Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive? (beliefs, experience)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If you did find The God Delusion offensive, which bit in particular (quotation or specific reference) did you find most offensive?

For starters, how about the title?

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Personally I lost interest the moment he anthropomorphized God (who made God? kind of stuff), which is really, really stupid. It shows that he is a total ignoramus in theological matters. (I'm not as nice as Runt. I call the moronic fool a moronic fool.) Moreover, he assumes absence of empirical evidence is evidence of absence.

You realize that the majority of theists anthropomorphize God, right? You realize that your concept, whatever it may be, of God is not well-known, right? Dawkins is responding to the three major religions, and therefore anthropomorphizes God, as well he should. If you have your own distinct concept of "God", then that's fine, but he's not responding to that, unless yours has become an organized religion. Most of the "God" concepts throughout history have been anthropomorphized, so you have to excuse him if he doesn't take into account the vast minority who don't do that.

[Fluffy]

Heya Rolling Stone,
I don't for a moment wish to assert that any part of the God Delusion is right or true. I am only interested in whether theists find it offensive and, if they do, what it is about it specifically that they find offensive. Are you saying that you find the God Delusion to be intellectually offensive?

Heya lilithu,
In the introduction to the book, Dawkins explains what he means by the term delusion. He says that he does not mean it in any sort of psychological sense but merely to refer to a belief that is false. By God delusion, he means that the hypothesis of God's existence is false.

Do you still find the title offensive in light of that explanation? I don't for a moment wish to imply that you shouldn't but I am very interested in pinning down exactly what is offensive about this book and why because, from an atheistic perspective, I don't believe I am feeling the entire story.

Heya *Paul*,
Thanks very much for your reply. That part in particular came to my mind immediately when I heard Dawkins' remark. I was confused as to how he thought that that passage could be taken inoffensively.

Are there any Christians who did not find that passage offensive? If so, why did you not find it offensive?

[Sunstone]

The part of The God Delusion I've found most offensive has been not the book, but many of the reviews in the media. I read some reviews by people who obviously hadn't read the book with care or understanding -- which is remarkable because it is for the most part a simple, introductory level work. I found it reprehensible that people who understood neither the book nor Dawkins the man would slam both in mean spirited language. There's an obvious difference between a review and a smear, and the media seems to have often stooped to passing off smears as reviews.

[Fluffy]

Heya Sunstone,
Yes I agree fully that Dawkins has often been criticised from a position of ignorance. This makes me sad since I believe there is plenty of legitimate criticism that can be levelled against the book but it is swallowed up amongst the shouts of people who do not know of what they speak.

Specifically, I am surprised by Dawkins' claim that he does not think that theists will find his book offensive. It does seem like there are passages in the book which, as Dennett points out, Dawkins' frustration with the theistic position spills into his writing so clearly as to damage his message.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Heya lilithu,
In the introduction to the book, Dawkins explains what he means by the term delusion. He says that he does not mean it in any sort of psychological sense but merely to refer to a belief that is false. By God delusion, he means that the hypothesis of God's existence is false.

Do you still find the title offensive in light of that explanation?

Dawkins is smart enough to know exactly what the title implies, regardless of disclaimers he makes inside the book. Still, he chose the title that he did.

It's the equivalent of saying "You're an ***. Oh, but I didn't mean it that way." If anything, it's more offensive, since he's arrogant enough to think that he can have his cake and eat it too.

No one can with a straight face claim that Dawkins is offering a dispassionate analysis on the subject. Why the pretense?

[lilithu]

Let me put it another way, fluffy.

If an non-Christian but still Abrahamic author wrote a book called "The Christ Delusion", do you think that the explanation for "delusion" that Dawkins gave would suffice to mitigate the insult?

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Heya Rolling Stone,
I don't for a moment wish to assert that any part of the God Delusion is right or true. I am only interested in whether theists find it offensive and, if they do, what it is about it specifically that they find offensive. Are you saying that you find the God Delusion to be intellectually offensive?

I found Dawkins to be intellectually dishonest and his book to be an insult to my intelligence, so, the answer is "yes."