Atheism: More Vision, Less Derision

I am currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and I am finding it a very fatiguing book to read. The reason for this is Richard cannot seem to make an eloquent rejection of religious superstition without ranting about the stupidity of everyone and everything involved. It’s cover to cover contempt. I would rather be inspired by an atheist vision than witnessing intellectual derision. If it is wrong, prove it is wrong without adding insult to injury.

The problem is atheists, myself included, are hard pressed to come up with an atheist vision. However, Milan Kundera, a seasoned victim of communist oppression, came out with what I believe to be the best vision I can think of. That is the rejection of supernatural consciousness and the rationale of Descartes and the acceptance of the value of all natural consciousness. The real joy of life for every living thing is to be conscious of life at whatever level that may be. And every living thing fights with everything it has to preserve its consciousness.

The frauds of religion are two:

  1. to claim that there is a supernatural consciousness in the universe. For that there is no evidence.
  2. to claim that our consciousness somehow exists before or after life. For that there is no evidence.

Love your consciousness, love other’s consciousness as your own.

4 Responses to “Atheism: More Vision, Less Derision”

  1. Benjamin Says:

    you pretty much hit the nail on the head
    Dawkins really has one message

    “believers are stupid”

    does he really say more?

    I don’t find that a compelling argument

  2. grant czerepak Says:

    Hello Benjamin,

    Actually, that’s not Richard’s Dawkin’s argument, but that is part of his conclusion.

    Richard makes many compelling arguments in his book against theistic thought. However, bludgeoning these thoughts and those that think them accomplishes nothing. It just lowers the level of discourse.

    Personally, I am an atheist. But I know that the paradigm of patriotism can be as dangerous as theism. In fact, any paradigm we assert as the incontrovertible truth is the path to ruin. For every paradigm humanity creates there is an exception that paradigm cannot handle. And when that exception is encountered there are only two choices: evolve or perish.

    Richard Dawkins has his own paradigm. He is human like anyone else and I think he has to learn to express what makes him an atheist instead of an antitheist. He hasn’t achieved that. Perhaps, like in Taoism, as soon as you think you’ve described it, you’ve failed to describe it.

  3. Benjamin Says:

    I respect your choice to be an atheist, I do not agree with it, but that is your choice.

    “Personally, I am an atheist. But I know that the paradigm of patriotism can be as dangerous as theism. In fact, any paradigm we assert as the incontrovertible truth is the path to ruin”

    This to me, as a Gnostic is very true. Beliefs of any kind are ultimatly piffle. A paradigm as you like to use, I hate the word personally, is just that, a paradigm, as you state. Thus an apple is an apple only because we call it an apple, we could equally call it a pumpkin or Sven. The overall nature of Sven has not changed, but how we relate to sven has.

    For us Gnostics this is at the heart of Gnosticism, breaking through illusion, bull cwap…I realise Dawkins like most “religious detractors” is mainly focusing upon “sheeple” or the small of thought. I howver find this generalisation to be objectionable. It is as bad as a southern baptist or some other fervent religious fundamnetalist calling all atheists children of satan. But you strike me as intelligent enough to know exactly what I am saying.

    There is a Buddhist story I like that relates to this, it is perhaps more pallatable than say a quote from the Naghammadi Gospel of Philip which also goes into how “the map is not the territory” (it dares to say good is not good and God is not God..and other similiar sentiment)
    here is the zen “parable”

    One day Mara, the Evil One, was travelling through the villages of India with his attendants.

    he saw a man doing walking meditation whose face was lit up on wonder. The man had just discovered something on the ground in front of him.

    Mara’s attendant asked what that was and Mara replied,

    “A piece of truth.” “Doesn’t this bother you when someone finds a piece of truth, O Evil One?”

    his attendant asked. “No,” Mara replied. “Right after this, they usually make a belief out of it.”

    From 108 Treasures for the Heart: A Guide for Daily Living by Benny Liow

    Another recent post on my blog states the same thing, though may be less palatable to you:

    “The paradigm that imagines a God in reality either leads to a philosophy of absolute surrender, total effacement of the human being and life in this world, or—for those not willing to accept that—it leads to atheism. By the way, the atheist, by denying God, is actually partly right—in reality there is no God.

    But the Kabbalah inspires a complete paradigm shift. It teaches that Hashem does not exist in reality—Hashem is reality. And we do not exist alongside Hashem, we exist within Hashem, within the reality that is Hashem.

    Hashem is the place. Indeed, Hashem is the all-embracing context for everything. So there can’t be you and God standing side by side in reality. There is only one reality that is hashem, and you exist in Hashem.

    You exist within reality, embody an aspect of reality, participate in reality. That’s a completely different understanding. All of a sudden, you are no longer a puny insignificant creature existing alongside God, sharing the same place. In light of this perspective, you are not only not puny, not insignificant, not nothing, your existence is intensified because it is a manifestation of the Divine.
    Seeing God is all about getting in touch with reality.”

    – David Aaron (Seeing God:Ten Life-Changing Lessons of the Kabbalah)

    with respect

  4. grant czerepak Says:


    Thank you for your insights. Yes, we are a part of the universe we are in. We cannot conceive of that universe of having an “outside”. However, fish left the strata of the sea for the strata of the land sea boundary and became amphibious. Then amphibians left the strata of the land sea boundary and entered the land and became reptiles. Then reptiles left the strata of the land and entered the strata of the atmosphere and became birds. And now man is leaving the strata of the atmosphere. Each one of these strata seemed at one time to be a boundary that could not be crossed. The sky itself was once thought to be like a great inverted bowl in which the stars were fixed.

    I believe that there will always be found an “outside” to our conception of God and of the universe.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: