Richard's Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

Is or has anyone reading or read this book?

Personally I have never felt more enlightened and free than after having read it. :dance: I finally feel able to cast of the shackles of my agnosticism and embrace humanism and reason. I am really keen on hearing from others who have had their consciousness raised by Dawkins. That said I am not really interested in this being a debate about religion - I am already a member of another forum devoted to the subject (I can PM people the details if they are interested) but rather just want to rejoice with other BB members about how cool this book is.

Mods feel free to move this to the book discussion thread if you feel it is more appropriate. I didn't want to put it in the "Religion and Spirituality" section because atheism is really the absence of belief and faith.

I read this a few years back and didn't particularly enjoy the book. I thought it wasn't very well put together, the arguments quite loose and lacking in much substance. The tone of arrogance made it really hard to read. It didn't have any affect on my beliefs (I was not religious prior to reading). I didn't come from a religious background so did not really benefit much from the book having already worked through most of what was discussed.

I am continually re-evaluating how I feel on the topic. I don't really agree with any of the formal religions but I'm not sure I believe this is it either anymore. The main thing that has brought me back to the topic is falling pregnant and having my daughter. I certainly have a hope that this is not it because it breaks my heart to feel there is a limit on the time I have with the people I love. The more logic side of me thinks this is more a mourning of the fact than a disbelief in its truth.

I have been to a few forums on the discussion of religion. I think it is such an interesting topic (as well as history and culture, it all seems to intertwine) and still maintain the thought that the original science was religion, a way to explain that which we did not understand. The rational side of me sees it as quite redundant but the emotional side longs for the reassurance and security that religion can have.

TBH I don't see Dawkins as someone who has no faith. It seems to me that to spend so much time (and money) arguing for athiesm is a form of faith - he has as much faith in Athiesm as the most dogmatic member of any other faith. To me dogmatism is always unattractive regardless of what faith promts it.

Hmm, I couldn't get through it cos of his attitude! I felt I was being yelled or sneered at.

I should probably give it another go I spose...

I agree with what you say Brontide - & yes Lulu I felt a bit like I was being yelled at too!

However, I enjoyed it - it was interesting to me his views. It didn't alter my own but it enlightened me to another thought process...

I've had this on my bookshelf for ages now... this thread has reminded me & I remember how keen I was to read it when I first bought it!

Will pick it up & report back at a later date ;)

:

---

The rational side of me sees it as quite redundant but the emotional side longs for the reassurance and security that religion can have.

---

Jitterbug it was exactly this sentiment that ha me holding on to my agnosticism for so long, but I have come to feel comfortable with more humanist principles and actually don't feel alone anymore. Personally it was my internal disquiet with religion that I think was causing my feelings of a lack of purpose, which is why for me discovering my atheism is like a rebirth.

Brontide I was thinking last night about what you said and I think the distinction would be that Dawkins would argue that science does not require faith, it requires an assessment of verifiable evidence. One of Dawkins' (and my personal) concerns with faith is that it tends to be seen as a virute in itself. People don't have to make a case for their faith; the fact that it is what they believe is seen to be enough to make it objectively valid. I used to have a debate with my stongly atheistic husband on this point. He would say "I have more respect for a man who saw his god for himself than someone who just "believes" or "feels" their faith, because at least the man was reliying on evidence". I know there are many ways to see/feel/experience a god and there are atheistic arguments which would question whether they were in fact "real: but do you get my drift? It is the idea that faith does not require any objective evidence that grates with me personally. There is a quote in the book that is appropriate here:"If somebody announces that it is part of his faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to "respect" it without question".

But I do agree with you all that he takes a very strong, if not militant tone in his book. My DH and I were discussing it this morning - it strongly turned him against the book even though he was already an atheist before he read it. But to me its like "gay pride" marches, or the freedom rides of the 1950s - people have to be at the forefront and push the envelope. Very few great changes in human society are wrought by being polite and nice.

Has anyone read Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", by the way? That is next on my reading list - I have always been too afraid to read it in case I turn into a vegetarian LOL!

Oh I love these discussions and I can't get into it right now as I have to get to school...

However, Rory I do see Faith as a virtue. To hold Faith is a precious thing (IMO).
Just to feel as you put it - to feel is everything to me! If I cannot feel something I am nothing (to me)...

So, it's a very different way of looking at the world. I had this very worldly boyfriend once who was a professor of law. He used to say that he couldn't believe in anything he couldn't touch. Whilst I understand what he said - to me there is much that we cannot touch but can only feel... I can't touch the love I have for my children but it is real... I have Faith when I am angry or disappointed or sad with them that I love them. That belief in my love gets me through...

Do you see where I am coming from? (I know it's jumbled as I am literally walking out of the door!)

I see Faith as that too. Though I think my Faith is quite tangible also!

