Have you ever read Dawkins?

Tim Robbins

This is for Christians only please. Have you ever read Richard Dawkins?
If so how do you find his books?

philologos

Yes, the God Delusion. It really didn't cut it for me.

PDN

Yes, I read The God Delusion. I found it to be a rather amusing and entertaining little rant.

dlofnep

What did you find entertaining and rantworthy. Did you take onboard any of his points as reasonable statements? What exactly did you like or not like?

philologos

dlofnep wrote: »

What did you find entertaining and rantworthy. Did you take onboard any of his points as reasonable statements? What exactly did you like or not like?

There wasn't much reasonable about it imo. His "Arguments from Scripture" section had a lot of mistakes theologically.

PDN

dlofnep wrote: »

What did you find entertaining and rantworthy. Did you take onboard any of his points as reasonable statements? What exactly did you like or not like?

I found the whole book entertaining. Dawkins is a good writer who expresses his views in colourful terms. I admire that in any good writer whether I agree with their premise or not.

I don't have my copy of the book in front of my as I post (I'm on the road, currently posting from a lounge at JFK) so I can't cite specific points. However, as a theologian I noticed a number of rather elementary errors about Christianity and the Bible - including the statement that St.Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews and attributing non-biblical quotes to the Bible.

His philosophical arguments also had a tendency to take flying leaps of logic at times (I guess we're all guilty of that at times, but most of us have the humility not to publish them in books, particularly concerning subjects we obviously know little about).

He loves setting up straw men. For example, he devotes several pages to some obscure nutjob (who I've never heard of, nor has any other Christian I've asked) who approves the killing of abortionists. Then he uses that person as an argument for equating mainstream Christianity with Al Quaeda.

Like I said, an entertaining little rant. I felt like I was reading the atheist equivalent of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.

PDN

One of the funnier bits that I do remember from The God Delusion is where Dawkins cites the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan as an example of how evil and destructive religion is. The fact that they wouldn't exist in the first place without religion doesn't seem, to have occurred to him.

Galvasean

Is one Dawkins thread in the Christianity forum not enough?

dlofnep

PDN wrote: »

One of the funnier bits that I do remember from The God Delusion is where Dawkins cites the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan as an example of how evil and destructive religion is. The fact that they wouldn't exist in the first place without religion doesn't seem, to have occurred to him.

It's a moot point though, isn't it? I think he's highlighting that alot of damage comes from religion. I agree with him to a extent - I think extremism within religion can have horrible effects. Religion in moderation can be good, as far as charities go and helping the poor/disadvantaged.

While most atheists are passive about Religion, I think religion and the effects it has on man really irks Dawkins. And I guess, rightfully so. He does bring up some great and valid points.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Is one Dawkins thread in the Christianity forum not enough?

The great Dawkins is omnipresent as well as ominscient. Therefore he cannot be confined to one thread.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

The great Dawkins is omnipresent as well as ominscient. Therefore he cannot be confined to one thread.

This is true. For he is the Mega Pope. Anointed by the Noodley Appendage of the FSM.

Splendour

'The God Delusion'- (was on special offer in my local bookshop) but I got bored with it. As far as I remember from it I felt he didn't tackle the subject from an original viewpoint but merely knocked the opinion of believers.

Apart from this I haven't read any of Dawkins other works. ( Local bookshop don't have any other Dawkins offers )

Soul Winner

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is for Christians only please. Have you ever read Richard Dawkins?
If so how do you find his books?

Not yet, but I do want to read 'The Selfish Gene' some time before Rapture.

dlofnep wrote: »

I think extremism within religion can have horrible effects.

Extremism within anything can have horrible effects, no???

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not yet, but I do want to read 'The Selfish Gene' some time before Rapture.

Ah you've plenty of time so.

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah you've plenty of time so.

Touché

Mal-Adjusted

I didn't read his books (Didn't want to give him my money;)) but i've watched many of his lectures & debates on the internet (Horay for youtube!)

I think he has some intiresting arguments, but is undermined by his obvious loathing for anyone who believes diffirently than he does.

mountainyman

I read the God Delusion which I thought was rubbish and River Out of Eden and The Ancestor's Tale (audiobook) which I thought were great.

I do think that in River Out of Eden he does a good of job showing how GIVEN the Universe that life can come into being without the direct working of God.

CDfm

I read a bit of the God delusion on a train to Cork.

