How many theists on this board have actually read "The God Delusion"?

[jgraz]

If you have, what was your impression of the arguments it presented? Did it have any effect on your views of religion?

It seems we often spend a lot of bandwidth talking about the personalities of various atheist authors, and quite a bit less time talking about their ideas. I'm interested in how these ideas are received by someone who hasn't already bought into Dawkins' main premise.

[aquart]

1. Why would I care what someone else thinks of my beliefs?

It's not his fucking business. It's mine.

[jgraz]

2. So that's a "No", then...

[Kiouni]

3. I read it and I don't support it

I agree with him in atheism but not in his main premise of obliterating religion. I'm a buddhist and I greatly respect the practice of faith. Keep in mind a buddhist using the word faith and a Christian using it are two different worlds.

His notes on evolution and memes are really interesting but I have read some better arguments. Dawkins sights a lot of sources and its better to just read those and make your own opinion.

Back to why I disagree with Dawkins plan to get rid of all religion. His way won't work. I know that he says he doesn't have better idea for the future but that we can have one without oppressive religions. And i agree but not to the extent he sees it.

I think practices that build the individual like studying, meditating, chanting, breathing exercises, etc. are important. These moments in everyday life we take to find clarity and organize our lives are critical in our development throughout life. Combine this with friends and family and you have a community of practitioners and pretty soon you have religion. Dawkins spent so much time in his book trying to convince the readers that the word atheist carried a social astigmatism well so does religion. Buddhists are atheists but they practice a religion.

Sorry for the length but I have recently dealt with this next issue. If you are supportive and not even pushy about atheism or the flaws of Christianity etc. on someone they will still know that you are being condescending to them because you absolutely do not believe in a god and only want them to change. There can be no dialogue it would be one sided. YOu have to see the word god as just that a word. Bring everything the say as being outwardly projected and move it into yourself. You are god. You can still have conversations with them and not be a religious snob. Because like it or not all religions and all people have something to learn from each other. Each one is a lesson on a circular curriculum. They will all come in you studies again and again.

[jgraz]

8. I don't think that he's actually trying to obliterate religion

although he might admit to a "magic wand" desire, he's pretty clear about the infeasibility of that goal. I think his real argument is against the special deference to religion that our society seems to engage in.

I also think that when he argues against "religion", he -- like most atheists -- is arguing against Christianity (and, to a lesser extent, Islam). Many of his objections simply don't make sense if you try to apply them to buddhism.

I do agree, however, with your comment on his sources. The bibliography is one of the most valuable parts of the book. The writings he cites on the evolutionary origins of morality are especially interesting.

[Kiouni]

12. I guess that's my point

if he doesn't think we can do away with all aspects of religion but wants Christianity gone then why isn't he a buddhist? He has a one liner in the beginning about how its a philosophy of life, then why not practice it?

But I guess I am no better then him for wanting everyone to be buddhist, huh? Ha!

[jgraz]

14. An Evangelical Buddhist -- that's a new one :)

I think many atheists are fairly sympathetic to buddhism and other forms of eastern mysticism. I honestly don't consider it to be the same sort of thing as the salvationist faiths.

[The Traveler]

4. Haven't read that one

And am unlikely to. I have no problem with those who hold to an atheistic viewpoint except when they assume in their dealings with others that their position confers upon them the aura of superiority. (I know several people of faith who give me the same problem.) To be honest, the title of that book repels me for that reason.

Further, while I am more than willing to share my experiences and thoughts on these matters with anyone, I am reluctant to attach over much significance to them. While they are of paramount importance to me (they are, after all, my experiences) I have no idea how much "truth" they reveal. ("Truth" turns out to be a very slippery concept in the first place, when examined closely. In in any event those experiences have left me with more questions than answers.)

In the final analysis, I can reject my own experiences and accept a completely unproven assertion that all phenomena and experience is approachable through the scientific method, or I can retain my experiences be left holding a bunch of questions for which I have no definitive answers. I prefer the latter option. Others would be comfortable with the former, and I have no argument with them for that choice.

[Kiouni]

5. I read Deepak Chopra's

latest books about life and death and he speaks about how prayer has been scientifically proved to help sick people. But funny Dawkins states the opposite. How can this be? Chopra unfortunately posted his source in his notes so I looked it up. His source was himself! It was his test in a pseudo-science reality were there is no peer review. I tell you one thing, I trust Dawkins.

[physioex]

6. Chopra is nothing but a scam.....

It's funny how people will loosen their purse strings for "enlightenment".....

[melody]

7. I don't trust Dawkins any more than I trust Chopra

Dawkins is as blinded by his own faith structure as Chopra is by his.

I'm a true agnostic -- unfortunately, we live in an age of true believers (the Dawkins mechanists versus the theists)
who posit far beyond the data they have in order to provide support for their respective belief systems. Dawkins is
every bit as much a blinded believer as the most right-wing fundamentalist.

[roguevalley]

9. no. extremists at both ends of a question turn me off.