I sat down in Borders one Saturday and tried really hard to read this book LOL His tone didn't bother me so much. C.S Lewis takes on a similar tone in his theological books (eg Mere Christianity). So that didn't stop me... it was more that nothing that he said struck a chord. Intuitively I just kinda kept having this same feeling that something fundamental in his message was not right. It was a similar feeling to meeting my stepfather for the first time. This smiling man who seemed friendly enough on the surface just made my hackles go up (he turned out to be abusive and violent, interesting). So with regard to the nature of "faith": I do tend to have faith in my ability to intuit. You can't quantify intuition but no one can deny that people depend on it on a daily basis. It was also interesting to note that my stepfather seemed to have a talent of deception... he had my mother's solicitor conned too... he was a drinking buddy of my stepfather and thought that this violent abuser was a great bloke (who was only proven to be otherwise when my stepfather went on to embezzle (sp?) a company and vanish with the proceeds... it was only then the solictor "got it").

I tried my hardest matey... I love my faith to be challenged as you probably know... but this particular book just didn't seem to address the right issues or something.... not sure what it was.

ETA: The thing that kept occurring to me (like others have alluded to) is that Dawkins didn't seem to acknowledge that NOT having faith (in something that can't be proven either way).. IS actually an act of faith. There is no hard and fast evidence to disprove God (and when people who are faaaar more intelligent than I am like Albert Einstein, tend to believe that God is highly probable then that almost works for me LOL when it comes to being logical about it). So if Dawkins could have written with a little less conviction and a little more acknowledgment (humility?) that what he is saying is just his personal faith system i guess i could have given his other ideas a bit more consideration.

RoryRory, I completely agree with the sentiments in your first post. I read the book last year and it was like a weight off. I realised I couldn't have half a foot in both camps... finally I didn't feel ashamed of being an 'atheist' and felt I could embrace it! Atheist pride indeed.

In terms of the content and tone, well it's some time since I read it but I do recall feeling quite exhausted and battered by his arguments during the first half. It's like he methodically breaks down every possible argument or doubt you could have and puts it to rest. The arguments did grate here and there but overall they were consistent with my thoughts about the social, anthropological, psychological, cultural political etc aspects of organised religion.

But then the second half of the book was much more reassuring, it seeks to reassure us that there is 'something' other than organised religion around which we can model our moral compass.

There is so much pressure to respect religious beliefs, and as a whole (at least in the circles I move in) people are very respectful. For example, someone in the group at work may be talking about their child being christened, or their visit to the see Pope at Randwick, or their husband who's studying to be a Minister, and people would be interested and ask questions. Nobody would ever scoff and say, "you're mad, it's all a fairy story!". (Actually I lie, I did once say almost that very thing, never again!!!!!!!!!). However at the same time, it would seem disrespectful to these people's beliefs to discuss atheism or Richard Dawkins and I would never raise these issues in 'polite company'. I would feel ashamed or embarrassed, or think I would hurt people's feelings. Or perhaps I'm just not up for a debate!

Don't know if I'm making sense but I think my point is that we tiptoe around the issue of religion and atheism in 'polite company' and Dawkin's book helped me realise that there are plenty of others out there like me who feel the same way but don't talk about it. So if you do want to have a good old natter about these issues RoryRory, Richard Dawkins ' official website contains an extensive forum where you can discuss the book or current issues with respect to atheism.

Thanks for the thread

:

---

There is a quote in the book that is appropriate here:"If somebody announces that it is part of his faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to "respect" it without question".

---

I have no problem with that at all. In fact I think it is wonderful because the flip side of that is no respect/religious intolerance which leads to very nasty places.

The topics covered in this discussion are really interesting :) I hope you don't mind Rory that I have started another thread which makes some of these topics more accessible to the broader BB community, eg the notion of "faith"... but not just as it applies to religion. HERE it is.

I hope you know that I'm not out to prove/disprove anything... I'm just up for having lots of ideas thrown into the mix.

I wish I had the tolerance to read Dawkins. Not at the moment.

I saw him on the ABC. Interesting man.

His apparent intolerance of those with faith is no less dangerous, than his own beliefs. when it comes to matters of faith spirituality and the notion of deity, there is someone who always has to complicate it. The apparent notion that the most learned and published are the most apt at dissecting it and deciding for the rest of us what our dogma should be.

Everyone like to be heard. He just happens to get the opportunity.

The mere title "The God Delusion" speaks volumes.......

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/index.html (A very interesting site from someone a little more special than Dawkins)

I agree that using the word "Delusion" in the title seems quite contemptuous/condescending... I don't think anyone responds to being called "deluded" very well. In that way he does himself (I probably should say ideas) a disservice. I am always skeptical of people who hope to change anothers ideas by putting down the opposing ideas using contempt. Negative emotion should be kept out of a good debate as far as possible... well, I think so. Maybe he should have focused on putting a more positive slant on his ideas... something that reflects the feelings Rory has experienced perhaps: maybe "The Freedom of Secularity" or something like that :dunno: (LOL is secularity a word??? My word checker doesn't seem to recognise it.)

If faith required objective evidence it would not be faith. IMO simply living our lives requires a leap of faith. I think science itself is a faith that involves a belief system - forming hypthoseses about things that you believe to be true, but cannot prove.

Great link SB... especially this: (quote by Albert Einstein, from a letter)

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. However, I am also not a "Freethinker" in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature." It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality." Sincerely yours, Albert Einstein.