I think I left it on a train -but it still amazes me how fanatical he is.

studiorat

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

but is undermined by his obvious loathing for anyone who believes diffirently than he does.

Ah here! Loathing? You'll have to give a few examples. Otherwise this smacks of pure Christian indignation. Certainly he might loath their point of view...

There's no shortage of loathsome content against him if you'd like me to show you?

Please remember he's only a person with a different point of view to yours.

studiorat

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is for Christians only please.

A little one sided I would have thought.

Mal-Adjusted

Got a perfect example right here.
Sorry, i don't really know how to embed links and such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

AtomicHorror

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Got a perfect example right here.
Sorry, i don't really know how to embed links and such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Where's the loathing? He was asked "what if you're wrong (about Christianity)?". To which he asked what if any of us is wrong about the various religions we just happened not to have be brought up in. The vast majority of Christians are of that faith by birth and culture. Just as with any religion. That's a valid point.

Fanny Cradock

Not sure about that one. I've certainly heard him make more outrageous statements.

I think he makes a fair point. However, it's curious that he never quite gets around to answering the question himself.

studiorat

^^^
There it is again! Outrageous!
It's not outrageous at all. There's nothing outrageous about not believing in the supernatural. The human mind is very easily fooled, we really are awful people for filling in the gaps!

I found the god delusion boring and a little repeatitive. From the outset he is trying to prove a negative, ie something doesn't exist always onto a downer there. No one can say for sure that there is or isn't a god, I mean 100% proof, empirical like. Rational thought would suggest there isn't, and if there is it probably doesn't matter a whole lot anyway.

As for the video post a better answer would have been 'to stand infront of your chosen god and say', "well what do you expect! the evidence wasn't very good was is?". I'm sure the almighty would call that a fair cop! If he didn't I wouldn't want anything to do with him anyway.

I believe the above was a B.Russell quote btw, via Dan Dennett. Both people in a better position to discuss the subject I would think.

A good video to check out btw is the poorly titled "the Four Horsemen". A discussion involving, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and some other trout.

Oh yeah! I'm not going to post the anti-Dawkins video I found, because if I did I'm sure I'd face a forum ban for posting obscenity and incitement to hate.

studiorat

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I didn't read his books (Didn't want to give him my money;))

You could go to the library. Or I'll lend it to you if you like.

Joe1919

Can Dawkins be beaten at his own game? Is his whole theory not self refuting? Does the fact that 'belief systems' or religions have survived indicate there usefulness or evolutionary 'goodness'. Although we cant really prove Gods existence or not (IMO), we can make judgements about the usefulness of religious beliefs in terms of bringing happiness, order and prosperity (e.g Weber's praise of the Protestant work ethic).

i.e. If religion has survival value, then surely, by Darwinian standards, religion is good.

robindch

Joe1919 wrote: »

Is his whole theory not self refuting? Does the fact that 'belief systems' or religions have survived indicate there usefulness or evolutionary 'goodness'.

No, since Dawkins point is that religion is a parasitic cultural organism -- in itself, of no obvious benefit to its hosts (us) and instead existing as an inevitable side-effect of something that does have enormous evolutionary advantage (idea-processing brains + the ability to communicate).

In very crude terms and pulling figures completely out of the air for the sake of argument, religion might decrease the evolutionary "efficiency" of a human society that it infects by 10%, but the systems it runs on increase the same efficiency by 50%. Hence, a susceptible population is out in front by 40% over a non-susceptible one.

BTW, "good" isn't really the best word to use to describe an evolutionary trajectory. Take a look at the evolutionary adaptions of the amazing Lancet Fluke, as viewed from the point of view of their ant hosts

robindch

studiorat wrote: »

I found the god delusion boring and a little repeatitive. From the outset he is trying to prove a negative, ie something doesn't exist always onto a downer there. No one can say for sure that there is or isn't a god, I mean 100% proof, empirical like. Rational thought would suggest there isn't

And that's exactly why chapter four is entitled "Why there almost certainly is no god" and not "Why god does not exist". Did you really read the book?

studiorat wrote: »

Oh yeah! I'm not going to post the anti-Dawkins video I found, because if I did I'm sure I'd face a forum ban for posting obscenity and incitement to hate.

I'm sure nobody would mind if you posted it over in A+A.

