The God delusion by Dawkins

[Calibandar]

The old thread seems to have been purged, hence this one. Would people say this book is worth picking up? Or rather some of the similar anti-believers books like God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Stenger or Letter to A Christian Nation by Harris or God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Hitchens?

What did you think of what he says? Could you relate to it or found it a validation of your own arguments? Did you think it is strange for him to flat out say God does not exist because there is no proof? Or did you think he's plain wrong?

[Ashamanic]

Well, he doesn't say flat out that god does not exist. He even states that that is not his position. What he does say is that there is no good evidence for god and that god is so extremely unlikely and that the existence of god does not answer any questions, only poses more, that it should be rejected.

There were one or two things in there I would disagree on, but the majority, he is right. I have seen very few reviews that actually address any of the points he makes (plenty that address the ones he doesn't, or just take offence at the idea that someone doesn't believe and would like to persuade others). One or two, but not many and they were weak.

[Caligula_K]

I'm an atheist, yet I thought the book was quite terrible. Quite simply, Dawkins ignores one of the most important aspects of religion- faith, and therefore it simply turns into another "religious people have no scientific evidence for God, atheists rule" type of book, which I think is completely missing the point. Too bad, because most of his other books are actually quite interesting. This, on the other hand, struck me as a rant against religion more than anything- Hitchens' book is even worse, and I think that writings like this actually do more harm to atheism than good- making people feel more certain of and arrogant with respect to their beliefs then they have any right to be.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Of course I think that Dawkins, like most philosophers and scientists who approach the G-d question, would probably have a specific image or model of G-d in mind when making his arguments. I have not yet read his book, though it is definitely on my list of books to pick up for review. I would probably agree with arguments, based upon what little I have read of them, but still disagree with part of his conclusion thereupon, but that is due to my own natural bias and goals based upon my heretical views in regards to religion and the G-d question.

[Nous]

I've read The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, and Harris' The End of Faith. Of these three, I'd say The God Delusion is the best. Consistently interesting and a pleasure to read. The best book I've read arguing for atheism would still be George Smith's classic Atheism: The Case Against God. It has focus the others lack, and goes right down to fundamentals.

[Liffguard]

Dawkins' is a better read when he is specifically focusing on evolution. The Blind Watchmaker is a stunningly well-written book, easily one of my top five of all time if I lump fiction and non-fiction together.

The God Delusion is very good but it deteriorates a bit at the end. Most of the book is spent in establishing an argument in favour of non-belief in any deities and countering the argument in favour of belief. Dawkins does this well. The last few sections deal with pointing out the various harmful effects of religion. These aren't badly written per se but they're harder to argue objectively and end up blurring the book's focus. However, of the "big three" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) Dawkins makes the best arguments and is also the best writer. The God Delusion is well worth reading.

[Zulofritter]

I still need to read Dawkins, but Harris is great. As I understand it, there is a difference in approach between the two, with Harris much more focused on political consequences. Letter to a Christian Nation is very short and specific, while The End of Faith is more comprehensive, and probably a better read.

This, on the other hand, struck me as a rant against religion more than anything- Hitchens' book is even worse, and I think that writings like this actually do more harm to atheism than good- making people feel more certain of and arrogant with respect to their beliefs then they have any right to be.

Why is this bad? And isn't it arrogant to say that people don't have a right to certainty or arrogance?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Why is this bad? And isn't it arrogant to say that people don't have a right to certainty or arrogance?

That does not sound like arrogance unless you redefine what arrogance means.

[potsherds]

I happen to like both The End of Faith and The GOD Delusion. Harris is more uplifting, slightly more polite, and manages to cover some of the common arguments in a way everyone can understand easily. I found his emphasis on finding perhaps some other form of spirituality without all the gods and the ancient and silly rules to be perhaps more comforting to some folks. But then, Harris is some form of Buddhist.

I really really like The GOD Delusion because of it's basis in logic, rationality, and science. I could easily understand all his arguments. Unfortunately, my mother got confused on many parts beause they were too complicated for her. I'd say his is the most technical, and for me it was the most satisfying book of that ilk that I've read so far.

Still haven't read any of Dennet's. Hitchen's book, while great at giving examples of horrendous things done in the name of various gods, is otherwise not a good read, in my opinion.

[Zulofritter]

That does not sound like arrogance unless you redefine what arrogance means.

Of course, I care more about certainty than arrogance, but arrogance is an easy thing to accuse people of. The only way to avoid the accusation is to avoid sticking to your convictions, or to avoid talking about them.

If you have a method of presenting an atheist perspective that can't be accused of arrogance, I'd like to hear it.

[Caligula_K]

Of course, I care more about certainty than arrogance, but arrogance is an easy thing to accuse people of. The only way to avoid the accusation is to avoid sticking to your convictions, or to avoid talking about them.

If you have a method of presenting an atheist perspective that can't be accused of arrogance, I'd like to hear it.

