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
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Dawkins - God Delusion....

228 replies

squidette · 30/10/2006 17:30

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.

OP posts:
beatieBoo · 31/10/2006 08:15

When Sophable writes

"haven't you just experienced that absolute sense of being part of something huge, connected with and to everything?"

No not really. I have moments when I am awestruck and those moments I would acredit to biology.

For those who believe in God, how can you be so certain that the Gods of other religions aren't the real truth? Dawkins says not believeing in any God is just one step further becaus a person who has faith in a partuclar God does not believe in the existence of other gods?

DominiConnor · 31/10/2006 09:09

No bossykate, I'm saying that if you give a book saying "X is rubbish" to any set of people who make a living from it, they won't be your friends. It's quite symmetrical. When evangelicals write books saying evolution is wrong, biologists give them short shrift.
Of course you can believe in both evolution and the Abrahamic God, it's "intelligent" design that doesn't fit.
ID has God as someone with more power than intelligence, and who actively tries to deceive humanity. That may of course be true, but I'm not sure there's any large Christian sect who say that.

Pruni · 31/10/2006 09:39

Message withdrawn

Pruni · 31/10/2006 09:43

Message withdrawn

hunkermunster · 31/10/2006 09:57

I think I'm a Pastafarianist.

I'm going to get a small silver FSM for the back of my car.

saintAugustine · 31/10/2006 10:00

i for one would love to be patronised. Please patronise me. I have read with interest the whole thread. i read many posts twice.

Am i right in thinking the debate here is whether one is qualified enough to comment in favour or against and what defines qualified. There are others debating the debate about the existence - but not many and intermittently and a debate about atheism being a faith.

What essentially used to be great discussion has re-appeared on mumnet with a scorpian sting. highly educated one upmanship with venom. Certainly more interesting than the usual P&T spaces, but sad to see a wise group of mumsnetters name calling...surrounded by the most wonderful use of language.

oh and then theres DC using the pre built platform as per.

bloss · 31/10/2006 10:02

Message withdrawn

Pruni · 31/10/2006 10:08

Message withdrawn

saintAugustine · 31/10/2006 10:12

pruni your not qualified. shut it.

saintAugustine · 31/10/2006 10:12

meant to add

Pruni · 31/10/2006 10:14

Message withdrawn

KathyDCLXVI · 31/10/2006 10:15

Bit disturbed by this thread - my favourite MNers are fighting with each other

I think Dawkins does actually anticipate and engage with most of the objections raised on this thread. Whether he does so satisfactorily is another question and I would be really interested in what people thought about this, but unfortunately to do so you'd have to shell out £15 or however much it is and devote twelve or so hours to reading the book and it probably isn't worth the effort.

Pruni · 31/10/2006 10:20

Message withdrawn

KathyDCLXVI · 31/10/2006 10:25

Is Lalla very actressy? I would probably find that more annoying tbh.

Does anyone else think there is something strangely appropriate about the fact that he married one of Dr Who's assistants? (She was the second person to play Romana, after her regeneration.)

flack · 31/10/2006 10:32

Kathy, I'd like to read this book (and The End of Faith) but I fear I'd be bored because it'd be preaching to the already converted. Is that how you felt? Am not very good at deep philosophy.

I don't see how anyone can be deemed unqualified to comment on theology. The nature of faith is that people believe in spite of the lack of credible proof. Protestantism (and Islam, and maybe other religions) emphasise the individual's relationship with God... everyone and anyone is qualified to comment. If Dawkins can't help because of his background but to bring scientific scrutiny to the concept of "God", so much the better. If you're religious you must believe that he's entitled to, it's an individual relationship with God that brings salvation and generates "faith", no?

KathyDCLXVI · 31/10/2006 10:36

Flack, yes it was a bit - I suppose that's why I didn't finish it. (Has anyone on here read all of it?)
And don't worry, no-one could accuse it of being deep .

KathyDCLXVI · 31/10/2006 10:37

(sorry that sounds a bit snotty - what I mean is, you definitely don't need a background in philosophy to understand it.)

moaningpaper · 31/10/2006 10:40

SaintAugustine: If this thread is just name-calling and vemon, why bother reading it twice? (All seems fairly jolly to me)

moaningpaper · 31/10/2006 10:46

By the way, if you want to read any academic critiques of Dawkins from a well-respected theologian/philosopher, the chap to read is Keith Ward. Google search the both of them and you will come up with some interesting work.

Heathcliffscathy · 31/10/2006 10:47

tinker, i have experienced what i choose to name god many many times. but i have massive doubts as to it's existence. I believe that true faith makes room for doubt, welcomes it, welcomes questioning welcomes growth and change. for me agnosticism feels far more reasoned a position in that it has room for doubt than atheism.

how can anyone absolutely know anything? i have experienced what I call god. but i don't 'know' it exists except insofar as my experience continues to show me that.

atheism is so unscientific in that respect in that it does not allow for doubt: atheists 'know' there is no god. there is no room there for questions, doubts, subtlety in fact. further atheism strikes me as a no rather than a yes or maybe.

sorry if i patronised before or now.

saintAugustine · 31/10/2006 10:52

well morning paper - that would be becuase i didn't understand it the first time - and have other things to do - is why i am not reading some again for a third time.

perhaps we should debate the term "jolly" what you term jolly is not necessarily the base from which everyone else should term jolly.

kidding.

saintAugustine · 31/10/2006 10:54

at least agnostics say " i'll change mi mind when have proof"

which isn't the point ...but still

Heathcliffscathy · 31/10/2006 11:18

here is mr ward moaningpaper and a very fine article it is too.

beatieBoo · 31/10/2006 11:43

I think you have to consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster to understand how an Atheist or Secular Humanist or non-believer (or whatever) regards the idea of there being a God.

If I had been born on an island where there was no religion, how would I know about god? If me and the other islanders received a visitor one year telling us about this 'God' why would we have any more reason to believe the visitor's assertions about this invisible being than we would if another visitor turned up telling us about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I know it must sound arrogant to say we 'know' there is no god, but until there is evidence, we can be as certain there is no god as we can be certain there are no ghosts. People are allowed to say they don't believe in ghosts, there are no ghosts, without fear of being criticised for not keeping their mind open to doubt.

moaningpaper · 31/10/2006 11:45

Perhaps Beatie, we should rather question why there ARE no islands where people don't believe in God?

Swipe left for the next trending thread