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

^^^
There it is again! Outrageous!
It's not outrageous at all. There's nothing outrageous about not believing in the supernatural

Read my post - you will see that I never stated that the non-belief in God is outrageous. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

studiorat wrote: »

Oh yeah! I'm not going to post the anti-Dawkins video I found, because if I did I'm sure I'd face a forum ban for posting obscenity and incitement to hate.

Though I suspect you are really only trying to prove a point regarding the "Christian indignation" you have detected, if you really are interested in discussing the video and are unsure if it would break the charter, please PM me the link and I'll see if its OK.

Cheers

ChocolateSauce

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I didn't read his books (Didn't want to give him my money;)) but i've watched many of his lectures & debates on the internet (Horay for youtube!)

I think he has some intiresting arguments, but is undermined by his obvious loathing for anyone who believes diffirently than he does.

Why should his opinion of people affect his arguments? You're essentially saying he might be right, but you don't care and aren't going to listen to him because you don't like him! He is either right or he isn't, and how he delivers his statements does not alter that fact!

Besides, he doesn't loathe believers, he loaths what they believe.

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Why should his opinion of people affect his arguments? You're essentially saying he might be right, but you don't care and aren't going to listen to him because you don't like him! He is either right or he isn't, and how he delivers his statements does not alter that fact!

Besides, he doesn't loathe believers, he loaths what they believe.

Hating the sin but loving the sinner - a very biblical position to take.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Hating the sin but loving the sinner - a very biblical position to take.

Except that Dawkins doesn't believe that sin exists. Not so biblical after all...

AtomicHorror

Joe1919 wrote: »

Can Dawkins be beaten at his own game? Is his whole theory not self refuting? Does the fact that 'belief systems' or religions have survived indicate there usefulness or evolutionary 'goodness'. Although we cant really prove Gods existence or not (IMO), we can make judgements about the usefulness of religious beliefs in terms of bringing happiness, order and prosperity (e.g Weber's praise of the Protestant work ethic).

i.e. If religion has survival value, then surely, by Darwinian standards, religion is good.

Violent behaviour was also once a survival advantage. We've since changed such that the day to day need to violence is gone, but the instinct remains because evolution moves more slowly than human culture.

"Good" is not what evolution has made. "Good" is what we decide it is.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Violent behaviour was also once a survival advantage. We've since changed such that the day to day need to violence is gone, but the instinct remains because evolution moves more slowly than human culture.

It's arguable that violent behaviour remains a distinct survival advantage today. For example, the Russians annexed parts of Georgia. The result was that Russia, to all intense purposes, got a little bigger. On a smaller scale, the petty warlord or common criminal who uses violence and terror to gain an advantage over rivals and claw his way up the ladder. You could even argue that there is a type of clean-cut corporate 'violence'. As an example, the much maligned short sellers who gamble on (and possibly hasten) the demise of a company.

No, I think that violence is as much a part of today's life as it ever has been. We just happen to be in a purple patch in Europe at the moment.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Hating the sin but loving the sinner - a very biblical position to take.

A rather insulting misinterpretation there PDN

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's arguable that violent behaviour remains a distinct survival advantage today. For example, the Russians annexed parts of Georgia. The result was that Russia, to all intense purposes, got a little bigger. On a smaller scale, the petty warlord or common criminal who uses violence and terror to gain an advantage over rivals and claw his way up the ladder. You could even argue that there is a type of clean-cut corporate 'violence'. As an example, the much maligned short sellers who gamble on (and possibly hasten) the demise of a company.

No, I think that violence is as much a part of today's life as it ever has been. We just happen to be in a purple patch in Europe at the moment.

Joe1919 suggested that because we maintain that religion is an evolved trait, that is thus "good". I'm merely pointing out that this can be shown to be untrue for a variety of traits, unless you'd like to label violence as "good". Also I did specify the "day to day" need- I'm aware that violence still has a significant role on the larger scale.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I think that violence is as much a part of today's life as it ever has been. We just happen to be in a purple patch in Europe at the moment.

Well your wrong, but this does seem to be a common theme on this forum, normally coupled with statements that we need Christianity more than ever.

We are in fact living in the most peaceful, by a very very long stretch, period in human history ever, even compared to 50 years ago. There was an interesting talk as part of the TED Conference about this, about why, despite this, people always seem to think things are much worse now than they were, or at least as bad. The explanation put forward was that it is useful, from an evolutionary point of view, to view the world in a more negative light as we get older for the protection of our children.

Joe1919

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Violent behaviour was also once a survival advantage. We've since changed such that the day to day need to violence is gone, but the instinct remains because evolution moves more slowly than human culture.

