1) Everything may substitute morality in your declarations, I really don't see the point of it. Everything changes in history, or else it wouldn't be and existence would be like a giant still photograph. I don't really know what to make of this since morality is not the main point of the article. Like I said, if history and science have shown morality to be ambiguous and dependant on enviromental circumstance, how can such things as a 'created morality' exist if in fact they are just reactions to laws and upbringing? To me this is just metaphysical idealism, like the 'soul' superstition.
2) I never suggested that. That goes to show who is the real conditioned one: I never said God was a male, even less, a white one. I just said the word God, you don't know what this means to me and assumed I meant it as a divine white male. That's whacked.
Maybe we were the designers of ourselves.
If we did, and could talk to him like another human, then he would'nt be so high after all.
You may not be aware you're even doing it, because civilization's influence is so engraved into your unconscious.
3) A superior morality considers that morality doesn't exist, and all that does is either truth or untruth, as related to the knowledge one has uncovered.
1) Well first I have to state that the article is not about morality, I know it talks about it at some point, but morality could be excluded and replaced with duty or whatever. If you understand the article you will know what I'm saying.
2) You were right about the sex, not species or race. (Not that I really think god is a man, it's way beyond that for me, but if it is to be considered as the creator it has to have the first masculine principle in order to create, in my opinion. But god to me is the Theos Agnostos, beyond all limitation, categorization etc.)Dinaric leather:
This is the title of the article, I must reproduce it.
Anyway I think the point is that, when all belief in a planned creation (it is not necessary that this is the exact belief - but not richard dawkin's materialism) fades, power becomes the only thing to be worshiped so Richard Dawkins does not feel it is contradictory for him to think and say that the geologist should not abandon science or that it is not good that he did so, but he only takes those things for granted because he lives in western world, science has brought progress, science has brought answers, etc. and the majority of people would agree, but that is because of power, not because what he's saying (in his world view - nothing has a plan or "should" or "shouldn't"), so, while he as a scientist can understand, biologically, why some people would disagree with this, I think he feels deep down that he is RIGHT, that people who disagree with him are deluded and ignorant. But he only takes that for granted because the power structure is on his side. If the media put shamans, new agers, etc. in the media good looking, with sexy people, sex insinuations, made it hip, etc. it could make richard dawkins look like the fool. And in my opinion from the point of view that dawkins himself exposes that would not be wrong. The strongest force would survive and he could say that it's a shame that knowledge was being supressed BUT, he could not provide any reason as to why that would be BAD, because nature is lawless, and there would not be any OBJECTIVE TRUTH that he could invoke to prove that he was right.