| 
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by Random Mood
I have recently started to read this book and am finding it it very interesting. Anyone else reading it/read it?
 Random Mood
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by Random Mood
Yes, I've just been looking at it and signed up to the e-mail newsletter.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by  Roymondo: no protests to pimp. It's getting too chilly for all that malarky.
I find it hard to understand how anybody could be a theist in the face of the facts and I thank RD (happy birthday dude) for making the case so clearly.
I'd better not get involved in a conversation about this: I've had a couple of JDs and it's quite well known what I'm like when I talk religion on JDs!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by Taliesin
 is the best I can do, Roymondo. 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by Yelbakk, in and out of it
Haven't read The God Delusion, but I am vaguely familiar with Dawkins' views. I have seen a documentary called "The root of all evil", and it was very interesting. I think I will read "The selfish Gene" shortly...
Y,
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by Random Mood
The documentary formed the starting point for the book.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by Roymondo: no protests to pimp. It's getting too chilly for all that malarky.
For anybody reading that hasn't seen TROAE, they're available on YouTube.
At this point I will gentlemanly unsub and hope I don't wander this way via the info page later.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by Edward the Bonobo - andafewmore
I'll admit to a wee niggle with Dawkins. Now, nobody is more of an Atheist Fundamentalist than me. But it seems to me that he's concentrated on trashing the easy arguments. He states the bleedin' obvious.
But some religious people claim that the empirical, scientific arguments are irrelevant. Their god is some kind of transcendent 'Other'. I haven't the faintest clue what they mean, and strongly suspect that they don't either, but the point is that Dawkins gives them wriggle room by not confronting this aspect of religion. As Dawkins' pal Daniel Dennett says, we have to look at what the religious actually *believe*. Dawkins makes too many assumptions.
Myself, I'm looking forward to Christopher Hitchens' forthcoming 'God Is Not Great'.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by Taliesin
>But some religious people claim that the empirical, scientific arguments are irrelevant. Their god is some kind of transcendent 'Other'.<
Some? I thought they _all_ did that 
In fact, I thought 'super-natural' claims formed the basis for all/any religious belief
Which is why, imo, 'god-talk' lacks any meaning whatsoever.
iirc, there is a recent, typical example of 'transcendent' argument lingering unchallenged on another thread here somewhere 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by pedro - tilting at windmills
I won't be reading this book any time soon. Because...
I think I'd agree with it all, and I really have better things to do. If I feel the need for RD, I'll go and re-read (again) the sublime 'Ancestor's Tale'.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Edward the Bonobo - andafewmore
>>Some? I thought they _all_ did that
Yes and no. Some are foolish enough to argue against evolution. They seem to believe in a literalist god who told Noah tom build a big ark, etc. etc. Dawkins' arguments obviously make them look silly.
But some would say that their god is not even susceptible to scientific argument. It cannot be reasoned about in empirical terms. Science does not make this god irrelevant. Dawkins - imho - doesn't touch on them. They are left smugly saying "He's too arrogant and hasn't made the effort to listen."
Try 'Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' by Daniel Dennett. He at least questions them on their own terms.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Random Mood
Perhaps it's time for me to nail my colours to the mast! I'm reading the book from a Christian perspective, and as someone with a scientific background. I would not begin to argue against evolution, but I would take issue with the claim that evolution inevitably leads to atheism - although I hestitate to make an overall judgement on the book until I have finished reading it, and so I will not do so. There is much in the book that I would agree with, not least Richard Dawkin's criticisms of the things that have been done/are being done in the name of religion. I am fully willing to consider all the issues raised in the book, and would certainly not regard myself as fundamentalist - indeed, like many people I am wary of any fundamentalism, religious or atheistic.
Random Mood
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Taliesin
Ed, I'm not disagreeing with you, ok?
I'm attempting to express the concept that, at the heart, religious belief is based on irrational, superstitious thinking
This mode of thought includes, for example, such notions as the personalization of transcendence, yet simultaneously makes the claim that the same personalized transcendence cannot be discussed empirically.
But it is the superstitious, 'magical' style of thinking which enables the contradiction to exist without apparent dissonance
The 'Dawkins style' argument with Bible literalists becomes annoyingly sophomoric because it pays too much attention to the trivial, obvious nonsense, and misses the core of the delusion...
And I do rather enjoy Dennett 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Edward the Bonobo - andafewmore
Absolutely. I'd much prefer to see a thoroughgoing attack on Random's version of Christianity. (no offence ).
Actually...I *do* think that evolution pretty much leads us to Atheism...unless one disingenuously redefines 'God' to mean something entirely different to what it used to mean. But it's a more complex argument than 'Genesis is just a story'.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by MrMaven
<<emprical, scientific Arguments are irrelevant>>
What's the alternative? I am right becuase I said so??
I don't take that from parents. Why should I take that from complete strangers
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Edward the Bonobo - andafewmore
I don't pretend to understand the argument...but it seems to be along the lines that there are some Big Questions that cannot be addressed by 'Mere Empiricism' (in-joke for Christians ).
The problem is, they have difficulty explaining what these questions are. Whenever issues such as morality are raised, I have no difficulty whatsoever in placing them within a rationalist, empirical framework. I think they're talking about 'The Meaning of Life'. Well, Dawkins is quite clear in the opening chapter of 'The Ancestor's Tale' that the universe/evolution isn't a process directed at delivering Us. Our life *has* no meaning, in any grand, universal scheme.
But maybe I'm misrepresenting the argument? As I say...I don't understand it.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Edward the Bonobo - andafewmore
(In other words...I think "I'm right because I said so" is a simplistic misrepresentation of where they're coming from.)
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Random Mood
<<Absolutely. I'd much prefer to see a thoroughgoing attack on Random's version of Christianity. (no offence ).>>
None taken! Bring it on!
PS - at least I'm willing to read the book and engage with it!
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
