Richard's Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

[Jellyfish]

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.

[Phteven]

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.

[Lulu]

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...

[Inanna]

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...

[Hollybolly]

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

[Roryrory]

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!

[Inanna]

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!

[Phteven]

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.