Has Anbody Read "The Godless Delusion" yet?

[MindOverMatter2]

Is it worth buying?

 

[jlauria]

Not unless they have a Galley copy…

 

[reggieM]

I’m currently reading this:

God Is No Delusion by Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P.

The author is a Thomistic scholar. He goes through Mr. Dawkins’ book point by point. It’s a devastating critique. I’m only halfway through but by now I can see that Dawkins is philosophically shallow. His major arguments use Darwinian-evolution and the problem of evil as attacks against God. He skips 3 out of 5 of St. Thomas’ 5 proofs and tries to use strict materialism to argue for rationality (an obvious contradiction).

I might take a look at Dawkins’ book in the library sometime. The challenge for me would be to see if he even makes one good point somewhere.

I think we see Dawkins’ arguments replayed in just about every thread on CAF that involves atheists. It doesn’t go much deeper than that, from what I can tell.

 

[Pieman333272]

As a rebuttal for the God Delusion, there are better Apologetics Books for that, so maybe I give it 2 Stars. As a general Apologetics book, I think its decent, especially from the “morals without God?” Perspective. This also makes it a decent criticism of Atheism book, though its clear that’s not what it set out to be. I give it 3 1/2 starts for the later 2 categories.
My favorites for each category are as follows:

• Rebuttal for the God Delusion: “Is Religion Dangerous” (Though I only just started reading this, I can’t tell you if it makes a good conclusion or not, it starts good) and “Why There Almost Certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins”, both by Keith Ward (The reason there are two is because one is a response to the documentary and one to the book).
• As for evidence for the existence of God, Fr. Robert J. Spitzer’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God…” is still my favorite.
• As for criticism of atheism, the Irrational Atheist is the only one I’ve read so far. I hear Christopher Hitchens’ brother wrote a book on this though, I may have a look when I get the chance.

Hope I helped!

 

[Windfish]

Is it worth buying?

There are definitely better books out there, but it is by no means bad. I bought it, and read it one sitting, and it was a good read. Essentially, it takes a presuppositional approach to refuting atheism. It shows how atheism fails to account for things like free will, knowledge, reason, morality, etc. This unusual for Catholic apologetics, as the presuppositional approach is usually the domain of Protestants.

Is it worth buying? It really depends on what books you’ve already read, and if you feel you may learn anything new/important from it.

EDIT: Question: have you read The God Delusion? Thoughts?

 

[reggieM]

I forgot to mention that I bought the Godless Delusion but I haven’t read it yet.

I wonder if they get into an evolutionary critique at all.

 

[Liinus]

Why waste your money. If you just have to read the thing go to the library.

 

[reggieM]

I was confused by the title of this thread at first also.

Dawkins’ book: The God Delusion, would be a waste of money.
Patrick Madrid’s book: The Godless Delusion would be money well spent.

 

[Windfish]

I was confused by the title of this thread at first also.
**
Dawkins’ book: The God Delusion, would be a waste of money.**
Patrick Madrid’s book: The Godless Delusion would be money well spent.

Not necessarily. 90% of what comes out of the mouth of an atheist pretty much comes from that book, whether they read it or not (and I’m inclined to think that most of them didn’t). Incidentally, there is only one argument against the existence of God, and the rest is pretty much all snark and condescension. I, for one, think it would be a valuable resource of study/apologetics even though Dawkins is to religion what Dan Brown is to history.

 

[antroji]

Since folks are recommending books that rebut Dawkins, it might be interesting to read one that puts both theism and atheism into a different and useful perspective. I would therefore recommend Ken Wilbur’s A Brief History of Everything.

 

[Rocinante]

i read the dawkins book. does the godless delusion make any particularly good or interesting arguments against dawkins?

 

[coolduude]

I’m currently reading this:

God Is No Delusion by Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P.

The author is a Thomistic scholar. He goes through Mr. Dawkins’ book point by point. It’s a devastating critique. I’m only halfway through but by now I can see that Dawkins is philosophically shallow. His major arguments use Darwinian-evolution and the problem of evil as attacks against God. He skips 3 out of 5 of St. Thomas’ 5 proofs and tries to use strict materialism to argue for rationality (an obvious contradiction).

I might take a look at Dawkins’ book in the library sometime. The challenge for me would be to see if he even makes one good point somewhere.

I think we see Dawkins’ arguments replayed in just about every thread on CAF that involves atheists. It doesn’t go much deeper than that, from what I can tell.

This sounds fantastic! I hope to read it someday soon

 

[Pieman333272]

Since folks are recommending books that rebut Dawkins, it might be interesting to read one that puts both theism and atheism into a different and useful perspective. I would therefore recommend Ken Wilbur’s A Brief History of Everything.

No offence intended, but in spite of that book’s position, a quick look at its table of contents and first pages shows it promotes new-agey/occultic thought at many (all?) points. I’m fine if its Ken’s “life experience” or “x decades of research” compiled, but I have to cast a skeptic, nay, critical eye on what it actually seems to promote.

