Robert C. Priddy

Writings on diverse themes from philosophy, psychology to literature and criticism

  • Robert Priddy


    In this blog I post information and critical views concerning ideologies, belief systems and related scientific materials etc. I am a retired philosophy lecturer and researcher, born 1936.

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 17 other followers

  • Feedshark

Posts Tagged ‘Professor Richard Dawkins’

Richard Dawkins: the Inner God Illusion

Posted by robertpriddy on March 17, 2012

Professor Richard Dawkins has given a quite thorough account of the weaknesses and redundancy of the conception and belief in God mainly considered as an external (creative) cause or force acting upon the universe and mankind. However, he has not confronted what I deem considerably more numinous and mind-twisting conceptions of God as the omnipresent inner motivator of the universe and mankind. Though this ‘inner’ or personal Christ is found in Christianity too, not least in its mysticism, these ideas of ‘inner divinity’ are already gaining prominence, both in so-called New Age religions and bizarre forms of supposed ‘spirituality’, but not least in India, from where it seems to have originated long ago.

This brand of pan-theism is complex and can employ the subtlest causistry, so that even highly educated people with good language analytical skills are very easily taken in by its convolutions. Various interpreters of Adi Shankara’s non-dual philosophy (Advaita ) – including New Age variants are ingenious (one good example is Sri Nisagardatta’s book ‘I Am That’). Meanwhile, a noted European exponent of a non-dual God conception was the metaphysician Baruch Spinoza. Witness also the Sathya Sai Baba movement – consisting in some millions of believers with organisations in over 170 countries of the world, a striking example of the popularity of this ‘God is within, I Am God, You are God, Everything is God’ conception as embraced by a whole series of India’s Prime Ministers, Presidents, High Chief Justices etc. The substitution of the ‘new spirituality’ for traditional forms of theism has well begun. Imported Eastern thought and its re-invigoration since the 1960s plus the consequences of psychedelic experimentation are particularly involved. It has also diverse vulgarized forms, (eg. belief in ‘Jedi power’ rather than any traditional deity).

The sophistication and explanatory complexity of such pantheistic theories of omnipresent divinity is wide-ranging, it addresses many deep issues about our supposed ‘true nature’, ‘solves’ philosophical teasers about mind and matter, and explains paranormal phenomena and/or reported extra-sensory powers of all kinds. Some variants show very considerable rational resources – though they remain chiefly mental and not demonstrable experimentally. All in all, they are seen to be speculative to a high degree, resting on assumptions that are not borne out to any degree by empirical evidence or science. Once one is able to penetrate the labyrinthine theological explanations to get a critical overview of the whole conception they are seen to be self-defeating – the ultimate in long-distance circular reasoning. Its winding theoretical dead-ends can, however, have serious consequences for a persons’ life, especially since the common religious requirement of total faith in the particular doctrine and its promises of release from all cares and suffering (if not now, then in the hereafter).

To exercise ‘spiritual practices’ is the be-all-and-end-all of this resurgent religiosity. Such practices include the simplest forms like constant repetition of the Name of God, of prayers, of mantras and other verbal or oral sounds – devotional singing included. One very popular version of a path to spiritual realization is the stringent Pollyanna-mysticism of ‘A Course in Miracles’). At a more evolved level we find the concentration on action as an expression of one’s inherent divine nature – offering up all one does to God and ensuring that one acts according to supposed ‘divine commandments’ of one tradition or another. The most sublimated form of these ‘spiritual practices’ are those of service to mankind (regarded as service to God) – that is, doing good work selflessly. The inherent purpose of all these forms of ‘spiritual practice’ (Hindu sadhana) is claimed to be the attainment of identity with the Divine – or, worded differently, realisation of one’s own inherent and true nature as God. (There are many difficulties with this concept, of course – such as whether it should be a part of God or God per se!). This mysticism and its impracticability is extremely difficult to penetrate, not least because the claim is that one must commit  totally to it for a very long time to achieve its fruits- There is, of course, no way one can prove that such fruits – release from all suffering, never-ending bliss, consciousness etc are possible or can be achieved at all.

