The God Delusion

[YummyHoney]

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.

Let's start with pointing out I've read it.

One of the problems with the religion he's arguing about is he has defined it, thus he has slipped in to using very extreme examples to highlight his case. That's never good academic practise. The result of that, and the influx of other extreme views of Christianity mostly from the US, is that now people without any religious background seem to think that defines Christianity. It gets tiring as a Christian to hear people clueless about religion repeat the arguments Dawkins has put forward as facts about my faith and I can't be a "real" Christian if I, for instance, don't believe in creationism.

It appeals to the masses because it's simplistic and ignores the complexity of religious faith. Plenty of comments on this thread have highlighted that ignorance. For instance, the Bible was never meant as an academic book, it was also never actually meant to be taken literally. In fact those religious people who claim to take it literally are just as bad as there are so many inconsistencies that it is not possible to do so they are picking and choosing as much as us not real "liberal" Christians do. This is the same as any faith or belief. That goes for science as well. The scientist does science and understands it, the average person on the street has a "belief" in science and that what they are told is fact when it's often actually theory.

Bad Science, mentioned up thread, is a really good place to start to understand this, and also to understand how theories as "fact" are filtered through the media mostly for the purposes of capitalism, that is to sell newspapers etc. Which is also why the God Delusion has done so well, it's a poor academic work, but full of populist anti-religion stuff using arguments against what people believe are facts about religion.

Unfortunately I think RD can come across as a bit of a joyless old moaner. It's a shame, as when he talks about evolution he is quite the opposite.

I think there does need to be some serious discussion about the power religious institutions still hold in society, but I don't think Dawkins is particularly helpful to the secularist cause. I think he is pretty much preaching to the converted, and anyone who doesn't agree with him is unlikely to be swayed by his patronising (and a bit sneery) style of argument.

Unfortunately I think RD can come across as a bit of a joyless old moaner. It's a shame, as when he talks about evolution he is quite the opposite.

I think there does need to be some serious discussion about the power religious institutions still hold in society, but I don't think Dawkins is particularly helpful to the secularist cause. I think he is pretty much preaching to the converted, and anyone who doesn't agree with him is unlikely to be swayed by his patronising (and a bit sneery) style of argument.

it was also never actually meant to be taken literally

As in some things are supposed to be literal accounts but as description not as rules down the ages, other bits are laws, other bits are propaganda, other bits are people trying to understand their place in the world or what new religious revelations mean. The Bible was, after all, put together by people... specifically men.

Religion has been a tool for social control, it has also been a tool of resistance to social control. It can and does still provide that for people and people who have rejected Abrahamic religions aren't necessarily turning to atheism but to other forms of belief.

there does need to be some serious discussion about the power religious institutions still hold in society

Agree with this. Unfortunately things are getting incredibly polarised and that is annoying as well as destructive for the common ground most people hold about religious belief, as in that it's a personal choice and should not be imposed from above. So now the extremes of each camp retreat into victim/persecuted status depending which suits them and that somehow gets to define the argument.

Religion is just the excuse, people would find a reason to persecute and try and control other people whatever the weather. It's human nature that is the problem, not religion.

Can I put in a good word for RD, as a person with good intentions and brilliant intellect? I had him for one-to-one tutorials, 28 yrs ago, when I was an undergraduate. He was inspiring in the sense that he didn't 'tell' you what to think but helped you to begin thinking for yourself and questioning everything, looking for hard evidence etc etc.

He had strong opinions but again only ever asked you to question your own and those of established others - whether this was top biologists or any kind of 'beliefs'. Now, when I read his books, I know that his intention is to provoke people to think and question - and sometimes his views can come through as extreme, simply as a counterbalance to other people's equally extreme beliefs....It's a kind of device to provoke 'thinking outside your beliefs to other possibilities/ probabilities'....

Mind you, I'm a bit subjective with all this as I really fancied him back then!

Solo2??!! This'll be confusing

I always thought you were the same person

I've never seen Solo2 before! The only other Solo I've seen was SoloDad and I've not seen him in years!

Solo2 has been around forever- I'm amazed you two haven't bumped into each other!

Yes, Hi Solo ! I've been around for years and only came across your similar name a while ago. I think we post on different topics/ parts of the forum so haven't crossed paths many times

Yanbu at all!

Many better people than Dawkins to read. At least someone with a less self-congratulatory tone.

christian (and all religion) basher!!!! nice.

Also - most wars and conflict have nothing to do with religion - even when it is used to inflame emotions - humanity uses all sorts of powerful imagery to justify violence. And religion is very often not at all negative - very lopsided arguments. Millions of people inspired to do kind, considerate things in the name of religion and it gives a moral framework missing for many. Open-minded and info about everything is the best way - and not to sneer and jeer about people who have faith. Wish I bloody had some.

Hmmmm...well I've been Solo since Feb 04. Amazed that no one has ever mentioned a solo2. I feel a bit...erm... violated!!!

Actually you would be surprised about how much of the bible is probably true just seen from the perspective of the time (my bol)

Lol!!! Actually IO'm not surprised any more than it's probably true that I am the queen of England just seen from a different perspective :)

I think the term 'Darwin's Rottweiler' says a lot.

Inappropriate in schools, however, don't see anything wrong with teaching them the humanist viewpoint.

Agree with Lostidentity on this - but would also add that I, and many hundreds of thousands of people in the UK are Christians and I would like my kids brought up as Christians. What they do when they are older is up to them - but of course I want them to have an understanding of my faith! I am sick of defending it. We do not ignore the likes of Dawkins in healthy debate, but he is simply a bloke with a set agenda. He wants a scientific solution to everything and that is not always possible. The meaning of life is a big question, too big to dismiss with reading one book, or worse still, not reading anything at all - just having a 'feeling' that Christianity is all a bit far-fetched - it deserves looking into from all perspectives with a bit more depth than that surely... There are some problems in the world caused by fanatics' take on organised religion, there are many problems in the world that are set in a very secular soceity - like the recent riots. It's all to easy to blame stuff committed in the name of religion on God Himself. It was not his intention. He gave us free will and we have misused it.

The meaning of life is a big question Only to some humans - I suspect that most animals/living creatures (call them what you will) are just happyto live and enjoy and don't waste much of their life over analysing this as don't many humans.

Oh, so the rioters were atheists were they? Is that another fact, or just something else you believe, Scrabble66 ?

Have to agree with Yummy: the religious affiliation or lack thereof of the rioters is completely irrelevant - unless of course it serves as a motive for the behaviour in question. It's a bit of a "Hitler was a vegetarian" kin of logical fallacy.

Also, if you read Dawkins he clearly doesn't just have a feeling that Christianity is a little far fetched. He actually provides some extremely good reasons for why it can't be true with a degree of probability bordering on certainty. Yes, I dislike the book and his style - but his arguments in that respect are completely sound.

kind of logical fallacy