Oh, I know it isn’t a crown of thorns- I’m a scientist myself (albeit a physicist). To be honest, Buddhists do go around saying there is no god and trying to promote their books.
Maybe. But I was into Buddhism in my twenties - during my martial art years - and there was never any talk of saying there was ‘no God’. It was more a case of belief in God not being necessary.
Einstein was possibly the greatest scientist that ever lived, but his opinions on scientific issues were fairly laughable sometimes and his ideas of there being a God were just plain daft.
‘Daft’ is a rather oblique term. Einstein was clearly well respected for his beliefs in a higher intelligence/creator/God, and this respect, plus his thoughts and quotes, live on today. In addition, many well respected scientists talk in terms of a higher intelligence/creator/God.
As to the Buddhist life style having nothing wrong with it - fair enough, I’ll agree. Dawkins’s lifestyle is harmless too. And if he has some good clever philosophy that he has reasoned very well, he damned well should advertise it (otherwise he’d be the servant who buried his talents).
Sure. But whenever I hear Dawkin’s lectures and the rowdy behaviour of his followers, I cant help thinking that I was like them once when I was about sixteen. I enjoyed a bit of anarchy then - giving the finger to the very idea of a big father God in the sky Dawkins is simply ‘giving the finger’ on a larger scale with millions of people following suit. But whether or not its ‘harmless’ depends on whether you believe that the goal of life is to become one with that higher intelligence/creator/God, or to at least move closer into line with it or him, as many ancient religions around the world believe and adhere to. If this is the case, then advocating spiritual anarchy, as only Dawkins can, is probaly not so ‘harmless’.
On the Vivisection thing, it is cruel - I’ll agree - but I wouldn’t say malicious and I doubt you would either if you thought about it.
Oh I have thought about it, honest
What scientist says: “That monkey is really peeing me off, I want to cause it intense pain”? Whereas how many scientists have said “I need to prove that my technique/drug doesn’t kill people before I administer it to them”?
True, but how many more company scientists - often propelled by corporate pressures - have said “I need to ensure once again that my face cream/hair dye doesn’t give our valued customers a skin rash, so lets pop this bleach into your eyes little rabbit and see what happens, even though these tests have been done many times before and we dont really need to do them”. Innocent annimals are being tortured and killed each day for the sake of making people more beautiful.
Now that, I would say, is malicious.
As a proper physicist,...
Oh, a ‘proper’ physicist! Are there many ‘in-proper physicists? LOL.
Sorry, do go on.
...I can tell you that unified field theory does not state that. I hear all kind of nonsense stated all over the place where people try to mistify quantum physics in this way and it is new age nonsense.
I think maybe you are in danger of falling into the Dawkins trap here. First you state that you are a ‘proper’ scientsist/physcist, and then you attempt to label me as the ‘new age’ chappie who has been silly enough to ‘mistify’ quantum physics. In actual fact, what I said is backed up by many leading quantum physicists - from Bohr to Hagelin, namely that there is one proven underlying field which links all matter, and that trees, humans, frogs, stars etc emerge from that field. Its a very simple concept (think oceon and wave), which I have studied and attended lectures on.
And to say that we’re all connected is nonsense - the probability of that is just not quite zero, but is negligible.
I doubt that any true quantum physicist would say any statement about the unified field was ‘nonsense’. What is known for sure, is that the discovery of Non-Locality, the wave/particle duality, means that everything in the universe is joined or connected together. Or as many ancient religions have said, ‘Life is one’.
Cheers again for your input.