Richard Dawkin

[darkendless]

I'm half way through the God Delusion, and so far I have to say I'm not all that impressed. While his knowledge of natural selection is exemplary (obviously) his understanding of religion and theology seems superficial, which isn't surprising given his assertion that theology is an utter waste of time.

His knowledge is probably superficial because he only read religious texts to make a point. You can rip any religion to pieces without reading it. Maybe he only read a few things to make some specific points. I read 26 pages of the bible and that was enough to put me off. I can look on the internet where some poor soul read the whole thing and picked out the inconsistencies.

I would support Dawkin's. People need to stand up to religion. He's only outspoken because hes so strong in his opinion. This is no different from any religios cleric, the only difference being the universal Law that its wrong to speak out against "God's Congregations." I think if anything Dawkin's is a revalation that the Church can be challenged. Hopefully his successor is a little more polite.

 

[Sunstone]

He says as much in the introduction to the paperback version, but still, if you were going to write a book specifically concerned with proving to people that there is no God, I would hope for some more research or at least some deeper thought to be put into it.

He limits the God he attempts to disprove so much that I can't think it applies to all that many people, even amongst the most dimwitted of religious fundamentalists. For example he repeats of the old omnipotence/omniscience paradox argument, yet I can't help but feel someone with his intellect should have entertained the thought that a truly omniscient/omnipotent God would not be limited to a single timeline but would see all possible courses of events, yet it does not seem to have occurred to him and so he claims the paradox as a victory for reason.

That's an excellent point about his treatment of the omnipotence/omniscience paradox, but I would still need to disagree with you about how dimwitted religious fundamentalists can be. I live in a city noted in some quarters for its fundamentalists, and the ones I know simply do not entertain thoughts as sophisticated as you suggest. Dawkins appears to me to have gotten their number much better than you might suppose.

 

[Linda777]

As someone familiar with Darwin, do you believe you could pass a seventh grade science test on the Theory of Evolution?

Science was my major so probably higher than seventh grade if you don't mind.
I listen to Dawkins and I must be fair. I see his view and can appreciate it.
He is totally against what so called Christianity is doing to the world. Also Islam and other beliefs. He is frustrated because he sees only that people who claim a belief in the God of the Bible are the biggest troublemakers on the planet. He acknowledges that Christians own the planet so to speak. I agree with him. He is brilliant as is another I listen to which is Christopher Hitchens.
I personally believe the mixture of church and state is the cause of it all.
I am not against them, only in their so called "examination" of God and the scriptures.

 

[Linda777]

darkendless;1336014

"I read 26 pages of the bible and that was enough to put me off."

Why did it take so long?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Science was my major so probably higher than seventh grade if you don't mind.
I listen to Dawkins and I must be fair. I see his view and can appreciate it.
He is totally against what so called Christianity is doing to the world. Also Islam and other beliefs. He is frustrated because he sees only that people who claim a belief in the God of the Bible are the biggest troublemakers on the planet. He acknowledges that Christians own the planet so to speak. I agree with him. He is brilliant as is another I listen to which is Christopher Hitchens.
I personally believe the mixture of church and state is the cause of it all.
I am not against them, only in their so called "examination" of God and the scriptures.

"So-called Christianity"

eh?

 

[texan1]

Hi gnostic!

As you can see by this thread, opinions of Dawkins vary quite a bit depending perhaps on your personal view of God and/or Religious affiliations. I myself have never found him to be militant or fanatical. I think some people consider him to be so, simply because questioning God and religion is still extremely taboo - in the United States at least. When I see him in interviews for example, he comes across no more “militant” than someone who writes a book criticizing a political party. He seems pretty peaceful.

As far as The God Delusion - It's been a while since I’ve read it and I had trouble getting through parts. The book was not aimed at devout believers or fundamentalists. This book certainly will not change their mind. The book is aimed at the people who are moderates and agnostics I think - who attend church primarily out of habit. It asks you to think critically about what you believe and tries to convince you in an intelligent way that a belief in God is irrational, and perhaps even harmful when that belief is shared by society. I don’t necessarily agree with him on everything, and I also think he doesn’t take into account that it is possible to believe in God and not believe in religion….if that makes sense. But I do agree with his observation that religion often garners too much respect - it is held above anything else and often goes unquestioned or criticized. He is asking us to question and debate religion in the same way we debate political views. I think that is a healthy thing.

Here is an interview on NPR with Richard Dawkins talking about The God Delusion. You might want to take a listen:

Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion' : NPR

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would support Dawkin's. People need to stand up to religion. He's only outspoken because hes so strong in his opinion. This is no different from any religios cleric, the only difference being the universal Law that its wrong to speak out against "God's Congregations." I think if anything Dawkin's is a revalation that the Church can be challenged. Hopefully his successor is a little more polite.

I've noticed that there are many religious leaders or groups who are much more anti-religion than Dawkins when it comes to every religion but their own.

 

[gnostic]

I dont doubt that Dawkins is a peaceful man.

I do a lot of questioning myself, in regarding to the religion, and can be critical. Nevertheless, I find religions fascinating, even if I don't believe in their teachings.

