S
San_Patricio
Guest
Has anyone read “The God Deception” by Richard Dawkins? I just started it, and so far it’s very easy to tear apart (apologetically speaking, of course!). Any thoughts?
- Status
S
SteakNPotatoes
Guest
Actually, the title is “The God Delusion”.
I’d be interested in hearing your views, as I have read the book.
S
San_Patricio
Guest
Well, the first thing that struck me was Dawkins “I didn’t know I could”, as opposed to should. He doesn’t cite any sources for his quotes from Catholics. Whether or not Einstein believed in God is irrelevent to the question of God’s existence. He mis-defines pantheism, atheism, and religion. And I’m only on page 19… I don’t think his arguments carry any weight. My early impression is that he is a bitter man, and that possibly other agents are working through him to turn people away from God. His repeated denials of a “supernatural” God sound like a child throwing a fit and shouting “it’s not fair!”, as though he expects God to come and sit on his microscope for him. Anyway, so far I’m very unimpressed.
S
SteakNPotatoes
Guest
Wasn’t that quoted from a recollection from his wife? I’m not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that he should have altered the words from his wife’s story? What would be the point of that?
What Catholic quotes? The only ones I found in the first 19 pages were cited as extracts from a book by Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion. While not a formal citation in the scholarly sense, the quotes are attributed, and I suppose anyone can search them out. Your complaint doesn’t seem very solid here, or did I miss some quotes from Catholics?
Well, it seems relevent to the point he’s making, given the chapter title is “A Deeply Religious Non-Believer” and he is discussing the confusion between Einstein’s use of the term “God” in his writings, and his later disavowal of belief in the God of religions (or “intelligent designer” if you will). This hardly destroys the premise of the book. Good God, man, you are only in the first chapter!
How so? I noticed no obvious problems.
Hmmm. Sounds like you already had your mind made up.
While his style is more confrontational than I would prefer, I don’t see him as bitter or angry, more puzzled and shocked at what he sees as illogical beliefs. But that’s just me.
Like what? Satan? It’s not fair to insinuate ulterior motives or “agencies” (whatever that means). Come out and say what you mean.
Look, you can not like the book for any number of reasons, but it’s clear to me you wanted to dislike the book from the start. That’s not bad, but you should at least be honest about it.
S
SteakNPotatoes
Guest
Oops! I apologize. In re-reading your first post, you clearly came out against the message in the book. And, Golly! If I had actually read the title of the thread, I might have had a good clue there, too. My mistake.
Sometimes I’m just too smart for my britches, although I think my other points were well-founded.
Give the book (and Dawkins) a chance. At the very least, you might learn something valuable about the atheist point of view.
Sometimes I’m just too smart for my britches, although I think my other points were well-founded.
Give the book (and Dawkins) a chance. At the very least, you might learn something valuable about the atheist point of view.
J
JimG
Guest
I haven’t read the book, but I did catch a lecture that Dawkins was giving to a college group on C-Span.
The most remarkable thing that struck about his remarks was about why God, if he existed, couldn’t have existed until very late in cosmological evolution.
I’m paraphrasing here, but his comment went something like this: God must be a remarkably complex being if he is to be sufficient to comprehend and explain the entire cosmos.
But in nature, complex beings evolve over vast expanses of time from very simple beings. God would be of such complexity that it would take an extraordinary amount of time for him to come about. Yet Christians postulate him as existing in the very beginning, which is counter-intuitive, given what we know of cosmic evolution.
Now, that may be his conception of God. Fine. But he seemed to think that it was also the Christian conception of God. Which it isn’t. Christianity, rather, believes that God is a spiritual and perfectly simple being, having no parts and no extension in space or time!
So it seemed to me that during that part of his lecture, at least, Dawkins was arguing against an idea which no Christian believes.
The most remarkable thing that struck about his remarks was about why God, if he existed, couldn’t have existed until very late in cosmological evolution.
I’m paraphrasing here, but his comment went something like this: God must be a remarkably complex being if he is to be sufficient to comprehend and explain the entire cosmos.
But in nature, complex beings evolve over vast expanses of time from very simple beings. God would be of such complexity that it would take an extraordinary amount of time for him to come about. Yet Christians postulate him as existing in the very beginning, which is counter-intuitive, given what we know of cosmic evolution.
Now, that may be his conception of God. Fine. But he seemed to think that it was also the Christian conception of God. Which it isn’t. Christianity, rather, believes that God is a spiritual and perfectly simple being, having no parts and no extension in space or time!
So it seemed to me that during that part of his lecture, at least, Dawkins was arguing against an idea which no Christian believes.
J
JimG
Guest
PS–Actually, the lecture was even more entertaining during the Q&A period. The lecture was hosted by Randolph Macon Women’s College, whose students seemed generally sympathetic to Dawkins, but there was a large contingent attending from Liberty University. As you might expect, they were less sympathetic. He did a good job of fielding all the questions, although it sometimes appeared the Q’s and the A’s were not on the same track.
