Thinking of buying The God Delusion

Osgoodisgood · 09-08-2009 07:31PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Read 'God is not Great' by Hitchens. Much better.

I own both books and haven't finished either of them. Not because I don't agree with the contents, but rather because I agree with every word. For these books to have relevance, or better yet, for them to be compelling, I think you need to have some semblance of doubt about the hard atheist's position.

equivariant · 09-08-2009 08:01PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Read 'God is not Great' by Hitchens. Much better.

I disagree. I think that Hitchens is a more entertaining debater and is more confrontational than Dawkins and also much wittier. However as an argument for atheism and even as an argument against religion I find TGD more convincing than GING

Morbert · 09-08-2009 10:52PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm thinking of picking up TGD as an audiobook but just wondering if it's worth my while?

Is it really mainly for people who are religious? Will it just tell me stuff I already know?

The book is enjoyable but it probably won't have much that you haven't heard already. The first half of the book focuses on defending the atheist position, and the second half (the weaker half in my opinion) focuses on why religion is horrible.

wayhey · 09-08-2009 11:02PM

It's a good book and Dawkins does have an undeniable talent for presenting his arguments logically (and as others said I guess it gives the atheist a weapon).

My main problem with it was that Dawkins was (it seemed to me) more preoccupied with ramming his opinion down your throat. He's already given me the evidence, I can figure it out myself Dickie... anyone else get that?

The Mad Hatter · 10-08-2009 12:57AM

Thanks for all the input, folks. I think I will pick it up, if only to insulate myself should another creationism vs. evolution debate break out over Christmas dinner. (Wish I was making that up - my family are not creationists; they're not even especially religious, but I was utterly unable to get my points across.)

Rainbowrapids · 10-08-2009 01:03AM

It's worth a read and is informative, he has a clear way of putting his arguments.

The only thing is I felt he got a bit shrill at points which took away from it slightly.

Dave! · 10-08-2009 01:13AM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Thanks for all the input, folks. I think I will pick it up, if only to insulate myself should another creationism vs. evolution debate break out over Christmas dinner. (Wish I was making that up - my family are not creationists; they're not even especially religious, but I was utterly unable to get my points across.)

Might be worth noting that Dawkins has a new book coming out in September with the subtitle 'The evidence for evolution'

Couldn't hurt to pick it up ! I shall be getting it

ChocolateSauce · 10-08-2009 02:18AM

Galvasean wrote: »

Ergo, you are faulty.

Sure I've known that for years. :P

Flamed Diving · 10-08-2009 08:12AM

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

I own both books and haven't finished either of them. Not because I don't agree with the contents, but rather because I agree with every word. For these books to have relevance, or better yet, for them to be compelling, I think you need to have some semblance of doubt about the hard atheist's position.

Well, I'm not an atheist, and I certainly disagree with the hard atheist position. In addition, Dawkins has stated countless times that he is 99.99999% sure that god/s doesn't exist. Is he a hard atheist?

Furthermore, Hitchens is not attempting to convince people that god/s doesn't exist in his book. Hint: the clue is in the title.

equivariant wrote: »

I disagree. I think that Hitchens is a more entertaining debater and is more confrontational than Dawkins and also much wittier. However as an argument for atheism and even as an argument against religion I find TGD more convincing than GING

I find TGD a bit overly simplistic and watered down. It's clearly written for the lowest common denominator/broadest audience.

andy1249 · 10-08-2009 08:23AM

My main problem with it was that Dawkins was (it seemed to me) more preoccupied with ramming his opinion down your throat. He's already given me the evidence, I can figure it out myself Dickie... anyone else get that?

Ive read everything by Dawkins , the man started out as a good popular science writer , explaining a non intuitive subject in a great way.
His best by far is The Extended phenotype , then about halfway through his work he starts to degenerate into this most non scientific and very very boring no God rant .... once he stopped explaining science and started down this road he has become an attention seeking media whore. He seems to spend most of his time actually arguing with fundamentalist christian morons on TV , where is the scientific value in that , it is frankly embarrassing to watch. Its easy to flaunt your intelligence in front of fools.

The God delusion is the sad nail in the coffin of what could have been a brilliant career , its very like watching David Icke crack up all those years ago, sad really.

Turtwig · 10-08-2009 10:03AM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, I'm not an atheist, and I certainly disagree with the hard atheist position. In addition, Dawkins has stated countless times that he is 99.99999% sure that god/s doesn't exist. Is he a hard atheist? .

