D
dumbseeker
Guest
Have anyone read Dawkins’ The God Delusion? How is that book?
- Status
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
It’s an amusing read, though I’m not sure how I feel on his point that a God would necessarily have to be complex. I need to see if St. Aquinas said anything on the matter.
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Yes, I am almost done with it.
There are a few dull moments if you don’t know your biology or physics, but since I’m decent in those areas, I find it excellent, so far.
I strongly encourage it. But hang on to your faith; it’s a bumpy ride.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
There are a few dull moments if you don’t know your biology or physics, but since I’m decent in those areas, I find it excellent, so far.
I strongly encourage it. But hang on to your faith; it’s a bumpy ride.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
K
kellie
Guest
Hi dumbseeker,
I bought this book last year, and have read most of it.
I find it gets a bit dry in parts, a bit too scientific, with terms I dont really understand, and it takes a lot of concentration.
But, as I like debates, and the skill of presenting an opinion well, I love this book,
Richard Dawkins presents his opinion very well, with some very plausible reasons. I wasnt offended by him at all, and I thought I would have been. He says his thing in a respectful way.
If anything it made me realise how strong I am in my Faith.
Hope this helps
P
PaulAndrew83
Guest
The best description of Dawkins work on religion is like that of an investigative reporter trying to smear religion. The example is the effort of the media to smear Sarah Palin.
His generalizations are not supported by history, its a tired repeat of the idea that religion causes all wars. This is contrary to history and contrary to modern understandings of why wars are fought. He candidly ignores men like Michael Klare who shows that resources and oil are at the center of most conflict in the world today.
Where religion plays a factor in a conflict Dawkins also conveniently ignores factors like national identity and motives of revenge and so on.
In some ways he shoots himself in the foot. He shows how many things have to be right for even matter to form, how the earth is located in a sweetspot and admits that its not very probable for all this to have happened by chance. Then he makes the completely gratuitous assertion that God is also therefore not likely.
Lastly his 3 page dismissal of Aquinas just shows that he has not got the rudimentary knowledge of natural philosophy present in an introduction to philosophy. His position that you can postulate an infinite regression to explain existence is a belief in some magic property of infinity to confer magic existence powers on contingent existences.
After reading it I had two emotions, one that was disappointed in the poor quality of the work because I should not be able to answer everything he said (and I am no expert) with ease. Secondly it was one of pity because I would not like to be him going before the face of God.
This feeling of pity for Dawkins intensified when I watched his interview with Ben Stein at the end of the movie. He actually would attribute evidence of intelligent design in nature to aliens. It is no wonder he is labeled a crummy philosopher by the guy living in France interviewed in the movie.
All in All the worst book on the subject I have ever read.
Joe
His generalizations are not supported by history, its a tired repeat of the idea that religion causes all wars. This is contrary to history and contrary to modern understandings of why wars are fought. He candidly ignores men like Michael Klare who shows that resources and oil are at the center of most conflict in the world today.
Where religion plays a factor in a conflict Dawkins also conveniently ignores factors like national identity and motives of revenge and so on.
In some ways he shoots himself in the foot. He shows how many things have to be right for even matter to form, how the earth is located in a sweetspot and admits that its not very probable for all this to have happened by chance. Then he makes the completely gratuitous assertion that God is also therefore not likely.
Lastly his 3 page dismissal of Aquinas just shows that he has not got the rudimentary knowledge of natural philosophy present in an introduction to philosophy. His position that you can postulate an infinite regression to explain existence is a belief in some magic property of infinity to confer magic existence powers on contingent existences.
After reading it I had two emotions, one that was disappointed in the poor quality of the work because I should not be able to answer everything he said (and I am no expert) with ease. Secondly it was one of pity because I would not like to be him going before the face of God.
This feeling of pity for Dawkins intensified when I watched his interview with Ben Stein at the end of the movie. He actually would attribute evidence of intelligent design in nature to aliens. It is no wonder he is labeled a crummy philosopher by the guy living in France interviewed in the movie.
All in All the worst book on the subject I have ever read.
Joe
D
Dameedna
Guest
He make some very good points.
I was particularly interested in his story about Jewish Children, who were given a biblical story.
On one hand, the “characters” were changed, and were a chinese emperor and their henchmen. Something like 98% of the children were against the “emporer” going into a town, and killing all the men, women children, destroying the homes and killing all the livestock.
The same story was given with the names of the characters correctly identified as Jewish people in the old testament.
The same types of children(same demographic) overwhelmingly agreed, that killing all the men, women, and children along with buildings and livestock was correct because God gave the jewish people that command.
