One references causation.
The other references purpose.
I love Dawkins' take on purpose. It's similar to his ideas on natural beauty. That is to say he is often hit with criticisms about atheism restricting his capacity for joy. If everything can be broken down and explained, then where is the joy in living? What he and I see as more accurate is that the very externalization of things like purpose and natural beauty to an Other is what threatens joy in life.
"Atheism is not a recipe for despair. I think the opposite. By disclaiming the idea of a next life, we can take more excitement in this one. The here and now is not something to be endured before eternal bliss or damnation. The here and now is all we have; an inspiration to make the most of it. So atheism is life-affirming, in a way religion can never be. Look around you. Nature demands our attention; begs us to explore; to question. Religion can provide only facile, ultimately unsatisfying answers. Science, in constantly seeking real explanations, reveals the true majesty of our world in all its complexity...We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die, because they are never going to be born. The number of people who could be here in my place outnumbers the sand grains of Sahara. If you think about all the different ways our genes could be permuted, you and I are quite grotesquely lucky to be here: the number of events that had to happen in order for you to exist, in order for me to exist. We are privileged to be alive and we should make the most of our time on this world."
1 comment:
I hope those links I sent you to the BBC debate on "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?" worked. It was amazing, and both Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry make spine-tinglingly good arguments against deism.
You're dead right: it's all about wonder.
Post a Comment