-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion
- Thread starter StillILearn
- Start date
Can you prove that to anyone reading this thread?
Probably not.
Also, I wouldn't feed the troll. They only made two posts and I suspect that their purpose for registering was to promote their Nigerian book site.
silverseason
New Member
William James says that belief is the basis for action. Or, following back on that, by how you act we know what you believe.
I suppose I could believe without knowing, and I could not refuse to believe what I do know. What the earlier responder could not accept is that I can't use knowledge as a basis for belief, since what I believe is that I can't know. Confused? So am I some days, but mostly I just chug along like everyone else.
ylris611203
New Member
Here's a review I wrote of The God Delusion. Enjoy. 
================================================
As you can probably already tell from it's title, this book isn't going to take any position other than a stance against religion. Dawkins assumes an attacking posture early into the book, and writes with such forcefullness, it can almost be called fervour.
It is clear that the author really knows his material, and has extensive knowledge of the religious "industry", namely the major proponents for and against religion, and the major sources of religious articles. The book examines and addresses almost(if not) every possible point there is with regards to religion. For every point, Dawkins convincingly refudiates(negates) religion.
What I found most interesting(although I already had some clue) was how deeply ingrained religion was in US politics, and the US population in general, to the extent that it would be politcal suicide for a politician to admit to being an atheist. What is disturbing is that high-profile religious leaders with large followings can openly endorse killing(or mistreating) homosexuals or doctors who perform abortions. Clearly, there is a some union between church and state.
This book is heavy reading, particularly in the first half. Some sections, such as "Irreducible complexity" are very complex and are examined to a very great extent. Keep a dictionary at the ready when reading this book, you're going to need it. There are long rambles in some parts, with no apparent point. Added to this, Dawkins likes to chime in with his personal opinions, so it feels like parts of the book are just personal rants.
In terms of content and depth, I found this book to be most satisfying. If you are not already one, it is hard not to become an atheist after reading this book.
=======================================================
================================================
As you can probably already tell from it's title, this book isn't going to take any position other than a stance against religion. Dawkins assumes an attacking posture early into the book, and writes with such forcefullness, it can almost be called fervour.
It is clear that the author really knows his material, and has extensive knowledge of the religious "industry", namely the major proponents for and against religion, and the major sources of religious articles. The book examines and addresses almost(if not) every possible point there is with regards to religion. For every point, Dawkins convincingly refudiates(negates) religion.
What I found most interesting(although I already had some clue) was how deeply ingrained religion was in US politics, and the US population in general, to the extent that it would be politcal suicide for a politician to admit to being an atheist. What is disturbing is that high-profile religious leaders with large followings can openly endorse killing(or mistreating) homosexuals or doctors who perform abortions. Clearly, there is a some union between church and state.
This book is heavy reading, particularly in the first half. Some sections, such as "Irreducible complexity" are very complex and are examined to a very great extent. Keep a dictionary at the ready when reading this book, you're going to need it. There are long rambles in some parts, with no apparent point. Added to this, Dawkins likes to chime in with his personal opinions, so it feels like parts of the book are just personal rants.
In terms of content and depth, I found this book to be most satisfying. If you are not already one, it is hard not to become an atheist after reading this book.
=======================================================
ylris611203
New Member
Here's a review I wrote of The God Delusion. Enjoy.
================================================
In terms of content and depth, I found this book to be most satisfying. If you are not already one, it is hard not to become an atheist after reading this book.
=======================================================
A good review, although somewhat late.
Why would an atheist need to read a book about the non existence of God. Was your non belief slipping to the extent you needed reassurance?
I read it and I'm still not an atheist. Maybe I should read it again.
I think it does for the atheist what the Da Vinci Code did for the others.
A good review, although somewhat late.
Why would an atheist need to read a book about the non existence of God. Was your non belief slipping to the extent you needed reassurance?
I read the book because my brother was impressed with it, and wanted me to read it. No reassurance is needed on my part.
Funny you mentioned the Da Vinci Code, because I've also reviewed it. Check out my signature.
Funny you mentioned the Da Vinci Code, because I've also reviewed it. Check out my signature.
I removed the signature because I don't want to violate any forum rules.
The link in my profile points to my book reviews.
... Why would an atheist need to read a book about the non existence of God. Was your non belief slipping to the extent you needed reassurance?
I cannot answer for anyone else, but I read it, as an atheist, for the simple reason that someone gave it to me as a present. And besides, I was curious to see exactly what made so many believers so hysterical.
It was most enjoyable. Personally, I found that, once reason had had the chance to take over from the superstition with which I was indoctrinated from infancy, it was difficult to resist. The God Delusion merely tidied up a few points for me.
Of course, if people don't want to think in terms of reason ...
The Doogster
New Member
Hi folks
I've only just finished reading this book, so I've come into the discussion a tad late.
Anyway, I loved it, although there were some flaws which I will detail later in this post.