"Good" is not what evolution has made. "Good" is what we decide it is.

Voilence is not gone, its just that the state are the only people who can legitimately use voilence. Indeed Hobbenians would argue that all order is based ultimately on voilence. Try not paying your rent or morguage and you will ultimately be kicked out with force.
Interesting, the early Greeks assosiated 'good' with 'flourishing' i.e. what was 'good' for an organism made it flourish.
Re. Dawkins view that religion is 'parasitic', Marx had a broadly similar view on the whole capitalistic system. Consider nowadays how much time we waste been bombarded by advertisment, which has the negative effect on the human of creating wants and needs that previously did not exist.The modern human probably spends more time been exposed to 'nonsence' in this form, than medievals spent worshiping.
My view of Dawkins is that his ideas on science are good but his views on culture and the human need are poor. His attempts to reduce history and anthropology to scientific black and white answers are problematic.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

We are in fact living in the most peaceful, by a very very long stretch, period in human history ever, even compared to 50 years ago. There was an interesting talk as part of the TED Conference about this, about why, despite this, people always seem to think things are much worse now than they were, or at least as bad. The explanation put forward was that it is useful, from an evolutionary point of view, to view the world in a more negative light as we get older for the protection of our children.

If remember right, it's been shown in a number of counties that violence is generally declining but that media reporting of it is increasing. The States in particular.

AtomicHorror

Joe1919 wrote: »

Voilence is not gone, its just that the state are the only people who can legitimately use voilence. Indeed Hobbenians would argue that all order is based ultimately on voilence. Try not paying your rent or morguage and you will ultimately be kicked out with force.

Yes, but my point was that just because a behaviour is evolved does not mean that we can define it as "good" in any absolute sense.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Interesting, the early Greeks assosiated 'good' with 'flourishing' i.e. what was 'good' for an organism made it flourish.

Yes indeed, morality based on consequence or "master morality". But that particular moral theory is not accepted by Christians. Good is what God says it is.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Re. Dawkins view that religion is 'parasitic', Marx had a broadly similar view on the whole capitalistic system. Consider nowadays how much time we waste been bombarded by advertisment, which has the negative effect on the human of creating wants and needs that previously did not exist.The modern human probably spends more time been exposed to non-sence in this form, than medievals spent worshiping.

Dawkin's lack of an opinion on such influences has no bearing on his views regarding religion.

Joe1919 wrote: »

My view of Dawkins is that his ideas on science are good but his views on culture and the human need are poor. His attempts to reduce history and anthropology to scientific black and white answers are problematic.

But if we consider science to be the pursuit of truth without assumption, then science is exactly what we should be basing our moral and social decisions on. The specifics of Dawkins' beliefs may seem distasteful to you, but his core philosophy is sound.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If remember right, it's been shown in a number of counties that violence is generally declining but that media reporting of it is increasing. The States in particular.

It's a bit more subtle than that, but not much. Media reports of crime seem to be increasingly principally because of financial pressures on fact-based news outlets: it's dead cheap to pipe news straight from police press releases into the broadcast and print media. Take a look at the RTE news email for example: around 50% of the stories are consistently taken straight from police press reports -- assaults, deaths on the roads etc -- which, while they're awful for the people concerned, are of no importance to the wider population and aren't much more than verbal padding.

Also, people are generally increasingly trusting the police and the system of justice, so they tend to report crime more often, increasing stats that way too.

The US, though, is the only country I'm aware of whose Department of Justice carries out a large-scale country-wide phone survey every year and asks people a wide range of questions related to how much crime they've experienced in the previous year. By the latter stats, crime has been, on the whole, decreasing steadily for years in the US.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

It's a bit more subtle than that, but not much. Media reports of crime seem to be increasingly principally because of financial pressures on fact-based news outlets: it's dead cheap to pipe news straight from police press releases into the broadcast and print media. Take a look at the RTE news email for example: around 50% of the stories are consistently taken straight from police press reports -- assaults, deaths on the roads etc -- which, while they're awful for the people concerned, are of no importance to the wider population and aren't much more than verbal padding.

Also, people are generally increasingly trusting the police and the system of justice, so they tend to report crime more often, increasing stats that way too.

The US, though, is the only country I'm aware of whose Department of Justice carries out a large-scale country-wide phone survey every year and asks people a wide range of questions related to how much crime they've experienced in the previous year. By the latter stats, crime has been, on the whole, decreasing steadily for years in the US.

