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.

Truckrelented Brilliant. Thank you.

As a fairly staunch atheist I often ponder such questions and Yummy this is time as funnily enough, it struck me earlier that if there is a God, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with it/him etc., in any case. I mean, say some being or whatever has the power and wisdom to shape mankind - is this really the outcome? No amount of wonderful raindrops on roses or noses and kittens, no miracle, no kindness or act of love or heroism or whatever would make up for the 8 million children who are born then die before age 5, or the teenager abducted and murdered on the way home from school. Or the Mums that die before their kids grow up - I assume you get my point so I won't go on.

However, I don't agree with you that anything at all would put an end to a lot of wars and violence etc. Because if they weren't fighting about a god, people would find something else to argue about.

Sorry - "this is timely". Tsk.

no room for the Dawkins Delusion, then?

Actually I'm going to go with Terry Pratchett's discworld take on religion - gods exist because we believe in them. Witches don't believe in gods. They know they are there but to believe in them would be like believing in the postman.

We've got a lovely postman.

Burning I agree with you and others re wars not ending ...... but people would have to use a different excuse.

I too, came to the conclusion long ago, that if there was a God, God would not allow monstrosities like the 'Baby P' ones, to be carried out.

I think in defence of God....?...I would have thought it was the humans who allowed the Baby P circumstance.

'God' is supposed to have created the humans who carry out sick, vile, despicable acts. Are we to suppose then, that he sits back watching these events, as if on telly, and allows the 'series' to run?

He has all these powers, yet he chooses to remain elusive and allow the innocents to suffer unspeakable horrors. Yeah, right, that's a great, loving God.

er....humans have free will. To 'blame' God for humans ignoring the guidance provided, as it were, is a bit unsatisfactory. You are asking for a devine intervention every time humans feck up.

In the US there is clearly a major issue over religion vs. evolution, so I can understand why Dawkins wrote the book in the way he did.

But that debate is a minor issue in the UK. I think that to make out that in the UK evolution is what atheists have instead of religious belief is hugely misleading. Most atheists have no particular interest in evolution.

The RE syllabus DS will be doing for GCSE is half based on studying two major religions and the other half is about spirituality and expressive art. What students need to understand about that is what spirituality is, and that neither religion nor God are required for a person to be spiritual.

Dawkins doesn't cover any of this in his book, but looking at how people attempt to convey transcendence or immanence through music, architecture or painting puts spirituality into its correct context as part of culture, not just part of religion. That is what students need to understand about atheism, not a whole load of stuff about evolution, which is covered in Science classes and is not in opposition to, or an alternative to, religious belief.

really interesting points littleblue re the USA/UK debate and the evolutionist not being aligned at all to atheists. Ta.

Dawkins has an approach which ridicules religions and pretty much suggests that most 'believers' are stupid. The God Delusion is not a balanced work, it is a polemic. The problem with Dawkins is that he is a scientist who has to keep an open mind and also someone with a big axe to grind about a particular subject - he wants to 'convert' people to atheism and the two don't sit comfortably.

Littleblue your post reminded me of this quote:

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
? Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark)

Juuule, I agree. I do think that lots of people find an interest in science and the natural world to be a spiritual experience. But I also don't want students to think that in order to be an atheist they have to have an interest in Science. It isn't an either/or situation. You can be an atheist and find meaning and purpose in life without having a great interest in either science or religion.

I agree with that littleblue. I think that this part of the quote relates to what you are saying:
"that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage....."

Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive but spirituality needs neither science or religion.

Meh.

For starters I live in the US and always have done. Every person I know in real life (besides a handful of people I met at college, or our neighbor next door who is German) is an American. I have known precisely one person who fits into the stereotype of the American religious nutter. Most people I know have some sort of religion, but it's just the one woman who did the whole hellfire-and-brimstone nonsense.

We were taught Darwin at school as fact. My school, like all state schools in the US, was secular. If you wanted your children to go to RE, they were allowed to leave and go to the Church of your choice for an hour every Wednesday. Now I think that's been done away with and the kids go on Wednesday evenings so as not to lose school time.