My position is such: I don't believe in God. While I don't believe, I recognize that its possible that I am wrong, and that others can and should be able to believe in whatever they want, so long as it doesn't affect others negatively, and that there is no point in badgering them about their beliefs, just as I don't like for others to tell me that I'm a heretic and need to start believing in Christ lest I get buried alive in the sixth circle. I like to think, at least, that this view is not arrogant- of course, I am likely biased in my own favour. If you find this position to be arrogant, please explain how. But I think that there are ways of holding any belief without arrogance.

As for arrogance in Dawkins and Hitchens, perhaps it is better applied to Hitchens, from whom I sense a belief in his own intellectual superiority over religious believers because of his atheism- though from reading The God Delusion, I recieved the same impression of smugness- and this is something that I find common throughout the atheist community, usually accompanied by complaints of how Christians believe they're so right and try to convert everyone. I see little difference between Hitchens' form of missionarism and the average Christian missionary writer.

[Bellis]

I see little difference between Hitchens' form of missionarism and the average Christian missionary writer.

Nonsense. One is clearly right while the other is wrong.

[Lady Blackfish]

Nonsense. One is clearly right while the other is wrong.

That's a horrible response, Bellis. You didn't clearly point out who I am supposed to be mean to. How can I function in this world if I don't even know who to be mean to :cry:

[Zulofritter]

My position is such: I don't believe in God. While I don't believe, I recognize that its possible that I am wrong, and that others can and should be able to believe in whatever they want, so long as it doesn't affect others negatively, and that there is no point in badgering them about their beliefs, just as I don't like for others to tell me that I'm a heretic and need to start believing in Christ lest I get buried alive in the sixth circle. I like to think, at least, that this view is not arrogant- of course, I am likely biased in my own favour. If you find this position to be arrogant, please explain how. But I think that there are ways of holding any belief without arrogance.

That's pretty reasonable, and probably in line with general opinion. Not just of atheists, but of everyone that finds themselves on the outside of a religion. But the crux is 'so long as it doesn't affect others negatively', where you'll find a wide range of disagreement. Is it negative to baptize infants? To raise children in madrasahs, where they recieve little secular education? Is it negative to make comments about atheism on internet message boards? I think you could find a wide range of opinion on these subjects, and that many of these people would have some certainty in their views. Possibly absolute certainty, if there is such a thing.

As for arrogance in Dawkins and Hitchens, perhaps it is better applied to Hitchens, from whom I sense a belief in his own intellectual superiority over religious believers because of his atheism- though from reading The God Delusion, I recieved the same impression of smugness- and this is something that I find common throughout the atheist community, usually accompanied by complaints of how Christians believe they're so right and try to convert everyone. I see little difference between Hitchens' form of missionarism and the average Christian missionary writer.

Conversion is a pretty basic principle of most religions. I think the standard we have to apply is what's harmful, not what's annoying. So you have to accept some sort of proselytizing to truly accept religious freedom, and then as a matter of fairness atheists should have the same freedoms.

We should also accept that everyone has a belief in their own intellectual superiority, or at least in the superiority of their ideas. No one holds on to ideas that are inferior. You can't really make a statement about anything without the implication that contradictory ideas are inferior. It's a good idea to have some respect for opposing ideas, but that shouldn't be confused with declining to communicate for fear that someone might disagree with you.

I might be misunderstanding you, and that this is more about the tone the writers take. If so, I think that Dawkins mentioned that he tries to use language that is milder than the standard criticism in any other subject. Maybe there isn't a more polite way to say that atheism is superior to other ideas.

[john]

I've read a good chunk of the God Delusion, and I thought the tone was reasonably scientific. I dont like his TV stuff much, cause he comes across as a self satisfied fucker. In the Enemies of Reason (nice title ) he's sneering at an astrologer and a spiritualist, both of whom are explaining reasonably that they sincerely believe they can read human fortune by the movements of the planets/speak to dead people. That's because they believe in supernatural occurences. Both admit they could be wrong. So whats even the point of browbeating them? Other than that the whole reason vs superstitution vein has proven extremely lucrative. (which is fair enough, but he could use a nicer tone of presentation). That dissuades me from reading his books somewhat.

[Ser Mosh]

I've read several books on this subject, including Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. I would rate them in that order.

Dawkins argues scientifically, Harris logically, and Hitchens politically.

I would rate David Mills' Atheist Universe above Harris and only slightly below Dawkins, though.

Mills is kind of a mix between Dawkins and Harris. The science doesn't go as deep, but he makes very good arguments. Also, he's not as hostile as Dawkins, so its harder to accuse him of arrogance.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

That's pretty reasonable, and probably in line with general opinion. Not just of atheists, but of everyone that finds themselves on the outside of a religion. But the crux is 'so long as it doesn't affect others negatively', where you'll find a wide range of disagreement. Is it negative to baptize infants? To raise children in madrasahs, where they recieve little secular education? Is it negative to make comments about atheism on internet message boards? I think you could find a wide range of opinion on these subjects, and that many of these people would have some certainty in their views. Possibly absolute certainty, if there is such a thing.

