Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Went to a talk by the Bishop of Durham lats night about Dawkin's the God Delusion and I was not impressed.

51 replies

Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 22:25

Me and DP being the only two athiests in there and possibly the only two who had read it, his misrepresntaions and at one point, outright lie, did not endear me to his argument.

OP posts:
Pruners · 16/01/2008 22:27

Message withdrawn

Original poster
Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 22:30

No, it would have spoilt many a night and I didn';t have it in me.

DP did ask him if he would at least recommend that his congregation read it, to which he basically answered 'no'.

OP posts:
UnquietDad · 16/01/2008 22:32

He'd read it, I assume?

Surely if he thinks it's rubbish then the god he believes in can't possibly be harmed by it? In which case why not let people read it?

savedbygrace · 16/01/2008 22:38

Here's a good book to read:

The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths, by David Robertson (Christian Focus) isbn - 1845502612.

It was one of three books of the month in our church in December! Hope it answers some of your questions.

(Our church recomennded it assuming that people in the congregation had read the Dawkins book. As ignorance is not bliss; and how can we challenge others opinions if we are not familiar with their arguments)

UnquietDad · 16/01/2008 22:40

But does it actually "answer" anything that Dawkins himself has not already addressed? No "refutation" of him which I have yet read manages to do this.

Original poster
Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 22:48

The thing I found very alarming UQD was that he was advocating all faith, even fundamentalism - he was being all mealy mouthed about it - couldn;t say that other religions were as good as their faith, while at the same time saying that that Islamic fundamentalism was bad, but that is wasb;t really religion either..(Basicaly they are deluded but we should use them while we can for our own agenda - as if Islamists haven;t been doing that to them for the last decade, and are winning!

It was all over the place but he was preaching to the converted so didn't have to try to hard. Even at one point said that christians shouldn't try to explain thiungs like the resurrection in 'enlightenment terms' ot tale the enlightenment bait to argue from rationality as that was missing the point of faith.

How backward can you get?

OP posts:
FarcicalAlienQueen · 16/01/2008 22:51

but MT = I as a Christian don't feel the need to "explain" the resurrection - as it IS a part of my faith - and that it was faith is all about!

mesaloca · 16/01/2008 22:52

You can have a read of one of the letters from david Robertson's book here

Original poster
Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 22:53

Sorry, many typos...or take the enlightenment bait to argue from rationality as that was missing the point of faith

The attack was mainly ad hominem - Dawkins and Hitchins writing is apparently very 'shrill' because, and I paraphrase, this is what often happens when people who want to believe what they are saying is true but know deep down that it isn't...

OP posts:
UnquietDad · 16/01/2008 22:53

There seems to be a lot more of that sort of thing around these days.

I was arguing with someone the other day who was claiming that relgiion wasn't such a "big deal" 25-30 years ago and that it had only really stepped up a gear now as a response to - wait for it - "militant atheism." Oh yes, all those hardcore atheists going out there spreading the bad news.

He wouldn't have it that it was a combination of the information society and - given that we were about the same age - the fact that, as kids, we didn't really think to question it.

UnquietDad · 16/01/2008 22:55

My favourite quote about atheism at the moment comes not from Dawkins but from Sam Harris, his US mind-mate.

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

Pruners · 16/01/2008 22:58

Message withdrawn

Original poster
Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 22:58

Hello Richard, nice to hear your shrill voice! You grace us with your presence

The Bishop also said that Hitchens was mortified to be confronted by Dr Cary in a restaurant in Washington DC after God Is Not Great was published, and spent an embarrassed night avoiding any conversation, something that is patently not true as that conversation has been published.

OP posts:
Original poster
Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 23:01

The fact that the 'militant' strain is tempered by the fact that all of these people have said that if overwhelming evidence to the contrary (i.e. that there were a god) should present irself, they would follow that evidence!

OP posts:
UnquietDad · 16/01/2008 23:03

MT - yup, as scientists often do, of course - great anecdote in TGD about this very thing which you may recall.

Pruners · 16/01/2008 23:04

Message withdrawn

Original poster
Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 23:05

Yes, thankyou!

OP posts:
UnquietDad · 16/01/2008 23:05

Of course, if Dawkins really didn't matter then the Bish wouldn't have mentioned him. The establishment must be rattled even to feel they have to "refute" him!

UnquietDad · 16/01/2008 23:10

Let's not bash the bishop. It's good that he'd actually read it - I wonder how many churchmen have? - but he should still allow other people to do the same thing, no matter how strongly he disagrees with the Prof!

Pruners · 16/01/2008 23:15

Message withdrawn

UnquietDad · 16/01/2008 23:20

I got there in the end but it did take me until about May! I was making sure I read it properly - such a temptation to skim but I didn't. And I read the footnotes too. DW said "are you looking up the words you don't understand?" Cheeky wife.

candypandy · 16/01/2008 23:27

I don't know why the Church needs to have a go at Dawkins either. Haven't read it .. disqualify me from commenting? Read a few bits though. I've known about four or five different ways of disproving the existence of God for twenty years or so. It does mean believing two things at the same time, two self-contradictory things. There's a central logical fallacy.

But it just doesn't stop me. "Passes all understanding" and all that. It's kind of the point.

Pruners · 16/01/2008 23:30

Message withdrawn

Original poster
Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 23:32

Dawkins et al are scientists and are reacting to the psudoscientific attack by creationists/creation 'scientists' who have been trying to encroach on science for years. Their's is a counter strike not a primary one - of course it is contigous with the rise of regious fundamatalism too.

OP posts:
UnquietDad · 16/01/2008 23:32

Funnily enough I've never argued that I can disprove the existence of God. I've always thought it to be logically impossible to prove a "non". In the same way, I never ask theists to "prove" their faith, as no proof they can offer will ever satisfy us both.

Dawkins argues - sensibly - that you just have to argue for it being very, very unlikely, and live your life with that in mind.

Even if I allowed a 1% chance that God might exist - which is hugely more than, if I sat down and thought about it, I might allow - no way is that enough to devote my life to worshipping it. I'd need to have 30% before I'd even take a punt. It's a bit like betting on England to win the World Cup. Right now you'd probably get tough odds on that - maybe 50-1. Who's going to risk their life savings on 50-1? Not me...