[jgraz]

11. Hmm...what's your evidence for Dawkin's "faith"?

I've seen a few theistic reviews of his writings that make that specious argument, but it's very difficult for me to see how they arrive at that conclusion from a careful reading of the text.

Any particular quotes you'd like to point me at that seem particularly "fundamentalist" to you?

[melody]

13. the whole bedrock of his thinking

His assertion that western thinking is "right" ("right because it works") and all others "wrong",
for one. He is a prisoner of his own conventions, everywhere he turns. There are too many citations
to make.

Also, his very assertion in the "right because it works" mentality goes against the scientific method
in that the assertions are scientific conceits that posit far, far beyond the data we have, which is at
best inconclusive, particularly when one starts a dogfight argument between western and eastern thinking.

[jgraz]

15. In other words, you've never read a thing he's written

I kinda thought so.

[melody]

16. In other words, I've read everything he's written

And I do mean everything. I've even met him twice (briefly).

And his acolytes are almost always like you. lol

[jgraz]

17. Hardly an acolyte

I'm simply interested in people's opinions of his actual writings, not vague commentaries on what they think is going on in his head.

[melody]

18. You assert that you know what is going on in his head

I'm merely assessing the logical potency of his arguments. You're the one reading his mind. lol

I'd be happy to point you to numerous criticisms of Dawkins' work (some my own), but I'm not going to
write them all out for you here. lol

[jgraz]

21. You clearly understand my writing as well as you understand Dawkins'

I'm not interested in seeing ALL your citations or the numerous criticism you allude to. I'd be more than satisfied with ONE from the book I originally asked about.

You stated that he's as much a blinded believer as the right-wing fundies. Which part of "God Delusion" supports that assertion? This question really shouldn't be that hard to answer for someone who's read all of his writings (and even met him twice).

[toddaa]

31. Does he actually do this?

Haven't read much of Dawkins recent books, so I don't know if this is true or not. I do like Susan Blackmore's take on memes and their relation to Zen mediation, which she based largely on both Dennett's ideas on consciousness. I've always thought that Western scientific thinking was great for understanding the world around us and Eastern thinking was great at what to do next. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

[jgraz]

35. No

That's why I challenged her claim that she's actually read "The God Delusion". Dawkins makes many good arguments, some strange ones and does succeed in coming off as an arrogant prick once or twice, but he never has anything to say about western vs eastern philosphy.

In fact, the biggest criticism I can bring against the book is that it's too western-centric. Dawkins almost exclusively deals with the Anglican church and American Evangelicals. Whatever book melody is referring to, it's not "The God Delusion".


Edit: Order important word is

[toddaa]

39. Which is why I haven't bothered to read the book

I've watched his Root of Evil documentary, which was fixated on a Supreme Being that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship. The biggest criticism I have with Dawkins is his rather narrow focus on modern Christianity and Islam. Talk about shooting fish in barrel. What's strange is that his meme construct has so many strange possibilities in Zen. He needs to spend more time with his friend Susan Blackmore, then maybe he'd write a book called _The Self Illusion_. Now that I'd read.

[smirkymonkey]

47. I have read the book and I tend to agree with you.

I consider myself to be an agnostic as well and I found Dawkins to be a little cocksure and pompous in many of his assertions. He doesn't know what he doesn't know.

The problem is that most people are seriously uncomfortable with just NOT KNOWING. I don't think that taking a concrete position either way is as admirable as most people think. Sometimes, we humans need to recognize our limitations. Our "big" scientific brains are nearly as impressive as we think they are.

[Zynx]

10. Not familiar with that particular book.

I'm familiar with virtually every atheist argument out there. I've heard pretty much all of them in detail. They are solid arguments, but I just don't agree in the end.

[lvx35]

19. I heard him argue some of the ideas in it in an interview.

I wasn't too impressed, though I like Dawkins other work. He correctly states that the existence of God is unknowable by reason, but then argues that it is extremely unlikely that God exists, because if it is unlikely that random elements would come together to make a human (creationist argument) than how much more unlikely would it be that God comes through the same process?

Basically his argument convinces me of the unlikelyhood of the evolution of God, but that's about it...

[pnwmom]

20. I don't read Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly

or anyone who insults my views.

The title itself ("The God Delusion") is insulting to theists. I wouldn't get past it.

[Kiouni]

22. I read books that insult my views

I like to know the thought process be hind them. I read the god delusion and then I read Mere Christianity. I like to see where they all fit. If the books contradict with you views then thats even more reason to read them.

[jgraz]

24. The best books are the ones that actually *overturn* your views

I call that learning. The God Delusion is the kind of book that acts as a jumping-off point for any number of interesting areas of inquiry. I know I've got at least 10 of his sources down as new entries on the reading list.

[Kiouni]

25. I love the section on memes

i added a lot of those references to my list. In fact I'm reading "On Human Nature" now it was sourced a few times by Dawkins. It's about evolutionary social-biology and the evolutionary (micro) changes in the brain. Absolutely fascinating.