S
SteakNPotatoes
Guest
I think Dawkins would argue that that definition is just nebulous enough to be of no value at all, but I’m not Dawkins and I don’t want to derail this thread.
J
JimG
Guest
Well, he might. However, at least in the lecture, he did not seem to address the (for example) Catholic conception of God at all, on its own terms.
His approach was scientific, and I certainly think that Christians ought to listen to his arguments on his own terms.
But, judging only from this lecture, I didn’t get the idea that he was even aware of the conception of God that might be presented in a book like F.J. Sheed’s Theology For Beginners. (For that matter, I didn’t get the idea that the Liberty University students or the RMWC students were much aware of it, either.)
So while the lecture was enlightening from a scientific standpoint, it seemed sad that neither side seemed to understand the other.
S
San_Patricio
Guest
I am absolutely agaist the message in the book. If Dawkins himself chooses to believe that God doesn’t exist that is his business, but he states as his purpose in writing the book the desire to convert people to atheism.
I’ve spent most of my life as an atheist, and it was only while debating a fellow atheist on the idea that science requires as much faith as religion (my point), that I began to re-examine my own beliefs. I will, of course, finish the book and I’ll try to keep an “open” mind.
I’d like to respond to your responses to my responses to your initial question, but I’m just off work & exhausted, so it’ll have to wait til later…
J
JimG
Guest
Nothing wrong with being against the message of the book. But Christians try to convert atheists quite often, so it’s hardly surprising that a convinced atheist would wish to convert Christians. We shouldn’t just dismiss him as a crank, but try to understand and engage his arguments. In doing so, it may help to clarify our own beliefs.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
After reading Richard Dawkins says Nazi Eugenics “May Not Be Bad” thread, nothing would surprise me 
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
After reading the Richard Dawkins says Nazi Eugenics “May Not Be Bad” thread, nothing would surprise me
S
San_Patricio
Guest
I don’t think he should alter his wife’s story, but I don’t see the relevence of the story itself. Her experience as written had nothing to do with God, and his point seems to be that we should worry about what we “could” do rather that what we “should” do. I COULD go out and rob, rape, murder and pillage, but I don’t think many people would think I SHOULD. God has given us all free will (even Dawkins!) and He doesn’t force us to believe in, let alone love and worship Him, but we should.
…guess I missed that…
As religion by definition deals with our relationship to God, it seems (oxy?)moronic to call someone a “religious non-believer”. Also, none of the quotes from Einstien denied his belief in God, but only a “personal God”, whatever that means. And I don’t think it destroys the premise of the book, I just don’t see any relevence. So what if Einstien didn’t believe, Augustin did. Neither one bears any relevence on whether or not God exists.
Dawkins calls pantheism “sexed-up atheism”, yet Websters online dictionary defines pantheism as a “doctorine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe” and “the worship of all god of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently”. How is either of those denying the existence of God?
S
San_Patricio
Guest
I don’t think he should alter his wife’s story, but I don’t see the relevence of the story itself. Her experience as written had nothing to do with God, and his point seems to be that we should worry about what we “could” do rather that what we “should” do. I COULD go out and rob, rape, murder and pillage, but I don’t think many people would think I SHOULD. God has given us all free will (even Dawkins!) and He doesn’t force us to believe in, let alone love and worship Him, but we should.
…guess I missed that…
As religion by definition deals with our relationship to God, it seems (oxy?)moronic to call someone a “religious non-believer”. Also, none of the quotes from Einstien denied his belief in God, but only a “personal God”, whatever that means. And I don’t think it destroys the premise of the book, I just don’t see any relevence. So what if Einstien didn’t believe, Augustin did. Neither one bears any relevence on whether or not God exists.
Dawkins calls pantheism “sexed-up atheism”, yet Websters online dictionary defines pantheism as a “doctorine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe” and “the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently”. How is either of those denying the existence of God?
S
San_Patricio
Guest
I certainly wouldn’t dispute his right to express his opinion, but if my faith is only “well, I believe, but that’s just me” then my faith is nothing. I can’t say “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” and remain silent when someone tries to lead others away from God unless I am a hypocrite. Anyway, I’m not dismissing him as a crank- I’m acknowledging him as a man whose ideas may endanger the souls of many (his own included). And I thought we were engaging…?
S
San_Patricio
Guest
Just a quick update on Dawkins’ statements:
1.He criticises the idea that people’s religious liberties in the U.S. can’t be infringed. This is enshrined in our constitution. He may not like it, but it is a part of the foundation of the country.
2.He blames the situation in the north of Ireland on religion. This is patently false, as the conflict there pre-dates the reformation (ie: both sides were Catholic when it began).
Good night & God bless.
