Without God

[geoff332]

One of the better, by which I mean thoughtful and reflective, statements of Atheism I've read for some time. I particularly like,

We who are not zealots can rejoice that when bread and wine are no longer sacraments, they will still be bread and wine.

Long, but well worth the effort of reading for theists, deists and atheists alike.

[marcusj]

'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins is well worth a read for anyone who found the above interesting

[Gus]

'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins is well worth a read for anyone who found the above interesting

Interesting is NOT a word I'd used ..... got through 60 pages or so and got bored of waiting for him to make a real point instead of ranting about religious zealots ..... saying God doesn't exist because religous zealots are maniacs doesn't quite work for me. Will try to read the rest of the bnoom sometime soon.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Interesting is NOT a word I'd used ..... got through 60 pages or so and got bored of waiting for him to make a real point instead of ranting about religious zealots .....

What real point did you expect him to make? Its called 'the god delusion' and is mainly ranting about religious zealots I blame your poor book choice, not Richard Dawkins

[geoff332]

'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins is well worth a read for anyone who found the above interesting

Absolutely not. I like this article for all the reasons it is fundamentally different from Dawkins' recent writing. Dawkins does not provide a well reasoned case against religion: he basically adopts the techniques that have been used against him by the creationists and turns them back on them. I find it as much of a dogmatic rant as anything discovery institute has written. The essence of his argument is, "bad things have been done in the name of religion or by religious, therefore all religion is bad." Anyone with even a cursory introduction to philosophy would see that as a basic logical fallacy. Funnily enough, it's structurally identical to one of the arguments adopted by your average creationist.

The above article I referred to was far more powerful because it is carefully reasoned: providing the author's view on why he science has challenged religion and, in doing so, lays the foundation of a robust scientific critique of religion. Nowhere does he attack religion or religious adherents. Specifically, he does not argue or even suggest that people who have religious beliefs are in any way defective or inferior to himself.

We need far more of this sort of reasoned argument and far less of Dawkins/Hitchens rhetoric.

[marcusj]

Absolutely not. I like this article for all the reasons it is fundamentally different from Dawkins' recent writing. Dawkins does not provide a well reasoned case against religion: he basically adopts the techniques that have been used against him by the creationists and turns them back on them. I find it as much of a dogmatic rant as anything discovery institute has written. The essence of his argument is, "bad things have been done in the name of religion or by religious, therefore all religion is bad." Anyone with even a cursory introduction to philosophy would see that as a basic logical fallacy. Funnily enough, it's structurally identical to one of the arguments adopted by your average creationist.

The above article I referred to was far more powerful because it is carefully reasoned: providing the author's view on why he science has challenged religion and, in doing so, lays the foundation of a robust scientific critique of religion. Nowhere does he attack religion or religious adherents. Specifically, he does not argue or even suggest that people who have religious beliefs are in any way defective or inferior to himself.

We need far more of this sort of reasoned argument and far less of Dawkins/Hitchens rhetoric.

I enjoyed reading the link you provided but the first point made quite laboriously is pretty much the same as the god of gaps point made by RD and others before him.

For sure RD does have a particular dislike of all things religious but that doesn't stop his book containing some excellent points. I'm not sure how much of his book, if any, contains original thinking. Nevertheless one argument I particularly liked was around just because god can neither be proved or disproved with certainty that doesn't mean exitence and non existence have the same probibility (Bertrand Russell's giant teapot hypothesis).

I am not defending RD or the entire contents of his book, just thought it was an interesting read.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I enjoyed reading the link you provided but the first point made quite laboriously is pretty much the same as the god of gaps point made by RD and others before him.

For sure RD does have a particular dislike of all things religious but that doesn't stop his book containing some excellent points. I'm not sure how much of his book, if any, contains original thinking. Nevertheless one argument I particularly liked was around just because god can neither be proved or disproved with certainty that doesn't mean exitence and non existence have the same probibility (Bertrand Russell's giant teapot hypothesis).

I am not defending RD or the entire contents of his book, just thought it was an interesting read.

i vote for more rhetoric

[geoff332]

I enjoyed reading the link you provided but the first point made quite laboriously is pretty much the same as the god of gaps point made by RD and others before him.

It's far from a new argument. Curiously, Dawkins took a chapter or two to make the argument, which was put forth in a few paragraphs.

For sure RD does have a particular dislike of all things religious but that doesn't stop his book containing some excellent points.

Actually, it does stop him having a number of excellent points. It reads as one who has made a conclusion then picked up arguments that support the conclusion. It is very weak.

I am not defending RD or the entire contents of his book, just thought it was an interesting read.

Dawkins was writing to a very specific audience: atheists who want to laugh at the foolish believers. It's an interesting book to that audience, mildly offensive to anyone neutral and seriously offensive to anyone who happens to be a believer. It may have a few interesting points, but it is pointless when it comes to engaging in a reasoned debate. Instead, it polarises and divides.

If I want to educate someone on the challenge science poses to religion, Dawkins is the last place I would suggest they go. Much the same as I'd steer away from the discovery institute if I wanted to educate someone on the debate between evolution and creationism.

[marcusj]

Dawkins was writing to a very specific audience: atheists who want to laugh at the foolish believers. It's an interesting book to that audience .....

Caught in the act

[geoff332]

Caught in the act

I have a little more respect for my fellow human beings. The self-rightousness of Dawkins is as bad as any self-rightous Christian.

[ducasi]

Ooh! A religious discussion between atheists!

[geoff332]

I hope you bought enough for everyone...

[Dreadful Scathe]

Dawkins was writing to a very specific audience: atheists who want to laugh at the foolish believers. It's an interesting book to that audience, mildly offensive to anyone neutral and seriously offensive to anyone who happens to be a believer.

I'm sure his audience is anyone who will read the book. I think your three groups will not be so easily pigeon holed either - i know believers who are not seriously offended - why would they be? if they have an open mind and are intelligent, they've probably heard it all before, considered it and dismissed it. Gus didn't sound seriously offended, just bored

It may have a few interesting points, but it is pointless when it comes to engaging in a reasoned debate. Instead, it polarises and divides.

Although to be fair, a lot of religious materials do an excellent job of that too

[marcusj]

I have a little more respect for my fellow human beings. The self-rightousness of Dawkins is as bad as any self-rightous Christian.

An excellent philosophy, does your respect for your fellow human beings and their beliefs and opinions have any boundaries ?

[geoff332]

does your respect for your fellow human beings and their beliefs and opinions have any boundaries ?

Yes and no. Simply being human warrants certain things (respect for their life, their autonomy etc). Other facets of respect have to be earned through actions; and can be lost by actions. I have less respect for someone who fails to show a fundamental respect to other people than for someone who does show that respect.

It's not always an easy position to maintain and to resolve - I do trap myself into contradictions (which is doubly problematic for me: contradictions are another pet hate).

Although to be fair, a lot of religious materials do an excellent job of that too

I hold them in the same contempt. The real target of my contempt is the argument, not the conclusion. I certainly don't think Dawkins and his ilk are worse than a lot of the religious fanatics out there; but they aren't a lot better than the majority.

Part of what frustrates me about Dawkins and Hitchens is they are both incredibly intelligent and capable men who have adopted a line of argument that is so seriously flawed. If they'd turned their considerable talents towards a far more reasoned and moderate line, I think they'd have far more impact. I sometimes suspect they have done this deliberately: taken an unreasonable extreme to highlight the fact that their opponents (particularly the creationists) use this tactic all along. Both of these men are more than smart enough to have done that.

I do have special contempt reserved for a certain element of "intelligent design" - mostly because I believe they are actively and consciously lying about a bunch of things, including the nature of science. Unfortunately, Dawkins gets very close to doing this himself.

[Barry Shnikov]

Interesting is NOT a word I'd used ..... got through 60 pages or so and got bored of waiting for him to make a real point instead of ranting about religious zealots

Could you give an example of the language you refer to as 'ranting'?

[Barry Shnikov]

The essence of his argument is, "bad things have been done in the name of religion or by religious, therefore all religion is bad." Anyone with even a cursory introduction to philosophy would see that as a basic logical fallacy. Funnily enough, it's structurally identical to one of the arguments adopted by your average creationist.

That marks you out as someone who either a) didn't actually read The god delusion or b) didn't pay attention when you read it.

[Barry Shnikov]

Actually, it does stop him having a number of excellent points. It reads as one who has made a conclusion then picked up arguments that support the conclusion. It is very weak.

Then refute it.

[Barry Shnikov]

I have a little more respect for my fellow human beings. The self-rightousness of Dawkins is as bad as any self-rightous Christian.

Self-righteous as Pat Buchanan? As Bill O'Reilly? As Tim LaHaye? As Benny Hinman?

Get a grip, man.

Do you know what 'self-righteous' means?

[Barry Shnikov]

Part of what frustrates me about Dawkins and Hitchens is they are both incredibly intelligent and capable men who have adopted a line of argument that is so seriously flawed.

Now, class, I know you've got lots work to do but if we all ask Mr 332 nicely I'm sure he'll list those flaws for us.