Conversion is a pretty basic principle of most religions. I think the standard we have to apply is what's harmful, not what's annoying. So you have to accept some sort of proselytizing to truly accept religious freedom, and then as a matter of fairness atheists should have the same freedoms.

In which case, do theists have a right to complain about the proselytizing efforts by atheists? (Wow, that sounds weird.)

We should also accept that everyone has a belief in their own intellectual superiority, or at least in the superiority of their ideas. No one holds on to ideas that are inferior. You can't really make a statement about anything without the implication that contradictory ideas are inferior. It's a good idea to have some respect for opposing ideas, but that shouldn't be confused with declining to communicate for fear that someone might disagree with you.

Of course, so how do we distinguish between this arrogance? Because it is not so much a matter of arrogance of belief, but an arrogance of action that rubs people the wrong way. But often when there is an arrogance of belief, it is often reflected in their actions. But even then, since everyone has this feeling of intellectual superiority of their ideas, then what matters is not the existence of these beliefs of intellectual superiority, but the degree to which it exists and how it conflicts with the right for other people to exercise their own ideological-arrogance.

I might be misunderstanding you, and that this is more about the tone the writers take. If so, I think that Dawkins mentioned that he tries to use language that is milder than the standard criticism in any other subject. Maybe there isn't a more polite way to say that atheism is superior to other ideas.

Often it is more about the tone of voice. Would you not agree that there is a difference in being told that I am wrong and then being told that I am a foolish idiot for being wrong? I think that Dawkins uses a milder language, but I do think that he is too quick to dismiss religion altogether, but that is just me being a optimistic negativist who thinks that while there are theological and institutional problems with religion, I am not willing to dismiss them entirely much like the ideological and institutional problems with government.

[Zulofritter]

In which case, do theists have a right to complain about the proselytizing efforts by atheists? (Wow, that sounds weird.)

People always have a right to complain. I encourage it.

Of course, so how do we distinguish between this arrogance? Because it is not so much a matter of arrogance of belief, but an arrogance of action that rubs people the wrong way. But often when there is an arrogance of belief, it is often reflected in their actions. But even then, since everyone has this feeling of intellectual superiority of their ideas, then what matters is not the existence of these beliefs of intellectual superiority, but the degree to which it exists and how it conflicts with the right for other people to exercise their own ideological-arrogance.

I totally agree. I don't care much about beliefs that don't become actions. I know that some atheists do, and their arguments can annoy me more than diatribes against bad grammar, but I still have to take their side.

Often it is more about the tone of voice. Would you not agree that there is a difference in being told that I am wrong and then being told that I am a foolish idiot for being wrong? I think that Dawkins uses a milder language, but I do think that he is too quick to dismiss religion altogether, but that is just me being a optimistic negativist who thinks that while there are theological and institutional problems with religion, I am not willing to dismiss them entirely much like the ideological and institutional problems with government.

Yes, but there is also a difference between telling someone they are wrong and telling someone that they should be subject to infinite torture for their views. We're already at a low standard for civility, and it's a difficult point to work back from. Now we can try, we could always do a better job. But it would help to have some example of an atheist author that doesn't get criticized for arrogance.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Yes, but there is also a difference between telling someone they are wrong and telling someone that they should be subject to infinite torture for their views.

Naturally, and that is the opposite side of the spectrum. And not all theists are like that. And it may be due to the crowd of the theists which I hang around (primarily PCUSA), but there are not too many of them which would believe that.

We're already at a low standard for civility, and it's a difficult point to work back from. Now we can try, we could always do a better job. But it would help to have some example of an atheist author that doesn't get criticized for arrogance.

I suppose they feel as if they have been backed into a corner by the anti-intellectualism that seems to be prevalent in a number of religious believers (mainly American ones), so it is not so much arrogance that they perceive themselves as exercising as much as it is a counterattack against those who attack them. Perhaps atheism needs its own C.S. Lewis to herald the cause. But as I said before, I am something of a religious heretic, who while often agreeing with the atheists is still a member of the religious camp for reasons of my own purposes. So to atheists hostile to religion, I will argue in defense of religion, and to theists hostile to atheism, I will argue in defense of atheism. Such is the life of a heretic.

[Zulofritter]

I suppose they feel as if they have been backed into a corner by the anti-intellectualism that seems to be prevalent in a number of religious believers (mainly American ones), so it is not so much arrogance that they perceive themselves as exercising as much as it is a counterattack against those who attack them. Perhaps atheism needs its own C.S. Lewis to herald the cause.

That's accurate. And I understand that theists often feel similarly defensive, so I don't like to compress their motivations.

But as I said before, I am something of a religious heretic, who while often agreeing with the atheists is still a member of the religious camp for reasons of my own purposes. So to atheists hostile to religion, I will argue in defense of religion, and to theists hostile to atheism, I will argue in defense of atheism. Such is the life of a heretic.

That sounds awesome, though exhausting. Someone with your perspective could do well writing such a book, particularly if you were criticizing all the major belief systems. Readers would disagree with you and have a reason to take your side, which is an interesting hook. (Apologies if you've already done something like this.)