Disappointed by the God Delusion

[Tomorrows_Child]

This is one of the most famous, if not THE most famous atheistic book of modern times. So, a few months back, I decided to read it and I was utterly disappointed. Not as a muslim but as a person of intellect (a minor intellect but intellect nonetheless lol). Dawkins preface is curious, he talks about some of the chapters in his book and the ultimate aim is to move people away from being religious or even being kind towards religion and towards a complete, hard atheism.

Yet he fails to live up to that preface AND his own title. There is only 1 chapter dedicated to the scientific counter arguments towards God (hinges mainly on evolution) and the rest of the book is curious devoid of science but filled with Dawkins own personal views or philosophical ideas he has come up with...yet he initially claims philosophy is flawed and in the past allowed the propagation of religion. So which is it?

It's this lack of clear thought, this confused way of thinking that really disappointed me. Dawkins is an acclaimed scientist, an academic and the voice of atheism but this is the best he could come up with? Especially considering he talks endlessly about evolution but he himself admits that evolution does not equate to there being no God This is like a toddler constructing a whinge, not a well thought out, academic argument.

Has anyone else read this, if so, what were your thoughts?

 

[YmirGF]

Has anyone else read this, if so, what were your thoughts?

I read it some time ago and personally I'd never read Dawkins to strengthen my atheism. Far from it. I liked parts, I disliked parts. Par for the course as with most books nowadays. All in all, not a bad effort, but not a great work. It's not like I'd hand it to a theist, of any stripe, and say, "You have GOT to read this." Christopher Hitchens was far more articulate and much more interesting to read.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I read it some time ago and personally I'd never read Dawkins to strengthen my atheism. Far from it. I like parts, I dislike parts. Par for the course as with most books nowadays. All in all, not a bad effort, but not a great work.

But he is the per-eminent voice of atheism, alongside possibly Kraus. If he can not present a strong, cohesive argument, who can?

I am genuinely asking your opinion on this.

 

[YmirGF]

But he is the per-eminent voice of atheism, alongside possibly Kraus. If he can not present a strong, cohesive argument, who can?

I am genuinely asking your opinion on this.

I'm not sure why anyone has to. Atheism is sort of like Islam in that it means a lot of things to a lot of people and no one person speaks for the whole. It's like asking you to present a strong, cohesive argument in regards to Islam.

One thing and try to understand this. It would never occur to me to read an author because they were an atheist or were even espousing the "atheistic" cause. That said, many of Dawkins arguments were far better than what I've seen you come up with. Jus' sayin'...

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I'm not sure why anyone has to. Atheism is sort of like Islam in that it means a lot of things to a lot of people and no one person speaks for the whole.

Then why would someone be an atheist if no one can or should present a valid argument?

Btw, you may be in the minority as an atheist who does not bother with Dawkins or Krauss but the vast majority of atheists do and by your own admissions, their arguments aren't great, so what would you say to such people?

 

[YmirGF]

Then why would someone be an atheist if no one can or should present a valid argument?

Btw, you may be in the minority as an atheist who does not bother with Dawkins or Krauss but the vast majority of atheists do and by your own admissions, their arguments aren't great, so what would you say to such people?

You have done polls to support this notion? Frankly, his arguments were as good as many I have read from theists.

 

[metis]

I don't have a problem with Dawkins being an atheist and writing about that, but what I do have problems with is his demeanor. However, many theists also have a demeanor that's just as sarcastic and bombastic, and some even more so.

A second problem is that he comes off as being a steadfast atheist, and yet when push comes to shove he backs off and shows that he actually is much more an agnostic. But then writing "I don't know" a lot won't sell many books.

 

[Demonslayer]

Btw, you may be in the minority as an atheist who does not bother with Dawkins or Krauss

I highly doubt this. The vast majority of atheists I know don't actually read atheist books. Most atheists just don't believe in God and don't really feel a need to read books about it.

I read God Delusion and I wasn't crazy about it either, but not because I don't think it presents a cohesive argument. I mostly didn't like it because 1) it's very heavy reading...I've always found reading philosophy to be a slog and 2) Dawkins can't resist poking fun at theists which...while an enjoyable personal hobby of mine...only serves to agitate believers that might otherwise read the book with a more thoughtful attitude.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The God Delusion wasn't a book meant for theists to dissuade them of theism nor is it an academic work (Dawkins is a biologist not a theologian, philosopher, sociologist). It was a man's opinion about how Young Earth Creationists get into a particular mindset where they reject evidence for evolution despite all reason. As well as some other creationists who try very hard to find a place in evolution where the natural mechanisms 'need' outside interference. As well as talking about intelligent design vs poor design.

So in essence you seem to be criticizing it for something it never claimed to be.

You also seem to be trying to press home the Dawkins as a call to authority. Let's get something straight, Dawkins is not an authority on atheism. He is an authority on evolutionary biology. There are plenty of other people to go to if you want to talk about materialist atheism and the natural world having no room for a god (including Hawkings, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet).
But don't set up God Delusion as a straw stand-in for that debate.

 

[Demonslayer]

Then why would someone be an atheist if no one can or should present a valid argument?

I don't think that's what he was saying.

Many of the arguments in the God Delusion are very well presented and nearly indisputable. The best part, IMO, was the refuting of this idea we hear religious folks claiming, that the complexity we see in nature couldn't just arise out of chaos.

His presentation of two simple ideas to me very clearly discredit this idea. These two ideas are 1) a being powerful and intelligent enough to create everything would have to be more complex than the creation, and 2) how the 'crane' of evolution builds complexity through natural selection.