I do believe in God. I can't not, despite all the reading I've done. And I find it very that someone would suggest I'm stupid or "shouldn't be allowed to vote" because of it.

And it irritates me when I'm told that I'm "indoctrinating" my son. I can't tell him anything other than that I believe in a higher power or that I believe a part of us continues after physical death, because I believe it to be true. I'm not going to lie to the kid! He does know that other people believe different things.

As for compulsory reading, I'm not sure. Maybe, but as someone raised in secular schools I'm not sure religion has any place in one.

I also think it's naive to suggest that there would be no wars without religion. Violent people will always find an excuse to be so.

CheerfulYank have you visited the creationist museum lately? :o

If you can be sensible about it and even handed that is nice and I'm sure that you are not alone, but you have missed what religion can be to others.

It's possible that you are underestimating the effects of religion amongst your friends, but let's suppose that you are right in your assessment. That just means that if you have say 100 friends and only one believes in hellfire-and-brimstone that 1% of your friends are religious loons. That's quite enough to make religion a dangerous force and enough to explain why some atheists speak out against it.

Most religious people are in fact harmless, but their belief justifies the more dangerous people. If you are right about god existing then he can grant any rights he wants. So of course they have the right to kill/mistreat non-believers/gays/etc. God told them so just like he tells you more reasonable things. Accept one and we must accept the other since we have no basis for distinguishing your belief from theirs.

Religion is taught in schools from the viewpoint of understanding all faiths (well, not quite all), and from primary school children are taught to understand why we may have religion and how religion may have evolved.

Similarly, evolution itself is taught.

What bothers me about Dawkins' approach is that his notion of religion is quite an offensively limted one. Some of the brightest, most interesting and well-educated people I know are also committed Christians. I am an atheist but I value the contribution to philosophy and humanity religion has made. Yes it has been an abuse of power in the hands of many but it is a tool, it can and has been exchanged for other tools.

Science and faith are not necessarily incompatible. One professor I know is very religious but breathtakingly clever and also fiercely loyal to science. I find the Dawkins approach to be quite ignorant of this aspect of faith.

What I mean is that religion holds a different place in the lives of many. It is very subtle and complex. This should be respected and any true humanist would accept the person they saw in front of them and tried to understand them on their own terms.

Dawkins, as a scientist, should be phenomenological, sadly, like many scientists, I think he has the god delusion himself and has not applied his own questionning techniques to his theories.

As someone who practises phenomenologically I seek to understand the world as it is to the person in front of me, not make sweeping pronouncements on vast swathes of humanity.

That kind of thing really gets my goat.

No, I've never visited the Creationism Museum; I don't think it's close to me. :)

The person I spoke of is not a friend as such. I worked with her about ten years ago. She's the only person I've ever known that believes in that nonsense, I meant. I know lots more than 100 people!

I understand what you're saying. I just can't disbelieve in God. Perhaps I am stupid...but I don't think so.

onagar - I think you are missing the point rather. You speak as if athiests are some peace-loving individuals, and the only threat to 'bad things' happening are religious loons. So you have missed what a lack of a spiritual life can do to others.

Most religous people are harmless? Well that's nice to be informed of, thanks. You can't say the same thing about athiests.

So. Religion caused:

WWI
WW2
Korean War
Vietnam War
Cambodia
War in USSR against republics
Falklands War
Afghanistan
Iraq
Civil War in Libya?

Nope.

God can't grant any wishes he wants. Thats infant school talk. Wit hrespect.

Some people are harmless and some are not, surely, regardless of religious faith or lack of it.

I think rather than making children read the Bibleor Dawkins we ought to be teaching them to get along with everyone regardless of their faith or anything else. A good course in non-violent confrontation and respect would go a long way, maybe?

'non-violent confrontation' and 'respect' for others sounds like the basis of just about all major religions.

Well, it's the basis of mine surely. :)

But I'm just saying instead of focusing in schools on right or wrong (as far as religion goes) we could just say that people think very differently from others on certain things, but surely we can all get along.