The God Delusion

[Atom]

Preaching to the converted basically. On one level I don't see the point of this book besides arming atheists with the tools to refute those believers who insist on arguing the issue in our personal lives.

I find it unlikely that anything in the book is going to convert those who come to it with a particular religious belief. Any religious person reading the book is almost certainly doing so to find fault and for any atheists (like myself) it's just reconfirming already held positions. The problem being that I don't think you can use intelligent argument to change irrational beliefs founded on something as nebulous as faith. "Such and such is true because I believe it" is not an position that can be changed by rational examination in my experience.

Technically it has a couple of flaws in arguments but they are minor issues and he makes his case very fully. The writing is clear and effectively makes his points, but it does lack flair and occasionally borders on the tedious despite his obvious passion.

Overall a worthy book but one doomed to be little more than a battleground for already entrenched opinions.

[David]

I've been meaning to read this myself, Atom, and come to the subject from a similar perspective to your own. I suspect what you say about its influence on readers would be very true.

If you haven't already seen our own discussion on matters religious, you might be interested in this thread:

Religion - Good, Bad or Ugly? (http://www.bookgrouponline.com/forum/showthread.html?t=2788)

You might have some interesting points to add from Dawkins' arguments.

[Sam Peeps]

Hi all,
I finished The God Delusion last night, and I agree it does provide some ammunition for belief-refutation. I found the second half of the book more interesting and satisfying, perhaps because Dawkins has stepped outside of his Darwinian comfort-zone and taken on the argument from other directions. I'm reasonably familiar with Darwinian theory, having read a lot of Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr, and Stephen Rose, among others, and I studied the history of science as part of my degree. The sections on the Bible as mythical literature, and religion as a form of child abuse were particulary strong, and somewhat disturbing. The book as a whole, while being unashamedly polemical in style, is well-argued with an abundance of reference material and evidence, both factual and anecdotal, in support of its central thesis. I agree it is unlikely to raise the consciousness of someone determined to cling to their religious beliefs come what may; faith proves particularly resistant to rational argument. Whilst not personally in need of persuasion with regard to my own atheism and rationalist philosophy, I did find it useful for the reasons already alluded to.

Why I found the chapter on child abuse particularly disturbing is because on Saturday morning my doorbell rang. Went I went to the front door and opened it there was a little boy standing there, probably about 6 or 7, well-groomed in a suit and tie, just standing there on his own looking lost and very nervous. After a moment a man similarly attired stepped into view and proceeded to try and interest me in The Watchtower. I was horrified at his behaviour, and what he was using the boy to do. It was glaringly obvious it was a deliberate ploy to elicit a sympathetic response from whoever opens the door to them. I'm afraid that I just let rip at him there and then, and kneeling down to the boy urged him to read as much as he could as widely as he could and make up his own mind, and not to be afraid. I was utterly disgusted, and I still am.

I've also got Christopher Hitchins' book God Is Not Great to read, but I think I'll wait a while yet. I'm about to start on Jane Eyre which somehow I've missed out on reading before....

Best..
Sam

[SlowRain]

Why I found the chapter on child abuse particularly disturbing is because on Saturday morning my doorbell rang. Went I went to the front door and opened it there was a little boy standing there, probably about 6 or 7, well-groomed in a suit and tie, just standing there on his own looking lost and very nervous. After a moment a man similarly attired stepped into view and proceeded to try and interest me in The Watchtower. I was horrified at his behaviour, and what he was using the boy to do. It was glaringly obvious it was a deliberate ploy to elicit a sympathetic response from whoever opens the door to them. I'm afraid that I just let rip at him there and then, and kneeling down to the boy urged him to read as much as he could as widely as he could and make up his own mind, and not to be afraid. I was utterly disgusted, and I still am.



I'm just curious: When you see someone reading The God Delusion, do you tell them that they should read the Bible as well so that they can make a well informed decision? I just ask this to find out if it's open-mindedness that you're after or just promoting evolution and discouraging religion.

[chuntzy]

False logic, SlowRain. People like myself who've read The God Delusion don't go proselytising, knocking on peoples' doors with the book in hand and certainly don't use minors to convince anyone.

[lipstick_librarian]

...and the majority of us who've been educated in the UK have had compulsory religious education from 4-16, with very little reference to or discussion of Atheism. (Although Atheism is starting to be taught in our school, so the balance is shifting a little.)

[megustaleer]

Can we keep this thread for discussing the book The God Delusion and take any further discussion of religion/ proselytising/ RE etc to the Religion - Good, Bad or Ugly? (http://www.bookgrouponline.com/forum/showthread.html?t=2788) thread

[Ang]

I haven't read the book yet, but I saw Dawkins at Edinburgh Book Fest last month. He said that even though it is not so likely to "convert" anyone to atheism (although there have been a good number), the real effect has been people who were already atheist "coming out".