 

[Windfish]

i read the dawkins book. does the godless delusion make any particularly good or interesting arguments against dawkins?

I might be mistaken, but I don’t think there’s any single book which exhaustively responds to Dawkins’ book. However, the Godless Delusion does not even aspire to that, it’s just a presuppositional approach to atheism, and not necessarily the best one, either. Good, to be sure, but more advanced stuff is out there.

 

[antroji]

No offence intended, but in spite of that book’s position, a quick look at its table of contents and first pages shows it promotes new-agey/occultic thought at many (all?) points. I’m fine if its Ken’s “life experience” or “x decades of research” compiled, but I have to cast a skeptic, nay, critical eye on what it actually seems to promote.

Yes, when we wear monochrome glasses, that’s all we see. Why don’t you just read it and think, instead of use labels which don’t apply? speaking of which, What do they call someone who’s already made up their “mind?” And believe me, we “make up” our minds.

 

[Pieman333272]

Yes, when we wear monochrome glasses, that’s all we see. Why don’t you just read it and think, instead of use labels which don’t apply? speaking of which, What do they call someone who’s already made up their “mind?” And believe me, we “make up” our minds.

Yes, I looked at it and decided I wouldn’t read it for now. Now, before you jump in and say I’ve closed my doors, let me tell you this: I’ve read books on Past Life Memories, that promote atheism, that say we are designed by aliens, that try to debunk the resurrection of Christ, and HAVE changed my views (though never a lot) because of some of them. I’m saying that Ken’s work falls under the neutral category, NOT the derogatory term, New Age, which I’m not interested in studying any further for now. I promise you I haven’t made up my mind - I’m open to change. Honestly. This just doesn’t seem convincing, helpful, or infallible from the percentage I’ve looked up with the “look inside!” options on Amazon and Google Books.

I question you, as I question almost everybody I meet, as to whether or not you read opposition to your position. Do you? This is an honest question on my part, I’m not trying to turn your argument against you with this.

 

[antroji]

Your more extended comment is also much more palatable. It did not sound to me in the original to be neutral. I see a LOT of hingy-bingy new age stuff that I personally find disgusting, and I am somewhat reactive to the term. I do not in any way see Mr. Wibur’s take as conforming to “new age” distortions, but in line with integrating the tradition of non dualism with depth psychology and history.

I’m very happy that you question, because few do that, and few think critically. As to whether I read views “opposed to” my position, (I would say “different than,”) yes, I do. That would include books, and especially material directly referenced in posts. I am exposed on a nearly daily basis to EWTN, was very well catechized during my stints in Catholic schools, and have read extensively about other faiths and philosophies as well as regularly have direct conversations on many topics with people of various faiths or lacks thereof. Both science and religion have been lifetime avocations. I feel pretty confident of being as well rounded as the average bear, both in a studious way, and through reflection and consultation relative to a number of mystical experiences that have enriched my perceptions and life these some five decades.

 

[Pieman333272]

Your more extended comment is also much more palatable. It did not sound to me in the original to be neutral. I see a LOT of hingy-bingy new age stuff that I personally find disgusting, and I am somewhat reactive to the term. I do not in any way see Mr. Wibur’s take as conforming to “new age” distortions, but in line with integrating the tradition of non dualism with depth psychology and history.

I’m very happy that you question, because few do that, and few think critically. As to whether I read views “opposed to” my position, (I would say “different than,”) yes, I do. That would include books, and especially material directly referenced in posts. I am exposed on a nearly daily basis to EWTN, was very well catechized during my stints in Catholic schools, and have read extensively about other faiths and philosophies as well as regularly have direct conversations on many topics with people of various faiths or lacks thereof. Both science and religion have been lifetime avocations. I feel pretty confident of being as well rounded as the average bear, both in a studious way, and through reflection and consultation relative to a number of mystical experiences that have enriched my perceptions and life these some five decades.

That’s good, thanks for forgiving me. I was angry at the time of writing, not with you or because of this forum/new age stuff but because of something going on in real life (no offence but I don’t want to elaborate, I don’t like talking about my personal life online).

I find it very wise of you to read altering ideas, anyway. Especially with your views which I’ve gathered from the posts you make in some threads and the PM you sent me (Nondualist, Bible accepting, NDE stuff, etc.). I could give you some interesting reads/videos considering you position and experience but I don’t think that’s appropriate on this thread.

 

[Pieman333272]

That’s good, thanks for forgiving me. I was angry at the time of writing, not with you or because of this forum/new age stuff but because of something going on in real life (no offence but I don’t want to elaborate, I don’t like talking about my personal life online).

Note I’m not trying to say I used you or CAF as a way to vent my anger - I’m only saying I’m sometimes transparent with my emotions, it happens in my talking, my writing, even my Facebook-ing.

 

[antroji]

Dear God; another person confessing to be human. What are we coming to?