The Dawkins Delusion - the book

[challupa]

I just finished reading the Dawkins Delusion? Athiest Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. I picked it up at the library after reading Dawkins, "The God Delusion". I promised some here that I would comment on the book, so here is a bit of a summary.

1. No surprise to say he does not agree with Dawkins in many ways, but he does agree that there are things wrong with religion. Not so much Christianity, but more Islam. Makes sense since he is a Christian.

2. One comment he makes is "Could atheism be a delusion about God?

3. "Might the God Delusion actually backfire and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer?

4. "The God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigourously with religious believers and others seeking for truth. (One wonders if this is because the writer is himself an atheist whose faith is faltering.)"

5. He feels that Dawkins ignores information and studies that say religion is good for people and does not do a good job of proving it is bad for people.

6. He feels that Dawkins may be doing more harm than good when it comes to moderating fanatic fringe religions and giving them even more reason to be fanatic, which the author thinks is a bad thing.

Those are some of the things pointed out in the response to the God Delusion. The author really feels that Dawkins let go of his scientific unbiased position and instead let his hatred of religion color the entire book so that it has rendered the book non-credible.

So that is the jist of it. What do people think?

 

[Sunstone]

What was your impression of how well he substantiated his many criticisms of Dawkins and Dawkins's ideas?

 

[Luminous]

5. He feels that Dawkins ignores information and studies that say religion is good for people and does not do a good job of proving it is bad for people.

6. He feels that Dawkins may be doing more harm than good when it comes to moderating fanatic fringe religions and giving them even more reason to be fanatic, which the author thinks is a bad thing.

Those are some of the things pointed out in the response to the God Delusion. The author really feels that Dawkins let go of his scientific unbiased position and instead let his hatred of religion color the entire book so that it has rendered the book non-credible.

So that is the jist of it. What do people think?

Well, i might agree with the author that religion keeps otherwise evil atheists at bay. with out compensation for good many people wouldn't even try. turning this world into atheist might bring in a wave a chaos. as well as radicallizing the radicals even more.

 

[challupa]

What was your impression of how well he substantiated his many criticisms of Dawkins and Dawkins's ideas?

I did feel he was trying very hard to be fair for the most part, but you can definitely see how his beliefs have also colored his reaction to the God Delusion.

He is a scientist and he attacks Dawkins at that level in many ways. He starts the book praising some of Dawkins past works such as the Selfish Gene (1975) and says it is clearly written with helpful analogies and an entertaining style. He felt the God Delusion was a "significant departure" from that.

In some ways he does have some good arguments in other ways he comes across as defending his faith and clearly does not see how the scriptures could provide a basis that fundamentalists in all religions can justify the things they do that are detrimental to our world. He obviously does not take the bible literally as some fundamentalists do, and while he agrees with Dawkins about the problems with fundamentalist agendas, he still doesn't make the connection between the literature and the fanatic beliefs imo.

 

[Apex]

I just finished reading the Dawkins Delusion? Athiest Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. I picked it up at the library after reading Dawkins, "The God Delusion". I promised some here that I would comment on the book, so here is a bit of a summary.

1. No surprise to say he does not agree with Dawkins in many ways, but he does agree that there are things wrong with religion. Not so much Christianity, but more Islam. Makes sense since he is a Christian.

2. One comment he makes is "Could atheism be a delusion about God?

3. "Might the God Delusion actually backfire and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer?

4. "The God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigourously with religious believers and others seeking for truth. (One wonders if this is because the writer is himself an atheist whose faith is faltering.)"

5. He feels that Dawkins ignores information and studies that say religion is good for people and does not do a good job of proving it is bad for people.

6. He feels that Dawkins may be doing more harm than good when it comes to moderating fanatic fringe religions and giving them even more reason to be fanatic, which the author thinks is a bad thing.

Those are some of the things pointed out in the response to the God Delusion. The author really feels that Dawkins let go of his scientific unbiased position and instead let his hatred of religion color the entire book so that it has rendered the book non-credible.

