Apr 15 2011
Vincent Bugliosi on the Divinity of Doubt
Vincent Bugliosi is best known for prosecuting Charles Manson about which he wrote the best-selling book Helter Skelter, which went on to sell over 7 million copies and become the biggest selling true crime book in publishing history. He also wrote Outrage on the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, and more recently The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Vincent Bugliosi has won 21 out of 21 murder cases and 105 out of 106 felony cases. He spent the past two years working on his new book Divinity of Doubt: The God Question.
On April 12, 2011, Bugliosi spoke with Uprising host Sonali Kolhatkar about Divinity of Doubt.
Watch a video of the interview here:
Martina Steiner recorded this interview.
6 Responses to “Vincent Bugliosi on the Divinity of Doubt”
Socrates would appreciate a modern day lawyer taking the stand, in the stoic sense, saying “I know nothing, especially that which I cannot know.” The dirty mind games and emotional tricks of those who claim to have tapped into a supernatural have to be exposed for what they do, how they have sabotaged sensibility to the point of destruction. The supernatural aspect of religion, which takes the poetry and mythology of theology into a literal mindset, has undermined the real value of religion, namely that of ethics and morality in relationships. We know it most painfully in the desert sky-god religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, But, Hinduism has it own similar set of tragic flaws through the concept of deity for control of others, which causes the usual antagonist characters of sexism, racism, egoism, imperialism, and the like. Conflict is a direct result of deity in religions. Religion does better without God.
Vincent Bugliosi seems to inspire sensibility in his various streams of conscious action for the raising of all our consciousness and uprising.
… but, yea the middle path, yea the agnostic spirit of Socrates and Buddha, it rock solid through the land and yea, verily it was good… wonder, mystery, the unknowable, the slightly known … god is man-made … god is, god is not, both is and is not, matters not as irrelevant, sometimes, depends on the context … at least seven ways to answer the question of god/not god
the atheist and the dogmatic believer are two sides of the same sad coin of absolutist tyranny — Keep on knowing that you know nothing — fool/idiot is up from jerk/know-it-all.
believe in Gaudium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudium_et_Spes
One thing I disagree with Mr. Bugliosi on is this notion that Richard Dawkins tried to put an upper limit on the complexity of god. If I’m not mistaken, I think the argument that Dawkins advanced goes something like this: The theists say that because the universe is so complex it had to have an author, because how could the kind of complexity that is evident in the universe have come about by some natural or random process? Sort of the watchmaker/watch concept. So they, at this point, postulate god. But what they don’t seem to realize is that in terms of pure logic this solution poses a serious problem; since whatever created the universe would have to contain not only all the complexity that exists in the universe it created, it would have to, in order to have the ability to do so, be vastly more complex than even that. So, you’re expecting me to believe that the universe because of its complexity had to have a creator but the entity that created it that is vastly more complex just arose out of nothing? This makes no sense. By advancing the god hypothesis in this case, not only have you not answered any questions you’ve created more questions than you had to begin with.
I believe this is what Richard Dawkins had in mind when he wrote the lines Mr. Bugliosi alluded to. It’s not that god can’t be complex or that there is some sort of upper limit on the complexity of god… it’s just that if you’re going to use complexity as a rationale that requires creation or a creator, why would you apply that principle in one case and not the other? Particularly when the second case is even more complex than the first?
It’s been a while since I read Richard Dawkins’ book but I believe that was his point; but even if weren’t, it’s an argument I have many times advanced myself and I happen to think it is a valid argument.
Just to add to the above — in order to avoid the problem of an infinite regress (what caused the cause, what caused the cause of the cause, etc…) or the problems inherent in imposing an extra layer of complexity (as mentioned above), rather than interjecting a concept of god (as the prime mover, that which always was and always will be) as a proposed solution, why not just say the universe always was and always will be or the universe is the prime mover and save yourself the extra step and at the same time save yourself all the additional questions and complications that come along with that additional layer (of complexity)?
In fact, very few religious people ascribe to the view that “because the universe is so complex it had to have had an author.” Granted, a few theologians throughout history have made that argument, but it was never the main reason for people to believe in God. Belief in God really comes down to belief in mystical awareness – that is, a level of wisdom and understanding that cannot be attained through logic or empirical evidence but only through subjective experience. Religious people believe because we experience the presence of the divine in our lives. One might legitimately ask “How do you know that your experience is real?” The answer, of course, is that we don’t know. Faith by definition cannot be objectively confirmed. But we choose to trust our experience because it gives us great insight and guidance about how to live. Of course, if one has never experienced the mystical, then it is perfectly appropriate and understandable that one would be skeptical about the claims of theism. The doubts of atheists and agnostics do not bother me. The important thing is for both believers and skeptics to learn to respect each other. We must all be humble enough to admit that the path which is right for us may not be right for everyone.
In my opinion, one should approach the question of God’s existence the way a good police detective approaches a murder investigation, the way a good newspaper journalist approaches a story. One should logical, rational, mathematical, scientific, and sane. One should look for solid evidence, such as math evidence. Math evidence is solid because there are formal proofs for math. Only somebody who is mentally ill, in denial, etc., will try to reject math evidence.
Type in http://www.palmoni.net/gematria.htm and read the article. The article gives convincing math evidence of God. When you read the article, you will note, among other things, overwhelming mathematical evidence for the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity (e.g., the many encoded triangle numbers, Star of David numbers, way beyond what probability would predict) encoded in the gematria of the Bible. You will note encoded gematria patterns with statistical probabilities of trillions to one. It would be more likely for somebody to enter a casino and roll double-sixes dice fifty times in a row, something that has never been done in any casino worldwide, than for these patterns to exist.
In other words, there is no reasonable excuse for not accepting the existence of God. Once one accepts absolutely that God exists, if one has any common sense (recalling that burn pain is the worst possible pain and that hell is forever), one will give God the benefit of the doubt concerning questions of pain, evil, free will, etc. When one then studies the scriptures and learns more, one will have such questions answered satisfactorily.
Take care,
Mark Hines, M.A.