That can only be a good thing, letting people know where we stand rather than avoid the issue.

[Sam Peeps]

Hi all,
Ang, when you met him was it part of a book-signing tour?

He mentions at one point in TGD that he 'sort-of-regrets' using the term 'selfish' in The Selfish Gene since discovering that the boss of Enron cited it as a major inspiration in his business practices!
I wonder if Dawkins feels that using the word 'selfish' suggests too strongly a conscious intent to succeed/reproduce at all/any costs?

It would make for an interesting evening to sit and talk to him.......

Best wishes,
Sam

[Ang]

Hi all,
Ang, when you met him was it part of a book-signing tour?He was appearing at the annual book festival. I was in the audience so I didn't really meet him, but it was an excellent event.

He mentions at one point in TGD that he 'sort-of-regrets' using the term 'selfish' in The Selfish Gene since discovering that the boss of Enron cited it as a major inspiration in his business practices!
I wonder if Dawkins feels that using the word 'selfish' suggests too strongly a conscious intent to succeed/reproduce at all/any costs?

It would make for an interesting evening to sit and talk to him.......

Best wishes,
SamI really must read the book soon, and I would like my kids to read it too.

[Ang]

Can we keep this thread for discussing the book The God Delusion and take any further discussion of religion/ proselytising/ RE etc to the Religion - Good, Bad or Ugly? (http://www.bookgrouponline.com/forum/showthread.html?t=2788) threadHave you read the book? I haven't yet, but based on what I heard him say in Edinburgh, these things you specify are part of the book. You might as well close the thread if you don't want these things discussed.

[Sam Peeps]

Hi,
There's another book published recently by Christopher Hitchens called 'God Is Not Great' which I have bought, but not yet read.
As far as I can gather, and I've some familiarity with Hitchen's other writings, it compliments Dawkins' book but comes more from the historical refutation perspective than from a science angle. Hitchens' is a fine writer, but does sometimes have a tendency to become too enamoured of his own cleverness and literary style. But then, he's hardly alone in that.

If I don't start another thread on it, we'll carry on with this one.

Sam

[David]

If I don't start another thread on it, we'll carry on with this one.

We like to put anything more than asides about different books in their own separate threads, Sam, since if someone wants to look up a specific book such as God is not Great they won't find it very easily if your thoughts are posted on a different book's thread. It would be excellent if you could start that new thread!

[Sam Peeps]

Hi,
Ah, Ok David, understood.
It's going to be a week or three before I get around to reading it anyway....

Sam

[David]

It's going to be a week or three before I get around to reading it anyway....
I look forward to it, Sam. In the meantime remember there's the general discussion of religious issues that Meg linked earlier - that can be as wide-ranging a discussion as you want!

[Momo]

I have heard about the book The God Delusion. I mean, who hasn't? Although being a practising Christian, I agree with Atom. The book isn't going to change anything. As much as Mr. Dawkins believes there is no God, religious people believe there is one. And there is no way he can prove there isn't one, so we're at the beginning again. I'm not sure whether I want to spend my time with these kind of arguments, and he is certainly not going to make money of me. Because that's often behind these kind of books. Sorry, but that's my opinion.

And Jehova's witnesses are a "special" kind of species. Most other religious denominations don't want to be compared to this sect. We don't send our children around or don't allow them to visit other kids' birthday parties etc. One of my husband's cousins is married to one and the way they lead their lives is anything else but Christian, IMHO.

[Ang]

...The book isn't going to change anything. As much as Mr. Dawkins believes there is no God, religious people believe there is one. And there is no way he can prove there isn't one...Are you sure about that? He might come closer than you think...

[Atom]

Are you sure about that? He might come closer than you think...

No, that's the one thing he can't do. As I said originally, the problem is that you can't change the mind of people who don't think rationally with a rational argument. It's a worthwhile attempt, but doomed to failure. Anything that requires unthinking "faith" as it's central tenent can't be argued with effectively.

[Momo]

Are you sure about that? He might come closer than you think...Okay, granted, I haven't read it - and I might not, as I explained earlier. But as Atom said, no matter how many scientific facts he delivers, it won't change the mind of religious people believing that he is wrong and the Bible (Koran ... put whatever applies) is correct.

[lukkystarr]

I think Sam Harris does a much better job with the topic in The End of Faith. If I weren't already convinced, I would've taken a harder look at things after reading it. He seems to me more coherent than Dawkins, although it's been a while since I read either.

[Sam Peeps]

I think Sam Harris does a much better job with the topic in The End of Faith. If I weren't already convinced, I would've taken a harder look at things after reading it. He seems to me more coherent than Dawkins, although it's been a while since I read either.