I don't think anyone can ever be a pure atheist, simply because of the fear religion can instill subconsciously in the mind. Most of us, will always have hesitations, but one thing Dawkins (and I'm sure most of us here) is (are) certain of is that the God(s) depicted in the ancient texts are complete and utter drivel.

CerebralCortex · 10-08-2009 10:10AM

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't think anyone can ever be a pure atheist, simply because of the fear religion can instill subconsciously in the mind. Most of us, will always have hesitations, but one thing Dawkins (and I'm sure most of us here) is (are) certain of is that the God(s) depicted in the ancient texts are complete and utter drivel.

And utter drivel they are. Unfortunately theists in these forums all too often forget that that is actually the case and therefore we spend half our time arguing with them over the most irrelevant of topics like exgesis or biblical inconsistencies.

Rant over.

Flamed Diving · 10-08-2009 10:19AM

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't think anyone can ever be a pure atheist, simply because of the fear religion can instill subconsciously in the mind. Most of us, will always have hesitations, but one thing Dawkins (and I'm sure most of us here) is (are) certain of is that the God(s) depicted in the ancient texts are complete and utter drivel.

Therefore he is not a hard atheist, I agree.

Zillah · 10-08-2009 12:45PM

andy1249 wrote: »

The God delusion is the sad nail in the coffin of what could have been a brilliant career , its very like watching David Icke crack up all those years ago, sad really.

I can't disagree enough. To compare Richard Dawkins to David Icke is just so monumentally wrong, I can't believe someone would be so ignorant. He has had a long and illustrious career, doing things far beyond publishing books. He's also about to publish a book detailing the best evidence for evolution soon, so his career is by no means over, either.

Galvasean · 10-08-2009 12:49PM

Zillah wrote: »

I can't disagree enough. To compare Richard Dawkins to David Icke is just so monumentally wrong, I can't believe someone would be so ignorant. He has had a long and illustrious career, doing things far beyond publishing books. He's also about to publish a book detailing the best evidence for evolution soon, so his career is by no means over, either.

Wheras David Icke's football career is certainly over.

Flamed Diving · 10-08-2009 01:18PM

I don't think the Icke comment was meant to be taken literally. But I agree in its sentiment. He is far better when he simply sticks to publishing popular science books, rather than his personal crusade against religion.

andy1249 · 10-08-2009 01:42PM

He's also about to publish a book detailing the best evidence for evolution soon, so his career is by no means over, either.

His career as a scientist is over. He would rather spend his time these days arguing nonsense out in public.

Do you really think science needs a book detailing the " Best Evidence" for Evolution ? Who exactly do you think this book is for ? Anyone even remotely read up on the subject either through pop science or serious study does not need Dawkins to tell them the " Best evidence ever ".

Honestly the way hes behaving its like hes just discovered Evolution and is trying to convince the world !! Its ridiculous !

The book is clearly aimed at the religious , which is a complete waste of time , it cannot possibly be aimed at the scientific community because it is totally unnecessary , in other words a complete waste of the mans talents. Its worthless work !

The only possible reason I can see for this book is to get him some more TV slots and inflate his already overblown ego.

robindch · 10-08-2009 01:52PM

andy1249 wrote: »

The book is clearly aimed at the religious

Yes, and he says so in the introduction.

andy1249 wrote: »

The only possible reason I can see for this book is to get him some more TV slots and inflate his already overblown ego.

It's disappointing to see that you think that his interest is entirely selfish.

Have you had the time to read the book?

Turtwig · 10-08-2009 01:52PM

andy1249 wrote: »

His career as a scientist is over. He would rather spend his time these days arguing nonsense out in public.

Do you really think science needs a book detailing the " Best Evidence" for Evolution ? Who exactly do you think this book is for ? Anyone even remotely read up on the subject either through pop science or serious study does not need Dawkins to tell them the " Best evidence ever ".

Honestly the way hes behaving its like hes just discovered Evolution and is trying to convince the world !! Its ridiculous !

The book is clearly aimed at the religious , which is a complete waste of time , it cannot possibly be aimed at the scientific community because it is totally unnecessary , in other words a complete waste of the mans talents. Its worthless work !

The only possible reason I can see for this book is to get him some more TV slots and inflate his already overblown ego.

To be fair, I'm going to wait until the reviews.

If the book is mainly a factual argument for evolution being true, then no purchase. If however it is an appreciation of evolution and nature (you gotta admit his biologist stuff is brill) then it's a get natch

Zombrex · 10-08-2009 02:11PM

andy1249 wrote: »

His career as a scientist is over. He would rather spend his time these days arguing nonsense out in public.