1.He criticises the idea that people’s religious liberties in the U.S. can’t be infringed. This is enshrined in our constitution. He may not like it, but it is a part of the foundation of the country.
2.He blames the situation in the north of Ireland on religion. This is patently false, as the conflict there pre-dates the reformation (ie: both sides were Catholic when it began).
Good night & God bless.
J
JimG
Guest
I agree with you here. All I know of Dawkins is what I heard in one lecture on TV, so I’m sure you are more familiar with his ideas than me.
From what I’ve seen on this thread, his ideas sound dangerous indeed, rather like those of Peter Singer. Nevertheless, these people must be opposed by reasoned argument.
With regard to eugenics, what is startling to me is this:
After the holocaust, after ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and in Africa, after the initial horror following WW-II at Hitler’s ideas of selectively breeding humans like animals, people are beginning to accept the idea of eugenics.
Today, after all, technologies like amniocentesis are used to selectively eliminate “defective” babies. People go to IVF clinics and select from a list of the best sperm donors to choose their next baby’s characteristics. Multiple embryos are implanted in the womb, with only one selected for survival, with the rest being killed. Women who voluntarily give birth to Downs Syndrome babies rather than abort them are frowned upon as renegades by their doctors and by society.
So I would say that the ideas of eugenics are increasingly being accepted by ordinary everyday people. That is the real problem. Dawkins and Singer are just the more visible spokesmen.
S
SteakNPotatoes
Guest
I’m not going to debate point-by-point because that makes for a boring thread in my view. I will simply make a couple observations:
On the one hand you say that you are completely against the message of the book. I have no problem with that. But just a few lines later you say you will “try to keep an open mind”. I suggest that you have eliminated any chance of the latter by your strong position on the former. One can’t “hold an open mind” after an a priori denounciation of the object under consideration. One only needs to read the title of this thread to know that the last thing you will do is reserve judgement until the end. After a mere 19 pages you made up your mind that this was a “Bad Book”. Tell me how you are going to maintain an open mind throughout the rest of your reading?
Additionally, when I criticise the bible and call attention to contradictions in scripture, one of the frequent responses from believers is that I am ignoring “context” and “cherry-picking” verses.You seem to have the same problem:
"Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings."
Sounds like a decent definition to me. Why did you ignore it and instead focus on a glib, throw-away line is if that were the sum total of his definition? Cherry-picking.
I am certainly open to reading valid criticisms of the book, of which there are certainly many. But you do your cause no good when you distort and misrepresent what is actually there in order to validate your a priori conclusion. By doing so, you destroy your credibility, and any valid criticisms will be discarded because no one will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
On the one hand you say that you are completely against the message of the book. I have no problem with that. But just a few lines later you say you will “try to keep an open mind”. I suggest that you have eliminated any chance of the latter by your strong position on the former. One can’t “hold an open mind” after an a priori denounciation of the object under consideration. One only needs to read the title of this thread to know that the last thing you will do is reserve judgement until the end. After a mere 19 pages you made up your mind that this was a “Bad Book”. Tell me how you are going to maintain an open mind throughout the rest of your reading?
Additionally, when I criticise the bible and call attention to contradictions in scripture, one of the frequent responses from believers is that I am ignoring “context” and “cherry-picking” verses.You seem to have the same problem:
It’s remarkable that you would ignore the sentences prior to that one glib remark. Looks like “cherry picking” and “ignoring context” to me. In particular I am referring to the following, a mere two sentences before:
"Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings."
Sounds like a decent definition to me. Why did you ignore it and instead focus on a glib, throw-away line is if that were the sum total of his definition? Cherry-picking.
I am certainly open to reading valid criticisms of the book, of which there are certainly many. But you do your cause no good when you distort and misrepresent what is actually there in order to validate your a priori conclusion. By doing so, you destroy your credibility, and any valid criticisms will be discarded because no one will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
S
San_Patricio
Guest
I didn’t accuse you of “cherry picking”, details are impotant, as well as correct word usage. I am no scientist, but my understanding of science is that it must be acurate and precise. If Dawkins wants to reject God as unscientific and irrational, then I insist his arguments against God be scientific and rational. Pantheism is not, by definition, “a non-supernatural synonym for Nature or the Universe”. As for my opinion of the book, my mind was made up on it’s message before I opened it- I’m reading it only to be able to refute it. On keeping an “open mind”, that would apply only to the validity, consistency, logic, and rationality of Dawkins’ specific arguments. I don’t believe I have misrepresented anything Dawkins has said, aside from bollixing the title of the book, but I have and will cite false definitions of words. His point is to deny God. You can’t accept any religion (pantheism) or religiosity as valid and deny God. Pantheism, by defintion is not atheism. If we’re going to make up our own definitions to words we can’t have rational discourse. Atheism is the complete rejetion of God. How can something be “like God” to one who does not believe God exists?
- Status