Hi,
I haven't read The End of Faith, but it's one I plan to delve into at some point. Obviously his other book, Letter to a Christian Nation, is more directed towards the US political establishment than a general critique of faith-claims versus knowledge claims, at least as I understand it.

Dawkins speaks highly of Harris's books in The God Delusion, and my copy of it came with a bookmark advertising Letter to.., with comments from Dawkins urging people to read it.

I'm occupied with other things at the moment, but at some point this side of the New Year I shall read Hitchen's book too.

There has been some comment from the Anglican hierachy in the UK recently, specifically directed at the Dawkins and Hitchens books claiming that most believers would not recognise what was being described in those books as the faith they profess to believe in. I rather think making that distinction clear is a major part of the argument in favour of atheism, personally.

Sam

[lukkystarr]

Hi,
I haven't read The End of Faith, but it's one I plan to delve into at some point. Obviously his other book, Letter to a Christian Nation, is more directed towards the US political establishment than a general critique of faith-claims versus knowledge claims, at least as I understand it.

His Letter to a Christian Nation is a response to the torrential critique he recieved after End of Faith. Can't remember where I got that from though.

There has been some comment from the Anglican hierachy in the UK recently, specifically directed at the Dawkins and Hitchens books claiming that most believers would not recognise what was being described in those books as the faith they profess to believe in. I rather think making that distinction clear is a major part of the argument in favour of atheism, personally.

Sam
I think they would only make such claims to dissuade indulgence. This is why Harris' book is such a good read, he clearly states the inconsistencies with all religions, and the actions of those that profess any such belief, regardless of the religious persuasion.

[Don]

undefinedHello, I'm a new member and I'm not used to this form of communication but here goes. I found "The God Delusion" very persuasive. However in the interests of balance I would be grateful if someone could furnish me with a shortish reading list giving the case FOR the existence of God. If the books could be as readable as "TGD" this would be a huge bonus! Thanks, Don.

[John Self]

Hi Don, there's already a thread on The God Delusion which might be of use to you, a few posts below yours - click here (http://www.bookgrouponline.com/forum/showthread.html?t=3359).

I haven't read any of the ripostes to Dawkins, but Alister McGrath seems to be in the forefront of these - he wrote a short book called The Dawkins Delusion? in response to this one. You might find his stuff of interest. Colyngbourne might be able to advise further.

[David]

I've merged this with the main thread, Don.

Welcome to the group. Perhaps you'd like to tell us a bit about yourself and your reading tastes on the Please Introduce Yourself Thread (http://www.bookgrouponline.com/forum/showthread.html?t=727)?

[Colyngbourne]

Although I bought them but not read them myself yet: I would suggest as specific ripostes to Dawkins -

John Cornwell - Darwin's Angel
Francis Collins (Director of the Human Genome Project) - The Language of God

Also, the McGrath one JS mentioned.

Generally, as books about Christianity and what Christians believe, Mere Christianity by CS Lewis is not a bad place to start - he is out of touch on the morality side (even when he was writing, I think) but otherwise he does some good exploring about faith and belief.

Also, The Humble God: The Basics of Christian Belief - Densil Morgan

(This one is a guide to Christian belief and was commissioned by Rowan Williams as the Canterbury Press Lent book for 2006)

The Meaning of Jesus by N T Wright (the current bishop of Durham) and Marcus Borg (again, very good indeed)

Believing in the Future: Towards a Missiology of Western Culture - David J Bosch

The Go-Between God - John V Taylor (out of print, I think, but easily obtainable on Amazon)

We Believe in God - by the Doctrine Commision of the Church of England (which you can get from Church House Publishing).

Doubts and Loves by Richard Holloway

Humane Christianity - Alan Bartlett

[Sam Peeps]

Hi,
I think we're still awaiting confirmatory evidence for the basic premises underlying these tomes.

Sam

[John Self]

Doubts and Loves by Richard Holloway

Oh yes, that's an absolutely terrific book.

[megustaleer]

Who Moved The Stone (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/0571032591/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194973659&sr=1-1) by Frank Morison is the book that sprang immediately to mind.
However, as it was written in 70 or so years ago it may not be considered relevent in the light of modern knowledge.

[tagesmann]

I'm currently reading 'India's Unending Journey: Finding Balance In A Time Of Change' by Mark Tully. I will start a thread on it when I've finsihed. In a chapter subtitled Lessons In Humility he describes Richard Dawkins as "one of themost pugnacious and best known preachers of scientism." I quite like that. Mr Tully then goes on to say that in 'The God Delusion' Mr Dawkins "asks questions I need to ask myself, and reminds me that atheism is not just credible but honourable too." But what he does take issue with is "not the validity of the arguments as much as the absolute way he puts them across." Mr Tully recommends Keith Ward's book 'God, Chance and Necessity' as a rebutal of Mr Dawkins arguments.
If you want a reasonable discussion, this might be the book for you. Bet you can't wait for the thread.
:)

[Squirls]

I agree with Atom. The book isn't going to change anything.

I disagree. Whilst I think you're right in the sense that it may not change many people's personal beliefs, I think that religion has become far too prevalent in politics these days, especially in America and the middle east. I hope it will play an important part in providing people with the tools and courage to put such self-righteous politicians in their place.

As much as Mr. Dawkins believes there is no God, religious people believe there is one. And there is no way he can prove there isn't one, so we're at the beginning again.

This is true Momo, but he can't conclusively prove that there are no fairys, gnomes and leprachauns either!

The God Delusion is a brilliant, thorough and utterly convincing book, although Dawkins style can be a bit ranting at times.

Momo if you cannot bring yourself to read the God Delusion, why not try Unweaving the Rainbow by the same author. It's utterly magical.

[Tim Haigh]

Coming late to this discussion, but I want to propose that from now on Dawkins be referred to as Saint Richard. While The God Delusion is not a perfect book, it is a wonderfully coherent one, and it has, as has been suggested, given voice to the legions of closet atheists who knew that there was an argument to be had, but were not in a position to formulate the argument fully for themselves. It is instructive how much venom the book has attracted. It is a fairly gentle polemic, lacking the stridency which is genrally associated with theistical pronouncements. And yet it has seen full-scale refutations, such as David Robertson's The Dawkins Letters (which, by the way, comes down to little more than a spot of sniping at minor inconsistancies; the tired accusation that Dawkinsism is simply another kind of fundamentalism: and a curious attempt to position Christianity as some sort of beleagured beacon of light in a godless world). The God Delusion really ought to be required reading for everybody and a standard text in RE classes in every 'faith school' in the country. If faiths are strong enough, they will shrug off these assaults.

[Momo]

The God Delusion really ought to be required reading for everybody and a standard text in RE classes in every 'faith school' in the country. If faiths are strong enough, they will shrug off these assaults.Why not make everyone read the Bible and the Koran, too? If the faith in the non-existence of God is strong enough, the stuens will shrug that off, as well. ;)

[Sam Peeps]

Why not make everyone read the Bible and the Koran, too? If the faith in the non-existence of God is strong enough, the stuens will shrug that off, as well. ;)


Hi,
'Make everyone read the Bible and the Koran'?

'Faith in the non-existence of God'?

The freedom from the dictats of religionism and religionists is the very thing that should be sought, and 'faith' in the non-existence of an entity for which no evidence has ever been found is entirely unnecessary.

Best wishes,
Sam

[Momo]

Hi,
'Make everyone read the Bible and the Koran'?
'Faith in the non-existence of God'?
The freedom from the dictats of religionism and religionists is the very thing that should be sought, and 'faith' in the non-existence of an entity for which no evidence has ever been found is entirely unnecessary.
Best wishes,
SamYou surely must have noticed that this was an answer to Tim Haigh's post to make everyone read the God Delusion. And that is seen as a dictate for the believers. Everyone wants the freedom to raise their children non-religious but raising them in your own faith seems to be so dangerous nowadays. That was my answer to his remark.

[nonsuch]

Everyone wants the freedom to raise their children non-religious

If only that were the case! Religion will take a long time to die. Although I don't believe that there's a religious gene in man or a part of the human brain that's hardwired to believe in a god, we do need explanations, do all seek to know. When we are uncertain we tend to attribute knowledge and power to something outside ourselves, such as deities or spirits, which is poetic and consolatory, but not convincing to the serious thinker. At the moment our god is science, which is rather healthier than traditional beliefs in gods of the woods, skies, waters and other elements. Thus, tongue in cheek, someone suggests St Richard for the prophet Dawkins, although of course he is only one of a growing number of knowledge seekers called scientists.

[simpo]

Preaching to the converted basically. On one level I don't see the point of this book besides arming atheists with the tools to refute those believers who insist on arguing the issue in our personal lives.

I find it unlikely that anything in the book is going to convert those who come to it with a particular religious belief. Any religious person reading the book is almost certainly doing so to find fault and for any atheists (like myself) it's just reconfirming already held positions. The problem being that I don't think you can use intelligent argument to change irrational beliefs founded on something as nebulous as faith. "Such and such is true because I believe it" is not an position that can be changed by rational examination in my experience.

Technically it has a couple of flaws in arguments but they are minor issues and he makes his case very fully. The writing is clear and effectively makes his points, but it does lack flair and occasionally borders on the tedious despite his obvious passion.

Overall a worthy book but one doomed to be little more than a battleground for already entrenched opinions.

I resonate with your opinion. Personally, I do not believe in a personal God.

