• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

I've decided to re-read the book as I've been disappointed in the lack of specificity in regards to facts and details in the God Delusion being discussed in this thread, as well as my own inability to remember details.:eek: So it has been established that the "God Delusion" is that there is some life form who regularly intervenes in human and natural affairs and that any complex organism with consciousness and other "advanced" development is only the product of evolution. Such a creature, even a UFO would be the end result of a process, not the beginning.

The chapter "Arguments for God" was a rather interesting one and started out with the five reasons according to Aquanis. Chief among these reasons are items like-nothing moves without a prior mover and that nothing can be caused by itself. These are convincing arguments to the untrained eye and the last book I read, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler ran with these to the hilt. Unfortunately, they are illogical according to logicians, despite cleverness and general lack of knowledge as to how they are illlogical. In essence, the "idea of regress" kills itself when you consider that if the answer is God who "started" everything, then who started God? And how can you possibly discern that it would be a Christian God as opposed to the great spaghetti monster or the tooth fairy? Dawkins clearly smashes these arguments and discusses their history in an in-depth manner.

Dawkins also takes on the "argument from degree" which runs along the lines of: "Imagine the most perfect thing possible, as we are imperfect, there must be a God who creates perfect things." This argument is less complex than the first two mentioned by Aquanis. It's also a Norman L. Geisler mentioned one in his book that I quickly recognized upon re-reading the Dawkins book. The argument is circular in nature and also has a good degree of a "begging the question" essence to it. It's simply refuted by turning the argument on it's head and arguing that there is no God. Dawkins also points out that a person could say that their future home would be bigger and better insulated. However, the real question would be-does the bigger and better house actually exist?

The chapter "Why God doesn't exist" also features some entertaining pro-God arguments. One of the more asinine is the "ultimate Boeing 747" proposition which runs along the lines of-the likelihood of earth creating life through evolution is about as statistically probable as a hurricane rushing through a scrapyard and assembling a 747. The problem with this argument? Statistics/probability and 747s don't have a damn thing to do with biology and the scientific method.:rolleyes:

The most fascinating argument is the "irreducible complexity" argument. Creationists like to use things such as the eye or wings of a given creature to argue they exist as is and can't be proven through evolution. The problem?, they can be. Michael Behe is one such creatonist who argues that evolution can't explain the human immune system. He was called on to the stand to defend that claim in a case regarding teaching intelligent design. During his testimony, he was:

. . .presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the volution of hte immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evoluiton, and that it was not 'good enough.'
Click to expand...
(page 133)

Dawkins is quick to point out that those who use the irreducible complexity chapter appear to hit a "bump" in the road on a given complex organism or body part and just say God made it, rather than dig deeper to try and find out why that given organism or part functions like it does. So, if you don't understand something, just shrug your shoulders and credit God, don't try and figure it out. Not only is it unscientific, but we do know these things, it's just that some "scientists" are too lazy to read up on them due to their own desire to credit an outside source.
 
I need to go through that book again too because it's a while since I read it. I do remember being a little disappointed by his debunking of Aquinas's arguments for God - they struck me as being more superficial than I'd hoped for, good enough to convince atheists that they needn't be intimidated by these conclusive-sounding arguments but not strong enough to really give committed theists any reason to stop and think about whether the arguments were really as watertight as they thought.

I think he was stronger in the science-based part of his book than in the purely philosophical part, and his debunking of creationist and ID arguments was very useful. The amusing (or infuriating) think about Michael Behe's testimony was not just that he dismissed that stack of papers and books showing the evolution of the immune system, but that he'd just got through claiming that the evidence didn't exist. OK, so he can turn round and say that 58 pieces of evidence don't count, but that's a somewhat different matter from the "there's no evidence" argument that he normally comes up with and that's difficult to respond to if you aren't in a courtroom where you can prepare that sort of challenge. Dawkins isn't afraid to flat-out call creationists liars, which to me is a good thing although I realise that it might look a bit like he said/she said tit-for-tat with creationists claiming that "evolutionists" are dishonest.

In some ways I prefer Ken Miller's approach, which is more neutral-sounding, but I think there's also a place for the anger and contempt which Dawkins is so good at conveying.

Ken Miller, btw, has another book in the works which is due out soon and which I'm really looking forward to.

