Dawkins - God Delusion....

[squidette]

Hi

I am half way through reading Richard Dawkins new book, The God Delusion, and loving it. I am finding myself laughing and smiling in that 'phew! someone else thinks the same thing!' kind of way that i had when reading Russell's Why i am not a Christian lectures.

I was wondering if anyone else has read it and what their thoughts were.

Sorry I thought Dawkins had a problem with God not necessarily Christianity why are you assuming that it is simply Chrsitians he attacks?

haha moaningpaper, they just don't see the satirical mirror, do they?

thank goodness moaningpaper and frogs have joined the fray!

as always, very heartening to know you're not alone...

Oh dear, the 'they' word has appeared!

If one delves into theology by viewing the subject philosophically, psychologically and historically - what part are they missing?

Yes, beatie, but a great many very serious thinkers have occupied themselves with theology, and their musings provide the underpinnings for a great deal of what we know as western culture. Sure, if Thomas Aquinas or even Karl Rahner were writing today, they might frame their arguments in different terms. They might even have become evolutionary biologists instead of theologians. Or then again, they might not. To lump serious academic theologians and theological thought, whether contemporary or older, together with UFOlogy and the like is insulting and deliberately obtuse. And undermines his arguments in the same way that the batty end of bible literalism undermine their right to be taken seriously by refusing to engage with science.

It seems a shame that Dawkins should get drawn into such pointless polemic when he's so convincing on topics that he does actually know about. The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene are in a completely different league from the God Delusion.

I wonder if dawkins sufferred some kind of early bereavement?

i'd also like to add that our relationship with 'god' is rooted in our relationship with our parents specifically our fathers. it is qualified by that.

so i wonder what dawkins relationship with his dad is like?

frogs - i am sure that Dawkins would agree with you that these books (that i have not actually read, but have read reviews, debates and opinions of) are very different from the God Delusion.

Ks - yes it is poss. to beileve in God and evolution. I've been a christian for nearly 20 years now and I'm still unclear what I believe baout the origins of life on earth.

The main thing to me is that it's not a fundamental question in determinng my faith - for eg. if after all this time I were still questioning whether Jesus really rose from the dead then that would be a major enough question to stop me really believing.

But the question of evoltion is not going to make or break my faith. I put it with the other interesting questions to debate now and ask God when I get to heaven - like life on other planets.

I say the apostles' creed (which is like a summary of christian belief) and mean every word and be happy in the knowledge that some things are beyond my understanding.

Sorry to waffle - I'm tired and I'm promising myself I won't get sucked into MNing and go to bed instead!

But for those who think God does not exist, the idea is as incredible as thinking that fairies and unicorns exist. Using such analogies may seem deliberately obtuse but as he is addressing his points to a contemporary audience I personally think such analogies are fair points.

Also - agree with moaningpaper. People like Dawkins because they read him and feel that he gives intellectual weight to their problems with religion (which are hardly ever rooted in serious intellectual disagreement but in emotional or experiential subjective feelings).

So...he takes something v. subjective and makes it sound reasonable and intellectual.

Which is why the Da Vinci Code was so popular. It made people feel that they were right to hate the catholic church (without addressing the issue of why they hated the church).

agree with you there, texasrose.

fuck it.

dogma? hate it. more harm done than good. idiocy of the highest order in many cases.

religious insitutions? nightmare. as party to corruptions and nonsense as any other institution.

religious leaders? human. therefore once again party to the same level of corruption and rot....in fact the ones that aren't corrupt are amazing exceptions that deserve the attention of critics of religion.

god? errr.....indefinable, omnipresent, unspeakable, male, female, child, animal, plant, omni. om.

no god? are you kidding? you have all had god experiences. you have all had that sense of absolute connection.

some of you are just really really (and understandably) fucked off with him/her/it.

sincerely. i would love to know some biographical details about dawkins. what has brought him to a place of such absolute loneliness.

frogs, great post of 10.26pm.

wikipedia: dawkins started to doubt god aged 9.

he left africa for england aged 8 and was sent to boarding school.

haven't you? haven't you just experienced that absolute sense of being part of something huge, connected with and to everything? beyond self. that is what we're talking about aren't we? something beyond the 'self'.

[ks, thanks for engaging with me....i have approached this in a sigularly unintellectual way and am feeling embarrassed about the level of emotion rather than intellect. this from someone that is usually in their head rather than anywhere else]

well, freud was in fact a case in point.

but yes. comes from a psychotherapeutic place.

actually that is a good point. there is stuff that happens between me and a client that i cannot cannot explain except in terms of more than self. of 'an other'.

on the atheist thread (i should be posting on there i suppose) i hear loads and loads about crappy crappy individuals, but not much about god tbh.

and agnosticism i totally get: doubt doubt doubt....it is the stuff of true faith imo. certainty is the enemy.

atheism is far far too certain, it is as certain as what it purports to deny.

i've just read that back and i can only apologise for the repetition involved.

Tosses FSM into the debate

sophable writes: "atheism is far far too certain, it is as certain as what it purports to deny."

but previously:

"no god? are you kidding? you have all had god experiences. you have all had that sense of absolute connection.

some of you are just really really (and understandably) fucked off with him/her/it."

Inconsistent? Certainly patronising.

left my lighthearted tuppence worth teatime yesterday and as I expected - the debate moved on considerably into the usual territory.

I will never understand the need for religion - I understand the need for Philosophy and understand the need for a moral framework - but cannot and willnot accept that a 'God' is anything but a creation of man. I think it is far from lonely and depressing to believe this as I have to put my faith in the here and now and the rest of humanity not a sweet hereafter.

My childhood was not anymore traumatic than anyone elses - my relationship with my lapsed catholic Dad and fervently atheist mum was good thank you - and when I have an amazing experience such as Childbirth - I thank 'mother nature' for being so beautiful and not some beardy in the sky (sorry but it does annoy me).

To be honest it is pointless for me to vent in this way - I should just go and buy this book - after all I might hate it! Wouldn't changeI felt though

HM "and calls for Pastafarianism to be taught in science classrooms" I just about spat my coffee out at that.