Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

The God Delusion

439 replies

YummyHoney · 18/08/2011 19:26

In thinking that Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion should be compulsory reading for all secondary school children?

Not only would it put paid to all the religious nonsense some parents spout, it would also put an end to a lot of wars and violence in the world.

OP posts:
LostMyIdentityAlongTheWay · 18/08/2011 19:50

you might not be, but Dawkins definitely is. Thus, as a result, he has no place being taught on the curriculum as FACT. He could be taught as an alternative belief to current world religions... but why use him? Plenty of other philosophical texts with more longevity that would be suitable?

EggyAllenPoe · 18/08/2011 19:52

if he is a fundamentalist, what does his fundamentalism consist in? he thinks there's no reason to believe in God. Plenty of people that believe in God would agree that there is no reason to believe in God.

please bear in mind the territory he works in includes the US where it is hard to teach Philosophy of religion even from an agnostic position, let alone an atheist one. that would get my goat in most Billy-snatching fashion.

EggyAllenPoe · 18/08/2011 19:53

although in answer to the op, it's just not a huge revelation as a piece of work.

so 'compulsorary' no...

ChickensHaveNoEyebrows · 18/08/2011 19:55

You may think I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one....

MrGin · 18/08/2011 19:55

I saw him on tv a while ago reading out death threat letters from fundimentalist Chrisians. I thought he was very funny.

I'm sure people do find him tricky at times. But he is a very intelligent man who felt compelled to write the God Delusion because of all the attention he got from nutty Christians over his work on genes and evolution.

meh

NotADudeExactly · 18/08/2011 19:55

Dizzy

Elevatorgate is the most recent dodgy Dawkins one I'm aware of - though I seem to remember there was some controversy before at one stage, will try to find what it was.

The elevator story is really quite disturbing, IMHO, in that he actually manages to

a) patronize American/Western women. He pretty much seems to imply they'd better shut up given how good they have it and ...

b) patronize and indiscriminately lump together all Muslim women. And perpetuate a IMHO deeply offensive perception of Muslim women having no agency/existing solely as defenceless victims.

Umm, hello, Richard Dawkins! This is Earth calling. The existence of murder does not make minor assault okay. And not all Muslim women are helpless and downtrodden. In fact, Bangladesh had a female prime minister when women in one part of Switzerland were fighting for the vote in court in 1991. Thank you!

DizzyKipper · 18/08/2011 19:58

Thanks notadudeexactly, will have a proper look through later on (have just begun the unfortunate task of having to cook dinner, so am now drawn away from the thread...)

MrGin · 18/08/2011 20:00

Not a fan Notadudeexacty then ?

purits · 18/08/2011 20:01

I started reading The God Delusion but didn't get very far with it. It is so dumbed down that I couldn't be doing with it.

timidviper · 18/08/2011 20:04

I agree that Dawkins is every bit as nasty an extremist as some of the religious ones. DD did study some extracts of his work for RE A level and was stunned at how rude and patronising he was in debates they watched so he probably had the opposite effect to that you were hoping for.

ChickensHaveNoEyebrows · 18/08/2011 20:06

I started reading it, but found his smug, superior writing style really grating. He may have made excellent points, but I couldn't see them through his haze of self satisfaction. Git.

Whatmeworry · 18/08/2011 20:07

Read it - or half of it, it was dire - on hols a few years back. He is better of sticking to Evolutionary Biology IMO

Anyway, we made God - over here

Original poster
YummyHoney · 18/08/2011 20:14

I don't really see what bearing his persona has on his book. What I mean is, surely, it's irrelevant what one thinks of him personally. I'm not saying he's anything other than the author of a book.

OP posts:
joric · 18/08/2011 20:15

Unless DC go to a church school they are taught about the most common beliefs held by many members of society... Atheists included.

Saying it should be compulsory reading is unrealistic.. Would have to be balanced with compulsory reading from all sides... Possibly 'A' level but not GCSE/ KS3 surely?

joric · 18/08/2011 20:16

:o @ chicken!!

MrGin · 18/08/2011 20:34

I think, as a poster mentioned, the US is quite relevant , his personality less so.

I think if you're schooled with a heavy religeous bias it is a good thing to have an alternate perspective at least, and it's only polite to point out errors in the opposing view.

NotADudeExactly · 18/08/2011 20:36

No, I'm not a fan.

I guess I am not exactly on the agnostic side of atheism either, i.e. I consider the idea of a god - never mind a personal god as described by major religions - to be so unlikely as to be practically certain.

However, I do have a major issue with the smugness and the evangelical zeal of Dawkins mentioned by several of the posters here. I also happen to disagree with his view of religion: I do not think that religion as such causes horrible things. Rather that religion is a tool of social control and that people with power tend to do horrible things to people without. And that religion as a tool is essentially interchangeable albeit useful thanks to the inbuilt legitimation factor. My main gripe with religion as such really is only that - in my not so humble opinion - it quite simply isn't true.

Finally, I have an issue with how Dawkins views science. To me he always seems a but quasi religious about it. True, he'd change his opinion on, say, evolution if presented with evidence to the contrary that satisfies modern scientific quality tests.

I would expect someone of that caliber to show some more awareness of how science and our entire way of thinking about knowledge is to a certain degree socially constructed, though. And of how our scientific model is really a very eurocentric and male centric one. For the record: I do happen to agree with the overwhelming majority of what we accept as scientific method. It's just that I have a bit of an issue with Dawkins taking an apparently pretty unquestioning approach to it when he's so insistent on questioning in other respects.

NotADudeExactly · 18/08/2011 20:38

... to be practically certain with regard to its non-existence.

ThePosieParker · 18/08/2011 20:38

I definitely think Atheism should be discussed more in schools and creationism should be part of myths and legends.

Original poster
YummyHoney · 18/08/2011 20:43

Perhaps Darwin should be taught in schools too.

OP posts:
Shoutymomma · 18/08/2011 20:43

I think that Richard Dawkns is an academic snob, although he'd never admit it. I admire his wrttings, even though I find them quite hard going, but there are better things you could make a child read, if you feel you should make them read anything at all. I'd rather mine read what they enjoy and then come to their own conclusions. I can't help but hope they enjoy Philip Pullman though... so wonderfully written.

Christopher Hitchens is more my atheist cup of tea!

NotADudeExactly · 18/08/2011 20:46

Perhaps Darwin should be taught in schools too.

Umm, I didn't go to school in the UK (private school, Switzerland) but I had definitely assumed this was the case currently. It definitely was covered extensively at my school?! Confused

Original poster
YummyHoney · 18/08/2011 20:46

Shoutymomma - yes, I know what you mean. I think he goes on a bit sometimes. I don't think he is the most riveting writer, but I do think he makes sense.

OP posts:
beckybrastraps · 18/08/2011 20:47

Darwin taught in schools? Um...

beckybrastraps · 18/08/2011 20:48

Of course Darwin is taught in schools Hmm