So that is the jist of it. What do people think?

Sounds about right.

 

[challupa]

Well, i might agree with the author that religion keeps otherwise evil atheists at bay. with out compensation for good many people wouldn't even try. turning this world into atheist might bring in a wave a chaos. as well as radicallizing the radicals even more.

Yes the author is definitely leaning towards that line of thinking. In fact he talks about how Dawkins is radicallizing the radicals even more. He says that "one of the greatest disservices that Dawkins has done to the natural sciences is to protray them as relentlessly and inexorably atheistic". Because of this the Intelligent Design advocators actually feel he is furthering their case. He says the Christian anti-evolutionary movement is ironically regarding Dawkins as one of its "greatest assets". "William Dembski, the intellectual architect of this movement constantly thanks his intelligent Designer for Dawkins." In an email to Dawkins he says "I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God's greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement. So please, keep at it!"

That is troubling for anyone trying to keep ID out of public schools.

 

[fantome profane]

1. No surprise to say he does not agree with Dawkins in many ways, but he does agree that there are things wrong with religion. Not so much Christianity, but more Islam. Makes sense since he is a Christian.

Dawkins is no theologian and he completely failed to address viewpoints of some of the more sophisticated professional theologians. However Dawkins does deal with some of the common theological arguments as they are commonly understood. I am not sure if this is sufficient, but it is what Dawkins did, and he should at least get credit for that.

2. One comment he makes is "Could atheism be a delusion about God?

And McGrath completely fails to support this supposition.

(forgive me for doing this out of order)

5. He feels that Dawkins ignores information and studies that say religion is good for people and does not do a good job of proving it is bad for people.

One thing that Dawkins has been completely clear and consistent on is that he is interested in the truth concerning the “God hypothesis”. So even if for example it were true that a religion is “good for people”, this does not in any way indicate the truth of that religion or the claims that it makes. And even if Atheism is not good for people, that does not address the truth (or falsehood) of atheism. So in this respect I think Dawkins is completely justified in ignoring any and all claims about the “good that religion does”.

3. "Might the God Delusion actually backfire and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer?

4. "The God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigourously with religious believers and others seeking for truth. (One wonders if this is because the writer is himself an atheist whose faith is faltering.)"

6. He feels that Dawkins may be doing more harm than good when it comes to moderating fanatic fringe religions and giving them even more reason to be fanatic, which the author thinks is a bad thing.

And none of this even begins to address any of Dawkin’s arguments. If you intend to take on someone’s argument you must address the argument, not the motive of the person who makes the argument and not the emotional reaction that some people may have to the argument. The comment about Dawkin’s faltering faith is little more than a shallow ad hominem. I think Dembski is absolutely correct that Dawkins has been “God’s gift” to I.D. and creationism. The reverse is equally true that I.D./creationism has been “God’s gift” to atheism. This is all true but completely irrelevant to the argument. And even if Dawkin’s book stirs up fanatical anti-atheists results, that does not mean that Dawkin’s argument is false.

 

[gnostic]

And none of this even begins to address any of Dawkin’s arguments. If you intend to take on someone’s argument you must address the argument, not the motive of the person who makes the argument and not the emotional reaction that some people may have to the argument. The comment about Dawkin’s faltering faith is little more than a shallow ad hominem. I think Dembski is absolutely correct that Dawkins has been “God’s gift” to I.D. and creationism. The reverse is equally true that I.D./creationism has been “God’s gift” to atheism. This is all true but completely irrelevant to the argument. And even if Dawkin’s book stirs up fanatical anti-atheists results, that does not mean that Dawkin’s argument is false.

I have not read either books, but this paragraph of yours, does make a great deal of sense.

