As many critics of religion have pointed out, the notion of a creator poses an immediate problem of an infinite regress. If God created the universe, what created God? To say that God, by definition, is uncreated simply begs the question. Any being capable of creating a complex world promises to be very complex himself. As the biologist Richard Dawkins has observed repeatedly, the only natural process we know of that could produce a being capable of designing things is evolution.
Interpretation
The quote raises questions about the existence of a creator and the complexities involved in defining God.
In this quote, Sam Harris discusses the problem of infinite regress related to the concept of a creator. He highlights that if we accept a God who created the universe, we must then question what created God, which leads to a circular argument. Harris argues that attributing the complexity of creation to a divine being complicates the understanding of existence and suggests that evolutionary processes are the most plausible explanation for the complexity of life and the universe.
In practice
In a debate about the existence of God, one could use this quote to illustrate the challenges in understanding the notion of a creator.
Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness. We form friendships so that we can feel certain emotions, like love, and avoid others, like loneliness. We eat specific foods to enjoy their fleeting presence on our tongues. We read for the pleasure of thinking another person's thoughts.
What I'm asking you to entertain is that there is nothing we need to believe on insufficient evidence in order to have deeply ethical and spiritual lives.
The core of science is not a mathematical modeling--it is intellectual honesty. It is a willingness to have our certainties about the world constrained by good evidence and good argument.
It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail.
It is taboo in our society to criticize a persons religious faith... these taboos are offensive, deeply unreasonable, but worse than that, they are getting people killed. This is really my concern. My concern is that our religions, the diversity of our religious doctrines, is going to get us killed. I'm worried that our religious discourse- our religious beliefs are ultimately incompatible with civilization.
It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum.
Dangerous acts can be done safely in a community which thinks and feels rightly, which would be the way to hell if they were executed by those who think and feel wrongly.
The body can't distinguish between cleansing and punishing for the body is ignorant, and mute besides.
God knows what you've been doing, everything you've been doing. You may fool me, but you can't fool God!
Do you think there is any other means of achieving progress except through Rajas?
Pythagoras used to say that life resembles the Olympic Games: a few people strain their muscles to carry off a prize; others bring trinkets to sell to the crowd for gain; and some there are, and not the worst, who seek no other profit than to look at the show and see how and why everything is done; spectators of the life of other people in order to judge and regulate their own.
World events are the work of individuals whose motives are often frivolous, even casual.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.