The God Delusion

[GurrenLagann]

Never read Dawkins' The God Delusion. I've really only read Hitchens', but only slightly enjoyed it. Though I've heard some good things about Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, and even better things (intellectually) about Dennett's Breaking the Spell.


That said, as I mentioned above I personally haven't much enjoyed "New Atheist" books like I have debates/discussions featuring intelligent atheists.

[Aroura33]

It was also my first "atheist" book, and I recall that overall, I liked it and agreed with most of it. Some years later, the only specific thing I remember is the scale. I think it was the first time I realized that belief was not all black and white, yes or no.

At the time I read it, I was a 4 or 5. Now I am a 6.9. I think being fully certain on something about which there can be no certainty is not a logical position, so I cannot imagine being a 7.

As long as we are recommending things to you, I recommend watching Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God". It is humurous, but insightful. It is aimed at intillect and emotion, and it was the first piece of media that made me realize I had started to lose my belief, too. The full version is on Youtube. I would google and link it for you, but I am on my portable, and it is just a pain on this thing.

[Brian37]

All you need to do to become an atheist is to honestly ask one question: What's a god?

Made up crap humans invent to ignore their finite existence.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

I thought The God Delusion was excellent.

It's a good book, but Hitchens' "God is Not Great" is better. I'd recommend reading it when you finish this one.

God is Not Great was ok, but I preferred The God Delusion. If you want the most bang for your buck I say Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation packs more into less, but perhaps only if have a christian upbringing/background

Agreed.  I enjoyed both, but I'd say Harris edges it by packing a lot more into a lot less.  I think I read Letter to a Christian Nation in a day.  That's no slight on Hitch, though...

[Seabear]

Follow it with "God is not Great" and "The End of Faith"

[leo]

I prefer the God delusion over God is not great . I'm a fan of Christopher Hitchens by the way . God isn't great is a fine book  .

[Krampus]

I started on this forum as a Christian, moving slowly to being an Agnostic. I have started to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and so far I have had a hard time putting it down. I will let you know if it pushes my over to Atheism or not in the end. Have any of you read it? What are you thoughts on it?

Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but his forays into philosophy of religion and theology are a dismal failure and should be an embarrassment to his fellow atheists. He had better leave those fields to the experts and focus on evolutionary theory.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I started on this forum as a Christian, moving slowly to being an Agnostic. I have started to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and so far I have had a hard time putting it down. I will let you know if it pushes my over to Atheism or not in the end. Have any of you read it? What are you thoughts on it?

Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but his forays into philosophy of religion and theology are a dismal failure and should be an embarrassment to his fellow atheists. He had better leave those fields to the experts and focus on evolutionary theory.

Dr. Dawkins does perfectly fine talking about those fields, as far as I can see. All he really says is that they're complete and utter bullshit, which is true.

[Plu]

I never had any issues with Dawkins' forays into religion and philosophy either. What's so bad about them?

[Krampus]

I never had any issues with Dawkins' forays into religion and philosophy either. What's so bad about them?

But I mean, he does not master the subtleties of theistic arguments in the analytic tradition, and does not deal very effectively with the intelligent design objections except with the absurd retort "who designed the designer?", and he hardly knows anything about liberal theology (he thinks that liberals are wrong on the score that they foster blind faith, which then gives rise to fundamentalism. But of course, liberal theologians are aware of their limits and their uncertainties, which makes them humble, while fundamentalists have absolute certainties and don't tolerate other worldviews. That's the real difference between them.). His summary of Atheism in history is laughable. His knowledge of the Bible is incredibly shallow, unfair and biased. One of the main problems of his case is selective reporting. He almost exclusively presents one side of the coin, and gives the evidence supporting his views, without much mentioning contrary evidence or qualifying his grand claims. Come on, Dawkins, stick to evolutionary biology and let philosophers and theologians argue in peace.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

But I mean, he does not master the subtleties of theistic arguments in the analytic tradition,

The only analytic tradition worth mastering is literary analysis.

and does not deal very effectively with the intelligent design objections except with the absurd retort "who designed the designer?"

