Richard's Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

[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.

[Bathsheba]

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 . 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.

[Roryrory]

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

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.

[Visitor6]

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...........

[Devon]

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.

[Roryrory]

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.