34 Comments

  • I used to hate Dawkins for the same reasons everyone else who answered here has. Then paganism got real smarmy and moronic and I was fed up. I saw solace in Dawkins, felt foolish to think he was arrogant, and accepted him as a flash of reason. I was pagan for 14 years, and for all I knew, there was a place known as ‘summerland’ where it was basically the Wiccan afterlife. I really had no theory of my own regarding a creation, or an afterlife. When I had enough of the nonsense and the unanswered questions filling my head with curiosity, and no faith/belief system to back it up explanation wise, especially the go-nowhere New Age junk that tries to mix quantum physics with non-corporeal spirit sh!t- I just stripped myself of all belief of anything organised and dogmatic. I see allegory for what it is, not what people name it. As for a higher consciousness, I tend to not talk about things that are not all-the-way understood by human means. I just let things happen and write stuff down as a subjective view. Like Einstein, I like to fall into that between waking and sleeping state often. It is in this state people say the mind is filterless.

    Kaboodle, to comapre eternity with your so-assumed opposite which includes the ‘temporal’, you are assuming that time is linear? Time is not linear. Time is eternal and forever fluctuating. Yes, the earth will die someday, but you cannot destroy something that cannot be destroyed.

    OR perhaps you meant ‘temporary’? Same root word, different meaning.

  • Yeah, that sounds like the kind of annoyingly-pompous but unfortunately-probably-true thing that Dawkins is liable to say now and again.

    However, I doubt he has to deal with the kind of wannabe teenage atheist you get on this site, the kind that just thinks that anything older than about 1980 is stupid and pointless and that therefore all those centuries of amazing religion-inspired music and art can be dismissed as a waste of time. Those people don’t annoy me as much as sanctimonious religious hypocrites – but sometimes it’s a close-run thing.

  • we certanely have a higher IQ…

    and richard dawkins is a fictional athiest in a couple of episodes from south park…

    im a fan

  • Dawkins writes in seriousness what the atheists of Bertrand Russell’s day would have thought foolish.
    .

  • That is an interesting point, which I’m tempted to agree with.

    Imagine growing up being forced to wear red-tinted sunglasses all day, because everybody around you tells you you need them to see correctly. Then, later in life, you decide to remove them. What do you find? You can’t see right! The world all looks wrong!

    Is this because those people were right? Of course not. All those years of wearing the glasses have damaged your eyes, so you can’t see properly even if you take them off. In fact, you’ve got to the point where you actually do need the glasses! They have reduced your ability to see correctly, perhaps permanently, and now, ironically, you can only make sense of the world with them on.

    Perhaps religion works like that? After a childhood (even a lifetime) of being brainwashed, you may find it difficult to see and interpret the world clearly, even after the brainwashing stops, because you have developed a brain hard-wired for irrational thought.

    Looking at it like that, atheists could perhaps be considered to be of a ‘higher level of consciousness’, while religious individuals have a kind of disability, as the former have a properly developed sense of logic and reasoning, while the latter were never allowed to developed one.

    I’m certainly going to give this some more thought!

  • What would Richard Dawkins know about a “higher consciousness” to anything? Conscience is a sense of right and wrong with an urge to do right. Totality of one’s thoughts and feelings, awareness. Repentance will get him a little higher consciousness. Repentance begins with a change of thought concerning sin.

    2 Peter 2:12
    “But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption”

    Richard Dawkins must change his ways because his knees will bow to Jesus Christ.

  • Higher intellect maybe in some instances. And a greater degree of self-reliance and personal responsibility, perhaps. But I don’t think I’d use the term “higher consciousness”. It has connotations that take away from the point he’s trying to make.

  • Amongst top phiosophers and theorists, the religious and non-religious appear to be of fairly equal intelligence (and insanity).

    In the general population, though, athiests tend to be a bit more analytical and erudite (if somewhat more cynical).

    I think claiming a higher level of consciousness is akin to claiming an evolutionary difference, which is probably overgilding the lilly, somewhat.

  • Impeyan: I think you meant “twit,” lol. I can’t believe they don’t blank out the word “twat.” My mother would have grounded me for weeks as a kid if I ever said that in public.

    Anyway, I think Richard Dawkins is a self-righteous piece of crap. It would be accurate, however, to say that his consciousness is higher up his [insert three-letter word here] than your average person. He’s one hell of a good writer, though.

    That being said, I think that atheists generally are more logical than theists. Of course, Dawkins assumes that “high consciousness” deals strictly with logic, and not other important factors of consciousness, like IQ, EQ, compassion, creativity, etc. Overall consciousness would probably be equal between theists and atheists, although the concentration of this consciousness might be focused in different areas.

  • Theists shouldn’t be insulted by this remark, as it wasn;t intended to insult. Dawkins believes that mankind has moved beyond theistic world views to scientific and rational world views. Those who take the latter have, in evolutionary terms, moved on. And I agree.

  • only in their own limited minds…
    If you can only compare humanity with humanity as
    he does, it can lead you to falsely believe that,
    of course :0)
    If God is in the “picture” you can see that any
    “higher consciousness” is not possible without God!
    Reach for the earth/temporal that will pass away or reach
    for the imperishable!
    That is the choice.

  • Figures…
    Isn’t he supposed to be some sort of “folk hero” to atheism?
    And then they want to call people of faith arrogant and shallow…

    Amazing.

  • I’m agnostic/atheist. I don’t know about ‘higher consciousness’, but I am conscious of much dishonesty/delusion in the field of religion, which brings me here, with questions…

  • it seems that most atheists claim to think more about stuff while theists tend to take it all in stride, claiming it as faith. Everyone should think and try to reason out their own believes but Dawkins is obviously more trained in anti-apologetics arguments.
    The problem with Christians is that most of them dont know why they believe what they believe. So atheists can easily discredit them

  • Richard Dawkins is a pompous, self observed, jerk.
    It is not a shock that he has been divorced twice.

    If I were an atheist I would be truly embarrassed that a man with such poor character traits is viewed in the public as a promonate atheist.

  • I don’t really like Richard Dawkins. He’s very arrogant.

    I don’t think he’s really accomplishing anything by going around saying “Look at me! I’m so smart because I’m an athiest”
    All it does is make the rest of us look bad

  • Thats the whole thing about most Athiests that i know. They think that because they dont believe in God, that they are smarter than Thiests. I think its ridiculous.

  • I myself shy away from claims of “higher” this or that – I’ve seen well-intentioned Christians try to claim the “higher” view as well.

  • I don’t agree with everything Richard Dawkins says.
    Only about 99% of it.

    I’m not sure what ‘consciousness’ means in this context. I think (er… know) that atheists have a truer understanding of the world around them.

  • It’s true – Atheists think about things, question things, and don’t just blindly follow ancient unprovable superstition.

    • True, atheists don’t follow religious traditions or thought, what you call “ancient unprovable superstition.” They just follow secular trends and modern unprovable superstitions such as multi-verse.

  • Makes sense. People who believe their faith is “true” shut down one side of their brain which then resulting in lack of logic thought. Our brains are truly motors of sorts.

    That fear they are programmed with as children physically shuts one side down, thus lowering their consciousness too. It’s filled with old stale thoughtforms of ones long ago.

  • Could you give a citation?

    I’d have to have some reason to believe he actually said that and meant it in that way before answering the question.

  • I would be willing to bet that Richard Dawkins never wrote the word “athiest” anywhere, or at any time.

Leave a Comment