Amazon.com: Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul: Kenneth R. Miller: Books
 
Just read the "roots of religion" chapter and I have to say that I'm very unimpressed. In it, Dawkins tries to explain the evolutionary function of religion. He equivocates in regards to what the specific function of religion is. He does mention something about "group selection," that being, that religion serves as a strong cohesive gel within certain tribes/groups of people. Individuals sacrifice themselves so that the group can continue onward. He clearly states that he isn't a "group selection" advocate and also states that anthropologists aren't into it as well. He does directly state that religion is a by-product of the child mind. A child's likelihood of living to be an adult in a precarious world is to listen obediently to their parents, not to mention to have a strong moderating influence such as religion. The child who wandered into the piranha pit or too closely to the edge of a cliff in disregard to one's parents had a higher rate of not living on. In this regard, religion to Dawkins is an unintentional benefit that carries on due to its usefulness. Once again, this is an equally speculative assertion, no more credible than Aquanis and his proofs. Saying "it appears that.." and then slapping a label on it doesn't make it so. Try believing this

Once infected, the child will grow up and the next generation with teh same nonsense, whatever it happens to be.
Click to expand...

This assertion is truly laughable. I don't know about tribal groups and the like, but in America, changing one's religion is something that occurs fairly frequently. Dawkins fails to draw distinctions between religious groups, let alone that people will rationally decide to switch faiths. Some may make "small" leaps from Presbyterian or Lutheran to Evangelical Christian or Buddhist. The rapid rate which the latter mentioned religion and Islam have been spreading in the country also negates his contention that it is some form of cohesive idea within a given people.
 
The 'Good Book' and Moral Zeitgeist section is one that is definitely a stronger point in the book, even if Dawkins isn't a theologian. There are a lot of people who maintain that morality comes from God and that without it, we don't have a sense of right or wrong. While some would argue the "gaps" in science are life threatening, the barbaric and contradictory stories of the Old Testament require a greater leap to cross their own "gaps." Here are but a few:

-After their mother is turned to salt for the hideous crime of looking behind her, Lot and his two daughters dwell in a cave. Wanting companionship, they conspire to intoxicate their father and sleep with him. While he can't remember who they were, he could still carry out the act with both of his daughters.

-Judges 19:23 gives a story similar to that of Lot. In it, a Levite priest brings his concubine to Gibeah and during the night, a band of men want to molest the priest. He tosses out the concubine who is raped repeatedly and then killed. The priest then chops her up and sends her to different parts of Israel. Misogny at it's greatest as the men are criticized for their desire for the priest, not for their subsequent actions.

-Judges chapter 11 features a tale of Jephtath who makes a deal with God. For winning decisively, he will sacrifice the first thing he sees after victory. It happens to be his daughter and she is killed.

-Abraham, the pillar of virtue, not once, but twice, pimps out his wife Sarah to two different kings.

-Moses becomes infuriates after the children of the Midianites aren't slain by his lenient soldiers. He then orders the boys killed and the girl children raped (Numbers 31:18)

-Deut 20 is essentially an "ethnic cleansing" chapter whereby all rival men are ordered killed and the women taken for breeding purposes.

-Ditto Joshua's story of taking Jericho, the moral equivalent of Hitler's invasion of Poland according to Dawkins

Do we obtain our morality from our religion? Not so according to Dawkins who cited an interesting story:

A diferent group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel'replaced by 'a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago'. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7% approved of General Lin's behaviour, and 75% disapproved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculations, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgements that most modern humans would share. Joshua's actions was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life.
Click to expand...

When confronting the religiously inclined about the above examples, the explanation given is that some stories are allegories or examples, not literal events. However, the picking and choosing of stories is exactly what literalistis accuse "relativists" and "liberals" of doing.:D Not only that, the morality often documented is not what people believe in or share. No one would execute their child for cursing at them, picking up sticks on the sabbath, or killing women and children at will for the "crime" of idol worship.

Dawkins has a very strong chapter here and it's one well written for a non "expert" to write.
 
SFG75 said:
A child's likelihood of living to be an adult in a precarious world is to listen obediently to their parents, not to mention to have a strong moderating influence such as religion. The child who wandered into the piranha pit or too closely to the edge of a cliff in disregard to one's parents had a higher rate of not living on. In this regard, religion to Dawkins is an unintentional benefit that carries on due to its usefulness.
Click to expand...

Carl Sagan said something very similar to this years ago in A Demon-Haunted World. I don't know if it's any more than speculation or even if it's a testable assertion, but at some level it seems to make sense. Humans more than other species have to do a lot of learning when they're young, including assimilating the language of the group, and this is much more easily done if young minds are receptive to information imparted by adults.

If adults who wish to maintain control of people can figure out how to keep other people's minds in that unquestioningly receptive state, it would be very useful to them.
 
I just finished reading a critque of The God Delusion called The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath. I was left constantly wondering if McGrath had indeed ever read TGD. Dawkins' points were continually taken out of context, and he often put forward arguments that had been pre-empted and discussed by Dawkins in the book itself. I had to laugh at the fact that McGrath's major contention with TGD was that Dawkins supposedly asserted his ideas without any evidence given - McGrath was far more guilty of that than Dawkins ever was.
Overall it's a book full of weak arguments that scarcely even address the points Dawkins actually made in TGD.
 
beer good said:
Feel free to refute them, then. Bonus points if you manage to do it without using the phrase "political correctness gone mad." :whistling:
Click to expand...
You keep the bonus points, since you are the first, this year, to use the phrase. :lol:


Your signature quote seems ideally fitted to Dawkins.

