|
|
Recently I've picked up Richard Dawkins book, "The God Delusion". Currently it is number one on Amazon UK and CA, and number two on the US version of the site. I was wondering if anyone here had read it. While it may not be your taste of religious discourse, I think that it brings up many issues that religious folks should be addressing.
Last weekend I went to a lecture that Prof. Dawkins held in Montreal, and there was a Q & A at the end. Sadly, no one posed a question from a religious perspective or challenged any of his material. Well, there was one woman who asked if he had ever had pets (he has a dog that he loves), or if he was a cold-blooded incarnation of Satan, or something. It seems that she missed the entire point of the lecture. :/
At any rate, anyone read the book? I think that, in terms of any debates, that it is rather important that you did indeed read the book; not that you just hate Dawkins. ;)
| |
'Hate' Dawkins? For writing a book?
"The truth is knowable. But probably not, ever, incontrovertible."
--Don DeLillo
PICS | |
Posted by KublaKhan
'Hate' Dawkins? For writing a book?
|
Have you not read responses to Dawkins? I don't think that it is the so much the act of writing that gets people worked up as much as the content of his books. He's got some of the unpleasant mail people send to him on his site: richarddawkins.net
There is a lot of animosity toward Prof. Dawkins, which I'm not really interested in. More interesting to me is the content of the book in terms of what the rhetor is saying, not the rhetor himself.
| |
Even if it is granted that religion should be expunged, how does Mr Dawkins suggest this could be done?
Buy his book as a Christmas gift for one's religious friends?
Obviously, many people will never be persuaded; that is precisely the nature of faith.
The actual plan is twofold:
1) Mr Dawkins wants to subvert the mode of transmission between parent and child.
He calls a religious upbringing a form of indoctrination and equates it to child abuse.
He wants to encourage a change in the Zeitgeist, so that when people hear the words “a Catholic child”, or “a Muslim child”, they will wince, and ask how a child could already have formed independent opinions on transubstantiation or jihad. (This is a bad idea WHY?)
2) Energise atheists, whom he regards as being in the same situation as homosexuals were 50 years ago: stigmatised and unelectable to public office (in America, at least).
Mr Dawkins dreams of a day when atheists are as well organised and influential as Christian conservatives have become.
**If nothing else, his book should help bring the atheists out of the closet.**
Science flies you to the Moon. Religion flies you into tall buildings. | |
Posted by DevilC
**If nothing else, his book should help bring the atheists out of the closet.**
|
I've been out of the church closet since I was 15, much to many Presbyterian relatives displeasure. He certainly raises many valid points and I don't disagree that if religion were expunged, this world would actually have a smidgit of hope of peace, improved technological advances, and better lives for all. However, it is human nature for many to use the God excuse (the universe was created by God because that's the only reason one can fathom) rather than attempt to answer the whys of the universe themselves through experimentation and research.
| |
I have read some of his other books and found them to be quite good, if a little long winded.
Just because the religious right (who are wrong) don't like him does not mean he is wrong.
In the Blind Watch Maker, he quite eloquently points out the fallacies the "intelligent design" pseudoscience crowd tries to push.
I met a guy who though Dawkins was the spawn of satan. He also told me that radio carbon dating did not work becuase his church had some granite tested and they could no provide a date. He based his creationist beliefs on crap like this. Sounds compelling unless you know that carbon 14 particles are released only by decaying biological matter - none of which exists in granite.
Anyway, I'm off to buy his new book. Cheers.
[last edit 11/10/2006 11:42 PM by tekriter - edited 1 times]
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Robert A. Heinlen | |
Posted by tekriter
Anyway, I'm off to buy his new book. Cheers.
|
I found that a lot of "long winded" feeling comes with understanding what he is talking about. The Selfish Gene is a good example, but as I'm sure you've heard, it has been widely misunderstood. He has very good reason for being so very exact in his explanations. That said, I think that Dawkins is incredibly eloquent, and well-articulated. See this months Time magazine for a debate between Dawkins and an advocate of ID; Dawkins absolutely tears apart the other fellows poor attempts at an argument.
| |
Only my second foray into this forum; already I've realized that the topic is not "religious discussion".
The only discussion is the typical anti religion diatribe.
In fact I'm quite confident my next statement will bring joy to everyone's face here.
"Bush is dumb idiot"
Pathetic. Hiding politics in what should be a fun topic.
I'm all done here.
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. | |
Posted by 'Dukes
Only my second foray into this forum; already I've realized that the topic is not "religious discussion".
|
I think that you're mistaken. This book, which I'm assuming you have not read, addresses many religious aspects; such as St. Thomas Aquinas proofs. It isn't a matter of "anti religion", but how is religion going to function in this society. At that, religion is political, and if you believe otherwise, you're a fool. The author of this book is a scientist, who was once religious, and I would urge everyone to read material regarding religion that goes against what they believe. Actually, I would urge everyone to read all kinds of material that goes against what they believe, in any area. I've recently read Left Behind, which some would say is simply rapture fiction, but it is highly political.
Considering you have a habit of invoking politics regarding US concerns, I can't really believe that you have any interest in this topic at all, which is why it isn't fun.
I'd rather that people add to this discussion in terms of the book and how they address the material in it That is, after all, why I've posted it here. Shock and horror, I'm interested in people's reactions. *rollshireyes*
I'm happy that you're done, you've had nothing to add. Now if someone who has read the book would like to get back on topic, I really would like to know some people's reactions.
| |
Yes, continue your one sided political discussion ; it makes a lot of sense to "preach to the choir"; how admirable of you. Big challenge there.
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. | |
Posted by 'Dukes
Yes, continue your one sided political discussion ; it makes a lot of sense to "preach to the choir"; how admirable of you. Big challenge there.
|
Ignoring what I said does not simply vanish it. While you have the freedom to ignore what I say, I equally have the freedom to ask how religious folks interpret/feel about this text. Religious folks have the freedom to tell me.
Take that ideograph.
What I'm asking for is people who have taken the time to read a book to talk about it. Can you imagine how political I must be? Next thing I'll be doing is asking people what they thought of the hyper-political Left Behind. Where do I get off? People's opinions on a controversial best-selling book are obviously of no interest to anyone; mostly because you haven't read the text, of course.
Hey- You weren't done, you're still spamming the thread. Read the bloody book if you'd like to address issues from the "other"* side. That is what I was asking for, after all. Is that so difficult to understand?
*I live in Canada and we don't exactly have the same political discourse around religion as you do in the US. Invoking your god/devil terms, to use some Kenneth Burke, such as "Marxism" and "anti religion" doesn't have the same effect on me as you intend for it to. Better luck next time, and I do hope that "next time" is when you're posting something constructive--such as your opposing opinion to Dawkins--in this thread.
| |
Ideograph? Sorry I only own a pornograph.
GIrl, you are beyond hope; do you hang out at starbucks and wear thick rimmed glasses?
You are probably fucking hot.
Then again, I just got cock blocked by my boss; cute petite 38 year old fucking HAMMER. Girl was all over me like a cheap suit.
Win some you lose some I suppose. It was a religious experience for relevance. Then I wandered around Manhattan in the rain looking to pick a fight with the first asshole that was looking for a battle.But the people here are much nicer than you.
I even hung out with some bums, fun people, we had a smoke and a laugh or two, they called me "Tony D the French guy" after they asked if I was Irish or Italian and I told them "100 percent frog beatch". I think .
[last edit 11/14/2006 5:39 AM by 'Dukes - edited 2 times]
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. | |
Posted by 'Dukes
GIrl, you are beyond hope; do you hang out at starbucks and wear thick rimmed glasses?
You are probably fucking hot.
|
No shit of a word Brother, yer killin me...
"The truth is knowable. But probably not, ever, incontrovertible."
--Don DeLillo
PICS | |
I have read "The God Delusion" and have found it engaging and thought provoking. I very much like how he doesn't handle religion "with kid gloves" and instead simply states exactly what he feels.
Recently I went on a little rant about how religion is indefensible on a public forum and found it fascinating what type of response I received. I actually didn't receive much response from the religious but a very strong outcry from agnostics. Dawkins may be correct in that people find religion to be an untouchable subject. A religious man is allowed to depict Darwin as an evil maniac in a cartoon but a depiction of a religious figure in the same light sends waves of violence through the world.
I also enjoyed Dawkins' religious/atheist spectrum. Where he shows a gradient scale ranging from total belief to total disbelief. He makes it clear that an atheist typically isn't asserting the impossibility of God/gods only that the possibility is excessively remote.
For future posts I am in agreement with the one who created this post: please limit the discussion to Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" and have read said book.
|
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 54 ms
|
|
Ethics