It seems that the expected demise of the ‘Church empires’ – partly because of their hollowness in the face of science, dryness in respect of personal daily experience – they may be replaced in much of the world by a much more personal (hence plastic and/or chameleon) idea of God which not only allows independence of worship but a wide range of personalised experiences of the supposed ‘universal omnipresent God’ through ritual, mediumism, channelling and other form of alleged religiosity. We are witnessing the start of what looks like a similar reaction as that which occurred when Roman civilisation and learning crumbled before the huge wave of fanatical Christian ascetics, anchorites and their supporters, as described so poignantly by Gibbon.

History shows that the predominant idea of God In societies and cultures within the range of history known to us has been of one or more animistic, theistic or deistic entities… a spirit, demigod or incarnation. These arose no doubt from a need to explain what (or who) rules over the environment and humankind – to supplicate and placate the imagined powers ‘outside’ the observable world or physical universe.

One hopes for the demise of such unsustainable ideas and beliefs – particularly in the doctrines and dogmas of traditional organized religions – in the face of the ever-growing and all-pervading importance of science as both an explanatory and a practical instrument of mankind – however long that may take (and if our species survives etc.). The unprecedented opening of the world to communication interaction, however, is bringing the silent global majority of religious believers more and more into conflict with the advance of human knowledge and culture that was once thought to be inevitable. Perhaps the clashes of mainstream religious dogmas which must surely leads to doubts and disillusion within them will eventually clear the way for secular, humanistic and non-faith-based societies… it is obviously too early to say. The intermediate phase would seem to be the rise and spread of the pantheism of the ‘inner reality’ brand. The search for “self-realization” in this mystical sense is the alluring attempt to find “the true self” as the creative motivator of both ‘the mind’ (i.e. minds) and its products, in short Divinity. This does not exclude the theistic bias – namely, that God can simultaneously be believed to be ‘behind’ all that happens – what we experience as reality – acting directly or indirectly as its ultimate cause (i.e. through ‘internal creationism’, where spirit creates the illusion of matter – itself taken as but an illusive mental-spiritual product). This pantheism is even sometimes extended to evolutionism — as an evolution of reincarnating and evolving ‘souls’ passing through a series of separate (biologically evolving) bodily incarnations.

Further, according to mentalist theories, the universe is conceived as the self-creation of mind, not of matter. This implies a philosophy of ‘mentalism’ as opposed to ‘physicalism’, which is the basis of many Eastern religious streams and – though in considerably weaker versions – in Western philosophy and ‘mystical’ thought. This ‘inner spirituality’ can fulfil the same psychological, social and emotional needs that long caused society’s dependence on an external God. With mentalism, one can have one’s cake and eat it – for ‘God is everything and everyone, within and without’. While logically and otherwise wholly untenable, demonstrating this becomes very tricky in the detail.

Nonetheless, the difficulties of this pantheistic position are considerable. It makes God equivalent to all being – so one cannot distinguish anything or anyone from God, not can one distinguish God any more than one can distinguish energy per se. In fact, one could substitute the word ‘energy’ with ‘God’ and vice-versa… as some do. The obvious difference that springs to mind, however, is that the concept of ‘energy’ is so very thoroughly and precisely defined and demonstrated – not least through the Einsteinian and quantum theories… whereas the idea ‘God’ is totally non-pragmatic and non-utilitarian, without any distinguishable reference and ultimately nothing but an all-encompassing term of terminal vagueness.

Perhaps we thereby arrive at something meriting Bertrand Russell’s amusing description “a night where all cows are black”, or the amusing but undeniable tautology ‘Everything is Everything’. (Note: Advaita – a variant of philosophical ‘mentalism’ – holds that matter is a mind-created ‘illusion’ (Maya) which is actually emptiness, hence: “Everything is Nothing and Nothing is Everything” – Sathya Sai Baba)

See also a deconstruction of the Hindu core ‘theology’:-  Advaita: failed theory of unity/non-dualism

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

The ultimate fallacy: God is inside, God is all and everything

Posted by robertpriddy on September 27, 2009

The weaknesses and redundancy of the conception and belief in God – mainly considered as an outside (creative) cause or force acting upon the universe and mankind has been demonstrated convincingly by Professor Richard Dawkins in his accessible book ‘The God Delusion’. However, there is a yet more numinous and mind-twisting conception of God as the Omnipresent Creator as Inner Motivator of the cosmos/universe and mankind.  In short, that everyone is God, the belief which underpins the teachings of most gurus and even most Hindus. This difference is not simply between theism and pantheism. It is a complex form of pan-theism. The excellent Dawkins has not ventured into this philosophically tortuous territory, not yet.

