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.

"I agree Himalaya, but I think the default these days is to disrespect religion. There's nothing unusual, edgy or original about disrespecting religion, it's all been done before"

I respect your optimism, your hope, your passion - the strength of your feelings about god.

I just find it tragic that all this feeling and effort is focused on a delusion.

"I think the desire to believe in something is an intrinsic part of human nature, hardwired into a psyche, and research is beginning to bear this out. With that in mind, it seems just as bad to force people into non-belief as much as to indoctrinate them into any religion."

[applauds]

Have read the God Delusion. Thought it was hideously written but quite interesting.

Suggest that all those who want to dismiss the whole of Christianity as fundamentalist should read "Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism" by Spong first.

"I think the desire to believe in something is an intrinsic part of human nature, hardwired into a psyche"

And you, an atheist, are not human?

That's my point - I believe something even though I class myself as an atheist. My belief is the ability of mankind to be controllers of their own destiny. In terms of what it does for me as an individual, I see that as no different to someone's faith in God.

Yours is not a belief in the religious sense, because there is ample proof that people are masters of their destiny, that their actions change the course of their lives and make their futures.

My point is that your statement "the desire to believe in something is an intrinsic part of human nature" is wrong, as demonstrated by the existence of many human atheists.

"Science tells us nothing about God. It tells us a good deal about how the universe is. It tells us nothing about why."

Totally agree with that. I don't really understand why people expect science to provide any answers about God and then assume that this means there is no God when if fails to prove God's existence. I also think that just because there is no objective proof to date about God, it doesn't mean there isn't any. It is just one of many many things that we know nothing about yet.

"I'm always astonished at how so many people believe in god in the continued and universal absence of any evidence of his existence."

For plenty of people with a faith there is evidence. As far as they are concerned they have experience of God, a relationship even, and that this is all the evidence they need. Just because you don't accept their experience as evidence doesn't mean it is worthless. It is just your opinion.

"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"

You don't need a God for people to behave that way -I think you'll find Stalinist Russia and Maoist China both though they had the right to kill/ mistreat non-believers in their doctrines/ gays and other minoirty groups including those with a faith. This kind of behaviour isn't the preserve of the religious. They couldn't even blame a higher power for 'making' them do it!

For the record, I have read some of The God Delusion and all of the Selfish Gene - The Selfish Gene is better, probably because Dawkins stuck to his actual area of expertise rather than giving his opinion as fact. The God Delusion is like Dawkins in RL (well on the telly) a bit ranty, a bit grumpy and certainly joyless. I wouldn't make children read it - it isn't that well written and anyway, if you want to convert people to atheism and to see their error of the God fearing ways, you would do better to find a text trying to replace religion with atheism as something they must believe in. That would be counterproductive.

"if you want to convert people to atheism"

Telling people that there is absolutely no reason to continue believing in something without proof is not an attempt to convert them.

there is ample proof that people are masters of their destiny, that their actions change the course of their lives and make their futures.

You could argue the toss on that one, but I shan't. Far too deep for 11.15 on a monday.

I do think it's odd how people are convinced that Richard Dawkins is smug, but only when he talks about religion.

I think he comes accross as opinionated and proffessorish - when he talks about god or jellyfish. And yet he doesn't seem to get pulled up as smug when talking about jellyfish.

Do you think it's because he has a split personality or because we are so accustomed to judging talk about religion in a different way that rational criticism is read as 'rude', 'militant', 'smug' etc...

A bit like when a woman says something and is judged as shrill, bossy etc...where a man saying the same thing is decisive, a leader etc...

Just want to say that I never suggested The God Delusion was well-written or better than The Selfish Gene.

I'm not suggesting anyone reads it for pure entertainment - I just think he's written what a lot of people believe and can't articulate. He's not trying to convert anyone, and nor am I.

He goes on a bit in parts, but I fail to see how any sane, reasonable person can argue with him if they have truly read/listened to what he is saying.

Maybe few people have read what he has to say about Jellyfish and so don't know that he is smug about that as well Himalaya.

Dione - I have never heard anyone say Dawkins' biology books are smug and I'm sure plenty of people have read them.

So in your opinion he is as smug on biology as he is on religion. I don't see what that has to do with gender stereotype and inequality.

Nope, that is exactly the opposite of my opinion, Dione. As I said professorish and opinionated.

Both descriptions 'shrill/bossy' 'smug/militant' more about the perception that the person is speaking out of turn than about the actual tone and personality of the person being described.