Dawkins really drove the final nail into the coffin of Intelligent Design by pointing out that the incredible complexity of the natural world, if we beleive the creationists, can only be designed and created by a supernatural being. Dawkins points out that the designer and creator of such complexity must itself be incredibly complex (being able to formulate and apply the laws of physics which govern the behaviour of every atom in the universe is surely not something done casually), which leads to the obvious question - who created God? After all, if God is complex, and creationists believe that complexity can only be created, then God must by their own definition have been created. This can lead into a circular argument (ie. who created the creator of God?, etc, etc).
He also raises the issue of the religious right in the USA of trying to get creationism and intelligent design into the science curriculum (Dawkins also gives an example of how this has actually been achieved in the UK). I wonder how long the USA will remain the world's sole superpower by teaching its children that petroleum comes from dinosaur eggs, which is what creationists believe.
Dawkins' critique of religious morality was alone worth the price of the book. If we all took our moral cues from the Bible, then we'd be well screwed. Look at countries which do follow the letter of religious texts, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia - does anyone really want to live in a society like that? On the other hand, the religious right expresses the desire to publicly execute homosexuals (presumably the pastor Ted Haggard would also be included in any such entertainment), so maybe there are people in the USA who do want to live in countries like Iran (one wonders why they don't just move to Iran to get a taste of real biblical living). I also loved the barbs he hurled at the kitchness of the Catholic church.
On the downside, I think his wholesale dismissal of religion did a disservice to the positive aspects of religion. Dawkins seems to think that the high profile Bible-bashing wingnuts in the USA are representative of all Christians. In my experience that is not the case. EVERY Christian I know (I'm an atheist by the way) is a thoroughly decent person who without exception rejects the narrow-mindedness of the religious right. Perhaps normal Christians need to be seen to be normal, but that's the paradox with Christianity - true Christians demonstrate their Christianity through being decent people, not running around quoting passages from the Bible demonising minorities.
The Doogster
I've only just finished reading this book, so I've come into the discussion a tad late.
Anyway, I loved it, although there were some flaws which I will detail later in this post.
Dawkins really drove the final nail into the coffin of Intelligent Design by pointing out that the incredible complexity of the natural world, if we beleive the creationists, can only be designed and created by a supernatural being. Dawkins points out that the designer and creator of such complexity must itself be incredibly complex (being able to formulate and apply the laws of physics which govern the behaviour of every atom in the universe is surely not something done casually), which leads to the obvious question - who created God? After all, if God is complex, and creationists believe that complexity can only be created, then God must by their own definition have been created. This can lead into a circular argument (ie. who created the creator of God?, etc, etc).
He also raises the issue of the religious right in the USA of trying to get creationism and intelligent design into the science curriculum (Dawkins also gives an example of how this has actually been achieved in the UK). I wonder how long the USA will remain the world's sole superpower by teaching its children that petroleum comes from dinosaur eggs, which is what creationists believe.
Dawkins' critique of religious morality was alone worth the price of the book. If we all took our moral cues from the Bible, then we'd be well screwed. Look at countries which do follow the letter of religious texts, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia - does anyone really want to live in a society like that? On the other hand, the religious right expresses the desire to publicly execute homosexuals (presumably the pastor Ted Haggard would also be included in any such entertainment), so maybe there are people in the USA who do want to live in countries like Iran (one wonders why they don't just move to Iran to get a taste of real biblical living). I also loved the barbs he hurled at the kitchness of the Catholic church.
On the downside, I think his wholesale dismissal of religion did a disservice to the positive aspects of religion. Dawkins seems to think that the high profile Bible-bashing wingnuts in the USA are representative of all Christians. In my experience that is not the case. EVERY Christian I know (I'm an atheist by the way) is a thoroughly decent person who without exception rejects the narrow-mindedness of the religious right. Perhaps normal Christians need to be seen to be normal, but that's the paradox with Christianity - true Christians demonstrate their Christianity through being decent people, not running around quoting passages from the Bible demonising minorities.
The Doogster
beer good
Well-Known Member
I'll probably regret dragging this up again, but I just thought it was interesting in light of the discussion about the "God doesn't play dice with the universe" quote.
This letter from Einstein's own hand would seem to settle the debate:
This letter from Einstein's own hand would seem to settle the debate:
But I'm sure nobody is going to think any less of his undeniable contributions to science for this, right...?Albert Einstein said:
You'd be surprised.
silverseason
New Member
Reading Dawkins at last
I am now reading The God Delusion, so have reviewed this thread from the beginning. I also see that I participated at an earlier stage, mostly on behalf of Albert Einstein, although I had not read Dawkins then.
You can't argue from motivation. Dawkins may be a beast in his personal life, he may hate religion and all religious people, he may write his books in the crass pursuit of money -- none of this proves or disproves his arguments.
I agree with some earlier judgments that the book is uneven. The analytical sections are better than the accusatory sections.
I really enjoyed the chapter on morality and its origins. I agree with Dawkins that if we took our morality from scripture, we would behave in some very unacceptable ways. (I see the bible as a record of past attitudes, not a prescription.)