To me God is a profound understanding of one's own state of Being
;)

[thischarmingmanc]

As someone who has been involved in teaching Christianity to kids in a church context I apologise. I wish schools would butt out. generally they teach an sanitised, and water down version of social Christianity rather than the real deal. All it achieves is an inoculation of most people to the central messages iof the Christian doctrine.

Onto the Dawkwins book now, I have wrestled with reading the ok on numerous occassion, just to wrestle the ideas of the opposition, and to understand the debate that the book and dawkins brings fully.

However Dawkins always manages to put me off, he comes over as a man unable to participate in dialogue and interested only in his monologue. Incapable of true debate, and too sure of his own arguments. I can see the book flying across the room more than once if ever read it :).



...and the majority of us who've been educated in the UK have had compulsory religious education from 4-16, with very little reference to or discussion of Atheism. (Although Atheism is starting to be taught in our school, so the balance is shifting a little.)

[Hazel]

I wish schools would butt out. generally they teach an sanitised, and water down version of social Christianity rather than the real deal. And sometimes even that's too much.

[lunababymoonchild]

I can see the book flying across the room more than once if ever read it :).I read the first 150 pages of this book and had it belonged to anyone other than the local library I would have thrown it across the room, stomped on it and shredded it to little pieces.

I borrowed it because I wanted to hear Dawkins opinion on the subject. One hundred and fifty pages later and I still didn't know, he quoted just about everybody else, including Einstein and what Dawkins thought Einstein meant when mentioning God (as if Dawkins could possibly know).

From what I've seen and read of Dawkins - admittedly not much - he comes across as arrogant and unyeilding. Jonathan Miller is every bit as much an atheist and intellectual but not as arrogant - all of which is my opinion, of course.

Then again, Bertrand Russell states much the same case as Dawkins, as far as I can see, in Why I Am Not A Christian and he did it in the sixties (and he did it much better, imho).

[Seraphina]

I only managed to begin this before it was wrested off me by OH who has now been reading it for about 6 months. :rolleyes:

I think Dawkins makes good points, however I felt a little worried at some of the things he was saying - he seemed to be trying to almost make a 'religion' of atheism - my main problem with religion isn't with belief per se, it's with ORGANISED religion and the destruction it can cause, and Dawkins seemed to want to do the same thing with non believers. Band together to bully others into believing what you believe kind of thing. That said, I think it's good that someone is finally contesting religion's place in the world and encouraging religious people to think about why they believe rather than just blindly follow what their parents or school told them to think.

[nonsuch]

As far as I'm concerned, Dawkins is preaching to the converted. Having said that it's really quite refreshing to have so many books coming out recently that ask us to ask questions about the deeply entrenched beliefs embedded in our culture.

[nonsuch]

I only managed to begin this before it was wrested off me by OH who has now been reading it for about 6 months. :rolleyes:

I think Dawkins makes good points, however I felt a little worried at some of the things he was saying - he seemed to be trying to almost make a 'religion' of atheism - my main problem with religion isn't with belief per se, it's with ORGANISED religion and the destruction it can cause, and Dawkins seemed to want to do the same thing with non believers. Band together to bully others into believing what you believe kind of thing. That said, I think it's good that someone is finally contesting religion's place in the world and encouraging religious people to think about why they believe rather than just blindly follow what their parents or school told them to think.

OK, so Dawkins does bang the drum a bit, but I don't think he's 'trying to make a religion out of atheism.' That would be quite counter to his overall policy of asking people to think about the evidence around them and draw logical conclusions from it.

As you say, Seraphina, religion, the Judaeo-Christian branch at least, has a nasty habit of becoming militant. I don't think a true atheist can or should be a member of any club. He/she is simply an empirical observer. One can see how religions grow by following this analogy:

Imagine that one lives in a culture which believes that the world is sustained on the backs of two enormous elephants. (This makes some kind of sense if the largest creature you've ever seen is an elephant.) Thus the Elephant is seen as superhuman, supernatural, god-like. The Elephant has to be worshipped because it is All-Powerful, All-knowing, Ever-present since the world began. So one will build a shrine or a church to it, probably in the shape of an elephant. It is part of the culture to worship the Elephant on a special day - Elephant Day. Anyone who refuses or is sceptical about this practice is suspect - not one of us, not part of the community, a pariah. Moreover, he or she is probably dangerous and ripe for conversion, by special persuasion, if needs be. Persistent recusants are to be punished or eliminated. Hence , by analogy, we have the Church-militant, the Synagogue (of Chosen People)-militant, the Mosque-militant. Pity the poor atheist or unbeliever! If Dawkins wants non-believers to, as you say, 'band together', surely he has something in his 'gospel' worth defending - and, I say it metaphorically - fighting for!

