Have you ever read Dawkins?

Tim Robbins

This is for Christians only please. Have you ever read Richard Dawkins?
If so how do you find his books?

philologos

Yes, the God Delusion. It really didn't cut it for me.

PDN

Yes, I read The God Delusion. I found it to be a rather amusing and entertaining little rant.

dlofnep

What did you find entertaining and rantworthy. Did you take onboard any of his points as reasonable statements? What exactly did you like or not like?

philologos

dlofnep wrote: »

What did you find entertaining and rantworthy. Did you take onboard any of his points as reasonable statements? What exactly did you like or not like?

There wasn't much reasonable about it imo. His "Arguments from Scripture" section had a lot of mistakes theologically.

PDN

dlofnep wrote: »

What did you find entertaining and rantworthy. Did you take onboard any of his points as reasonable statements? What exactly did you like or not like?

I found the whole book entertaining. Dawkins is a good writer who expresses his views in colourful terms. I admire that in any good writer whether I agree with their premise or not.

I don't have my copy of the book in front of my as I post (I'm on the road, currently posting from a lounge at JFK) so I can't cite specific points. However, as a theologian I noticed a number of rather elementary errors about Christianity and the Bible - including the statement that St.Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews and attributing non-biblical quotes to the Bible.

His philosophical arguments also had a tendency to take flying leaps of logic at times (I guess we're all guilty of that at times, but most of us have the humility not to publish them in books, particularly concerning subjects we obviously know little about).

He loves setting up straw men. For example, he devotes several pages to some obscure nutjob (who I've never heard of, nor has any other Christian I've asked) who approves the killing of abortionists. Then he uses that person as an argument for equating mainstream Christianity with Al Quaeda.

Like I said, an entertaining little rant. I felt like I was reading the atheist equivalent of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.

PDN

One of the funnier bits that I do remember from The God Delusion is where Dawkins cites the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan as an example of how evil and destructive religion is. The fact that they wouldn't exist in the first place without religion doesn't seem, to have occurred to him.

Galvasean

Is one Dawkins thread in the Christianity forum not enough?

dlofnep

PDN wrote: »

One of the funnier bits that I do remember from The God Delusion is where Dawkins cites the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan as an example of how evil and destructive religion is. The fact that they wouldn't exist in the first place without religion doesn't seem, to have occurred to him.

It's a moot point though, isn't it? I think he's highlighting that alot of damage comes from religion. I agree with him to a extent - I think extremism within religion can have horrible effects. Religion in moderation can be good, as far as charities go and helping the poor/disadvantaged.

While most atheists are passive about Religion, I think religion and the effects it has on man really irks Dawkins. And I guess, rightfully so. He does bring up some great and valid points.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Is one Dawkins thread in the Christianity forum not enough?

The great Dawkins is omnipresent as well as ominscient. Therefore he cannot be confined to one thread.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

The great Dawkins is omnipresent as well as ominscient. Therefore he cannot be confined to one thread.

This is true. For he is the Mega Pope. Anointed by the Noodley Appendage of the FSM.

Splendour

'The God Delusion'- (was on special offer in my local bookshop) but I got bored with it. As far as I remember from it I felt he didn't tackle the subject from an original viewpoint but merely knocked the opinion of believers.

Apart from this I haven't read any of Dawkins other works. ( Local bookshop don't have any other Dawkins offers )

Soul Winner

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is for Christians only please. Have you ever read Richard Dawkins?
If so how do you find his books?

Not yet, but I do want to read 'The Selfish Gene' some time before Rapture.

dlofnep wrote: »

I think extremism within religion can have horrible effects.

Extremism within anything can have horrible effects, no???

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not yet, but I do want to read 'The Selfish Gene' some time before Rapture.

Ah you've plenty of time so.

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah you've plenty of time so.

Touché

Mal-Adjusted

I didn't read his books (Didn't want to give him my money;)) but i've watched many of his lectures & debates on the internet (Horay for youtube!)

I think he has some intiresting arguments, but is undermined by his obvious loathing for anyone who believes diffirently than he does.

mountainyman

I read the God Delusion which I thought was rubbish and River Out of Eden and The Ancestor's Tale (audiobook) which I thought were great.

I do think that in River Out of Eden he does a good of job showing how GIVEN the Universe that life can come into being without the direct working of God.

CDfm

I read a bit of the God delusion on a train to Cork.

I think I left it on a train -but it still amazes me how fanatical he is.

studiorat

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

but is undermined by his obvious loathing for anyone who believes diffirently than he does.

Ah here! Loathing? You'll have to give a few examples. Otherwise this smacks of pure Christian indignation. Certainly he might loath their point of view...

There's no shortage of loathsome content against him if you'd like me to show you?

Please remember he's only a person with a different point of view to yours.

studiorat

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is for Christians only please.

A little one sided I would have thought.

