Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The God Delusion
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
I read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins a while back and thought it was like a breath of fresh air. What do you think?
P
P
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
No, that is probably unfair. The book is a reasonable synopsis of classical and contemporary arguments against theism and theological positions associated with the Abrahamic religions. Since Dawkins is a good writer, these are presented coherently and accessibly. The refutations are not quite complete, as he missed some of the more intricate apologetic arguments, but that's just a minor point.
My main criticism is that there's hardly anything original in this book, with the possible exception of memetics, which is only an aside. All these debates have been going on for decades, perhaps centuries, and all the arguments are well known, and Dawkins merely follows a well-trodden path. From a philosophical P.O.V. it's therefore slightly boring. Besides, while Dawkins keeps harping the atheism tune, he fails to provide a critical analysis of the same, which makes the whole treaty a little superficial. Great material for talk shows, though.
Cheers, Thomas
An Agnostic ManifestoAt least we know what we don't know."
Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.
Agnostics have mostly been depicted as doubters of religious belief, but recently, with the rise of the "New Atheism"—the high-profile denunciations of religion in best-sellers from scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and polemicists, such as my colleague Christopher Hitchens—I believe it's important to define a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.
rest of the article is here.....http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/pagenum/all/
And then made some positive comments on it at a news web site....MISTAKE.....I became chum for the atheist sharks just waiting to attack. I mean i couldn't convince them that I had no interested in taking a position on whether or not there is a god or not. They insisted that i was an atheist. I finally screamed for help, because the non-believers in God were attacking me!
Haven't read the book...but i'll stick with agnostic - just don't know.
I know at least Sam Harris is trying to respond to what he sees as a dangerous escalation of religious fundamentalism in the world and is trying to get people off the fence and start taking a stronger stand toward atheism. If they succeed in their task of reducing fundamentalism in the world I think that would great.
A friend of mine actually found freedom from a fear and guilt ridden form of Christianity in part by reading Harris and Dawkins.
I think the "New Atheists" can be a little mean and dogmatic at times, but in general I like what they are doing.
"New Atheists" in so far as I have encountered are not extremely empathic, and whatever empathy they have has dissolved instantaneously in the face of another's ignorance. Where close minded God fearing cling to notions of biblical precedence, these atheists seem to cling to notions of irrefutable truth... and both do so to the detriment of others. I suppose it should be no surprise that those who cling to notions of "God" resemble those who cling to notions of "not-God"
amusing but not too far off the mark.
QFT
That hits the nail on the head.
In case of Dawkins, the depth of scientific insight that he exposes so brilliantly in books like The Selfish Gene and The Extendend Phenotype is contrasted by the shallowness and self-imposed rigidity of The God Delusion. Yet the The Selfish Gene has sold a million copies since 1976 and The God Delusion has sold more than two million copies since since 2006.
Is there any hope for a society with such deficient reading tastes?
Cheers, Thomas
Probably not - but we can still try to see the good in everyone.
Respectfully,
Raven
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
I agree, it can get quite old, with how certain Atheists like focusing all their efforts and energies on Christians, and/or Muslims, really, it says more about their lives (or lack thereof) than anything else.
Although Dawkins should really have understood that many Jews (and even Christians) do not take the Bible completely literally, most Jews don't see God in anthropomorphic terms, and, in the Kabbalah, a lot of the Characters from the Bible are seen as metaphors for processes and emotions in the Mind (both in the mind of God, as well as human beings).
I agree, his books on Evolution seem to be really great, his books promoting Atheism just read like an Evangelical leaflet. Maybe he should stick to science, rather than pandering to the New Atheists
Although, it does say a lot that not many people are interested in Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene', or other books on science, but, rather only on shallow things like Atheism or insulting other people based on their beliefs.
I haven't read 'The Selfish Gene' in full yet, but, I do find it really interesting, I'm reading 'The Lucifer Principle: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History' by Harold Bloom, which uses 'The Selfish Gene' as well as other scientific findings, to show how humans are, basically, jerks, evil isn't really contrary to human nature, or even nature herself, but, is an expression of it (you could argue the Christian Gnostics were right - the world is deficient).
David.
Currently, I have taken a step back from my staunch Atheism and moved into an Agnostic Atheism... So not much of a change, but a change none the less... I believe with more meditation and contemplation I will eventually move into a more Apatheist view...
If I were to read it now I think I would find it more as a form of Atheistic evangelism and atheistic propaganda...
However, I really don't want to engage in any atheist vs theist dispute. Both are sucked in to verbal sparring about terms like "God" and "exist", which require considerable unpacking unless one wants to keep the discussion at a very low level.
I suspect the Buddha, in refusing to discuss questions of eternity, infinity, etc. with Malunkya (Cula-Malunkya-Sutta, in the Majjima Nikaya), did so not only on practical grounds ("How does this help avoid suffering?"), but also because he didn't want to get drawn into discussion of categories he didn't accept (e.g. the idea of a beginning, cause as linear, being as matter, etc), and this is wise unless the discussion allows for clarification of cause, interdependence, impermanence and consciousness at least. But atheists and theists really don't want to do that. They wish to proceed from the simplistic categories they've used since goodness knows when and argue along lines that must produce an answer, even if it is absurd, as it must be given the parameters both agree on.
If I'm expected to go into battle on these matters and can't use Buddhist terms I'd call myself a "theological non-cognitivist" (it's in Wikipedia, I think) and, while the combatants are getting their heads around that, retire gracefully to the margins and then move on to something productive.
For those who are interested in what Buddhism and Physics has to say about beginnings, infinity, causation, interdependence, the limits and place of consciousness and the like - all relevant to the God question, but discussed in an exploratory and respectful manner between two scientists - one a Buddhist monk - I recommend The Quantum and the Lotus by Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan (Three Rivers Press paperback, 2001)
Yes, that's similar to what I've been going through.
P
No I meant Quoted For Truth
Not speaking for all atheists here. Just saw a lot of people making statements about atheists, and not a lot of atheists commenting (though I can kind of see why, with the environment in this thread).
I don't know what country you live in, shanyin, but my country limits both my contractual rights and rights to medical consent because of the grip this particular religious movement (or at least, a set of movements within it) has on our political system. People who don't worry about Christians are, in my experience as a student of religion and someone active in politics, people who fall into one of two categories.
1. They don't understand the ways in which many people's lives are negatively impacted by the cultural supremacy of Christianity in many countries (such as the USA), and therefore just aren't alert to what's going on.
2. They are protected by other forms of privilege (male, white, class, straight) that somewhat protect them from how marginalized they are by not being Christians in a culture where Christianity is the preferred way of believing and practicing.
In short, Christians matter because (at least in the USA) they vote like everybody else. The actions, values, and beliefs of others affect who we are. It's part of what goes into this thing people mistakenly see as their "self." The impacts of our environment make us who we are, and as a result, I consider it very much my business what other people believe. These people are my culture, a part of my social environment, whether I like it or not. I cannot escape the impact they have on my choices, my experiences, and my opportunities. I can control how I react to them, but to imply that people who worry about Christians don't have lives (thanks, David2009, for the ad hominem; it makes new people like me feel super welcome) is a little short-sighted and more than a little mean-spirited.
In countries where Christianity is not the dominant tradition, it is certainly true that The God Delusion loses a lot of its punch. However, Dawkins comes from a nation where there is quite literally an official religion, and y'all get one guess as to what it is. I'm sure if Dawkins had developed his worldview in India, he'd have been as critical of Hinduism as a lot of Buddhists are. =P
I can assure you Cobalt, atheists certainly do not get a raw deal here. Try reading other threads and you'll quickly see that.
You could substitute Buddhist/Muslim/Pagan etc for the word Christian in the above blurb with no problems Cobalt. And I've re-read David2009's posts and fail to see the mean spirit. Unless of course, you mean by him having a differing opinion to yours is being mean spirited.
If you're talking about this part:
then David's right. Any interview or piece I've read on Dawkins in particular shows him taking great delight in denigrating and insulting anyone who believes in a deity of any sort. That is not necessary for a man of his intelligence to get his point across. He even condescends to newcomers to atheism as well. During his talk in Sydney Australia, he asked anyone if they were new to atheism and when one person bravely put up their hand, his response was to make the person visible and then in a rather condescending tone say "It's ok, I'll talk slowly and use small words for you" Hardly a poster boy for portraying atheists in a good light.
Personally, I have no problems with people being atheists (even if I don't agree with them). However, I have issues with them (or ANYONE for that matter) making personal attacks on someone because they disagree with them. And by some of the replies on this thread, I am not the only one.
If this seems mean spirited to you, then I'm very sorry but I fail to see it as David's or anyone else's issue.
Respectfully,
Raven
Had Dawkins developed his worldview in India, his religion books would probably be much more interesting.
Cheers, Thomas
I believe South Park satirized the whole debate in the two Go God Go episodes.
If you, too, are in this position, i.e. still unconvinced but without good counter-arguments, you might enjoy an excellent novel by one of US atheism's 'poster girls' who calls herself an "atheist with a heart". Old friends here will know my admiration for this fine US philosopher and teacher:
Rebecca Goldstein, 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction
The appendix contains the 36 traditional arguments and good, solidly argued refutations.
Of course, those of us who also say that there is just not enough evidence either way, philosophical debate will never fully settle the question.
This "militancy" is the one area where I agree with the New Atheists. In many countries peoples' rights are limited by other people's religious beliefs. This isn't going to change unless the people affected are militant. Not confronting Christians about gay marriage doesn't seem to have gotten any laws changed. To the extent that gays have been able to assert their rights on this issue, it's been by bringing the issue to public attention and confronting their opponents. We're not going to keep creationism out of science classes unless we confront creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design theories.
For many people, "militancy" is part of their religion. The idea that they can be militant, but atheists who respond in kind are somehow making militant people defensive strikes me as bizarre. By what right are religious groups allowed to confront every one else with their beliefs without being confronted with opposition? Free debate, at least in theory, is supposed to contribute to democracy and good government. Why are atheists at fault for participating in a public debate?
Strange that many sensibly anti-clerical activists waste their time on the irrelevancy. To misquote the pro-weapons people, it's not religion that oppresses people, it's religious people.
I think the New Atheists are probably the minority of Atheists, unfortunately, they're the most vocal and loud-mouthed, most Atheists, like most religious people, are probably just trying to live their own lives, without getting bothered by people, it's a shame the most vocal people, of any group, get the media attention.
I think he also said, for those who hold certain beliefs, killing them could be the only option, which, kind of, sounds like what the Church of the Witch hunts, the Inquisition, etc thought, and what Al Qaeda would like too.
Sorry if you took offence, but, it wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at people who just seem to take every opportunity to attack religious people, and religions. Also, I don't think Dawkins argument holds much water here (UK), the Church of England may be the "official religion" of the UK, but, it's more a figurehead, like the Queen (who is considered the Head of the CoE), the UK is, pretty much, a Secular country. I've never had creationism taught to me at school, or really seen much influence of religion.
If you come from a country, where the Religious Right, are quite powerful and can be a threat, then, criticize them, but, there's no need, IMO, to alienate other religious people, and attack all adherents of Christianity (or whatever). In this world, especially now, we need more compassion for others, not less.
1. atheism = opposition to theism on philosophical/logical grounds
2. anti-religion = opposition to organized religion and religious belief
3. anti-religious people = opposition to fundamentalists, religious bigots and, perhaps, religious liberals for their perceived tolerance of the former.
One can be atheistic on philosophical grounds while not opposed to all forms of religion or "religious" people. Indeed, some religious people - a minority but a growing one - accept a role for an organized religion that accepts or tolerates atheistic views within its ranks. Lloyd Gearing, Don Cupitt, Bishop Richard Holloway and, perhaps, Bishop John Spong are some names in the Christian tradition who have this view.
The Ditchkins-Harris-Dennett camp seems to incorporate all three strands in their campaign and that may be strategically wise. The strands are related. However, they are not identical, and in some ways the relationship is quite loose, e.g. among Buddhists around the world who may or may not be theists of a kind (pre-modern Buddhism, as practiced in Thailand, incorporates demi-gods and angels). And Unitarian-Universalists, Liberal Quakers and Christians who are atheists (e.g. the Sea of Faith Network) are hard to fit into the categories favored in polemics.
Even if we see the need for some atheist militancy on whatever grounds, we should in our private moments acknowledge that it's all more complex than the polemics of the contestants admits.
I doubt it would make a dent in any country where voting is only optional. I must confess though, I was not thinking along those lines, more along the lines of my own country's sytem (Australia). So while I acknowledge your statement is probably true for the US, I believe my original statement would be more applicable to the countries who have mandatory voting.
Respectfully,
Raven
Good point. I suppose what I was trying to get at is that attacking the personal nature of belief with logic rarely gains any ground. If you were to confront 19th century slave traders with logical/ethical arguments about how slavery is wrong and immoral, they would have just told you to get the hell off their ship/plantation, and you would have gotten nowhere. No progress can be made by going after individual beliefs.
The anti-slavery movement in America wasn't successful by winning 'x' number of debates, it was ultimately effective because Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and the North won the Civil War. That's militant in its own respect. But for the sake of this debate, I'll go ahead and try to define what I meant by 'militant atheism'.
By militancy, I mean the individual confrontations which start off as reasonable conversation, roll right past intelligent debate, and go straight to utter defensiveness and emotion. By and large, people don't have faith in an omniscient God-being because they reasoned their way to it; true believers have a strong emotional and psychological attachment to the comforting feeling of the God ideal. So what sense does it make to make 'attacks' of logic and reason on something which has little basis in either?
I think another important aspect of this stance is the time period over which these types of changes can occur. Again, speaking in generalization, you're not going to change a legitimate religious practitioner's beliefs over the course of a single - or even several - debates. The general consenting opinion on slavery didn't change right after slavery was abolished; hell, segregation and racism still persisted quite significantly for about a century after! It wasn't until certain legislation had passed and a new generation grew up in a more equal atmosphere that genuine progress had been made.
As long as humans inhabit the universe, some sort of god-based religion will ultimately persist; I don't think there's any denying that. But steps can be taken to make religion less of a system of politics, and more of a respected (not feared), private, individual matter (not that practicing religion need be private, but that the choice should be one's own, not a government's or a family's). For this, I think what you're interpreting as militancy is what I would call activism. But first let's make sure we're heading down the path toward societal change, and not marooned in the swamp of ego-building as we try to best others' beliefs with our superior :-/ wisdom.
BB
I don't think that's a good point at all. In fact, I think that comparing atheism to anti-slavery is a fallacy. Theism does not enslave people. Theism does not violate human rights or disadvantage minorities.
This strikes me as too America-centric. In Europe, creationism is totally out of the class rooms despite most European nations being majority Christian. Why can't it be done in America? It's not a question of atheism versus theism; it's a question of education policy.
Cheers, Thomas
Of course it's education policy. That's why there's a debate. What point are you trying to make?
The point I was making was that confrontation and debate are part of political discourse. Telling a particular group to avoid confrontation because it makes their opponents defensive makes no sense.
Militant suggests aggression, and aggression almost never leads to the results that you want. And, if it does, the aggregate cost is so high that the foundation of the breakthrough is compromised. For instance, MLK Jr. was not militant, but co-creative and firm. Malcolm X was militant. When we examine whose life and death served to overcome adversity with more lasting power, there is no comparison.
Can't one debate without being militant? I think the issue is that condemning another's beliefs, especially with aggressive intent, is harming, not helping. Do you really think the intent of militant atheism is about wisdom and balanced social change? I see about as much wisdom in militant behavior as a two year old child throwing a temper tantrum... even if the underlying perceptions they see are somewhat valid.
With warmth,
Matt
Precisely therein lies the fallacy. You cannot separate logic from semantics in this statement. Again, theism is a belief in a deity. It does not violate the rights of others and therefore does not justify militant opposition.
The point I am trying to make is that beliefs and policies should be kept separate - the very foundation of secular government. Hence, the debate should not revolve around theism vs. atheism, because confrontation just hardens the fronts.
The debate should explore in how far religious ideals have encroached upon politics in America and whether that is a wholesome development. America was a secular nation until the middle of the 20th century, but somehow things changed since "one nation under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance.
Cheers, Thomas
Here is where I explain why The Tone Argument kind of sucks, and why I sort of wish I weren't feeling like it's getting tossed around in this thread.
Contrary to advice which has appeared in this thread, atheists will not get further by being less confrontational, less overt, and more silent. Not only are these suggestions not true, but they really sound an awful lot like a transparent and slightly-more-patronizing way of telling atheists to shut up. This isn't just directed at you, since you're not the only one who seems to be telling atheists, "What you resist persists, so just sit back and wait for the religious people to stop restricting your life whenever they're ready. It won't help anything causing a fuss." Not even the only one in this thread.
If atheist activists really seem like kids throwing a tantrum to you, then you might be having more angry and emotional confrontations with atheists than I ever did, even when I was a theist. If atheists get angry with you a lot, this might be why. The idea that they should not confront beliefs they disagree with, lest they be confused for whiny cranky babies? Not exactly a choice of options most atheists I know would appreciate being offered (any more than the transgendered people I know, or the people of color, or anybody else who is so frequently asked to be "nice" as a euphemism for "silent").
If atheists don't have the serene and enlightened wisdom to treat this seeming-disregard as a valuable opportunity to learn patience and instead just bite your head off, this might be why.
OK, I got your point. It's still irrelevant. What you would like political debate to be has no bearing on what it actually is, or on how people go about getting laws made.
You obviously don't know much about US social history.
To me, this is a critical distinction, and represents the core of the delusion that seems to hold the mind of militant atheists. If you take in the content of any of MLK's work, can't you hear or see how his actions were strong, well rooted and compassionate? They were not aggressive, fighting, or condemning, or condescending.
I find it intriguing that you consider my words to be attempting to tell people to stop working for positive social change. This is a clear misunderstanding of the point I am making. In fact, nearly every breath I take is intentioned along the ideas of creating lasting positive social change in myself and the world around me. I just know that working with reality aggressively is unskillful, and never yields the fruit we want. One can be strong, confident, accepting and well rooted into compassion... and be vocal without aggression. Have you ever seen a seed grow faster by yelling at it?
My interactions with atheists are usually quite civil. I have a pervasive acceptance for their point of view, and agree that there is a lot of challenge expressed by humankind in the form of religion. They don't turn their ideological ranting toward me. When I see them rant and tantrum, it is usually them judging religious people and the beliefs that hold them.
What I find interesting is you projected exactly the kind of situation I was speaking of. You assumed that I am instigating the aggressive response from atheists, which prevents civil and productive exchange. This is exactly the behavior that I see in atheists, as they tell God-fearing people their beliefs are bullshit, they are uprooting any chance to help.
With warmth,
Matt
Active and aggressive are alternatives, so one can be militant because one is active, without being aggressive. Fighting, condemning, and condescending aren't part of the definition.
And let's be clear; whether you think MLK was aggressive or not is a matter of view point. His opponents thought his tactics were aggressive.
This statement is not clear, so if your intention is to be clear to me, you might need to help me. MLK's 'militantness' is based on his opponents viewpoint, rather than mine? That doesn't make sense to me, but.. well... go! Listen or read for yourself! Do his words ring like a militant, or do they ring like a dharma talk?
I have no desire to quibble over definitions with you Ren. My only hope is that it can be seen that acting from inner aggression is not skillful, and those of us who wish to have a positive influence on the world of social reform needs to do so from a place of compassion. We don't turn a human heart by beating them up with our willpower, we only implant resentment. We cannot win by fighting with the soil, we just implant more aggression with every swing... and then are surprised when rotten fruit come to bear.
With warmth,
Matt
His actions were militant, and aroused opposition.
And yet that is what you chose to do.
And where did the aggression the MLK encountered come from? Where did the resentment over his uppityness come from? Where did the jailings and the final assassination come from?
As long as you're not opposing someone's attempts to impose their beliefs on other people, you can be understanding and non-confrontational and avoid unpleasantness. But if you have to stand up for your rights, there's no way to sugar coat it and you're going to encounter a lot of anger from people who believe they have the right to limit your rights, regardless of how gentle and loving you are abut it.
Have you adopted a fatalistic point of view now? That doesn't strike me as very helpful. I think that pitching the atheist camp against theists isn't going to achieve much, because both parties will simply try to maximise their political influence, most likely by using (and abusing) the media and inciting conflict. Not a very wise course of action. Instead, one might ask whether such debates have any business at all in the political arena.
So, how are laws being made? In case of education, there's usually an education ministry or a similar body that prescribes generally binding guidelines. If the government is secular, the decisions of this body must not influenced by religious factors. If there are indications that religious factors influence policy decisions, then it must be asked whether the government lives up its ideals. The resulting debate is not about theism vs. atheism, but a meta-debate.
Well, I know that much: the USA has been established upon the principles of secularism and religious freedom by its founding fathers. It has meanwhile developed a tendency, especially in the form of Republican conservatives, which in spirit contradicts the first clause of the first amendment. The political clout of Christianity in the US and the linkages between government and religious institutions is something you won't find in most European nations. President Bush was a case in point, and he was considered a bit of a nut case by many European statesmen, for his religious conviction.
Cheers, Thomas
It's been doing that quite successfully for a couple of thousand years.
P
P
QFT, I was never taught Creationism in school, in fact, religious beliefs never came up (except in Religious Studies, where we learnt about different religions). I think it says more about the American education system, or society in general, than it does about religion, or Theism vs. Non-Theism.
I agree with aMatt, you can debate with somebody, even disagree with them completely, without attacking their beliefs, or even them personally. That's what militant Atheists do.
MLK was not "militant", he never, verbally or any other way, attacked those of a different skin colour, or those of different beliefs, he helped unite people, what some militant Atheists (and some militant Theists) do is alienate people, instead of bringing them together.