The language used to criticize another reader's comments about this article is a sad reminder of how less evolved we think we are. How about having an opinion and not being made bad in a personal way for it?
A few ideas among many to expand the debate:
1) Evolution and God are not opposing ideas.
2) Science and Spirit are not opposing ideas.
3) Believing in God has nothing to do with ego or how we believe how special we are.
4) There are many possible interpretations of Evolution so I can fully accept evolution and yet not necessarily agree with the version presented in this Article.
5) Richard Dawkins may be an incredible human being and a genius, but that doesn't mean he has all the answers. And he may be clueless about some parts of life (as we all are).
5) For atheists and scientists to pick creationists or organized religion to disprove the whole spiritual dimension of life is like saying that the kindergarden version of God is infantile. Of course it is. How about testing the PhD version of God instead. Now that would be a worthy opponent.
6) The word "God" doesn't mean anything because each person has their own interpretation of what God is. So when someone says, "I don't believe in God," I have no clue what they are talking about, since my understanding of what the word God represent may be radically different then theirs.
Basically my main issue with the article is that it is reductionist, and one can demonstrate and argue anything using reductionist reasoning. More interesting is systems thinking where one looks at all possible aspects and interconnections within that system. However, there is little in our society that supports this way of looking at life, and our education does not train us to do that.
Apr 28 2010 - 3:00pm