Addressing the issue or point with counter-argument is very important; attacking the person's motive doesn't address it all, and just make their points hollow.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

One thing that Dawkins has been completely clear and consistent on is that he is interested in the truth concerning the “God hypothesis”. So even if for example it were true that a religion is “good for people”, this does not in any way indicate the truth of that religion or the claims that it makes. And even if Atheism is not good for people, that does not address the truth (or falsehood) of atheism. So in this respect I think Dawkins is completely justified in ignoring any and all claims about the “good that religion does”.

I have not read most of "God Delusion" (only a bit), but from what I understand, Dawkins does discuss the negative side of religion. Does he use this as an argument for God being delusion?

 

[challupa]

Dawkins is no theologian and he completely failed to address viewpoints of some of the more sophisticated professional theologians. However Dawkins does deal with some of the common theological arguments as they are commonly understood. I am not sure if this is sufficient, but it is what Dawkins did, and he should at least get credit for that.

And McGrath completely fails to support this supposition.

(forgive me for doing this out of order)
One thing that Dawkins has been completely clear and consistent on is that he is interested in the truth concerning the “God hypothesis”. So even if for example it were true that a religion is “good for people”, this does not in any way indicate the truth of that religion or the claims that it makes. And even if Atheism is not good for people, that does not address the truth (or falsehood) of atheism. So in this respect I think Dawkins is completely justified in ignoring any and all claims about the “good that religion does”.


And none of this even begins to address any of Dawkin’s arguments. If you intend to take on someone’s argument you must address the argument, not the motive of the person who makes the argument and not the emotional reaction that some people may have to the argument. The comment about Dawkin’s faltering faith is little more than a shallow ad hominem. I think Dembski is absolutely correct that Dawkins has been “God’s gift” to I.D. and creationism. The reverse is equally true that I.D./creationism has been “God’s gift” to atheism. This is all true but completely irrelevant to the argument. And even if Dawkin’s book stirs up fanatical anti-atheists results, that does not mean that Dawkin’s argument is false.

I would have to agree that he does not make "his case" for religion imo. I do agree that Dawkins might be helping Dembski as I said in an earlier post. I also agree that they're their own worst enemy too.

All in all I tend to think Dawkins is a bit to insistent but McCrath doesn't really prove Dawkins wrong.

 

[challupa]

I have not read most of "God Delusion" (only a bit), but from what I understand, Dawkins does discuss the negative side of religion. Does he use this as an argument for God being delusion?

He does discuss the negatives of religion, but he also pretty much says that if anyone believes there is a god, they're not too smart, that they're doing wishful thinking and partaking in 13th century superstition. He says that science can explain so much more and that what it doesn't explain doesn't need to be proof there is a god because we will finally explain everything using science. That's what I remember from the God Delusion anyway. From what I remember he only uses the negative side of religion as a reason why we shouldn't have religion and pretty much says if we could rid the world of religion it would be a better safer place.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

He does discuss the negatives of religion, but he also pretty much says that if anyone believes there is a god, they're not too smart, that they're doing wishful thinking and partaking in 13th century superstition. He says that science can explain so much more and that what it doesn't explain doesn't need to be proof there is a god because we will finally explain everything using science. That's what I remember from the God Delusion anyway. From what I remember he only uses the negative side of religion as a reason why we shouldn't have religion and pretty much says if we could rid the world of religion it would be a better safer place.

Well, then arguing the reverse--that there are some positive aspects in it--is appropriate, I should think.

 

[challupa]

Well, then arguing the reverse--that there are some positive aspects in it--is appropriate, I should think.

Yes and I think there are positive aspects in it. However, these positive aspects that are within religion are not just religious values. He is arguing that positive values are not dependent upon religion and not even founded by religion. In other words religions should not take credit for these values because they are commonsense guidelines for humanities survival in communities.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes and I think there are positive aspects in it. However, these positive aspects that are within religion are not just religious values. He is arguing that positive values are not dependent upon religion and not even founded by religion. In other words religions should not take credit for these values because they are commonsense guidelines for humanities survival in communities.

Ah! Okay. But the same can be said about the negative as well. War, violence, and prejudice are just as human as forgiveness, charity, and community.

 

[challupa]

Ah! Okay. But the same can be said about the negative as well. War, violence, and prejudice are just as human as forgiveness, charity, and community.

That's a very valid point imo. McGrath does make an argument against Dawkins negatives views of religion that atheists have been known to commit atrocities too. Which is true of course. I guess Dawkins just thinks that because religion believe in God and that their thinking should be biased by this, that they tend to justify their atrocities in the name of God. Atheists of course have no one to blame but themselves!

 

[gnostic]

Which is true of course. I guess Dawkins just thinks that because religion believe in God and that their thinking should be biased by this, that they tend to justify their atrocities in the name of God. Atheists of course have no one to blame but themselves!

I see don't that you don't see a problem with religious men committing atrocities, done in the name of God, without taking responsibility for their actions.

The fatal flaw here is that such men, who say they did their crimes in god's name or in the name of their religion is to deny responsibility for their own action, thereby placing the blame on either god or their religion.

I think it is better to a person take responsible for their own action, instead of saying that god, angel, or whatever voices he think he had heard.

Do you think god should be held accountable or the men who commit them? And do you think denying accountability is better?

 

[challupa]

I see don't that you don't see a problem with religious men committing atrocities, done in the name of God, without taking responsibility for their actions.

The fatal flaw here is that such men, who say they did their crimes in god's name or in the name of their religion is to deny responsibility for their own action, thereby placing the blame on either god or their religion.

I think it is better to a person take responsible for their own action, instead of saying that god, angel, or whatever voices he think he had heard.

Do you think god should be held accountable or the men who commit them? And do you think denying accountability is better?

No, I never said I didn't have a problem with religious men committing atrocities. I do and I think each man is accountable and must start taking complete responsibility for what they do. It was McGrath that I was talking about in his argument against Dawkins that I was referring to.

 

[Luminous]

Yes the author is definitely leaning towards that line of thinking. In fact he talks about how Dawkins is radicallizing the radicals even more. He says that "one of the greatest disservices that Dawkins has done to the natural sciences is to protray them as relentlessly and inexorably atheistic". Because of this the Intelligent Design advocators actually feel he is furthering their case. He says the Christian anti-evolutionary movement is ironically regarding Dawkins as one of its "greatest assets". "William Dembski, the intellectual architect of this movement constantly thanks his intelligent Designer for Dawkins." In an email to Dawkins he says "I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God's greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement. So please, keep at it!"

That is troubling for anyone trying to keep ID out of public schools.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."”
~ Bobby Henderson (pasta be upon him)

 

[challupa]

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."”
~ Bobby Henderson (pasta be upon him)

Always have loved pasta!

 

[logician]

I just finished reading the Dawkins Delusion? Athiest Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. I picked it up at the library after reading Dawkins, "The God Delusion". I promised some here that I would comment on the book, so here is a bit of a summary.

1. No surprise to say he does not agree with Dawkins in many ways, but he does agree that there are things wrong with religion. Not so much Christianity, but more Islam. Makes sense since he is a Christian.

2. One comment he makes is "Could atheism be a delusion about God?

3. "Might the God Delusion actually backfire and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer?

4. "The God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigourously with religious believers and others seeking for truth. (One wonders if this is because the writer is himself an atheist whose faith is faltering.)"

5. He feels that Dawkins ignores information and studies that say religion is good for people and does not do a good job of proving it is bad for people.

6. He feels that Dawkins may be doing more harm than good when it comes to moderating fanatic fringe religions and giving them even more reason to be fanatic, which the author thinks is a bad thing.

Those are some of the things pointed out in the response to the God Delusion. The author really feels that Dawkins let go of his scientific unbiased position and instead let his hatred of religion color the entire book so that it has rendered the book non-credible.

So that is the jist of it. What do people think?

The author himself is biased, as Dawkin's approach to religion is about as scientific as you can get.