The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, speaks on his latest book "The God Delusion". In the first part he focuses on debunking the ethical primacy of the Bible and the illustrating the logical fallacy underlying supernatural belief, however, my favourite part is in winning back Einstein in the religion debate. He differentiates “Einsteinian religion”, whereby some scientists use the word “God” as a metaphor for nature or the mysteries of the universe from revealed religions with the belief in "a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship’". Christians have often misrepresented Einstein's references to "God" (""God does NOT play dice", etc), whereas Dawkins answers this with Einstein's own definitive clarification.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Again in his own terms, Einstein did in fact "believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Spinoza's belief, expressed as Naturalistic Pantheism, hold at it's fundament that God is Nature (nature means all things), and that there is no real difference between "Good" and "Evil"- everything in existence is perfect. He makes no account for the revelatory status of the Bible or for any religous practice as fulfillment of convenant or Word. A far cry from any Abrahamic doctrince preached at the Synagouge, Church or Mosque.

Back to Dawkins, in the second half of his presentation he takes questions from students of the hosting Randolph Macon Women's College- and also visiting students from the Jerry Falwell's Baptist "Liberty University". The undoubting faith shown by the Liberty students makes me wonder if they followed the argumentation at all or merely closed themselves off and prepared to try and untangle Dawkins on morality questions- in which they fail. I would love to hear the reactions of a rationalist believer to Dawkins presentation- someone who is open to doubt, can follow the logic and still maintains their belief in the Koran, Bible or Torah and a personal God.