Religion of Love

Speeches » 2007 » 10 Richard Dawkins  (Previous | Next)

October 2007 (About Richard Dawkins)


[469] I refer to his book "The L Delusion". One must have experienced L. Then one knows also that ze exists. Even the personal knowledge is dubbed as "experiences" and illustrated with reports, which have only nominally something to do with L. Why should L turn towards Richard Dawkins? [470] He sees the bad in the existing religions, but instead of taking the trouble to develop a religion from that all can profit, if they want to, only reports follow, what religions have brought about all bad. L is dismissed as improbable with hints like e.g. those at the natural selection and the anthropic principle. Only what is simple, is also probable. So the multiverse theory must then pay for the explanation of physical laws and constants - with all consequences for their inhabiters. [471] But how all of this emerged without L Dawkins does not explain. I regard the weighting by L, concerning the creation of the universe, as still most probable; Dawkins regards L as difficult to explain. Why does he want to admit only the simple, as it applies now relatively to our entrance world? So Dawkins is consequently monist (simple!). However, the universe is so complex that we can spend still thousands of years in order to investigate it, what makes sense, so that there is always something new for us. [472] He requires an explanation for L: L is an infinite potential that exists with beginning of time in all worlds, for which it is also responsible. L is unconditional and therefore cannot be deduced. Ze opens up to those that ze finds worthy and that then may experience everything after zis plan, what L can offer them. The way leads, in an initial and probation world, thus always from the creature to L, and not the other way round. [473] In L culminate the highest characteristics. Wanting to reduce the world to what can be scientifically experienced, misses the reality and possibility. Why should not exist what is infinitely good? That is the real ignorance of Dawkins and the atheists. One must force them to their luck, instead of that they approach it. Therefore, L does not turn towards Dawkins. [474] The latter ignores the miracles happened and the efforts in this world to be at least thankful and to serve L. He takes for granted what is not, and wants only to accept what he can understand completely. Since he is, however, not deeply atheistic, still hope exists that he turns towards that what exists for sure: L.

© 2007 by Boris Haase

Valid XHTML 1.0 • Disclaimer • imprint • • pdf-version • questionnaire • bibliography • subjects • definitions • php-code • sitemap • rss-feed • top