Richard's Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

[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!

[Bathsheba]

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.

[AliB]

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

[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.

[Bathsheba]

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.

[Visitor6]

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)

[Bathsheba]

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 (LOL is secularity a word??? My word checker doesn't seem to recognise it.)

[bon]

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.