In an earlier thread, someone noted the value of freedom of belief. Certainly I don't want anyone getting into my head and messing with what I believe, but society needs to put some limits on how people implement their beliefs. I may sincerely believe that all people with blue eyes are inferior and fit only to be slaves. It would be very dangerous if I could act on that sincere belief.
There were a number of confusing postings on suicide, with an implication that without a "reason" for existing, we are not motivated to exist. I think evolution has answered that. Your reason to exist is to perpetuate your genes so that they can perpetuate theirs in turn. Besides, life is good in itself, is it not! If you believe in god, then god gave you the ability to appreciate that life is good. If you do not believe in god, then the good life is all you have. And if your life is not good, then you have a whole different set of concerns.
I am now reading The God Delusion, so have reviewed this thread from the beginning. I also see that I participated at an earlier stage, mostly on behalf of Albert Einstein, although I had not read Dawkins then.
You can't argue from motivation. Dawkins may be a beast in his personal life, he may hate religion and all religious people, he may write his books in the crass pursuit of money -- none of this proves or disproves his arguments.
I agree with some earlier judgments that the book is uneven. The analytical sections are better than the accusatory sections.
I really enjoyed the chapter on morality and its origins. I agree with Dawkins that if we took our morality from scripture, we would behave in some very unacceptable ways. (I see the bible as a record of past attitudes, not a prescription.)
In an earlier thread, someone noted the value of freedom of belief. Certainly I don't want anyone getting into my head and messing with what I believe, but society needs to put some limits on how people implement their beliefs. I may sincerely believe that all people with blue eyes are inferior and fit only to be slaves. It would be very dangerous if I could act on that sincere belief.
There were a number of confusing postings on suicide, with an implication that without a "reason" for existing, we are not motivated to exist. I think evolution has answered that. Your reason to exist is to perpetuate your genes so that they can perpetuate theirs in turn. Besides, life is good in itself, is it not! If you believe in god, then god gave you the ability to appreciate that life is good. If you do not believe in god, then the good life is all you have. And if your life is not good, then you have a whole different set of concerns.
beer good
Well-Known Member
RAmen - to all of the above, really, but especially this.
the_rock
New Member
I was expecting to be blown away but i think this book is hipped up to the max, Nothing said init convinces me that he has valid argument for saying there is no god. BBC four made a far better documentery called ATOM in four parts which expains how we came into being and all the rest.. although it doesnt set out to do that. Dawkins seems to be stuck in the middle doesnt know much about science and is not much of a philosopher. Sorry ppl being harsh but only saying what i think..
SFG75
Well-Known Member
Is that due to the fact that you've already made up your mind before hand?
What items specifically left you unconvinced or were a stretch?
Having read and re-read this thread, I've noticed that the anti-Dawkins crowd can't get to what specific things Dawkins is incorrect about. The Einstein letters have been brought up a time or two and I would have to say that such claims that he was religious have effectively been squashed. point conceeded to Dawkins perhaps?
The chapter "undeserved respect" is one that is worth mentioning. He points out that when it comes to fairies, people don't defer to a "fairyologist." Since we don't, what makes theology such a credible "field" for anyone to defer to another about? So, why do we do that?
Also, Dawkins takes quick aim at the "you can't prove it so nener-nener-nener" crowd by noting that just because you stick a "why" in front of something, it doesn't necessarily make it a legitimate thing. We can't prove there aren't purple dragons flying around, that there are invisible parrots on our shoulders, or two foot tall hobbits wandering around. However, none of thos items should be seriously entertained, and none of us do. So, a notion that something ridiculous can't be proven to exist, doesn't put it on equal footing with existing. The whole "you can't prove God doesn't exist" argument is a large begging the question facade if there ever was one.
Champagne
New Member
I'd be interested in the basis of the "doesn't know much about science" conclusion. He has a PhD in zoology from Oxford and has been a faculty member at both UC Berkeley and Oxford in the zoology departments. Dismissing someone with those credentials and that experience as not knowing much about science is a bit cheeky unless you have a very good reason.
Would you happen to be a research scientist yourself, by any chance?
Would you happen to be a research scientist yourself, by any chance?
beer good
Well-Known Member
Actually, not so much surprised as amused. Some sample quotes, again courtesy of FSTDT, proving that the important thing in science isn't results but personal beliefs:
(Actually, it was Newton who killed so many in Japan. Without gravity, those bombs would never have fallen.)
Feel the Christian love. (And for the record, neither Planck nor Schrödinger were nazis.)
Champagne
New Member
Indeed.
Mind you, that sort of thing makes me despair rather than finding it amusing. There's no reasoning with that mindset, which means that all the carefully constructed arguments in books like The God Delusion are a waste of time when applied to the people Dawkins is targetting. The best you can hope for is to be able to convince the undecided. The fundamentalists in that FSTDT list are, almost certainly, unconvinceable.