The predominant idea of God in societies and cultures known to us in historical times has formerly been that of theism or deism… one God who created or creates – and maintains – the universe and who is ‘outside’ of the visible or physical universe and also beyond the human mind. (The “invisible old man in the sky” is the vulgar Western version). It seems to me there the demise of such unsustainable ideas and beliefs is inevitable – particularly in the doctrines and dogmas of traditional organized religions and sects. However long that may take (and if our species survives), the ever-growing and all-pervading importance of science as both an explanatory and a practical instrument of mankind promises a major sidelining of religion.

However, the resurgence of mystical ideas of an inherent ‘inner divinity’ has already gained huge territory, both in so-called New Age religions and forms of ‘spirituality’, not least in India, from where it has evidently originated long ago. It is promoted by the very popular but fraudulent guru-god, Sathya Sai Baba. A simple pantheism arose from animism in the shape of ensouled nature, one great Spirit ruling over all others which lurks in all objects and beings. This was found in many variants among many so-called ‘primitive tribes’ and societies, and is still found in some today. In its modern clothes, it is far more sophisticated and unitary. Meanwhile, millions of devotees of Indian priests and gurus need no sophisticated explanations. Yet their modern descendants are still often easily taken in by the subtle convolutions of a highly-developed system of ‘non-dual’ (i.e. advaitic) arguments, – fallacious though most of them are – even many highly educated people in the East and increasingly so in the West. Its highest expression is perhaps in various presentations of Advaita (one good example is the ingenious but ultimately failed ‘anti-theory’ in Sri Nisagardatta’s book ‘I Am That’). Witness also the Sathya Sai Baba movement – consisting reportedly in some millions of believers with organisations in over 170 countries of the world, a striking example of the popularity of this ‘I Am God, You are God, Everything is God’ conception. The appeal of this tortuous and almost unfathomable philosophical tautology is immense on so-called ‘seekers of truth’ with a mystical bent.

These variants of pan-theism regarding many deep issues about our true nature, philosophical teasers and unusual phenomena which remain otherwise unexplained. Despite the verbal and ideological sophistication and seeming explanatory power, all forms of pantheism are seen to be self-defeating as soon as one rounds up the whole labyrinthine conception. (The apex in philosophical pantheism being the system of Spinoza, and the teachings of Indian advaitists from Adi Sankara onwards – while the New Age variants are all merely derivative and rationally weaker than the originals)) One might call it the ultimate exercise in empty circular reasoning with its various supporting ideologies – but the circle is extremely wide and has many deep involutions. Its winding theoretical dead-ends can, however, have most serious consequences for persons’ lives, and also for the life and prosperity of entire nations (India having for ages been strongly affected towards religious fatalism and social injustices in this way).

Professor Dawkins is seen as a threat by the ‘Church empires’ [Roman Catholic, Anglican, and diverse Christian-oriented sects], which have been vastly weakened in the modern age. Their insuperable inconsistencies and increasing ‘spiritual hollowness’ has been – in many people’s minds – replaced in much of the world by a much more personal (hence plastic) ideas of God. These allow independence of worship and personalised versions of a supposed ‘universal omnipresent God’ and ‘universal divine values’. On the one hand, by the influx of superstitious religious peoples due to globalisation and not least the Internet, we are – on the one hand – witnessing a somewhat similar reaction as that which occurred when Roman civilisation and learning crumbled before the huge wave of fanatical Christian ascetics, anchorites and their supporters, as described so poignantly by Gibbon. On the other hand, a vague kind of mystical-spiritual universalism which is not anti-scientific or anti-secular is seen in many movements, for example in the belief of many in the “Jedi religion” and a plethora of New Age and spiritualistic beliefs.

The next phase in the struggle of religious faiths to survive may well be the rise of pseudo-religious spirituality in which God will increasingly be taken as an ‘inner reality’, as the inner reality – as the creator and motivator of both ‘the mind’ (i.e. minds) and its product. At the same time, that God can also be considered to be ‘behind’ what we experience as external causes – which are viewed as mental forces created ‘within’ God and through matter (which is conceived as ultimately some kind of mental-spiritual product), through biological evolution and even through an evolution of ‘souls’ entering a series of separate (biologically evolving) bodily incarnations.