[thischarmingmanc]

Well its neither one thing or the other .....

you need the rela dela or nothign at all

And sometimes even that's too much.

[thischarmingmanc]

deeply entrenched beliefs embedded in our culture.

I would not say biblical christianity is an entrenched belief embeedded within our culture.

Since the enlightenment our deepley held beliefs have been naturalism, rationalism and secularism.

Christianity has been subject to these beliefs as much as secular society and conservative evaneglicalsim is a biblcal christianity viewed through the lens of these beliefs.

[ennui]

Does he address the issue of those of us not raised is christianity who are converts because of personal spiritual revelation? How does he explain miracles? or does he disregard their occurance?

I love that I am apparently unthinking and irrational because I believe in God. :D Yep I am pretty thick.

;)

[Sam Peeps]

Hi,
If you have subscribed to a religious belief system as a result of what you term personal spiritual revelation, that's your business, but it doesn't add any validity to having done so. There still nothing demonstrably different about the world, merely the contents of your own head.

Miracles? I can well imagine that performing CPR on someone who had ceased to breath, in the context of a culture unacquainted with the technique, would seem miraculous, and its practitioner could easily be accorded some form of divine status, or have divine powers ascribed to them. And it's not hard to imagine, 'cos that's what humans are really, really good at, imagining stuff, making stuff up, and then ritualising it, institutionalising it, and chastising those who don't belong, or are actually a bit smarter and slightly less gullible, it's not hard to imagine any number of phenomena occuring randomly, or naturally, being ascribed supernatural significance, and every age has had its share of charletans and con-artists.

There's no need to explain 'miracles' as supernatural events, since such things don't happen, have never happened, and will never happen, but that, of course, has never stopped anybody trying to insist otherwise, despite the complete absence of any evidence to support their contention whatever. And just because it says so in a book, does not constitute evidence, anymore than the fantastic tales of Scheherazade or the interventions of the gods in the events described in Homer constitute evidence. It's culture and it's vicissitudes, not the agency of supernatural beings and their capricious pranks and theatrical stunts to which you should look for meanings and explanations.
I've just finished reading Christopher Brookmyre's Not The End Of The World, which joyfully rips the piss out of believers and what they believe in. Hugely enjoyable, and full of insight and intelligence, far more so than Dawkins' rather dour tome.

Still, never mind, eh. If you're right, your god of infinite love will commit me to eternal torment in the fires of hell; if you're wrong, then.....nothing.

Being stupid doesn't let you off.

Best wishes,
Sam Peeps

[megustaleer]

Being stupid doesn't let you off.

Best wishes,
Sam Peeps
And making offensive personal remarks doesn't make you right.
In fact, I was always told that if you resort to personal abuse you have already lost the argument.

Best wishes? Hardly much evidence of them.

[ennui]

There still nothing demonstrably different about the world, merely the contents of your own head.

Still, never mind, eh. If you're right, your god of infinite love will commit me to eternal torment in the fires of hell; if you're wrong, then.....nothing.

Being stupid doesn't let you off.

Best wishes,
Sam Peeps


You've not really answered my question. As to wether or not Dawkins has a supposed explanation in his book about the personal experiences of believers. One that doesn't build on a base of ...because they're nuts. Thankyou for the insight into your own views about myself though.



:) :)

[Apple]

Sam Peeps Wrote:If you have subscribed to a religious belief system as a result of what you term personal spiritual revelation, that's your business, but it doesn't add any validity to having done so. There still nothing demonstrably different about the world, merely the contents of your own head.

Miracles? I can well imagine that performing CPR on someone who had ceased to breath, in the context of a culture unacquainted with the technique, would seem miraculous, and its practitioner could easily be accorded some form of divine status, or have divine powers ascribed to them. And it's not hard to imagine, 'cos that's what humans are really, really good at, imagining stuff, making stuff up, and then ritualising it, institutionalising it, and chastising those who don't belong, or are actually a bit smarter and slightly less gullible, it's not hard to imagine any number of phenomena occuring randomly, or naturally, being ascribed supernatural significance, and every age has had its share of charletans and con-artists.

There's no need to explain 'miracles' as supernatural events, since such things don't happen, have never happened, and will never happen, but that, of course, has never stopped anybody trying to insist otherwise, despite the complete absence of any evidence to support their contention whatever. And just because it says so in a book, does not constitute evidence, anymore than the fantastic tales of Scheherazade or the interventions of the gods in the events described in Homer constitute evidence. It's culture and it's vicissitudes, not the agency of supernatural beings and their capricious pranks and theatrical stunts to which you should look for meanings and explanations.
I've just finished reading Christopher Brookmyre's Not The End Of The World, which joyfully rips the piss out of believers and what they believe in. Hugely enjoyable, and full of insight and intelligence, far more so than Dawkins' rather dour tome.

