seems to be a little lacking in self-esteem but replete in the god delusion.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2009 12:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19

Sorry to interrupt the cynical, dogmatic, pack-mentality run-away steam train that is in progress here on this thread and gaining momentum with every post, but please consider the following:

NDW
“If in fact the words ‘God’ and ‘life’ are describing the same thing…well, we have some major, major theological implications here.

Does anybody see anything terribly destructive in his view that God is life, in terms of its impact on society?  Hypothetically, what if all religious people of the world were to abandon religion and take this view?  Would that not be progress?

[ Edited: 07 January 2009 07:06 AM by Immediate Suppression]
 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed