Comments | countrycousin: The God Delusion Delusion

countrycousin

The God Delusion Delusion

Jun 18, 2007 22:35

Comments on Dawkins' book

The main reason Dawkins gives for writing this book is to combat the guilt pangs that established conservative religions instill in their young to preserve their membership and power. He regards such as cults. Many use some of the tricks of cults to maintain their hold. The God Delusion is described in its beginning as ( Read more... )

review, philosophy

Comments 21

temeres June 19 2007, 06:13:56 UTC

But it insists that there is absolutely no such thing as a Supernatural Being and that Religion is the root of all evil.

On the first point, yes, but on the latter, no. On the very first page of the preface, Dawkins makes that very clear. He goes as far as to criticise Channel 4 for entitling his two-part documentary The Root of all Evil? (at least they put in a question mark).

Fan of Dawkins though I am, I do have some reservations about The God Delusion, some of which I summarised in my own journal.

countrycousin June 19 2007, 11:01:43 UTC

re: all evil Yes, that was pure cliche, sloppy and not justified, although by the time I had finished the book, it rather seemed that way.

Your discussion was excellent; thanks for the link.

(The comment has been removed)

countrycousin June 19 2007, 10:48:33 UTC

That cartoon is great! Thanks!

en_ki June 19 2007, 13:07:15 UTC

It is true: I have a Mighty Faith that the spaces between atoms are not filled completely with angry bees.

(Or is it?)

countrycousin June 19 2007, 13:22:16 UTC

*tries to imagine the spaces between atoms filled with bees (who, I'm sure would be very angry)*

*goes and gets another cup of coffee*

:<)

Thread 9

forvrkate June 19 2007, 11:28:02 UTC

I read "The God Delusion" within the last year. I didn't find it all that enlightening. I thought Shermer did a better job on the same topic with "Why We Believe." Maybe if I had read them in the opposite order, I would have enjoyed "Delusion" more.

Anyway, I recommend "Why We Believe" if you're looking for what to read next.

countrycousin June 19 2007, 12:36:55 UTC

Ah, thanks for the recommendation - it looks like Shermer tackles some issues I was wishing Dawkins addressed.

I hope you get a good set of students this summer.

ohilya June 19 2007, 14:08:31 UTC

Caveat: Have not read the book, but I hope my initial impressions of Dawkins and his text are not inadequate ( ... )

countrycousin June 19 2007, 14:44:32 UTC

Through the use of rational discouse ("How could they have known? This is just one more interpretation...."), he at least left them thinking that perhaps there was more to think about.

Well, that sounds like more progress than I'm used to. Good for your friend.

The reviews that I had read had not led to high expectations, but perhaps it was worth reading if only for the tale of the young researcher who gave up science because it was inconsistent with a literal interpretation.

charlie_ego July 9 2007, 20:42:37 UTC

(by the way... hi! got here, somehow, I think from ase, and started poking around your book reviews :) )

Yeah, but... this researcher who gave up science is clearly anecdotal-arguing and a statistical anomaly. I could probably name you literally dozens of scientists or science-trained people I know who, given the choice, gave up religion and kept science. (As well, I can name dozens who maintain a truce between the two, but whatever.) I don't know anyone who gave up science and kept religion. I suspect Dawkins had to search pretty hard to find such a case.

countrycousin July 9 2007, 21:15:50 UTC

Hi! Welcome ( ... )

Thread 8

Double standard continues anonymous August 4 2009, 22:03:33 UTC

Looks like the double standard continues in many of the postings on this blog; the hostility towards Dawkins and those of us who are convinced there is no god is palpable. Dawkins, a mild-mannered guy with strong opinions gets labeled a "militant atheist" and "snarky." I'm not sure which is the pot and which is the kettle here.

Dawkins et al get tarred with the "fundamentalist" brush for simply disbelieving strongly. What makes Dawkins different from a fundamentalist is that he has a mountain of evidence (or in some cases a mountainous lack of evidence for things in which he disbelieves) to back him up.

You are entitled to keep searching for the god of the gaps, as if a god that keeps becoming ever smaller, ever more distant, less powerful, and unloving, provides some kind of comfort or reason for existence. Do you really want to revere some being who ostensibly picked six good numbers, rolled the dice a few times, and said, "sayonara"? Does it feel better, or make life more meaningful, to be the winnings (or losses) of a cosmic gambler ( ... )