[jgraz]

23. I think you're confusing "insult" with "challenge"

Would you be insulted by a book titled "The Free-Market Delusion" or "The Cosmological Delusion"?

While the title is admittedly (and intentionally) provocative, it's not like the book's called "Fat, Ugly Christians". His premise is that faith in god is a false belief or opinion -- literally, a delusion. He backs up this premise with some fairly extensive, cogent arguments, which shows that his respect for the reader is orders of magnitude higher than Limpballs or O'Lielly.

[greenman3610]

26. the "religion" he wants to do away with is the phony kind

that people use, not to become more compassionate or
wise, but to protect themselves against fear of death and
the unknown, and what they suspect is their own
insignificance.

The real thing is simply kindness, and recognition
of your self in others. All else is twaddle.

[jgraz]

30. Apparently most people practice the phony kind, then.

What's the current stat on literal belief in the Genesis creation myth? Isn't it over 50% for the US?

[Meshuga]

27. I haven't read the book yet but

...it is in my queue of books to read (in my wish list).

I have read reviews and information about the book and from that I can say that I already have some views I agree with Dawkins and some that I disagree with him.

Give me a few weeks and I will gladly respond to this thread with my thoughts on the book.

[Evoman]

28. Lol.....I think that reading the Title and the Author's name is enough for people

to claim that they have "read" the fundie atheists book.

Person1: Blah blah blah..dawkins bully....blah blah blah...rid of all religion...blah blah blah

Evoman: *making no sense of the rant* Huh? Have you even read it?

Person1: Blah blah blah..fundie atheist..blah blah blah..not my religion...blah blah blah not like that.

Evoman: So...basically, no...you haven't read it.

Person1: Blah Blah Blah Blah why should I Blah blah blah he wants all religions banned blah blah

Evoman: *jumps off cliff*

[jgraz]

29. Thinking of joining you on the way down

Though I usually wait until they insist that I can't possibly understand Christianity until I've spent years and years studying the Bible.

Maybe they should change the titile of that book to "The God's-not-really-going-to-send-your-heathen-ass-to-hell Delusion", just to be fair.

[toddaa]

32. I'm an atheist who hasn't read it.

Shocking, I know. I've read his Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype. After that, I pretty much figured he was writing the same book over and over. His meme construct is interesting, but I've always considered it to be nothing more than a really clever metaphor. Besides, biology is too messy for me. I'd much rather read math or physics books.

[kwassa]

33. Why would a theist be attracted to a book called "The God Delusion"?

The title indicates disrespect to theists as it's premise.

Dawkins is preaching to the already converted, to the choir, so to speak.

(sorry for all the religious metaphors. They really are inescapable.)

[toddaa]

34. Yes or no

Your first criticism indicates you haven't read it. Your second indicates you have.

I'm so confused.

[jgraz]

36. I don't know about you, but "The Atheist Delusion" would make the top of my reading list

Some people like having their ideas challenged, some don't.

[kwassa]

40. Where is the challenge? You are already an atheist.

There is no challenge that I can see.

Am I wrong?

[jgraz]

43. In other words, a popular book that said that *Atheism* was a delusion

I'd be very interested in reading that, especially if it used scientific methods to attack my beliefs.

[jgraz]

37. It's funny that Dawkins gets so much attention on this board

when so few people seem to have read his book.

[Meshuga]

38. People get to read his interviews and quotes

They are provocative so people here talk about him and I'd say that is perfectly normal.

[kwassa]

41. Those few that have read him start thread after thread after thread ....

Makes him hard to ignore.

[jgraz]

42. It's actually a pretty good book

Well-written, passionate and a quick read. I'm surprised so few of the faithful have bothered to read it.

[MistressOverdone]

44. I read it and thought he was a clever writer

but most of his arguments were "same old same old" for this Christian. Nothing new, really.

No, it did not really change my personal faith in any way. It just let me peek a bit into someone's mind, and that's always a good thing. He writes passionately, although sometimes a bit clumsily.

But a worthwhile read.

[jgraz]

46. I liked his discussions of evolution much more than the atheism bits

It's actually a pretty decent survey of his views on darwinism.

[Meshuga]

45. I bought a copy at Barnes & Noble this weekend

I had it in my wish-list but I picked it up at the Best Seller shelf at a Barnes & Noble, then started reading it and couldn't help it but to buy the damn book.

I am reading another book at the moment, but Dawkins' book is the current official book of my bedroom's bathroom. So if I am in there that's the book I read. :-) Hopefully I will not get hemorrhoids from staying in the bathroom for too long. :hurts:

Anyway, I can tell you so far that I don't find it as offensive as I thought it was hyped to be and that there are great points I agree with and points I disagree with. I discovered that, according to Dawkins, I am not a theist (neither is my rabbi and most of my congregation for that matter) but I am somewhere between a pantheist and a deist who sometimes is a theist (depending on my mood and/or occasion).

I will go into the different points (perhaps start new threads) as I read the book.

Take care!