I suppose I can relate to him, because my criticism can often seen harsh....and I supposed militant. I can agree with him that religion can be harmful, but what I don't see how you can remove religion without violence, compulsion, backlash and consequences.

People would believe what they believe, no matter how much logic you throw at them, because I don't see that logic alone would solve the issue.

 

[texan1]

....I don't see how you can remove religion without violence, compulsion, backlash and consequences..

Change happens slowly over generations by changing people's attitudes and asking them to think critically about their beliefs. He is not a proponent of banning religion and burning churches or anything. He is trying to "wake people up" who have followed a certain religion simply because their parents did and their parents' parents did, etc. One of his arguments is that if we follow a certain dogma blindly, without being rational, it can have detrimental effects on society. He is trying to change the mindset that says you can't question religion......But before we get into any further discussion you may just want to read his writings and see/hear his interviews for yourself.

 

[darkendless]

I've noticed that there are many religious leaders or groups who are much more anti-religion than Dawkins when it comes to every religion but their own.

You make a good point there, frubals

 

[Halcyon]

His knowledge is probably superficial because he only read religious texts to make a point. You can rip any religion to pieces without reading it. Maybe he only read a few things to make some specific points. I read 26 pages of the bible and that was enough to put me off. I can look on the internet where some poor soul read the whole thing and picked out the inconsistencies.

I would support Dawkin's. People need to stand up to religion. He's only outspoken because hes so strong in his opinion. This is no different from any religios cleric, the only difference being the universal Law that its wrong to speak out against "God's Congregations." I think if anything Dawkin's is a revalation that the Church can be challenged. Hopefully his successor is a little more polite.

I see your point, I guess it's just my personal opinion that if you're going to try to discredit something you could at least learn a little about it first.

That's an excellent point about his treatment of the omnipotence/omniscience paradox, but I would still need to disagree with you about how dimwitted religious fundamentalists can be. I live in a city noted in some quarters for its fundamentalists, and the ones I know simply do not entertain thoughts as sophisticated as you suggest. Dawkins appears to me to have gotten their number much better than you might suppose.

Heh, okay I'll take your word for that one - still disappointed though. Perhaps my expectations were raised too high by all the talk about it.

 

[Linda777]

"So-called Christianity"

eh?

I knew someone would comment on that. I could have changed it, but so called Christianity is exactly that so called Christianity.
Christianity is not any of the cults or movements at work today to destroy.
I know what Christianity is and it is none of what many think.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I knew someone would comment on that. I could have changed it, but so called Christianity is exactly that so called Christianity.
Christianity is not any of the cults or movements at work today to destroy.
I know what Christianity is and it is none of what many think.

So enlighten me, along with all the other people on here, as to what the difference is between Christianity (tm) and "so-called Christianity"...


I think you'll find that Christianity is christianity is christianity.

But here we're just getting into word definitions...

 

[darkendless]

I see your point, I guess it's just my personal opinion that if you're going to try to discredit something you could at least learn a little about it first.

I think maybe his disgust for Christianity made his research so painful that he only scratched the surface. His arguements are likely face value arguements with little sustanance, but then again, they're usually the ones the church find's difficult to respond to.

 

[rojse]

I think maybe his disgust for Christianity made his research so painful that he only scratched the surface. His arguements are likely face value arguements with little sustanance, but then again, they're usually the ones the church find's difficult to respond to.

I think Dawkins was trying to refute all religions, rather than any religion in particular (he said as much in his book), and tried to create arguments that applied to all religions in a general sense, rather than one religion in a specific sense.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The Selfish Gene is incredibly fascinating and insightful. A terrific exploration of evolution, including the evolution of insect colony and altruistic behavior, and a final chapter on cultural evolution. I couldn't put it down!

Most RF'ers have probably heard all the arguments hashed over in the first half of The God Delusion . . . but I thought it was worth reading, and the second half offered a lot of new ideas and information (to me), including the ethics of labeling a child a "Christian child" or "Jewish child", and the fascinating history of the "Cargo cult" religions that were formed in South Pacific islands -- sort of a modern-day experiment in how religions are formed.

 

[Halcyon]

I think Dawkins was trying to refute all religions, rather than any religion in particular (he said as much in his book), and tried to create arguments that applied to all religions in a general sense, rather than one religion in a specific sense.

Well, in my opinion, he didn't do a very good job because it reads as a basic attempt at refuting fundamentalist, ID believing Christianity but nothing else.
Perhaps he'll deal with other religions in the second half.

 

[crystalonyx]

I am over half way thru Dawkin's "THE ANCESTORS' TALE". A marvelous book on evolution, a must read for anyone remotely interested in the subject of evolution, and the trail of evolution back to the dawn of life.

 

[Sunstone]

Dawkins is too conservative in his critiques of Christianity for my taste. I was hoping for something much stronger.

 

[Charity]

Dawkins is too conservative in his critiques of Christianity for my taste. I was hoping for something much stronger.

Something like suggesting feeding us to Lions? :biglaugh: