Reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (Finally) (Christ, experience)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is that he was, most likely, just preaching to the choir in his audience. Or perhaps that was just the impression I got. That and it didn't really say anything (or much) that a lot of atheists don't already know. It's a worthy read for someone who's truly open minded on the idea of god or no gods and never seriously thought about it.
Dawkins is a stereotypical arrogant, condescending intellectual trying to follow in the footsteps of his apparent heroes, Oscar Wilde, and Bertrand Russell; but more so Bertrand Russell because Russell actually had some claim to being a real scientist (mathematician) unlike Wilde. Like Russell Dawkins is trying to write a book that is written in a cryptic fashion, and in it Dawkins is grievously insulting to those who are honest in that they don't understand what he is ultimately trying to say (even if there is a chance they agree with him). His type of intellectualism breeds a kind of emperor's clothing (you know the story where everyone including the emperor pretends to see the emperors new clothing because some tricksters said only wise people could see them and fools could not?) type of scholar who actually have no clue what he is really saying, but pretend that they do to avoid being called a fool by Dawkins, and those who are duped by Dawkins and pretend to understand him fully. Dawkins is an adept in Biology, but his work in philosophy in general and religious philosophy in particular is almost below juvenile in his treatment of both subjects. My point is this: if you don't understand Dawkins its not your fault because he has purposely shrouded his simple message within an armor of polysyllabic, and/or obsolete words. His message is simple, God doesn't exist because he (Dawkins) doesn't like the idea of God. I know this departs from his supposed numbered points in the book, but when you get to bottom-line of what he is saying it is no more difficult than what I just wrote.
I want to point out something to you. Dawkins is writing to a general audience yet he chooses wording that is difficult for even the educated elite to understand (just as Bertrand Russell did with his work Principia Mathematica). This is a debating tactic so that no matter what you say that even remotely sounds like an objection, he (Dawkins) can claim, with his typical insulting manner, that you didn't really understand him, or you miquoted him if you don't use his obsolete words and phrases. Its an interesting tactic that usually works for intellectuals. A true professional can explain their subject and make it seem simple; just like a professional gymnast makes tumbling, and handstands look simple. In fact if you saw one struggling and shaking doing a handstand, you would think, ' that gymnast has a lot to learn.' The same goes for intellectuals. If you can't make it seem simple, then you don't truly understand your subject well.
Dawkins, following the Bertrand Russell method of intellectualism, takes something simple and turns it into something extraordinarily difficult. That's because Dawkins doesn't really know this subject very well. If you are confused about Dawkins meaning, believe me, you are not alone. Most people don't truly understand Dawkins either even if they pretend they do.
While I certainly agree that Dawkins is not the "end-all-be-all" of philosophy, or that his presentation isn't very much like Rusell's, I will have to disagree about the "simplicity argument" you presented.
Ever since Dawkins' book was written, there have been an extraordinary number of direct or indirect quotes taken from his book. In particular, the "Scale of Belief" (or whatever he calls it) which ranks people's affirmation in their philosophical beliefs on a scale of 1 to 8 has been recited and regurgitated on just about every religious forum on the internet over and over and over again. Though he didn't coin the Flying Spaghetti Monster meme, he did mention it in his book where it grew and then exploded.
In short, his book WAS written for simpleton's to grasp although he does use the Oxford tongue in all of his books. But, really, I can't blame him for that. If I was an Oxford professor, I would not stoop below myself to try and reach a greater audience. Would you prefer, "God is just a teensy weensy unbelievable my good friends."
In almost all of his speeches and books he's given a tremendous amount of thought into making his presentations adequately intellectual but not so far-removed that any person couldn't understand that if he/she tried. That is exactly what a good educator does. He forces people to think and to research outside the scope of what is being talked about without making them feel hopelessly ignorant and stupid. The OP is a perfect example of that. While finding it difficult, he/she is still striving to learn outside the normal scope of what is being talked about.
And, actually, Dawkins is a master at making the simplicities of oft-perceived difficult topics recognizable and easily understood. His children's Christmas special, (Waking Up in the Universe)regarding how evolution works is absolutely remarkable and worth watching from any standpoint. In fact, here is the link for anyone interested as it's a wonderful presentation on the very basic logical facts of how evolution actually works (without him trying to denigrate those who are angry at not having the ability to be intellectuals themselves ).
No, Dawkins is clearly not a philosopher. His basic premise is juvenile, and that cannot be dressed up with a million notes, and footnotes. If I say 'girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice,' even if I cited the leading gynecologists, feminist studies groups (who probably believe that statement), and any other 'expert,' the premise is still silly and juvenile. I could go through point by point what I mean, but from your post, I believe it would be a waste of space. I believe you could understand me if you wanted to, but it sounds like you are a fan of Dawkins, and will not listen to any criticism of the man's presentation. So I'll end with this: There are many, real philosophers who have made very damning indictments of religion which are pointed and not easily dismissed by Christians, but Dawkins is simply not one of them.
Then who is? Who, in your opinion, is a "real" philosopher?
While I certainly agree that Dawkins is not the "end-all-be-all" of philosophy, or that his presentation isn't very much like Rusell's, I will have to disagree about the "simplicity argument" you presented.
Ever since Dawkins' book was written, there have been an extraordinary number of direct or indirect quotes taken from his book. In particular, the "Scale of Belief" (or whatever he calls it) which ranks people's affirmation in their philosophical beliefs on a scale of 1 to 8 has been recited and regurgitated on just about every religious forum on the internet over and over and over again. Though he didn't coin the Flying Spaghetti Monster meme, he did mention it in his book where it grew and then exploded.
In short, his book WAS written for simpleton's to grasp although he does use the Oxford tongue in all of his books. But, really, I can't blame him for that. If I was an Oxford professor, I would not stoop below myself to try and reach a greater audience. Would you prefer, "God is just a teensy weensy unbelievable my good friends."
In almost all of his speeches and books he's given a tremendous amount of thought into making his presentations adequately intellectual but not so far-removed that any person couldn't understand that if he/she tried. That is exactly what a good educator does. He forces people to think and to research outside the scope of what is being talked about without making them feel hopelessly ignorant and stupid. The OP is a perfect example of that. While finding it difficult, he/she is still striving to learn outside the normal scope of what is being talked about.
And, actually, Dawkins is a master at making the simplicities of oft-perceived difficult topics recognizable and easily understood. His children's Christmas special, (Waking Up in the Universe)regarding how evolution works is absolutely remarkable and worth watching from any standpoint. In fact, here is the link for anyone interested as it's a wonderful presentation on the very basic logical facts of how evolution actually works (without him trying to denigrate those who are angry at not having the ability to be intellectuals themselves ).
He was Oxford University's Professor for Public Understanding of Science for quite some time. I don't think they would hand that title out to someone who speaks above the masses.
Ok- As I continue reading, the content gets easier for me to understand because I have prior knowledge, or a background, in the topics Dawkins is discussing. It is well worth struggling through the beginning!
I loved Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I admit, I had to look up some words myself, like "megalomaniacal." His logic and his arguments were so elegant. Even though I do believe in a type of God (not the religious one now) I still completely agree with a lot of his arguments for why the Abrahamic God makes little to no sense. I also like that Dawkins' argues not directly for the disbelief in God, but in the need for people to question what they're told and demand proof before jumping to a belief. He also advocates for letting children think for themselves instead of indoctrinating them with any worldview.
He's a scientist in the truest sense--willing to change his worldview in the face of new and compelling evidence. It's unfortunate that many of his followers are religious about being atheist because I think if anyone grasps the concept of scientifically-oriented, it's Richard Dawkins. He doesn't treat his atheism like a religion. He's one of the few people that really takes a scientific approach on life.
I read Christopher Hitchens' god is Not Great but the tone was a bit too pompous and arrogant for my taste. Even his insistence upon not capitalizing "God" is just childish and stupid IMO. (It doesn't show up on a Google search but if you look up the book cover you'll see that "God" is uncapitalized and in small font than the rest of the book.) I admit I might be a bit biased though because when he ate at my parents' restaurant, he really mistreated the staff.
I loved Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I admit, I had to look up some words myself, like "megalomaniacal." But his logical and his arguments were so elegant. Even though I do believe in a type of God (not the religious one now) I still completely agree with a lot of his arguments for why the Abrahamic God makes little to no sense.
I read Christopher Hitchens' god is Not Great but the tone was a bit too pompous and arrogant for my taste. Even his insistence upon not capitalizing "God" is just childish and stupid IMO. (It doesn't show up on a Google search but if you look up the book cover you'll see that "God" is uncapitalized and in small font than the rest of the book.)
I haven't read Hitchens yet, but it's on the "to-do" list. I wonder if he didn't capitalize God/god because he just wanted to make general statements about any god, not just the Biblical variety.
I haven't read Hitchens yet, but it's on the "to-do" list. I wonder if he didn't capitalize God/god because he just wanted to make general statements about any god, not just the Biblical variety.
I'm not sure but to me it seems a lot like people who feel the need to proof their identity in every little interaction--kind of immature. I wouldn't think much of it but when I read his book it came across as really arrogant. Maybe I was reading it with the wrong tone, but the fact he was arrogant in person made me think maybe I wasn't misreading the tone. JMHO.
I'm not sure but to me it seems a lot like people who feel the need to proof their identity in every little interaction--kind of immature. I wouldn't think much of it but when I read his book it came across as really arrogant. Maybe I was reading it with the wrong tone, but the fact he was arrogant in person made me think maybe I wasn't misreading the tone. JMHO.
Yeah. I've heard him on NPR and he does come across that way.
No, Dawkins is clearly not a philosopher. His basic premise is juvenile, and that cannot be dressed up with a million notes, and footnotes. If I say 'girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice,' even if I cited the leading gynecologists, feminist studies groups (who probably believe that statement), and any other 'expert,' the premise is still silly and juvenile. I could go through point by point what I mean, but from your post, I believe it would be a waste of space. I believe you could understand me if you wanted to, but it sounds like you are a fan of Dawkins, and will not listen to any criticism of the man's presentation. So I'll end with this: There are many, real philosophers who have made very damning indictments of religion which are pointed and not easily dismissed by Christians, but Dawkins is simply not one of them.
Well, OK then, and thx for playing. Now you can take your marbles and leave the playground, but make sure you stomp your feet as you go, you know; for additional dramatic effect.
Yes, in fact I'm a big fan of credible, recognized expert biologists like Dr. Dawkins (and your Doctorate and research fellowships and departmental head positions are from?) who have designed and conducted experimental research (as have I) at a level you likely cannot comprehend. And yet, you still chose to casually denigrate and dismiss them without pointing out exactly where he made his supposedly grandiose errors. I presume you've read all the arguments against Dawkins in some anti-Dawkins web site commentary. Or have you bought and read and thought your way carefully his books as well as some of the supporting bibliography? Yes or no?
Because en-route to a Master's or Doctorate or post-doc fellowship or tenured senior department head and "emeritus fellow" at such mundane () places as Oxford, that's what we scientists did for all those decades of study. We studied in-depth, we re-considered, we did repeated experiments to determine the most likely truth of any topic, but we certainly didn't just knee-jerk reject things just in order to conform to our spiritual congregation's nutty beliefs.
In fact, I always encourage and request good, well-thought-out point-form debates and even denials(as in: you've already made your mind up, as you assume I have...) on specific topics in science from unhappy Christians. Trouble is, they never provide them, preferring the sorts of "cut and run" excuses you've just given us as a means of avoiding showing your lack of knowledge about the subject. The silence after asking Christian apologists to detail their concerns is deafening, always. On pretty much any technical subject, come to think of it!
Nor will they go to the compelling links we often provide, or if they do, they won't comment on the contents. Usually because it's insightful and decisive, convincing and logically irrefutable. This is a well-established deflective strategy, and you just made that point all over again for us.
Dawkin's points are indeed very well made, and agreed on by many scholarly intellectuals with precise knowledge in these areas. Of course I understand that this must be anathema to you, since they hit so hard right where intransigents can't handle it.(IMHO... )
It's OK: we understand. Have a nice day.
Last edited by rifleman; 03-02-2011 at 02:39 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
Back Atcha!
) places as Oxford, that's what we scientists did for all those decades of study. We studied in-depth, we re-considered, we did repeated experiments to determine the most likely truth of any topic, but we certainly didn't just knee-jerk reject things just in order to conform to our spiritual congregation's nutty beliefs.
)