Still, never mind, eh. If you're right, your god of infinite love will commit me to eternal torment in the fires of hell; if you're wrong, then.....nothing.

Being stupid doesn't let you off.I'm sorry I cannot believe what I am reading here I have just come into this discussion. I have not read this book completely I had difficulty getting to grips with it and found it confusing in places, (but I know a man who has!!) and we discussed it in length and the general conclusion was it is basically propoganda preaching at the converted aimed at giving athiests ammunition to bash religion and you seem to be a prime example of that!

Just because you don't believe the same set of beliefs as someone else does not give you the right to rubbish them, because that is exactly what they are "beliefs" its not up to you or anyone else to decide someone is stupid because they don't happen to believe the same thing as you do.

[Hazel]

I'll poke my nose in and say that not all atheists want "to take the piss" or bash believers. I am quite happy to live and let live as longs as believers don't feel the need to bash me.

[Apple]

Hazel wrote:I'll poke my nose in and say that not all atheists want "to take the piss" or bash believers. I am quite happy to live and let live as longs as believers don't feel the need to bash me. Hear hear! live and let live I'm not a believer (see my comments on the separate religion thread) but I wouldn't dream of belittling someone who did have a faith and I would not expect a believer to ramn their beliefs down my throat. Everyone deserves the respect to believe in what they want!

[Sam Peeps]

Oh, please forgive me! Or don't. Whatever.
Take your lumps!

[David]

Take your lumps!
The first lump was yours, Sam. You shouldn't be surprised at the result.

[UCLGeogPhD]

I am myself an atheist, but I have an issue with Dawkins. A few years back I was at a talk by him and his wife at the Cambridge Union and the man simply couldn't respond to questions about his own work. I would go as far as to say that he was severely out of his depth at times not even being able to recall elements of theories he'd written. I also feel at times he strays into the danger zone of equating science to be his own god with all the answers which is extremely unhelpful in the long run so as to help people to understand the sciences he tries to promote.

[Ailecornum]

Yes, that's my impression of him also. I understand that the debate will rouse emotions but wish it could be discussed with a little less heat and paucity of intelligence at times. There are aspects which can be discussed logically and profitably. Sadly though the debate seems to run quickly to brow beating on both sides and a grim determination to either change minds or abuse them. Both religion and politics have perpetrated awful events but castigating either believers or non-believers on that premise as so often happens (sometimes thinly disguised as a common sense debate) gets us all nowhere. I sit on Dawkins' side of the fence (non-believer) but I can neither read nor watch him as he makes me so cranky!

[ennui]

Yes, that's my impression of him also. I understand that the debate will rouse emotions but wish it could be discussed with a little less heat and paucity of intelligence at times. There are aspects which can be discussed logically and profitably. Sadly though the debate seems to run quickly to brow beating on both sides and a grim determination to either change minds or abuse them. Both religion and politics have perpetrated awful events but castigating either believers or non-believers on that premise as so often happens (sometimes thinly disguised as a common sense debate) gets us all nowhere. I sit on Dawkins' side of the fence (non-believer) but I can neither read nor watch him as he makes me so cranky!

I really need to get and read this book! It's interesting that there are atheists who feel his work or attitude is flawed.
I agree in the futility of trying to debate and convince people. To be honest if I could convert people with my skillful and intelligent persuasive methods then their faith wouldn't be real and couldn't see them through martyrdom anyhow.
:D But it is interesting to see how and why people believe what they do.

I love this peanuts comic on the issue... Here (http://lettersfromdana.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/peanuts-evangelist1.jpg)

[David]

Hope you don't mind, ennui, but I've tidied up that link a bit! It was throwing the page out of its usual dimensions.

[Tay]

I love this peanuts comic on the issue... Here (http://lettersfromdana.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/peanuts-evangelist1.jpg)

Love it!

[momac]

Miracles? I can well imagine that performing CPR on someone who had ceased to breath, in the context of a culture unacquainted with the technique, would seem miraculous, and its practitioner could easily be accorded some form of divine status, or have divine powers ascribed to them. And it's not hard to imagine, 'cos that's what humans are really, really good at, imagining stuff, making stuff up, and then ritualising it, institutionalising it, and chastising those who don't belong, or are actually a bit smarter and slightly less gullible, it's not hard to imagine any number of phenomena occuring randomly, or naturally, being ascribed supernatural significance, and every age has had its share of charletans and con-artists.