One way that ideas become pervasive is if they are protected by unconscious perceptions by which we police ourselves and others. The idea that men make better leaders is protected by the perception that women who speak forcefully are shrill and bossy. The idea that religions are intellectually coherent is protected by the perception that pointing out the holes in their claims is rude, disrespectful, smug etc...

As I said above, I don't know about how he writes on biology, however I have seen him behave in a shrill, bossy and not so smug (more dejected) tone when he is in discussion with people of faith.

Example:
Dawkins is talking about Easter in front of an audience. A vicar, an Imam and someone else is talking of it. The vicar says that the Easter story teaches us an important lesson about forgiveness. RD talks over the top of vicar and says "that someone has to die". The vicar continuing what he said says " that forgiveness has a cost". The audience applauds this. RD asks "what are you clapping for?" His voice rose more than an octave and his disgust was there in his non verbals.

What the vicar said was true. This obviously resonated with the multi faith and no faith audience. RD's reaction was shrill and bossy.

His reaction was shrill. It was bossy. Starkey has been accused of the same in recent weeks. It is not about speaking out of turn, it is about a nasty reactive style.

Not the subject matter.

just for the record I was suspicious of Christianity from an early age and decided it was not for me

having a glass of wine and catching up on thread now

It would seem that the vicar was not particularly learned about the theological meaning of Easter . It does not teach 'an important lesson about forgiveness'; the crucifixion and the resurrection established JC as the (alleged) Son of God and the means to eternal life and, as such, is the foundation stone of Christianity

Easter was asserted by the Venerable Bede to have been named after the Saxon festival of Eostra which also tells the story of a virgin birth, a death, and a resurrection - a tale which has been a common theme in numerous religions/faiths since time immemorial.

In many other languages the word for Easter is derived from the Latinised spelling of Pesach, namely Pascha which is the Hebrew word for Passover. Hence in Italian, Easter is Pasqua, Spanish - Pascua, Portuguese - Pascoa, Cornish - Pask, Welsh - Pasg etc., etc.

It is common knowledge that the dates of significant Christian festivals are closely aligned to those of other religions - it was a case of 'we're having a bigger, better, party than yours' when it came to recruiting converts from other faiths to the 'new' religion of Christianity.

Dawkins has my sympathy; I find it remarkably easy to become dejected when conversing with fanatics of any faith or non-religious persuasion.

Hmm, the more I think about it the more convinced I become that the entire question of evidence is really quite irrelevant between atheists and strong believers. The problem here really seems to be that many believers actually do see bucketloads of evidence for God's existence and therefore won't be dissuaded and that from an atheist point of view any such evidence simply fails the most basic quality tests.

Point in case: My DH and I

DH: the universe exists, therefore god exists also

Me: what if we could explain the causes of the universe in terms of natural processes, though? We simply don't know yet!

DH: then those processes would need a cause, therefore god exists!

Me: so what is the cause for the existence of god then, I wonder?

DH: God doesn't have a cause. He's the original cause.

Me: and any natural process could't be the original cause because ... ?

DH: the universe could not have happened without a cause. Therefore god exists.

Repeat at nauseam.

He's not even practising, just utterly convinced that in theory religion is true and should be followed.

yanbu

NotaDudeExactly - so by your reasoning, and mine if you are saying what I think you are saying, the only logical position to take on the topic is agnosticism? We don't know the answer to whether or not God exists and therefore we can't have an opinion that holds any water looked at objectively or rationally.

Agnosticism is a spectrum, imo, from people who don't think there is a God but admit they don't know for sure and those that do believe but don't know for sure. I actually think there is more common ground between a lot of us than we care to admit in these discussion which tend to get polarised between those who believe and those who don't and probably the majority fall in the middle.

Although Dawkins plays lip service to agnosticism, I don't reckonfrom what he says that there is any doubt in his mind that God doesn't exist and to my mind that makes him no better than the religious believers who have no doubt in their minds that God does exist. If you are going to teach Dawkins in school (and I would rather children were taught the atheist view rather than the views of one person anyway) then his opinions should be couched in the same way as religion when it is taught - some people believe.....

YANBU. I totally agree. There is enough rubbish in the world without religion. I dont see why i should respect someone who in effect believes in fairies.

He basically writes , as yummy mummy says what i think but cannot articulate. I think his books are a bit heavy handed but they have to be when dealing with some of the delusional people he speaks to on a regular basis.