Same story, complete different reaction from the same children.
The first, is a young childs natural morality. To kill people especially children is bad.
The 2nd…is a religious upbringing. To kill, is good as long as God has allowed it.
It really, really show’s you what religion can do to the mind of a human being, especially that of a child.
However, for the most part, Dawkins shows his ignorance of religion, he is vitrolic, aggressive. He talks about his theories as though they are fact and in no way shape or form would I ever advocate an athiest communicates with believers in his fashion.
There was very little that was new, and I was embarrassed over his basic lack of religious understanding.
His understanding of the DAMAGE religious belief can do, is quite good though and for that reason I would recommend people wade through it.
Cheers
Dame
I was particularly interested in his story about Jewish Children, who were given a biblical story.
On one hand, the “characters” were changed, and were a chinese emperor and their henchmen. Something like 98% of the children were against the “emporer” going into a town, and killing all the men, women children, destroying the homes and killing all the livestock.
The same story was given with the names of the characters correctly identified as Jewish people in the old testament.
The same types of children(same demographic) overwhelmingly agreed, that killing all the men, women, and children along with buildings and livestock was correct because God gave the jewish people that command.
Same story, complete different reaction from the same children.
The first, is a young childs natural morality. To kill people especially children is bad.
The 2nd…is a religious upbringing. To kill, is good as long as God has allowed it.
It really, really show’s you what religion can do to the mind of a human being, especially that of a child.
However, for the most part, Dawkins shows his ignorance of religion, he is vitrolic, aggressive. He talks about his theories as though they are fact and in no way shape or form would I ever advocate an athiest communicates with believers in his fashion.
There was very little that was new, and I was embarrassed over his basic lack of religious understanding.
His understanding of the DAMAGE religious belief can do, is quite good though and for that reason I would recommend people wade through it.
Cheers
Dame
P
PaulAndrew83
Guest
This would also be evidence of the damage that atheism can do, No?
G
grannymh
Guest
Very good review. Thank you.
R
Robertsxxx
Guest
Yes, long time ago.
An interesting read. Didn’t agree on some points, but I can’t even remember what those were now… -_-;
Why did he attribute it to aliens? (maybe if you remember)
An interesting read. Didn’t agree on some points, but I can’t even remember what those were now… -_-;
You do know they lied to him in that movie & fooled into getting interviewed?
Why did he attribute it to aliens? (maybe if you remember)
S
survive
Guest
I skipped it because my reading list was backed up and I had read reviews that said his basic point, upon which he builds his whole theory of history and sociology, is that God doesn’t exist, and that in turn is based entirely on the fact that it is possible to hallucinate a spiritual experience. Since one can also easily hallucinate a blue sky, a white coud, a charging hooved animal, a snake, and a cold hand on your arm, all of which can also really happen, it seemed it was built on a single, absurd premise.
P
PaulAndrew83
Guest
He attributed the origin of life to aliens because carrick (the discoverer of DNA did) Why they do that is because the theory of evolution has no theory about the origin of the first cell.
While they are able to show the evidence of natural selection and genetic variation within species they will claim that these things support the upward origin of life. To the uninitiated who is actually going to question that?
Paul
S
survive
Guest
And they still can’t tell us where the alien life came from.
D
dumbseeker
Guest
Are most of you catholics? If you are, why did you give positive comments on Dawkins the atheist?
BTW, how did Stein lie to Dawkins to get him into the interview?
BTW, how did Stein lie to Dawkins to get him into the interview?
R
Robertsxxx
Guest
- No, we’re not
- So you can’t credit or compliment a person on their piece of work if they are of different beliefs to you?
There is much much more stuff on the movie; [edited]
Overall that movie was horrid…
M
mlchance
Guest
As a philosopher and theologian, Dawkins is a hack. He builds elaborate houses out of straw, populates them with cleverly constructed strawmen, and then rests on his faded laurels as a scientist while expecting people to applaud his work.
– Mark L. Chance.
– Mark L. Chance.
T
tabsie3210
Guest
blink blink blink I thought Ben Stein was Jewish. That’s what I’ve always read…
M
miguel
Guest
Dawkin’s with all his expertise in biology has reached the wrong conclusion about God. So what. He isn’t an expert on God. He hopes people are dumb enough to fall for the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy…
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
R
Robertsxxx
Guest
Huh? You might have a point.
But then it’s just “lying for your God” & in order to promote your religious views.
R
Robertsxxx
Guest
How/when did he make that fallacy? Can give a specific example of what you are refering to/criticising in what he said/wrote?
- Status