Mal-Adjusted

Got a perfect example right here.
Sorry, i don't really know how to embed links and such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

AtomicHorror

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Got a perfect example right here.
Sorry, i don't really know how to embed links and such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Where's the loathing? He was asked "what if you're wrong (about Christianity)?". To which he asked what if any of us is wrong about the various religions we just happened not to have be brought up in. The vast majority of Christians are of that faith by birth and culture. Just as with any religion. That's a valid point.

Fanny Cradock

Not sure about that one. I've certainly heard him make more outrageous statements.

I think he makes a fair point. However, it's curious that he never quite gets around to answering the question himself.

studiorat

^^^
There it is again! Outrageous!
It's not outrageous at all. There's nothing outrageous about not believing in the supernatural. The human mind is very easily fooled, we really are awful people for filling in the gaps!

I found the god delusion boring and a little repeatitive. From the outset he is trying to prove a negative, ie something doesn't exist always onto a downer there. No one can say for sure that there is or isn't a god, I mean 100% proof, empirical like. Rational thought would suggest there isn't, and if there is it probably doesn't matter a whole lot anyway.

As for the video post a better answer would have been 'to stand infront of your chosen god and say', "well what do you expect! the evidence wasn't very good was is?". I'm sure the almighty would call that a fair cop! If he didn't I wouldn't want anything to do with him anyway.

I believe the above was a B.Russell quote btw, via Dan Dennett. Both people in a better position to discuss the subject I would think.

A good video to check out btw is the poorly titled "the Four Horsemen". A discussion involving, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and some other trout.

Oh yeah! I'm not going to post the anti-Dawkins video I found, because if I did I'm sure I'd face a forum ban for posting obscenity and incitement to hate.

studiorat

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I didn't read his books (Didn't want to give him my money;))

You could go to the library. Or I'll lend it to you if you like.

Joe1919

Can Dawkins be beaten at his own game? Is his whole theory not self refuting? Does the fact that 'belief systems' or religions have survived indicate there usefulness or evolutionary 'goodness'. Although we cant really prove Gods existence or not (IMO), we can make judgements about the usefulness of religious beliefs in terms of bringing happiness, order and prosperity (e.g Weber's praise of the Protestant work ethic).

i.e. If religion has survival value, then surely, by Darwinian standards, religion is good.

robindch

Joe1919 wrote: »

Is his whole theory not self refuting? Does the fact that 'belief systems' or religions have survived indicate there usefulness or evolutionary 'goodness'.

No, since Dawkins point is that religion is a parasitic cultural organism -- in itself, of no obvious benefit to its hosts (us) and instead existing as an inevitable side-effect of something that does have enormous evolutionary advantage (idea-processing brains + the ability to communicate).

In very crude terms and pulling figures completely out of the air for the sake of argument, religion might decrease the evolutionary "efficiency" of a human society that it infects by 10%, but the systems it runs on increase the same efficiency by 50%. Hence, a susceptible population is out in front by 40% over a non-susceptible one.

BTW, "good" isn't really the best word to use to describe an evolutionary trajectory. Take a look at the evolutionary adaptions of the amazing Lancet Fluke, as viewed from the point of view of their ant hosts

robindch

studiorat wrote: »

I found the god delusion boring and a little repeatitive. From the outset he is trying to prove a negative, ie something doesn't exist always onto a downer there. No one can say for sure that there is or isn't a god, I mean 100% proof, empirical like. Rational thought would suggest there isn't

And that's exactly why chapter four is entitled "Why there almost certainly is no god" and not "Why god does not exist". Did you really read the book?

studiorat wrote: »

Oh yeah! I'm not going to post the anti-Dawkins video I found, because if I did I'm sure I'd face a forum ban for posting obscenity and incitement to hate.

I'm sure nobody would mind if you posted it over in A+A.

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

^^^
There it is again! Outrageous!
It's not outrageous at all. There's nothing outrageous about not believing in the supernatural

Read my post - you will see that I never stated that the non-belief in God is outrageous. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

studiorat wrote: »

Oh yeah! I'm not going to post the anti-Dawkins video I found, because if I did I'm sure I'd face a forum ban for posting obscenity and incitement to hate.

Though I suspect you are really only trying to prove a point regarding the "Christian indignation" you have detected, if you really are interested in discussing the video and are unsure if it would break the charter, please PM me the link and I'll see if its OK.

Cheers

ChocolateSauce

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I didn't read his books (Didn't want to give him my money;)) but i've watched many of his lectures & debates on the internet (Horay for youtube!)

I think he has some intiresting arguments, but is undermined by his obvious loathing for anyone who believes diffirently than he does.

Why should his opinion of people affect his arguments? You're essentially saying he might be right, but you don't care and aren't going to listen to him because you don't like him! He is either right or he isn't, and how he delivers his statements does not alter that fact!

Besides, he doesn't loathe believers, he loaths what they believe.

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why should his opinion of people affect his arguments? You're essentially saying he might be right, but you don't care and aren't going to listen to him because you don't like him! He is either right or he isn't, and how he delivers his statements does not alter that fact!

Besides, he doesn't loathe believers, he loaths what they believe.

Hating the sin but loving the sinner - a very biblical position to take.