I was reading through all the posts on this subject last night and found them really interesting, particularly the above segment. What is to say that 'miracles' are nothing less than being accorded the intelligence to be able to perform the medical procedures which save lives? Maybe we have become so blase about the wonders of science that we attribute them to our own smartness and never think about where that 'smartness' might come from. Just a random thought...... :thinking: P.S. I loved the Peanuts strip. :)

[Lectora]

I read this book when it first came out. As an Anglican Reader with a trained Biblical and theological background, I found it difficult to understand how anyone like Richard Dawkins whose work in his own field is highly acclaimed, could write such a skewed and jaundiced account of what he thinks Christianity is all about. Some of his criticisms of fundamentalism are valid but to put us all in the same boat, is nothing short of a disgrace. The sad thing is so few of the general reading public know enough about main stream Christianity as it is today, to refute what he has written. Most of them think it is a great book! The book remains a top best seller.

Professor Alister Mcgrath, whose academic background is similar to Professor Dawkins. Like RD AM held a Chair at Oxford and was an atheist. But unlike RD AM became a Christian and is indeed, famous as one of the foremost opponents of the New Atheism as this new agressive form of atheism is called. Alister McGrath's book (written with Joanna Collicutt McGrath) The Dawkins Delusion also became a best seller. The McGraths take RD's arguments one by one and tear them to shreds. As Professor Michael Ruse of Florida State University wrote, "'The God Delusion' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist and the McGraths show why."

[Ian Barley]

TGD is an important book. I agree that if you read it with the intention of finding it wrong then you will find it wrong. I have exactly the same experience when I read the collection of Bronze age legends which have been collected together as "The Bible". And yes I have read both in full.

The really interesting part of Dawkins work is where he is examining the possible evolutionary benefits that cause Humans to be susceptible to "religious" type beliefs. That is an area where he has forgotten more than most of us will ever know so he is worth listening to. That is the important part of this work and, for those who read it inquiringly, puts into context the use of the word delusion.

But, like the original poster, I am pretty sure that the people with the most to gain from an understanding of this will be the least likely to be exposed to it.

[Lectora]

Ian, welcome as a new member to BGO.

How do you explain the large numbers of atheist scientists who have read Dawkins book only to be deeply embarrassed by its ignorance? Please may I ask you to read the McGraths' The Dawkins Delusion and then place argument against counter argument, evidence against evidence.

As for the "Bronze Age myths", to which Bible do you refer? I'm assuming you are referring mainly to the OT. Which version - the Masoretic text or the Septuagint? I'd be interested to read what you think of the significance of symbol in the light of the older understanding of "myth", i.e not fiction, but the only way to express profound truths which "plain" speech cannot convey.

Science and religion should never be opposed any way, since they each deal with very different areas of human experience. I think this was one reason why the latest debate (last week) between Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins ended with neither being declared the winner!

[jfp]

I've always - well, since I was old enough to think cogently - found there is something distinctly lowest-common-denominator about religion, and that it was OK for people who are happy to be either spoon-fed or force-fed, or both. So I never felt a strong need to read The God Delusion in the first place.

But I suddenly found it beckoning to me in Waterstone's at Charing Cross last week...

I'm glad I've solved the mystery of the rather odd compound noun in the title. I'd vaguely assumed it referred to a God who turns out to be a delusion, but now I rather think it refers to a delusion that consists in believing in God. Not, of course, that there's much difference.

I'm going to have a lot to say when I've finished reading it. Not sure yet whether I'll change from being an atheist with very occasional flashes of agnosticism to being an out-and-out, if not outspoken, atheist. But I might well. In which case I shall look forward to stating my case here. Watch this space...

[Lectora]

Jfp -
I shall look forward to your comments. I hope though that you will do the scholarly thing and check out the validity of Dawkins' claims or else you could be accused of being brain-washed yourself!

I've decided to do for BGO a review of the 2011 winner of the Michael Ramsey Book Prize for Theology (Christian theology equivalent of the Booker).

Will take a few minutes......

[jfp]

I have to admit to being rather disappointed and underwhelmed by The God Delusion. It hasn't fundamentally altered anything in my perception of the obvious and utter absurdities of all organized religion. It has perhaps pushed me closer to modifying my reference to myself, on a well-known social networking site, as atheist with occasional flashes of agnosticism - which may well shortly become atheist with increasingly occasional and unwelcome flashes of agnosticism... (One day they may disappear totally...)

Dawkins's book does make one thing very clear, however. Science has evolved over the centuries. Morality and ethics have evolved over the centuries. Politics has evolved too. It is quite startling to realize that this, quoted in the book:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
was spoken by Abraham Lincoln. But, equally clearly, religion is stuck in the past - and with Islam, about which (perhaps fortunately) Dawkins says practically nothing, about five hundred years further back in the past than Christianity.

Reading Dawkins has not made me want to go around bashing religious believers either. I'll happily leave them to bash each other, and fly other people's planes into skyscrapers, and consider myself well out of it.

[David]

I've now split the tangential discussion on religion in general from this thread. You can read it here (http://www.bookgrouponline.com/forum/showthread.html?p=147464#post147464)