"I do not envy people who think they have a complete explanation of the world, for the simple reason that they are obviously wrong." (Salman Rushdie)
 
chris302116 said:
It's like living life in slow motion........earlier, was a year ago. Does it take you that long to read and reply. :lol:
Click to expand...

Read and reply to my own post from a year ago, or to your complete lack of reply to it...? :confused: I saw no reason to comment on your signature until you commented on mine; at least my comment was remotely on-topic.

OK, seriously now, enough troll-baiting for today. I'm sure when I log on tomorrow, chris will have posted a long list of counter-arguments against Dawkins' "weak arguments."

Back on topic: MonkeyCatcher, it's actually a bit of a pity to hear that about The Dawkins Delusion (if not surprising). While I think Dawkins is spot on when it comes to facts, he often comes across as... well, a bit of a dick, and if he's the antithesis to religious fundamentalism, I keep waiting for someone to come along and try for some sort of synthesis. Instead there are people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens coming along who make Dawkins look tame, and on the other side people just going "He's just WRONG! End of story!" I realise that not everyone can aspire to the tolerant teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it would be nice if not every new book on the subject just served to polarize and muddy the waters even more...
 
beer good said:
Back on topic: MonkeyCatcher, it's actually a bit of a pity to hear that about The Dawkins Delusion (if not surprising). While I think Dawkins is spot on when it comes to facts, he often comes across as... well, a bit of a dick, and if he's the antithesis to religious fundamentalism, I keep waiting for someone to come along and try for some sort of synthesis. Instead there are people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens coming along who make Dawkins look tame, and on the other side people just going "He's just WRONG! End of story!" I realise that not everyone can aspire to the tolerant teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it would be nice if not every new book on the subject just served to polarize and muddy the waters even more...
Click to expand...
I'm re-"reading" The God Delusion at the moment in the form of an audiobook read by Dawkins himself (and his wife, to create a distinction between quotes and his own writing). I've always thought that he seems as though he feels himself superior to others, and this is even more striking when you actually hear him reading his own writing. You're right - he sounds like a bit of a dick. And you can really hear a streak of bitterness as well. None of this detracts from my opinion of his arguments, however. Although some of his arguments do sound a bit weaker when you hear them out loud (conversely, some are more striking).

All in all The Dawkins Delusion does provide sound arguments to The God Delusion as it is presented by McGrath. The problem, however, is that McGrath's interpretation of it is nowhere near the reality. It's no wonder that my Father thought that it was an excellent rebuttal and pushed me to read it - he has never read The God Delusion, and I doubt he ever will. This is part of the reason why books such as The Dawkins Delusion continue to muddy the waters - they give inaccurate accounts of the arguments from the other side, and unfortunately most people who read them have no idea that what they're getting isn't actually what these people have said or meant.

Your point about the Flying Spaghetti Monster reminds me of one of the more feeble arguments contained in The Dawkins Delusion. His response to Russell's teapot:
So why would anyone believe in God? For Dawkins, this is an utterly irrational belief - like believing in a teapot orbiting the sun. Sure, this is a flawed analogy. Nobody that I know believes such nonsense. But that's what Dawkins wants his readers to think...
Click to expand...
Brilliant. No discussion of the reasoning behind the teapot analogy at all. This holds true for the rest of the book - he continually takes what seem to be strange arguments and then "attacks" them, without supplying the reasoning behind Dawkins' thoughts.
 
It has been a couple years since I read it but I felt The God Delusion was...ok. Explaining evolutionary biology is where Dawkins truly excels, however. I'm an atheist so he was "preaching to the choir" so to speak with me and he did an excellent job of rebutting the typical theological arguments for the existence of a god. However, most believers don't believe due to some line of theological line of reasoning. They believe because a world with a god makes more sense to them then one without a god. They believe because it brings them comfort. Not all believers think this way, but many, and I would say most, do. At least that is why I once believed.

Dawkins does little to convince these types of believers. I believe writers such as Sagan did a much better job of addressing such points of views.
 
Wow...I have an opportunity to obtain free tickets to hear Richard Dawkins speak at a unitarian event in Omaha in March. Should I go?:whistling:
 
I'd be interested in hearing too, Scott.

However, I have to add that I am always intrigued that non-believers claim to know so much, and with such certainty, about why people believe, what they believe, how they believe, how they should behave, and so on. That endless yadda of I-believe-what-I-believe-and-you-should-too is as boring in one direction as it is in the reverse direction -- and from Dawkins, especially. At least to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top