 

[paarsurrey]

I read it some time ago and personally I'd never read Dawkins to strengthen my atheism. Far from it. I liked parts, I disliked parts. Par for the course as with most books nowadays. All in all, not a bad effort, but not a great work. It's not like I'd hand it to a theist, of any stripe, and say, "You have GOT to read this." Christopher Hitchens was far more articulate and much more interesting to read.

He (Christopher Hitchens) could not name himelf the name of the book even. I am told that his publishers told him to name the book "God is not great" which suggests that it was intended to be against Quran/Islam/Muhammad. If so, he could not quote anything, even a single verse in his entire book, from Quran, chapter/verse numbers-wise. That speaks of shallowness of his research in religion.
Regards

 

[Augustus]

This is one of the most famous, if not THE most famous atheistic book of modern times. So, a few months back, I decided to read it and I was utterly disappointed. Not as a muslim but as a person of intellect (a minor intellect but intellect nonetheless lol).

Why would you be disappointed? Surely you didn't expect philosophical sophistication from the new atheist movement.

People like Nietzsche, Freud, Russell, or my personal favourite John Gray (Straw dogs, The silence of animals, The soul of the marionette) have written far more interesting things regarding belief. The main difference is that they start with a purpose other than to say 'God doesn't exist and theistic religion is really bad so these religious people are stupid'.

Books written with the purpose of promoting atheism from a shallow rationalist perspective tend to be massively dull and, at best, give a new analogy to the world but never a novel thought.

 

[Rival]

Dawkins is a better scientist than philosopher. Bless him.

 

[Quintessence]

Has anyone else read this, if so, what were your thoughts?

It's been a while, but I recall being unimpressed and concluded that the man should stick to his specialization in the sciences rather than create such works of writing. Granted, I tend to be unimpressed with any argument against "god" and "religion" that treats those terms as synonymous with classical monotheism and Abrahamic religions, respectively.

 

[Altfish]

I've read The God Delusion and enjoyed it, it put into words many thoughts I'd been having. Along with Sam Harris' End of Faith, I think it is the best read for people who think they may be an atheist.
It makes more sense to me than any religious text that I've ever read.

There seems to be a lot of bad feeling in the earlier posts I assume because of the success of this book and the likes of Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Kraus, etc.

 

[Onoma]

Dawkins is ignorant

I'd squash him in a debate on the Bible and I've never even read his books

He is a biologist arguing from logic

I doubt he knows anything about topics like, say for example, the semiosis of the graphemes found in the Aramaic alphabet, which would reveal how the Sofit form of the Tsadde is in turn connected to the Tzaddik which is in turn connected to prophetic verses like what we find in Daniel 12, in turn connected to the topic of Balsam that replaced the anointing oil for the kings of Judah

Or, the Mesopotamian metrology that is the partial foundation of the Bible, which in turn is based on pure mathematical astronomy dating back to Sumeria, which in turn is rooted in pure mathematics

Just to name a few simple topics

To really get under the hood of the Bible you need to take a seriously multidisciplinary approach, something Dawkins is unable to do

He's stuck on the idea that the Genesis account is literal, and it's not, it's a Babylonian fiction that encodes something that's way over his head

I really don't pay him any mind

 

[Demonslayer]

I'd squash him in a debate on the Bible and I've never even read his books

LOL. Would you accept someone saying they would squash you in a debate on the Bible, even though they never actually read the Bible?

As a general rule, you should actually read a book before making any decisions about it. I could care less what you or anyone thinks about the God Delusion...I myself thought it was only so-so...but in general you come off as ignorant criticizing something you haven't taken the time to read.

 

[Onoma]

Show me where Dawkins knows anything about Mesopotamian languages and I'd be impressed, otherwise he's a delusional fool suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect

That goes for anybody taking his side

 

[Augustus]

There seems to be a lot of bad feeling in the earlier posts I assume because of the success of this book and the likes of Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Kraus, etc.

This view is pretty patronising tbh.

That the only reason someone could find the books dull is that they are jealous of the author's success. It's a bit like religious people saying the only reason you don't agree with their scripture is because you are arrogant/corrupt/etc.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I don't have a problem with Dawkins being an atheist and writing about that, but what I do have problems with is his demeanor. However, many theists also have a demeanor that's just as sarcastic and bombastic, and some even more so.

A second problem is that he comes off as being a steadfast atheist, and yet when push comes to shove he backs off and shows that he actually is much more an agnostic. But then writing "I don't know" a lot won't sell many books.

Let's forget all that but have you read his book? My point is, he can't string together a coherent argument, it's almost as if he can't even grasp his own mother tongue. Honestly, it really is that bad. He contradicts himself continuously and yet has argued for years that religion is contradictory and that he believes in something superior. A scientific argument, well thought out by an academic of his stature, should not be so...fluffy.

You have done polls to support this notion? Frankly, his arguments were as good as many I have read from theists.

You just his arguments were ok, or as you put it "All in all, not a bad effort, but not a great work." If you think his arguments are as good as many theists then he isn't any better than guys he himself has labeled ignorant or foolish. I've seen him openly laugh at religious people and yet he can't construct a coherent argument, in his own mother tongue.

Edit: Just a word on Dawkins popularity, his book has sold close to 4 million copies, that's just the english version and stayed on the best sellers list for Amazon for over 50 weeks. That's remarkable. His words clearly mean a lot to many.