Do you really think science needs a book detailing the " Best Evidence" for Evolution ? Who exactly do you think this book is for ? Anyone even remotely read up on the subject either through pop science or serious study does not need Dawkins to tell them the " Best evidence ever ".

Honestly the way hes behaving its like hes just discovered Evolution and is trying to convince the world !! Its ridiculous !

The book is clearly aimed at the religious , which is a complete waste of time , it cannot possibly be aimed at the scientific community because it is totally unnecessary , in other words a complete waste of the mans talents. Its worthless work !

The only possible reason I can see for this book is to get him some more TV slots and inflate his already overblown ego.

Ewwww .. hang bags at dawn! Oh no you didn't!! *snap* :P

CerebralCortex · 10-08-2009 02:14PM

Knowledge of Evolutionary biology before I read Dawkins Selfish Gene = 0
Knowledge of Evolutionary biology after I read Dawkins Selfish Gene = 80% increase.

The Mad Hatter · 10-08-2009 02:17PM

andy1249: I have to assume that a book on the evidence for evolution would be written for non-scientists (like me) and the kind of people who watched his documentaries on Darwin earlier this year. As for "his career as a scientist is over" - isn't he still professor of biology at Oxford?

And if you don't think he can debate biology without bringing up religion, I suggest you watch the Wendy Wright interview elsewhere on this forum.

Flamed Diving · 10-08-2009 02:24PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Knowledge of Evolutionary biology before I read Dawkins Selfish Gene = 0
Knowledge of Evolutionary biology after I read Dawkins Selfish Gene = 80% increase.

You need to interpret your results, or else its just meaningless maths.

Galvasean · 10-08-2009 02:30PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Knowledge of Evolutionary biology before I read Dawkins Selfish Gene = 0
Knowledge of Evolutionary biology after I read Dawkins Selfish Gene = 80% increase.

80% of 0 = 0.
0 + 0(80% of 0) = 0.

You learned nothing?

Osgoodisgood · 10-08-2009 02:30PM

Well, I'm not an atheist, and I certainly disagree with the hard atheist position. In addition, Dawkins has stated countless times that he is 99.99999% sure that god/s doesn't exist. Is he a hard atheist?

Pretty close I'd say. What's your point?

Furthermore, Hitchens is not attempting to convince people that god/s doesn't exist in his book. Hint: the clue is in the title.

Not sure if I buy that. Anyway, what's your point?

I find TGD a bit overly simplistic and watered down. It's clearly written for the lowest common denominator/broadest audience.

Why do you think that? It's Dawkins' opinion. He offers it in a style that some find annoying but I hardly think he is pandering to the uneducated.

CerebralCortex · 10-08-2009 02:36PM

Galvasean wrote: »

80% of 0 = 0.
0 + 0(80% of 0) = 0.

You learned nothing?

Obviously! :pac:

No seriously I was trying to be witty about how much Dawkins' The Selfish Gene improved my understanding of evolutionary biology. I assure you my face is firmly lodged in my palm at this point. Doh!

Flamed Diving · 10-08-2009 02:47PM

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Pretty close I'd say. What's your point? .

Pretty close to first, is second place. He is not a hard atheist. Therefore all definitions of him as such should be dropped. Whats your point?

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Not sure if I buy that. Anyway, what's your point?.

Well, he pretty much states exactly that in his book. Whats your point?

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Why do you think that? It's Dawkins' opinion. He offers it in a style that some find annoying but I hardly think he is pandering to the uneducated.

Because I have read both books and I was left with the impression that one was consdierably more intellectually advanced and narrowly focused than the other. Whats your point?

Osgoodisgood · 10-08-2009 03:58PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Pretty close to first, is second place. He is not a hard atheist. Therefore all definitions of him as such should be dropped. Whats your point?

Oh boy. I am not going to be goaded into some peurile tit for tat. I didn't call Dawkins a hard atheist. Go read my post again.

Well, he pretty much states exactly that in his book. Whats your point?

Hitchens makes no attempt to conceal his opinion vis-a-vis the likelihood of a deity existing.

Because I have read both books and I was left with the impression that one was consdierably more intellectually advanced and narrowly focused than the other. Whats your point?

Congratulations. You've read two books. Don't stop now.

Flamed Diving · 10-08-2009 04:03PM

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Hitchens makes no attempt to conceal his opinion vis-a-vis the likelihood of a deity existing.

Remember now, we were discussing that book. What point was he explicitly making in that book? (hint: read the title!)

robindch · 10-08-2009 04:06PM

Hi Osgoodisgood.

This is one of your friendly forum mods dropping by briefly with a message from A+A central -- tone down the testiness please.

ta.

Thinking of buying The God Delusion

Comments