A Religious Sense Of The Natural vs. Supernatural Religion

This is a mind-expanding talk that probes the limits of human understanding: Why can't we see atoms? Why can't we hear color? How can we understand randomness? Dawkins suggests that the true nature of the universe eludes us because the human mind has evolved mainly to understand other humans -- and to look for human motives even in natural processes. Thus, we create a humanlike God to explain phenomena we can't otherwise comprehend; right or wrong, we're simply wired for it.
Richard Dawkins is Oxford's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and the author of the landmark 1976 book The Selfish Gene and the 2006 bestseller The God Delusion. (The talk was recorded July 2005 in Oxford, UK)



In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins examines the religious sense of the natural world of scientists in apposition to the supernatural religions:

“………Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.

Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply. This is certainly true of Einstein and Hawking……

….One of Einstein’s most eagerly quoted remarks is ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’. But Einstein also said

'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.'

Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By religion Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.

Here are some more quotes from Einstein to give a flavor of Einsteinian religion.

'I am a deeply religious non-believer. This is somewhat a new kind of religion.

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve'.............."

(The God Delusion, Chapter I, pp.35-36)

See also: http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m5G704L3D2SCM