By parts quite encouraging and saddening. The media seems to be something of a curse in many respects. Their impact on scientific literacy and critical thinking has been profound too.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

A rather insulting misinterpretation there PDN

Not really Wicknight - very reserved I thought- I would be a teeny little less reserved.

Having had this misfortune of reading the God Delusion on a train to Cork and seen the reviews etc in the likes of the Sunday Times - I think of Dawkins as a media *****

He is light on the philosophy side and a bit more Maury/Joe Duffy then John Bowman. I would go further but its Sunday.

He does not address profound issues- I saw someone recently use Kant as an example and I used to enjoy reading stuff by him years back. Thats joined up thinking-heres a link. Dawkins is not even coat-tailing the guy.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well your wrong, but this does seem to be a common theme on this forum, normally coupled with statements that we need Christianity more than ever.

I assume it is your intent to be condescending, Wick. Are you feeling a little rough today :pac:?

Wicknight wrote: »

We are in fact living in the most peaceful, by a very very long stretch, period in human history ever, even compared to 50 years ago. There was an interesting talk as part of the TED Conference about this, about why, despite this, people always seem to think things are much worse now than they were, or at least as bad. The explanation put forward was that it is useful, from an evolutionary point of view, to view the world in a more negative light as we get older for the protection of our children.

I would imaging that 60 years ago the world was a very dangerous place. We had the likes of Hitler and Stalin to thank for that. I haven't seen the talk (it sounds interesting yet I can't see how it has much to do with Christianity) but I would imagine that any incidences of violence pale in comparison to murderess excesses of those times.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

It's a bit more subtle than that,

Is subtle a new buzzword -cos Im often as subtle as a brick.

I prefer the words lying ,misrepresentation etc to just subtle.

And subtle humour is just being a smart arse.

So I prefer abortion to pro-choice and termination and death penalty to capital punishment, prostitute to sex worker and so on.

This framing and PC stuff just hides its true meaning - dont be subtle out with it.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Is subtle a new buzzword

Not to my knowledge. I was using the words "a bit more subtle" in the sense of "accurate, subject to mild change". You know, the normal meaning of the phrase.

CDfm wrote: »

dont be subtle out with it.

Er, did you make it past the fifth word of my post?

Joe1919

By the way, I like Dawkins commitment to rationality BUT
does not reducing all of humanity to science seem so......unromantic? Was this not the problem (or failure) of the enlightment. i.e. a reaction by the romantics, to the idea that people are rational and subject to the laws of science.

Perhaps this is what people hate most about Dawkins and Dennett, they break the spell and what are we left with once the spell is broken?

Perhaps there are two types of people after all, the rationalist and the romantics (who construct there own reality).

Mal-Adjusted

studiorat wrote: »

You could go to the library. Or I'll lend it to you if you like.

Now, now. You're not going to get very far trying to antagonise people

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well your wrong, but this does seem to be a common theme on this forum, normally coupled with statements that we need Christianity more than ever.

We are in fact living in the most peaceful, by a very very long stretch, period in human history ever, even compared to 50 years ago. There was an interesting talk as part of the TED Conference about this, about why, despite this, people always seem to think things are much worse now than they were, or at least as bad. The explanation put forward was that it is useful, from an evolutionary point of view, to view the world in a more negative light as we get older for the protection of our children.

It depends where you live, I guess. While low-level violence is indeed overegged by the media the really nasty stuff may fail to make the headlines (eg the Congo).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It depends where you live, I guess.

Well no actually it doesn't, this is another think touched on in the TED talk. Rates of violence have been decreasing across the world.

I think one think people get confused about is that there are a lot more people alive today, so when a violent action like a war or genocide takes place a lot more people die than say 200 years ago. This gives people a slightly warped view of the chances of a say man alive today dying a violent death. But the actual chances that a random man or woman will die due to a violent action have been falling, often significantly, across the world in terms of decades.

That is of course not to say that violence is gone or anything like that. Saying to someone in an African war zone that they should be happy their chances of dying due to a violent action has decreased from 90% to 80% isn't going to be much comfort.

The point is not to say that death due to violence is low, or at an acceptable level. It clearly isn't. The point is the myth that things were some how better in the past. They weren't.

Mal-Adjusted

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no actually it doesn't,

Tell that to someone living in Iraq, Afghanastan, or Georgia