Who Designed the Designer?
Dawkins' chapter "Why there almost certainly is no God" is an interesting one, especially from a scientific perspective for it deals with the exciting and awe-inspiring story of the improbability of our being here at all. Dawkins comes alive in this chapter and shows us that he not only knows his science from a Darwinian biologist's point of view, but he is clearly in love with his subject and communicates not only his expertise, but his fascination and excitement.
Darwin's theory of natural selection is the elegant and plausible answer to explain how we evolved very, very gradually from the simplest life forms to the myriad plants and animals now on earth. It is such an amazing "happening" that life ocurred at all: conditions had to be absolutely right, we had to be on a "friendly" planet out of billions, and however improbable it may seem - something happened once to "start" life: pure luck, chance, "something" got us started. Dawkins avers that at this point we can't explain that, but there is no reason to think it was God, in the sense of a supernatural being who "designed" and "created" everything.
We are constantly in awe at the beauty and perfection in living things, let's say a butterfly's wing or a human eye, or some other incredible adaptation. It is easy to see that many religious people and theologians of an earlier age posited the belief that such perfection could only have come from "the great Designer," God. But, according to Dawkins, it's not probable that this was so for two main reasons: one, we are still left with the question "who designed the designer?" and two, the "person" or "being" who could do all that designing must have been extremenly complex and thus statistically improbable. I would have to agree that thinking there is a being who is "out there" somewhere, "capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe," cannot be simple, and is highly unlikely.
So, I guess I would have to agree with Dawkins that this conception of God does not make sense. (Of course, many would say, "why does it have to make sense?"). My only questions at this point are but what if God is not in any way a being? not a "he, she or it"? What if God is more of a quality? What if God is that elegant law of physics yet to be discovered? What if God is not "out there" at all but in everything that is? What if God is not a being, but being, or the ground of all being? What if God is that which calls us on to possibility, to change, to growth? What if God is a concept, a metaphor for our deepest spiritual longings?
In any case, even if the concept of God as "designer of the universe" is improbable, I'm not about to give up my love of such poems as "God's Grandeur"!
"The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out like shining from shook foil"
- Gerard Manley Hopkins
Darwin's theory of natural selection is the elegant and plausible answer to explain how we evolved very, very gradually from the simplest life forms to the myriad plants and animals now on earth. It is such an amazing "happening" that life ocurred at all: conditions had to be absolutely right, we had to be on a "friendly" planet out of billions, and however improbable it may seem - something happened once to "start" life: pure luck, chance, "something" got us started. Dawkins avers that at this point we can't explain that, but there is no reason to think it was God, in the sense of a supernatural being who "designed" and "created" everything.
We are constantly in awe at the beauty and perfection in living things, let's say a butterfly's wing or a human eye, or some other incredible adaptation. It is easy to see that many religious people and theologians of an earlier age posited the belief that such perfection could only have come from "the great Designer," God. But, according to Dawkins, it's not probable that this was so for two main reasons: one, we are still left with the question "who designed the designer?" and two, the "person" or "being" who could do all that designing must have been extremenly complex and thus statistically improbable. I would have to agree that thinking there is a being who is "out there" somewhere, "capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe," cannot be simple, and is highly unlikely.
So, I guess I would have to agree with Dawkins that this conception of God does not make sense. (Of course, many would say, "why does it have to make sense?"). My only questions at this point are but what if God is not in any way a being? not a "he, she or it"? What if God is more of a quality? What if God is that elegant law of physics yet to be discovered? What if God is not "out there" at all but in everything that is? What if God is not a being, but being, or the ground of all being? What if God is that which calls us on to possibility, to change, to growth? What if God is a concept, a metaphor for our deepest spiritual longings?
In any case, even if the concept of God as "designer of the universe" is improbable, I'm not about to give up my love of such poems as "God's Grandeur"!
"The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out like shining from shook foil"
- Gerard Manley Hopkins
Labels: God atheism religion books
posted by mamie @ 1:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home