Eh, I think he’s too stubborn and too good at defining his terms to go that route. I love the idea of Spinoza’s pantheistic view of the universe, but I would never tell the average person that because I don’t want to end up in the same box as Einstein, where just because I use the word “God,” people assume I’m religious.
Personally, I think Dawkins would wind up going the same route as Sagan, defining mystical experiences related to the universe as “numinous” rather than “religious” for precisely that reason: because it’s really obnoxious when people take your words out of context, so stick to using very specific words that don’t carry the baggage of religion.
Eh, I think he’s too stubborn and too good at defining his terms to go that route. I love the idea of Spinoza’s pantheistic view of the universe, but I would never tell the average person that because I don’t want to end up in the same box as Einstein, where just because I use the word “God,” people assume I’m religious.
Personally, I think Dawkins would wind up going the same route as Sagan, defining mystical experiences related to the universe as “numinous” rather than “religious” for precisely that reason: because it’s really obnoxious when people take your words out of context, so stick to using very specific words that don’t carry the baggage of religion.