It's not absurd to point out big, gaping holes in the other side's logic.

and he hardly knows anything about liberal theology (he thinks that liberals are wrong on the score that they foster blind faith, which then gives rise to fundamentalism. But of course, liberal theologians are aware of their limits and their uncertainties, which makes them humble, while fundamentalists have absolute certainties and don't tolerate other worldviews. That's the real difference between them.).

Translation: The difference between a liberal and fundamentalist theologian is that the liberal at least knows he's full of shit.

His summary of Atheism in history is laughable.

And demonstrable.

His knowledge of the Bible is incredibly shallow, unfair and biased.

Translation: He understands the Bible better than the theists preaching it.

One of the main problems of his case is selective reporting. He almost exclusively presents one side of the coin, and gives the evidence supporting his views, without much mentioning contrary evidence or qualifying his grand claims.

There is no evidence supporting the other side of the argument. No, seriously, there is nothing for him to present, or he would present it.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but his forays into philosophy of religion and theology are a dismal failure and should be an embarrassment to his fellow atheists. He had better leave those fields to the experts and focus on evolutionary theory.

I see where you are coming from, but I disagree.  The God Delusion is very much an entry-level text with regard to atheism and the critique of religion.  As such, I think it is extremely valuable in that it gives the layman a gradient up which to move towards more in-depth texts, and a taste of the arguments to come.  You wouldn't expect someone with no previous experience to immediately understand the ins and outs of midrash exegesis or wade right into Kierkegaard would you?

If you come from background of philosophy or theological education then yes, TGD will probably disappoint, but I know a great many people that have found it illuminating and wanted to investigate the topic further.  For that reason alone, I think it is valuable.

[Krampus]

Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but his forays into philosophy of religion and theology are a dismal failure and should be an embarrassment to his fellow atheists. He had better leave those fields to the experts and focus on evolutionary theory.

I see where you are coming from, but I disagree.  The God Delusion is very much an entry-level text with regard to atheism and the critique of religion.  As such, I think it is extremely valuable in that it gives the layman a gradient up which to move towards more in-depth texts, and a taste of the arguments to come.  You wouldn't expect someone with no previous experience to immediately understand the ins and outs of midrash exegesis or wade right into Kierkegaard would you?

If you come from background of philosophy or theological education then yes, TGD will probably disappoint, but I know a great many people that have found it illuminating and wanted to investigate the topic further.  For that reason alone, I think it is valuable.

Sure, it's great to write popular books and to explain tough issues in words laypeople can understand. So I don't expect Dawkins to write in the style of a philosophy paper.

The problem is that even as an introduction, TGD fails. To write a popular book, you need to at least master the topic the book is about. When Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker, we felt he mastered the field. This is not so in TGD, in which he wields empty rhetoric, gross oversimplifications, cheap arguments and biased accounts.

There are great defenses of atheism out there, some for a popular readership, some for scholars, but TGD is not one of them.

[Poison Tree]

When Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker, we felt he mastered the field. This is not so in TGD, in which he wields empty rhetoric, gross oversimplifications, cheap arguments and biased accounts.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[Colanth]

The problem is that even as an introduction, TGD fails. To write a popular book, you need to at least master the topic the book is about. When Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker, we felt he mastered the field. This is not so in TGD, in which he wields empty rhetoric, gross oversimplifications, cheap arguments and biased accounts.

I can see how someone who doesn't understand how vacuous religion actually is could think that cogent arguments against it are "empty rhetoric, gross oversimplifications, cheap arguments and biased accounts" when they're actually cogent arguments against religion.

There are great defenses of atheism out there

How theistic of you.  Atheism doesn't need "defense", it's the default position.  The theistic assertion needs defense - and there is none, nor has any ever been presented (and I'm going back to the neolithic, at least).

It appears that you see yourself as a very well educated person addressing a forum full of the uninformed.  If that's the case, be prepared to bear the brunt of a lot of facts that you may find very uncomfortable.  I'm not the only one posting here who knows a little something about religion.