And also supports Bon's comments about science requring faith too. I just don't see how "faith" is such a dirty word to Dawkins :dunno:. But it's all very interesting. I guess if the book is a best-seller then a significant amount of people must think this way so it's always helpful to understand another majority perspective.... I just don't think the intuition/faith of billions should be discounted as a "delusion".... especially when Dawkins can't honesty claim to disprove the delusion... it just makes him out to sound arrogant by making such a blatant false claim. If I was an atheist I'd probably be quite annoyed by this book LOL kinda like how extreme religious fundamentalists annoy me... for giving religion a bad name.

Like I said, I wasn't really interested in debating god vs no god(s) so I didn't post in the religion forum. But in the spirit of my new atheism and humanism I will never shut down debate and questioning of my ideas and conclusions. I would, though, like to return to the topic of seeing if there are others in BB who have felt enlightened by Dawkins' book.

AliB are you a member of the RDF forum? I am Roryrory there too :dance:

Bath and Flowerchild its interesting what you said about the lack of "meaning" being a stumbling block - I am very near the end of the book now and Dawkins is very much a scientist in that he doesn't very well address the "feeling" side of life. But he does make the point that the fact that faith is good and makes people feel their life has meaning and direction doesn't make a god any more or less real. (Bath I think this is why faith is held in such scorn by him) In the same way, believing and wanting your wife to be alive doesn't make her so if she has just died of cancer, for example. I would be really interested in reading some atheistic writing by someone with more flair for the emotional side of writing. That said, it is probably why I am going to read more on humanism generally.

:

---

I think science itself is a faith that involves a belief system - forming hypthoseses about things that you believe to be true, but cannot prove.

---

Bon one of the fundamentals of science is testing hypotheses. If they are disproven then they are discarded. The question of how much proof is needed to prove a hypothesis is a matter of degree, and atheists would say that there is more evidence that there is no god or gods than there is not.

I don't really see how saying Einstein believed in a god makes it any more true (aside from that there is eqaully a lot of evidence that Einstein did not believe in god - you can read much of his stuff either way). One of the most liberating things I found about the book was that it encourages critical thought regardless of who is saying the thing. So just because your parents have raised you to believe a thing, doesn't make it so. Children in Ancient Greece were raised to worship Apollo, Demeter, etc while Incan kids were sacrificed on the altar of the Sun God (ie: a ball of hydrogen). Just because person X says it is so doesn't make it so. Evidence makes it so.

Bath I suspect Dawkins has been radicalised and pushed into his fury with religion by circumstance. In his previous books he has tried to be neutral and not point out his atheism and his own words have been seized by religious people as "proof" (in the same way Einsteins words have been??) So I think every word in his book was deliberately written to protect against this happening. Not saying it makes it right, just that I think that is where it is coming from.

The unfortunate part about discussions about belief systems or the absence of same is that they often become polarised.

The notion that Dawkins must publish his own "beliefs" grounded in science or not, is no different to a zealot purporting that "faith" is a true belief system.

I get concerned as to why someone has to disprove the existence of a deity.

Whilst one rationalises that proof in the scientific environment enforce a belief or theory it still becomes a belief system for some, that the only way something can be right is through scientific evidence.

Rather than spending time on how one belief system is right, others, perhaps he could spend time on how they could live harmoniously? Or would he need evidence that it could work before the hypothesis was tested?
(and using my own assessment I respect totally his right to his beliefs and opinions ;))

One day I'll pick up the abridged version...........

Hi Roryrory

Yep, I've read The God Delusion (a while ago now), it didn't really open me up to anything because I was already a pretty committed atheist, so Dawkins was preaching to the converted with me. But I have loved some of his other books - The Blind Watchmaker was great and gave great explanations for how life on earth has come to be with no creator. I did find Dawkins' tone in TGD a bit full on really, and I thought it's the kind of thing that would be more likely to put off people who weren't already atheists. But I think it's great that TGD and all the other atheist literature out there now is making being atheist a bit more socially acceptable - I don't feel *so* much like I have to hide it now, although I tend not to say anything about it unless someone specifically asks me about my beliefs. Have you read 'God is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens - he's a witty guy and I enjoyed his book.

As for Animal Liberation - that was a book that changed my life! I read it when I was at uni and thought that if I agreed with his argument at the end of the book I would become a vegetarian. I ended up agreeing with him and became a vegetarian immediately. He's a great thinker, I believe. Lots of his books are worth reading.

If you're interested in looking into the animal side of things, there is a great book called 'Rattling the Cage' by Steven Wise who teaches animal rights law at Harvard. Singer is a utilitarian, but Wise argues the case for abolishing animals' legal status as property, and for attributing them certain inalienable rights.

Thanks for that Devon, I think the Blind Watchmaker is next for me.

[QUOTE]I get concerned as to why someone has to disprove the existence of a deity./QUOTE] SB I think it is being done so that, if nothing else, those who don't believe in a god are expected to live their lives as if there was. For example, religious arguments about the sanctity of human life make no difference to an atheist who wants and abortion. Nor should they.