Richard dawkins

[Naffa]

The Dawkins Delusion is a very poor book, and Alistair McGrath a very poor debater/orator on the subjects of God and religion. He can't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between what Christians think, and what Christianity preaches.

 

[Dolph]

Could you be so kind to point me to a good book that sucessfully rebukes the gd? I tried the dawkins delusion by the theolgy professor alistair mcgrath but it was pathetic and actually made dawkins arguments look stronger not weaker. Thanks in advance!

I'd suggest trying 'Answering the new atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' case against God' by Hain and Wiker.

I'd also highly suggest reading 'There is a god - How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind' by Antony Flew (who was, in many regards, the predecessor of Dawkins in the evangelical atheism camp for a long while, with the added advantage that he's actually a philosopher and therefore understands the subject matter in much greater depth).

 

[Belly]

If 'god' came and said I am the one who done all this, who would believe him and who would see him as a impostor, an alien who is doing it for his own ego? .

You mean some one like Jeremy Clarkson; Not me guv! I wouldn't believe a word he said.

If he looked about five thousand years old (which I believe some Christians believe the world to be) I might believe it. No one has yet said that The Christian God is a Peter Pan, he supposedly created us in his own image, if so, we grow old and so should he, eh?

God is often an idea, a belief. And can be used for good or for evil. .

I totally agree: I seem to recall that Dawkins paraphrased some one by saying that without religion bad people would do bad things and good people would do good things, but with religion good people could do bad things. (like Christians roasting Muslims on spits during the Crusades and Muslims flying planes into skyscrapers, the list goes on)?

Why don't the government who spends money on other non beneficial stuff give it all to charity? It's not just the religious that are given free passes. .

My point wasn’t that "all" the surplus money, just what is being spent on the Pope’s visit. The remainder of the money should be spent on one great big booze up, what do you say about that?

 

[NormanPorkinson]

I have read the book. My brother knows Dawkin's personally and have had the opportunity to meet him on occasion ( he is a very nice, personable and fiercely intelligent man I like him, just don't agree with him). I haven't misrepresented anything, he makes too many assumptions and has little real knowledge of the religions historicity or philosophy that he is criticising, and I am not referring to the book specifically, but generally.



He is not qualified, none of us are to make that judgement over what is supernatural or not. That is where his arrogance comes



I watched a debate on this the other night. It will be interesting to read the book as there is some debate over what Hawking actually said.

I don't get why you have to be a master theologist to disagree with their theories! The main 3 religions ideology is contained in 3 books!

 

[Dolph]

I don't get why you have to be a master theologist to disagree with their theories! The main 3 religions ideology is contained in 3 books!

You don't have to be, but a good grounding in the subject matter helps in actually refuting what is actually believed. Much of the time Dawkins refutes what he believes people believe, rather than what they actually believe, through his own lack of understanding about religions.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I don't get why you have to be a master theologist to disagree with their theories! The main 3 religions ideology is contained in 3 books!

You don't have to be a theologian to disagree with religious theories but it is easier to contradict or even dismiss absolute positions taken (e.g. god does not exist) if the person who asserts it does not have much in the way of understanding of the tenets of the religion(s). If someone wants to assert their views for religion are in fact universal then I'd hope they've studied many (perhaps not all religions ever but certainly more than three) as otherwise they've not even had the basic courtesy to check what it is they attempt to disagree with and therefore their views are not worthy of much weight being placed on them.

Let's move this to another subject as an analogy - if I were to tell you that 1984 by George Orwell is the greatest book ever but I'd only ever read it and Harry Potter then would you say I've got a sound basis to make my assertion on? What if in making that statement I'd read thousands of books and it was based on a comparative view across all of them?

Is one position likely to be worth slightly more as a viewpoint starting from a degree of knowledge and research? Incidentally I'd like to make it clear I've never read Harry Potter - I'm saving that joy/horror for when or if I have children and have little choice in the matter.

 

[Naffa]

You don't have to be, but a good grounding in the subject matter helps in actually refuting what is actually believed. Much of the time Dawkins refutes what he believes people believe, rather than what they actually believe, through his own lack of understanding about religions.

You're making the fundamental mistake that so many people of your school of thought do. You're confusing what the religious believe, rather than what their respective religions preach.

Also, I really suggest (if you haven't already done so) reading Christopher Hitchens as I think his way of thinking would appeal to you much more than Dawkins' does. I grow tired of hearing Richard speak about religion very quickly, however, I could listen to him speak about ecology and the theory of evolution for days.

 

[Dolph]

You're making the fundamental mistake that so many people of your school of thought do. You're confusing what the religious believe, rather than what their respective religions preach.

And you're confusing theism with religion. The two are complementary but not exchangeable.

Also, I really suggest (if you haven't already done so) reading Christopher Hitchens as I think his way of thinking would appeal to you much more than Dawkins' does. I grow tired of hearing Richard speak about religion very quickly, however, I could listen to him speak about ecology and the theory of evolution for days.

I do like Hitchens' work, I don't agree with all of it, but it's much better than Dawkins' work in the philosophical area.

 

[oli collett]

I feel this video is perfect for this thread:

 

[Castiel]

The Dawkins Delusion is a very poor book, and Alistair McGrath a very poor debater/orator on the subjects of God and religion. He can't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between what Christians think, and what Christianity preaches.

On these point we can both agree. Therein lies the problem with these kind of debates. Attempting to apply scientific values to religion and vice versa is an excercise in futility.

 

[Naffa]

And you're confusing theism with religion. The two are complementary but not exchangeable.

I'd be interested in how you've come to that conclusion from what I just posted. Monotheistic religious belief is, by default, a belief in a theistic God. Obviously one can have a theistic belief without the monotheism, but you cannot be a member of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, and not believe in an omnipotent and such, God.

I do like Hitchens' work, I don't agree with all of it, but it's much better than Dawkins' work in the philosophical area.

I couldn't agree more, but I would go so far as to say that he's better than Dawkins at every point within that arena. He's much more well read on the Qur'an and the Bible than a lot of Muslims and Christians, and it shows when he debates.

 

[Dolph]

I'd be interested in how you've come to that conclusion from what I just posted. Monotheistic religious belief is, by default, a belief in a theistic God. Obviously one can have a theistic belief without the monotheism, but you cannot be a member of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, and not believe in an omnipotent and such, God.

But you can have a monotheistic (or polytheistic, or deist) belief without religion, certainly without organised, heavily structured religion of the type Dawkins normally targets as being all faith.

Does Dawkins acknowledge that the catholic church and the CoE accept evolution, for example?

Incidentally, you can be Jewish and an atheist, indeed there are whole areas of the structure set up in such a way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

There's also a branch of christianity that is atheist, that is they follow the teachings of christ while rejecting the existence of god and the divinity of jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

I couldn't agree more, but I would go so far as to say that he's better than Dawkins at every point within that arena. He's much more well read on the Qur'an and the Bible than a lot of Muslims and Christians, and it shows when he debates.

Indeed.

 

[JC-Retro]

I think sometimes you can wonder is it healthy for Dawkin's to be so driven in his quest for the truth (as he sees it anyway)?

And whilst he appears to be a nice guy, there does appear to be a darker side to him. As people have said in this thread, a man of his intelligence surely must understand that trying to make fundamentalists change their views or beliefs is the equivalent of banging his head against a brick wall.

Again he's a genuis and worth listening to at least once but I concede despite that, I would rather listen or hear an argument from the likes of Hitchens (as has just been mentioned) or the rather wonderful Stephen Fry.

In truth, Dawkin's obsession with "truth" is for me, his ultimate downfall.

 

[Naffa]

But you can have a monotheistic (or polytheistic, or deist) belief without religion, certainly without organised, heavily structured religion of the type Dawkins normally targets as being all faith.

Does Dawkins acknowledge that the catholic church and the CoE accept evolution, for example?

Yes, I've seen ask (I believe) Bishop Harries why he didn't accept evolution, when other people (perhaps even a majority) do so.

EDIT: No, it wasn't Bishop Harries, but I've seen him mention it a few times.

Incidentally, you can be Jewish and an atheist, indeed there are whole areas of the structure set up in such a way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

Well, Christopher himself would be a 'Jewish atheist'.

There's also a branch of christianity that is atheist, that is they follow the teachings of christ while rejecting the existence of god and the divinity of jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

I have heard of both movements before. Even if we ignore the fact that if somebody does not believe that Mary conceived of a virgin, does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead and does not believe he was the son of God and the Messiah, then as far as I'm concerned, they are in no meaningful way, a Christian. Even if we ignore that, we're still left with an argument of whether such a belief is moral, as there is no force of the supernatural to debate. One would hope that such a debate would be utterly pointless as it's self evident that the following of Christ's example is anything but moral, let alone if you don't believe he was the son of God.

 

[NormanPorkinson]

You're making the fundamental mistake that so many people of your school of thought do. You're confusing what the religious believe, rather than what their respective religions preach.

Also, I really suggest (if you haven't already done so) reading Christopher Hitchens as I think his way of thinking would appeal to you much more than Dawkins' does. I grow tired of hearing Richard speak about religion very quickly, however, I could listen to him speak about ecology and the theory of evolution for days.

I'd be interested in how you've come to that conclusion from what I just posted. Monotheistic religious belief is, by default, a belief in a theistic God. Obviously one can have a theistic belief without the monotheism, but you cannot be a member of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, and not believe in an omnipotent and such, God.


I couldn't agree more, but I would go so far as to say that he's better than Dawkins at every point within that arena. He's much more well read on the Qur'an and the Bible than a lot of Muslims and Christians, and it shows when he debates.

God is not great is a better book than the god delusion in a lot of ways but it's dawkins' work on evolution that was the main point of this thread! Afterall rd has only written one book on this subject at a time when a lot of other people were writing similar books! His evolutionary books do a lot better job at refuting religious doctrine, primarily when it comes to the creation aspect of theology.

 

[NormanPorkinson]

But you can have a monotheistic (or polytheistic, or deist) belief without religion, certainly without organised, heavily structured religion of the type Dawkins normally targets as being all faith.

Does Dawkins acknowledge that the catholic church and the CoE accept evolution, for example?

Incidentally, you can be Jewish and an atheist, indeed there are whole areas of the structure set up in such a way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

There's also a branch of christianity that is atheist, that is they follow the teachings of christ while rejecting the existence of god and the divinity of jesus.






Of course he accepts they do and he's mentioned it on countless documetaries!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism



Indeed.

 

[footman]

he makes too many assumptions and has little real knowledge of the religions historicity or philosophy that he is criticising

Can you be more specific as to where he has made errors in these 3 areas?

This is all very interesting (to me) as I've just finished The God Delusion and I'm just about to start on Hitchens' God Is Not Great.
Over the years I've had to listen to fundamentalist drivel and I've not been able to answer the drivellers because of my professional relationship with them.

Because of this my reading of Dawkins book has been somewhat cathartic for me but I'd like to know why I shouldn't trust his factual knowledge.

 

[Naffa]

God is not great is a better book than the god delusion in a lot of ways but it's dawkins' work on evolution that was the main point of this thread! Afterall rd has only written one book on this subject at a time when a lot of other people were writing similar books! His evolutionary books do a lot better job at refuting religious doctrine, primarily when it comes to the creation aspect of theology.

God is Not Great is more of a case against religion, why Christopher considers it to be an evil entity, and such. It's not making any real attempt to refute the existence of God, which is the crux of the God Delusion.

Hearing Richard speak about evolution is inspiring to say the least, he's one of the few people that's edged me towards appreciating just how beautiful our world really is.

Refuting doctrine should be easy, but it seems that every time it is refuted, it's changed. That's my biggest problem with a lot of religious debate, the religious put forward an unfalsifiable argument, which can never be proven, nor disproven. This contrasts the theory of evolution (which is obviously separate from the question of whether there's a God), which is positively falsifiable.

 

[Dolph]

God is not great is a better book than the god delusion in a lot of ways but it's dawkins' work on evolution that was the main point of this thread! Afterall rd has only written one book on this subject at a time when a lot of other people were writing similar books! His evolutionary books do a lot better job at refuting religious doctrine, primarily when it comes to the creation aspect of theology.

Actually, Dawkins has written many books that mix his science with his philosophy, such as the blind watchmaker, as well as many papers and articles on the subject (such as Virus of the mind).

His evolution work, when he leaves out the philosophical bent, is fantastic. It's just a shame he tarnishes it with the rest of his behaviour.

 

[Castiel]

Can you be more specific as to where he has made errors in these 3 areas?

This is all very interesting (to me) as I've just finished The God Delusion and I'm just about to start on Hitchens' God Is Not Great.
Over the years I've had to listen to fundamentalist drivel and I've not been able to answer the drivellers because of my professional relationship with them.

Because of this my reading of Dawkins book has been somewhat cathartic for me but I'd like to know why I shouldn't trust his factual knowledge.

I could if I hadn't read it long ago. I would have to reread it to be specific, which given this thread I may just do. I may have a different perspective this time around. From what I recall having this feeling that he doesn't truly understand the religions he is so critical of and as such it detracted from his argument. I will endeavour to reread it this week and get back to you in more detail.

I would be interested in reading Hitchens also, so I think a trip to the book shop is in order tomorrow.