Further, according to mentalistic (as opposed to physialistic) theories, the universe is conceived as the self-creation of mind, not of matter. This implies a philosophy of ‘mentalism’ as opposed to ‘physicalism’, which is the basis of many Eastern religious streams and Christian ‘mystical’ thought and – though in considerably weaker versions – in its peripheralized forms Western philosophy. The substitution of this kind of ‘spirituality’ for traditional forms of theism is likely and has already begun (if one considers the influence of Eastern thought in the West especially since the 1960s). A swing towards belief in the ‘inner God’ would not be the logical consequence of science, of course, but of the same psychological, social and emotional needs that created dependence on an external God. In fact, with mentalism, one can have one’s cake and eat it – for many now believe that ‘God is everything and everyone’. Of course, this is logically wholly untenable, but taking into account the many-sided ‘teachings’ of advaita and similar systems, demonstrating this in detail becomes very tricky.

The complexity of the ‘theory’ of such a God is not to be underestimated for it has very considerable resources (though they remain chiefly mental and not demonstrable experimentally or otherwise than by argument). This is already the basis of a widespread ‘spiritual-religious’ resurgence, represented by various so-called New Age ‘religions’ and relying largely on Eastern conceptions found in Buddhism, Hinduism’s advaitic philosophy/belief system and other kinds of ‘mysticism’ with historical roots in virtually all mainstream religious cultures.

A second feature of this kind of  ‘monistic-pantheism’ is that it is highly oriented towards esoteric practices and less concerned with theorising. To exercise ‘spiritual practices’ is the be-all-and-end-all of this resurgent religiosity. Such practices include the simplest forms like prayer (the more ‘automatic’ recitation usually), constant repetition of the supposed ‘names of God’, of mantras and other verbal or oral sounds (devotional singing included). At a more evolved level we find the concentration on self-analysis and social action as an expression of one’s inherent divine nature – offering up all one does to God and ensuring that one acts according to supposed ‘divine commandments’ of one tradition or another. The most sublimated form of these ‘spiritual practices’ are those of service to mankind (regarded as service to God) – that is, doing good work selflessly. The red thread in all of this is to enforce and reinforce the idea of an invisible deity, one who it is assumed can be influenced and moved or reached somehow (as in self-induced trances or temporary ecstasy).

The inherent purpose of all these forms of ‘spiritual practice’ (Hindu sadhana) is claimed to be the attainment of identity with the Divine – or, worded differently, realisation of one’s own inherent and true nature as God. (There are many difficulties with this concept, of course – such as whether it should be a part of God or God per se!). This mysticism and its impracticality is extremely difficult to penetrate, not least because the claim is that one must commit totally to it for a very long time to achieve its fruits.

One variant of this kind of spiritual belief system is the ‘All is God, God is everyone and everything’. This makes God equivalent to all being – so one cannot distinguish anything or anyone from God, not can one distinguish God any more than one can distinguish energy per se. In fact, one could substitute the word ‘energy’ with ‘God’ and vice-versa… as some do. The obvious difference that springs to mind, however, is that the concept of ‘energy’ is so very thoroughly and precisely defined and demonstrated – not least through the Einstein’s relativite and modern quantum theory… whereas the idea ‘God’ is totally non-pragmatic and non-utilitarian. This amorphous thinking has no distinguishable referents and ultimately amounts to nothing but an all-encompassing terminology of terminal vagueness.

Schelling’s conception of the Absolute was reduced to a mere featureless identity, ridiculed by Hegel as “the night in which all cows are black.” Indeed, the conception of eternal cosmic Divine unity as a transcendent reality also suggests a light so bright that no white cows could be visible, nor anything else! This reminds of an amusing but undeniable tautology ‘Everything is Everything’, empty of all but a vestige of meaning (Note: Advaita – a variant of philosophical ‘mentalism’ – holds that matter is a mind-created ‘illusion’ (Maya) which is actually emptiness. Hence we get the crown of absurdity in  “Everything is Nothing and Nothing is Everything” – Sathya Sai Baba). This surely represents the most inclusive tautology conceivable? Indeed, meaningless verbiage which says nothing of anything (and anything of nothing?).

See also on atheism, agnosticism, non-theism and secularism – distinctions drawn

Posted in Creationism, Disinformation, Internet, Philosophy, Spiritual propaganda, Uncategorized, Understanding | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »