New Richard Dawkins book - for children

[jplain]

I have the book in hand now, and at first glance, I'm impressed. :) The format is presentation of myths of many cultures and religious traditions, followed by a discussion of the science that explains the phenomena described in the stories.

 

FWIW, I do NOT find it at all rude or arrogant in its handling of religion, though of course the discussion of evolution would be unacceptable to a Young Earther or strict Creationist. Anyone with a more literal-leaning interpretation of the Bible would not find it a good fit. (Example: in one chapter he describes the story of the Tower of Babel. Later, when discussing languages, he says "Although the legend of the Tower of Babel is, of course, not really true, it does raise the interesting question of why there are so many different languages.")

 

When discussing Bible stories, he uses exactly the same tone he uses to discuss the stories of other [ancient] religious traditions. He does not speak of these stories in demeaning terms, but as per the main focus of the book, he does point out alternative explanations when they are available.

[tammyw]

For what age range would this book be suitable?

[Jennifer3141]

I might have to re-evaluate Hitchens with that in mind.

 

ITA! This made me want to go back and give Hitchens another try and I couldn't make it 1/3 of the way through the last one. :D

[jplain]

You can look inside at Amazon UK: The Magic of Reality.

 

It's fairly dense text. I think it'll be a perfect read-aloud for my science-enthusiast 8yo, who is also a huge fan of myths. I'd lean toward making it a read-aloud even with an older child, because the text is bound to spark discussion, but a 12 or 13 year old could probably handle the text on his/her own. The content would appeal to an older teenager or adult as well, though an adult with a strong science background would find it elementary.

[TranquilMind]

twoforjoy: See, that's why I like Hitchens: he's a pompous blowhard, but he knows it. (FWIW, I recently read his brother's anti-atheism book, and it turns out that being a pompous, arrogant blowhard runs in the family.

 

That's funny. I interact with more atheist pompous, arrogant blowhards in recent years than the other kind. After awhile, you can't even hear the drivel coming out of their mouths with evangelical fervor. Oh, the irony.

 

He's such an arrogant, elitist neocon, and so completely and totally unapologetic about it, that I can't help but kind of like him.

 

 

Yes, it is appreciated when the person knows what he is. At least that's honest.

 

I feel like Dawkins doesn't recognize his own biases, the way that I think Hitchens does. Dawkins just seems like he cannot fathom how any person who wasn't completely deluded or ignorant could even toy with the idea of transcendence. He seems incapable of inhabiting another worldview, even for a moment. So he frustrates me in the way that religious fundamentalists (who also often seem incapable of inhabiting another worldview) frustrate me,

 

He IS a religious fundamentalist! His religion is merely Science as all-knowing, all-seeing, all important.

[Hedgehog]

I think I'll wait for the reviews. I've enjoyed his books about evolutionary biology, but find his tone in his atheism books to be hectoring and patronising. I'm an atheist.

 

Laura

 

I have had this same comment from atheist friends.

 

Personally, I would respect Dawkins more if he stuck to discussing and writing about evolution, which is clearly an area he has studied. Attacks on religion/theism in the name of promoting evolution are in bad taste, IMO.

[Mom-ninja.]

I have the book in hand now, and at first glance, I'm impressed. :) The format is presentation of myths of many cultures and religious traditions, followed by a discussion of the science that explains the phenomena described in the stories.

 

FWIW, I do NOT find it at all rude or arrogant in its handling of religion, though of course the discussion of evolution would be unacceptable to a Young Earther or strict Creationist. Anyone with a more literal-leaning interpretation of the Bible would not find it a good fit. (Example: in one chapter he describes the story of the Tower of Babel. Later, when discussing languages, he says "Although the legend of the Tower of Babel is, of course, not really true, it does raise the interesting question of why there are so many different languages.")

 

When discussing Bible stories, he uses exactly the same tone he uses to discuss the stories of other [ancient] religious traditions. He does not speak of these stories in demeaning terms, but as per the main focus of the book, he does point out alternative explanations when they are available.

 

Thanks for the review. It sounds like a perfect book for us.

 

 

I like Dawkin and I like that he writes about atheism.

[nmoira]

 

He IS a religious fundamentalist! His religion is merely Science as all-knowing, all-seeing, all important.

Your understanding of religion and science is at odds with mine. Anyone who truly "believes" in science doesn't see it as all-knowing or all-seeing; science is self-questioning, a progression in understanding, a process. There might be petty disagreements, bias, wrongheadedness, occasional fraud, backstabbing, etc., but in the long run it will out. That's part of the beauty of scientific study.

[twoforjoy]

Your understanding of religion and science is at odds with mine. Anyone who truly "believes" in science doesn't see it as all-knowing or all-seeing; science is self-questioning, a progression in understanding, a process. There might be petty disagreements, bias, wrongheadedness, occasional fraud, backstabbing, etc., but in the long run it will out. That's part of the beauty of scientific study.

 

I don't think Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist, at all, but I do think he's a scientific materialist fundamentalist. He not only believes that his way of looking at the world is right (which many obviously think about what they believe), and not only believes that his way of looking at the world is the ONLY right way to do so (which, again, many people believe), he also believes that his conclusions are so obvious to any thinking person that the only way a person couldn't share them is if they are brainwashed, stupid, or deluded.

 

It's like the way some Christians assume that anybody who disagrees with them must be "blinded by the enemy." They somehow cannot fathom that a person might seriously and sincerely hear and consider their viewpoint, and reject it anyway, for valid reasons. Dawkins assumes that anybody who disagrees with him is brainwashed, delusional, or perhaps willfully ignorant, because he simply cannot imagine that anybody could seriously and sincerely look at the world and come to a different conclusion than he did. to me, both positions indicate a lack of critical thinking, and either an inability or unwillingness to inhabit the viewpoints of those you don't agree with, even for a moment.

 

Dawkins does seem to believe that science can and will answer any and all questions. I think that's both naive and wrong. There are questions that lay outside the realm of science; to imagine, for example, that science can answer ethical questions is to ask something of science that it wasn't designed to do. I'm not saying that we need religion to answer those questions, because we don't; there are plenty of ways to address and answer ethical questions that do not rely on or make reference to religion. But Dawkins isn't saying that we can answer ethical questions without religion, he's saying that we can answer them with nothing more than science. I suppose, if he had his way, we'd do away with not just theology departments, but also sociology and anthropology and literature and philosophy and history departments, and just leave every question we might ever want to ask in the omnicapable hands of evolutionary biologists.

 

I'm a lit person. I think critical analysis is a very, very useful tool. I don't "believe" in it--just like people can't "believe" in science--but I use it. I think it can lead us to better understandings of texts. But, I certainly don't think that I can apply critical analysis to every single question worth asking. It doesn't work that way. Science doesn't, either, and when somebody does think that there is nothing we can ask--or at least nothing worth asking--outside the realm of what science can answer, then I do think we're treading into fundamentalist territory.

 

I actually think that's where Dawkins' misunderstanding of religion comes in. He seems to have no acquaintance with the work of any serious author who has ever discussed comparative religions or the history of religions, and who have--whether they are believers or atheists or agnostics--demonstrated the many and varied reasons why religions began and developed. Instead, he assumes that religion was designed to have an explanatory purpose: people didn't understand things about the world, so they made up stories, which became religions, to explain them. Therefore, if a better way to explain things is developed--like science, which absolutely is a better way to explain scientific phenomenon--religion can and should be discarded. The idea that Genesis might not be about the processes through which creation came to be, or that the story of the Tower of Babel might not be included in the biblical text to answer the question of why there are so many languages, seems not to occur to him. Dawkins believes that a hammer is the only tool worth using, so all he ever sees are nails.

Edited October 4, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Lady Florida.]

:iagree:

When it comes to Richard Dawkins...I've only read bits and pieces of his books (I kept falling asleep reading The God Delusion) so I guess I haven't come across anything too disturbing. I've watched several of his talks on YouTube (again, bits and pieces) but nothing that jumped out at me as "out there" for an atheist to say. The way he speaks comes across as very mild-mannered to me. He seems to be matter-of-fact about what he believes. But I suppose it could be that he's "preaching to the converted" so I'm missing some of his offensive comments. Either way, when you're in the minority (which I am, in my town) it's somewhat comforting to hear somebody publicly go against the grain, stating your beliefs as if it's fact. I'm not going to go on record as saying I agree with everything he says (I had to google the elevatorgate thing), but I will say that I'm glad he's out there saying what he says. I don't know very many atheists or agnostics, so he makes me feel like I'm not alone...like I felt when I discovered Bertrand Russell's writings as a teen.*

 

I agree with this. Even when he was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly he remained calm and respectful. He breaks the unspoken taboo of speaking against religion, and for this he is considered rude. As for The God Delusion, I tried twice to read it and couldn't make it through. I was able to listen to the audiobook (read by him and a woman whose name escapes me). Hearing him read it made it much easier than me trying to read it.

 

 

I like Dawkin and I like that he writes about atheism.

 

:iagree:

 

Your understanding of religion and science is at odds with mine. Anyone who truly "believes" in science doesn't see it as all-knowing or all-seeing; science is self-questioning, a progression in understanding, a process. There might be petty disagreements, bias, wrongheadedness, occasional fraud, backstabbing, etc., but in the long run it will out. That's part of the beauty of scientific study.

 

I think most people who don't understand those of us who "believe" in science don't understand what makes it beautiful for us. Science will say, "We were wrong. We've discovered that what we once thought, isn't true". Science is willing to change as our knowledge increases. That's what makes it science, and that's why it's not "a religion".

[Bluegoat]

I'm afraid I don't trust his scientific thought, because his ideas about religion and theology are so silly. I had to stop reading "The God Delusion" part way through because I was so embarrassed for him - it is just like reading "creation science" on evolution.

 

I am surprised that some people find him perfectly polite on religion. This is a man who says that parents who teach their kids a religious worldview are abusive.

 

But I really can't take a guy seriously who dismisses Boethius of Anselm or for that matter Tom wright or the Pope, on the basis of only reading Jack Chick or the Westborough Baptists.

[Parker Martin]

I'm afraid I don't trust his scientific thought, because his ideas about religion and theology are so silly. I had to stop reading "The God Delusion" part way through because I was so embarrassed for him - it is just like reading "creation science" on evolution.

 

I am surprised that some people find him perfectly polite on religion. This is a man who says that parents who teach their kids a religious worldview are abusive.

 

But I really can't take a guy seriously who dismisses Boethius of Anselm or for that matter Tom wright or the Pope, on the basis of only reading Jack Chick or the Westborough Baptists.

 

Well put.

 

Add to that the way he has referred to William Lane Craig, arguably the world's leading Christian apologist, who he refuses to debate.

[nmoira]

 

But I really can't take a guy seriously who dismisses Boethius of Anselm or for that matter Tom wright or the Pope, on the basis of only reading Jack Chick or the Westborough Baptists.

:lol: Why precisely should an atheist give deference or credence to religious thought outside a purely contained religious context? Dawkins is looking from without, not from within. FWIW, while I find his manner abrasive, I do agree with much of what he has to say on the subject of religion, so I guess you should be warned not to take anything else I say seriously. :tongue_smilie:

[twoforjoy]

He breaks the unspoken taboo of speaking against religion, and for this he is considered rude.

 

I don't think that's why he's considered rude. He's considered rude because he is completely and entirely disrespectful to anybody who has any kind of religious faith.

 

Saying that he is considered rude because he speaks out against religion is like Christians who say that people are offended by them because they are speaking about Jesus. Nope, not it, at least not for most people. While there may be people who are indeed offended by the very mention of the name "Jesus," most people are offended by those sort of Christians because they are talking about Jesus in ways that are offensive, exclusionary, and hateful. Most people don't think Dawkins is rude because he speaks out against religion. While the very idea of speaking out against religion may offend some people, most people who find Dawkins rude think that because the way he speaks out against religion is rude, intolerant, and disrespectful.

 

A number of atheists/agnostics, including Chris Hedges and Terry Eagleton, have criticized Dawkins. It has nothing to do with his disbelief in God/gods.

 

I think most people who don't understand those of us who "believe" in science don't understand what makes it beautiful for us. Science will say, "We were wrong. We've discovered that what we once thought, isn't true". Science is willing to change as our knowledge increases. That's what makes it science, and that's why it's not "a religion".

 

"Unwillingness to change as our knowledge increases" isn't what defines religion. If it were, the Catholic Church wouldn't be considered a religion, or most mainline Protestant denominations, or Conservative and Reform Judaism, or moderate Islam, or my own Episcopal Church.

[twoforjoy]

:lol: Why precisely should an atheist give deference or credence to religious thought outside a purely contained religious context?

 

Who is talking about "deference" or "credence"? The point is, if you are going to debunk the concept of God, you've got to know what you're talking about, and since it is a contested concept within religious systems, you don't get to just choose the easiest conception to knock down.

 

This is a matter of whether one is "inside of" or "outside of" religion. It's a matter of intellectual integrity. Just as you wouldn't dismiss the entire field of science because of one branch that many mainstream scientists considers to be more psuedoscience than valid scientific work, you shouldn't dismiss all religion on the basis of one particular type of religious thought that is considered bad theology by most religious people. That's not to say that one might not decide to dismiss the entire field of science after taking a serious, sustained look at the entire field, or that one might not decide to dismiss theology after taking a serious, sustained look at what's out there.

 

All of which is to say, if Dawkins were to take seriously Tillich or Buber or Whitehead or, as mentioned, Wright, and tell me why I shouldn't believe in the God they describe, with more than just a "And that's silly, too, because it's religious!" he might convince me. As it is, I find his work useless because I already don't believe in the God he's telling me not to believe in.

[KidsHappen]

:iagree:

 

Reading posts here on the WTM boards over the years has really turned around my way of thinking. Growing up in a very small, very religious town as a non-believer made me bitter and suspicious of religious people. Seeing other viewpoints from The Hive, and also my LDS friends has really changed my opinion about religion. I've come to appreciate people with strong faith.

 

When it comes to Richard Dawkins...I've only read bits and pieces of his books (I kept falling asleep reading The God Delusion) so I guess I haven't come across anything too disturbing. I've watched several of his talks on YouTube (again, bits and pieces) but nothing that jumped out at me as "out there" for an atheist to say. The way he speaks comes across as very mild-mannered to me. He seems to be matter-of-fact about what he believes. But I suppose it could be that he's "preaching to the converted" so I'm missing some of his offensive comments. Either way, when you're in the minority (which I am, in my town) it's somewhat comforting to hear somebody publicly go against the grain, stating your beliefs as if it's fact. I'm not going to go on record as saying I agree with everything he says (I had to google the elevatorgate thing), but I will say that I'm glad he's out there saying what he says. I don't know very many atheists or agnostics, so he makes me feel like I'm not alone...like I felt when I discovered Bertrand Russell's writings as a teen.*

 

:iagree: and I am always surprised by the contempt directed towards him. He is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist. That is his job and world view. I have seen him speak many times and read much of his material and it seems to me that he presents his message as politely as he possibly can. It just seems that people do not like his message. I have never seen him express the vitriol that is so often directed against him. Now if we were talking about Hitchens then maybe I could understand but of the four horsemen, Dawkins is one of the milder ones.

[Lady Florida.]

:iagree: and I am always surprised by the contempt directed towards him. He is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist. That is his job and world view. I have seen him speak many times and read much of his material and it seems to me that he presents his message as politely as he possibly can. It just seems that people do not like his message.

 

As I stated, he broke the taboo. The taboo that we don't say out loud what we really think about religious beliefs. We are supposed to be respectful of religious beliefs regardless of what we really think. He says what he thinks. People don't want to hear it, therefore he is "mean".

[twoforjoy]

As I stated, he broke the taboo. The taboo that we don't say out loud what we really think about religious beliefs. We are supposed to be respectful of religious beliefs regardless of what we really think. He says what he thinks. People don't want to hear it, therefore he is "mean".

 

Would you think that if a Christian said, "We are supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs. We break that taboo by talking about Jesus. People don't want to hear the truth about Jesus, and so they take offense," would they be right? Is the problem that they are talking about Jesus, or that they are talking about Jesus in a way that is indeed offensive?

 

I have no problem with atheism. I have no problem with critiques of religion. I do have a problem with intolerance, in any form. (I see the irony, yes, and I'm okay with it.) Dawkins bothers me because he is intolerant and arrogant. It's not the "There's no God" part of his message that bothers me, but the "and anybody who doesn't agree with me is either stupid, deluded, or brainwashed" part.

[nmoira]

 

I have no problem with atheism. I have no problem with critiques of religion. I do have a problem with intolerance, in any form. (I see the irony, yes, and I'm okay with it.) Dawkins bothers me because he is intolerant and arrogant. It's not the "There's no God" part of his message that bothers me, but the "and anybody who doesn't agree with me is either stupid, deluded, or brainwashed" part.

There might be more gently worded alternatives, but if someone does not believe in the existence of gods, how else could they reasonably be expected to frame it?

[twoforjoy]

There might be more gently worded alternatives, but if someone does not believe in the existence of gods, how else could they reasonably be expected to frame it?

 

I guess it's just that the idea of being completely and totally right about something that cannot be proven is foreign to me.

 

I'm a theist. I believe in God. However, I also know I could be wrong. I think that atheism and agnosticism are both perfectly reasonable, morally sound, and epistemologically valid positions. I can't imagine thinking that anybody who didn't believe in some sort of "More" was stupid, deluded, willfully ignorant, brainwashed, or anything of the sort. I know so many sincere, reasonable, good people who have a wide array of beliefs on matters of faith, and I can't imagine questioning the goodness, reasonableness, or sincerity of any of them.

 

So I guess if I was an atheist I would frame it as, "I don't believe in God/s. The evidence around me and my own experience lead me to that conclusion. YMMV, but here's why I came to the conclusions I did..." No need for snide dismissals of alternative viewpoints, IMO.

[Hedgehog]

There might be more gently worded alternatives, but if someone does not believe in the existence of gods, how else could they reasonably be expected to frame it?

 

Maybe simply to preface that statement with, "in my opinion" or "it seems to me that" ?

 

As far as I am aware, nobody is objecting to Dawkins being an atheist. But what gets up other people's noses is the way he denigrates people who believe in a God. Christians are not the only group to be offended at this particular attitude. It would be no more reasonable - or kindly received - if theists stated that anyone who didn't believe in a God was "stupid, deluded, or brainwashed".

[keptwoman]

Would you think that if a Christian said, "We are supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs. We break that taboo by talking about Jesus. People don't want to hear the truth about Jesus, and so they take offense," would they be right? Is the problem that they are talking about Jesus, or that they are talking about Jesus in a way that is indeed offensive?

Seems to me that it's about the audience. Christians do indeed say those things, to other Christians. Dawkins says them too, to other atheists. Dawkins isn't standing at the front of churches saying "there is no god", he is putting them in books and doing talks to those who choose to listen.

The problem comes IMHO when people start saying that Jesus stuff to other people who may not want to hear. And it happens a plenty.

 

Maybe simply to preface that statement with, "in my opinion" or "it seems to me that" ?

And I don't see why he should say "in my opinion, there is no god" he says "I dont believe in god." Do Christians wrap everything in "in my opinion"? Not in my experience. I've also heard plenty of people refer to non-Christians in all sorts of derogatory ways, questioning their logic and worse.

Edited October 4, 2011 by keptwoman

[nmoira]

 

It would be no more reasonable - or kindly received - if theists stated that anyone who didn't believe in a God was "stupid, deluded, or brainwashed".

I'm not at all certain a person of strong Christian faith would frame it this way. I am, however, occasionally informed that I have not yet seen the "Truth." While I don't think it's an appropriate thing to say at a dinner party (or in a inclusive public online forum :tongue_smilie: ), I'm not offended by the thought of a religious leader professing such an opinion in a book, debate, or television interview, even without an "it seems to me that..." (as long as we're entirely outside the arena of public policy). I'm also free to disregard with such statements out-of-hand. Edited October 4, 2011 by nmoira
missing word

[Cindyz]

I enjoyed this review:

 

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2011/10/03/the-magic-of-reality-by-richard-dawkins-a-review-with-commentary-from-a-young-reader/

[nmoira]

I enjoyed this review:

 

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2011/10/03/the-magic-of-reality-by-richard-dawkins-a-review-with-commentary-from-a-young-reader/

Thanks. :)

 

Our copy is "out for delivery." I've given DD the Elder permission to postpone her morning science reading until it arrives -- her jaw literally dropped when I showed her the sample pages last week.

[RegGuheert]

Science will say, "We were wrong. We've discovered that what we once thought, isn't true". Science is willing to change as our knowledge increases. That's what makes it science, and that's why it's not "a religion".

That statement is true *only* if science is not bridled by any particular worldview. (Alternatively, this can be true if science is bridled *only* by a worldview which is not in error.) Unfortunately, that is not the state of science today, nor has it ever been. In the past whatever religious (or not) belief was in power at the time forbade science from pursuing certain explanations for what was observed. Today, materialism is the belief system which is enforced by the powers that be. Scientists are obliged to pursue purely materialistic explanations for things, no matter how contorted those explanations must become. The result of such limitations are the necessity to sometimes throw out the laws of nature and logic which have been discovered in the past and to instead promote naturalistic theories which are contrary to those laws.

 

The point here is that if matter and energy (whatever they are) are all that exists, then perhaps science has a chance to "get it right" under the current regime. If, however, materialism is wrong then the current incantation of science has NO hope to ever find the truth about our universe.

 

For materialists today, I'm sure the current bridles on science may seem to be perfectly reasonable, just as the Pope (or any other religious or secular leader) in the past saw no problem dictating what science could and could not say. I, however, seriously doubt that matter and energy are sufficient to explain the universe that we all know.

[Lady Florida.]

Would you think that if a Christian said, "We are supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs. We break that taboo by talking about Jesus. People don't want to hear the truth about Jesus, and so they take offense," would they be right? Is the problem that they are talking about Jesus, or that they are talking about Jesus in a way that is indeed offensive?

 

 

But many Christians don't say it that way. They (the proverbial many) talk about those who don't believe as either not having seen the light and in need of pity, or as evil ones to be avoided. It happens every Sunday in many Christian churches around the world. I'm not offended because I'm confident in my belief, but many people do find it offensive.

 

Seems to me that it's about the audience. Christians do indeed say those things, to other Christians. Dawkins says them too, to other atheists. Dawkins isn't standing at the front of churches saying "there is no god", he is putting them in books and doing talks to those who choose to listen.

The problem comes IMHO when people start saying that Jesus stuff to other people who may not want to hear. And it happens a plenty.

 

And I don't see why he should say "in my opinion, there is no god" he says "i dont believe in god" do Christians wrap everything in "in my opinion"? Not in my experience. I've also heard plenty of people refer to non-Christians in all sorts of derogatory ways, questioning their logic and worse.

 

Exactly. As far as I know, Dawkins is not accosting random religious people on the street and calling them names. He participates in public debates with theists who are just as rabid in their beliefs as he is in his lack of belief. He writes books which anyone is free to not buy. He gives speeches, mostly to fellow atheist, which anyone is free not to attend.

 

I'm not at all certain a person of strong Christian faith would frame it this way. I am, however, occasionally informed that I have not yet seen the "Truth." While I don't think it's an appropriate thing to say at a dinner party (or in a inclusive public online forum :tongue_smilie: ), I'm not offended by the thought of a religious leader professing such an opinion in a book, debate, or television interview, even without an "it seems to me that..." (as long as we're entirely outside the arena public policy). I'm also free to disregard such statements out-of-hand.

 

Yes. I'm free to ignore what religious leaders say and write, just as religious people are free to ignore Dawkins or any other outspoken atheist. Capitalizing truth in the way Christians do, says they are right and those who don't believe they way they do is wrong. How is that less arrogant than Dawkins saying there is no god? I've never heard a Christian say, IMO, Jesus died for our sins. They all say it with conviction. They say with certainty that those who don't believe in him are going to burn for all eternity. The point that new atheists try to make is that there is a double standard for religious believers and atheists. Religious believers can say whatever they want about non-believers because religion gets a pass. New atheists say, "Hold on. Let's end the double standard."

[KidsHappen]

New atheists say, "Hold on. Let's end the double standard."

 

Once again, :iagree:. This is what I hear the New Atheists saying and I find it refreshing to hear, especially in such a calm, collected, mild mannered way. I think that what they are really doing is showing Christians (and some other militant religions) how strident they have sounded all these years and well the message does not seem to be so well received.

[Joanne]

I guess it's just that the idea of being completely and totally right about something that cannot be proven is foreign to me.

 

I'm a theist. I believe in God. However, I also know I could be wrong. I think that atheism and agnosticism are both perfectly reasonable, morally sound, and epistemologically valid positions. I can't imagine thinking that anybody who didn't believe in some sort of "More" was stupid, deluded, willfully ignorant, brainwashed, or anything of the sort. I know so many sincere, reasonable, good people who have a wide array of beliefs on matters of faith, and I can't imagine questioning the goodness, reasonableness, or sincerity of any of them.

 

So I guess if I was an atheist I would frame it as, "I don't believe in God/s. The evidence around me and my own experience lead me to that conclusion. YMMV, but here's why I came to the conclusions I did..." No need for snide dismissals of alternative viewpoints, IMO.

 

This. :iagree: *adding to Joanne's best.post.ever list.

[twoforjoy]

Once again, :iagree:. This is what I hear the New Atheists saying and I find it refreshing to hear, especially in such a calm, collected, mild mannered way. I think that what they are really doing is showing Christians (and some other militant religions) how strident they have sounded all these years and well the message does not seem to be so well received.

 

The thing is, every single criticism Dawkins makes of religion has been made, by religious people. There is, literally, nothing in The God Delusion that was knew to me. I'd read much of it in John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg, both Episcopalian theologians. I'd read many of the same criticisms in the writings of process theologians, who are much more vicious in their skewering of supernatural theism than Dawkins is. Tillich presents a God that is so completely different from the God Dawkins writes off that all he can do is basically say that he can't be bothered to deal with Tillich.

 

If you want to understand why the criticism of Dawkins, for many people, has absolutely nothing to do with his being an atheist per se but everything to do with his refusal to engage in any way with serious theological thought and his extremely simplistic understanding of how and why religion functions, I'd highly suggest Terry Eagleton's review. Eagleton is an atheist Marxist literary theorist. The opening line does a good job setting it up.

 

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

[keptwoman]

I haven't read The God Delusion, because I don't really care enough to do so. But we have it as my son has read it. In Australia we don't have to be militant to be atheist, it's a fairly normal state of belief, or lack thereof.

I haven't read John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg either, and why would I if they are Episcopalian Theologians and I'm not interested in Episcopalian theology. If one does not believe in the basis of theology, and has no interest in finding out about it, why on earth would one choose to read about it? I know some do, but it's hardly a requirement.

I can easily imagine picking up The God Delusion because he comes from where I am rather than either of those. Whats wrong with a book that says the same as something else? Isn't that pretty much every book since the beginning of time?

[twoforjoy]

I can easily imagine picking up The God Delusion because he comes from where I am rather than either of those. Whats wrong with a book that says the same as something else? Isn't that pretty much every book since the beginning of time?

 

But Dawkins actively misrepresents religious believers. It would, I think, come as a shock to him that the God of supernatural theism has been discarded by many contemporary Christian theologians and practitioners. He tells his readers--who, I agree, probably have little interest in theology and so are not likely to actually investigate if what he says represents the totality or even the mainstream of religious faith--that he is providing them with both all they need to know about religion and all they need to know to dismiss it.

 

It would be like a person only learning about secular humanism from a conservative Christian worldview class that has the goal of teaching the student that secular humanism is wrong. Obviously that student is not going to have anything approaching a genuine understanding of what secular humanism is.

[Bluegoat]

:lol: Why precisely should an atheist give deference or credence to religious thought outside a purely contained religious context? Dawkins is looking from without, not from within. FWIW, while I find his manner abrasive, I do agree with much of what he has to say on the subject of religion, so I guess you should be warned not to take anything else I say seriously. :tongue_smilie:

 

He doesnt have to engage religious thought at all - he could remain silent. He chooses to engage himself in religious debate, and that comes with an intellectual responsibility, just like scientific debate. But what he does is make a straw-man argument, which is a fallacy. That suggests that he simply has no clue about how to argue rationally, has no clue that there are better theological arguments out there, or he is being intellectually dishonest. (And since many have pointed out to him that he ignores more substantial theological arguments, I don`t think that is the problem.)

 

If he wants to refute religion on the basis of reason, it would be sensible to know what religion actually teaches. Otherwise, all that he is actually refuting is something he made up.

[keptwoman]

Yeah, you may be right. Personally I come from a Christian background so I don't feel the need for anyone to tell me why I don't believe in what I don't believe. Hence the desire to read anything on the subject is fairly much non-existent. Perhaps I should read it to see if I think he misrepresents religous believers, I bet that is also fairly subjective.

[Bluegoat]

There might be more gently worded alternatives, but if someone does not believe in the existence of gods, how else could they reasonably be expected to frame it?

 

I`m not bothered by atheists per se, even ones that argue aggressively.

 

But people need some humility. Because Dawkins seems only to look at the most intellectually poor forms of religion (and really only at Christianity for that matter) he seems to have come to the strange conclusion that only intellectually inferior people can be religious.

 

But how is it actually possible for anyone who is even remotely educated to believe that is what I wonder. Look at history - the greatest thinkers of many ages were religious, and today there are many people as well educated and just as bright as Dawkins that are religious. There are people who have spent their whole lives dedicated to theology and are great scholars, in many different religions.

 

And the same is true of non-theists, deists, and a variety of other religious positions.

 

To me, to come to the conclusion that all religious people - or atheists - must be morons one would have to actually never interact with the human community - otherwise one could only feel humble in the face of the many people who have more insight.

 

I always feel this way when I read the Dali Lama - a man who is smarter, kinder, more educated, braver, and more spiritual than I am, and he has different religious views than I do.

 

I think that is what people find offensive.

[Bluegoat]

But Dawkins actively misrepresents religious believers. It would, I think, come as a shock to him that the God of supernatural theism has been discarded by many contemporary Christian theologians and practitioners.

 

I would put this a bit differently. I`d say the God he talks about has never been the God of anyone but a few post-enlightenment fundamentalists. Even those who most rabidly believed in the supernatural in the darkest depths of the dark ages didn`t believe in that God.

[KidsHappen]

The thing is, every single criticism Dawkins makes of religion has been made, by religious people. There is, literally, nothing in The God Delusion that was knew to me. I'd read much of it in John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg, both Episcopalian theologians. I'd read many of the same criticisms in the writings of process theologians, who are much more vicious in their skewering of supernatural theism than Dawkins is. Tillich presents a God that is so completely different from the God Dawkins writes off that all he can do is basically say that he can't be bothered to deal with Tillich.

 

If you want to understand why the criticism of Dawkins, for many people, has absolutely nothing to do with his being an atheist per se but everything to do with his refusal to engage in any way with serious theological thought and his extremely simplistic understanding of how and why religion functions, I'd highly suggest Terry Eagleton's review. Eagleton is an atheist Marxist literary theorist. The opening line does a good job setting it up.

 

I have read both Spong and Borg as well as a few other fairly liberal theologians and most of the proponents of the Jesus Seminars. I have also read an extensively selection of anti-apologetics. However, I am always open to learning more and would be interested in this review if you could provide a link or at least point me in the right direction.

[nmoira]

He doesnt have to engage religious thought at all - he could remain silent. He chooses to engage himself in religious debate, and that comes with an intellectual responsibility, just like scientific debate. But what he does is make a straw-man argument, which is a fallacy. That suggests that he simply has no clue about how to argue rationally, has no clue that there are better theological arguments out there, or he is being intellectually dishonest. (And since many have pointed out to him that he ignores more substantial theological arguments, I don`t think that is the problem.)

I'm put in the strange position of defending Dawkins, given the nature of my own beef with him. :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm only going to address the most general criticism made in this thread against Dawkins: I don't think that Dawkins' point is that all religious people are this or that, but rather that humans/communities/cultures have evolved in such a manner that religion itself fosters fanaticism and extremism in some.

 

If he wants to refute religion on the basis of reason, it would be sensible to know what religion actually teaches. Otherwise, all that he is actually refuting is something he made up.

What religion teaches is irrelevant, and, FWIW, I don't find Dawkins compelling on the subject: It's what religion fosters that is of essence. Here I do find him compelling.

[Bluegoat]

I have read both Spong and Borg as well as a few other fairly liberal theologians and most of the proponents of the Jesus Seminars. I have also read an extensively selection of anti-apologetics. However, I am always open to learning more and would be interested in this review if you could provide a link or at least point me in the right direction.

 

It`s here.

 

He also wrote a book on Dawkins, but it goes on rather longer than is really justified by what it has to say.

[KidsHappen]

I would put this a bit differently. I`d say the God he talks about has never been the God of anyone but a few post-enlightenment fundamentalists. Even those who most rabidly believed in the supernatural in the darkest depths of the dark ages didn`t believe in that God.

 

I was born and raised Southern Babtist and even though I left the religion long ago and would say that I still see enough of what he describes to completely understand why the New Atheist are so popular. I will admit that it is a backlash to many years of religious fundementalism but it was not so ancient as many would like to believe.

[twoforjoy]

I'm only going to address the most general criticism made in this thread against Dawkins: I don't think that Dawkins' point is that all religious people are this or that, but rather that humans/communities/cultures have evolved in such a manner that religion itself fosters fanaticism and extremism in some.

 

Is there anything that doesn't foster fanaticism and extremism in some people? Politics certainly does. There have been shootings resulting from the rivalry between East and West coast rappers. Soccer games have led to riots. It seems to me that people have an enormous capacity for responding with fanaticism to just about anything, and perhaps how few people in the scheme of things (given how many people in the world are religious in one way or another) actually do commit extreme, fanatical acts in the name of religion indicates that religion does a pretty good job, for the most part, of moderating that impulse.

[twoforjoy]

I was born and raised Southern Babtist and even though I left the religion long ago and would say that I still see enough of what he describes to completely understand why the New Atheist are so popular. I will admit that it is a backlash to many years of religious fundementalism but it was not so ancient as many would like to believe.

 

I think this is where a disconnect with Dawkins often comes in. I was raised in the northeast among moderate Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Reform Jews. I've attended liberal-leaning Episcopal churches as an adult. The religious world that Dawkins describes is entirely different from any of the religious communities I've had experience with. I don't doubt, certainly, that it exists, but I also don't think it's the totality of religious life, as Dawkins seems to believe.

 

I know that my religious experience sits alongside that of those who experience a fundamentalist hegemony that is very oppressive. But Dawkins doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that my religious experience (and that of most of the people I know)--where I was never threatened with hellfire, where I was taught about God's love for everybody with no qualifiers added on, where questions and doubts were not just taken seriously but allowed to simply exist rather than being answered away--is also real and valid.

[Bluegoat]

I was born and raised Southern Babtist and even though I left the religion long ago and would say that I still see enough of what he describes to completely understand why the New Atheist are so popular. I will admit that it is a backlash to many years of religious fundementalism but it was not so ancient as many would like to believe.

 

No, it isn`t ancient, which was my point. What we call Christian fundamentalism today only developed in the 20th century. Even evangelical Christianity only dates from the 18th century.

 

I have no problem with people speaking against fundamentalism or particular forms of Christianity. If RD wanted to speak out specifically against fundamentalism that would be great. it`s timely as there is really a growing fundamentalist movement. And i am sure that is indeed part of the reason he is so popular.

 

But to look at fundamentalism and conclude that is the best Christianity can offer is simply false. Even more so to say it disproved theism in general. RD`s ideas about God are very Christian, and yet he applies them to forms of religion that have a very different concept of God, like deism or pantheism. He complains about the fact that God is just a super-powered old man in the sky, when a deist or pantheist believes no such thing (and nor does an educated Christian for that matter.)

 

It just doesn`t make a lot of sense.

[twoforjoy]

I have no problem with people speaking against fundamentalism or particular forms of Christianity. If RD wanted to speak out specifically against fundamentalism that would be great. it`s timely as there is really a growing fundamentalist movement. And i am sure that is indeed part of the reason he is so popular.

 

Part of my concern with the New Atheist movement is that, by classifying moderate and liberal religious believers with fundamentalists, and saying that they are all the same (or, sometimes, that moderate/liberal religious believers are actually worse because their seeming-reasonableness gives legitimacy to the beliefs of fundamentalists), it is unnecessarily divisive.

 

I think many atheists realize this, but in general moderate and liberal people of faith are not "against" atheists. They don't see them as the enemy. In fact, many see atheists as on their side against religious extremism. So, it comes as a shock to realize that some of these people have decided that you are the problem. I think that driving a wedge between non-religious people and religious moderates/liberals that was not there before (and that allowed them to work amiably together on all number of social justice, political, and anti-fundamentalist projects) is just not a good move, either practically or morally, at a time when religious extremism is growing.

[Marylou]

It`s here.

 

He also wrote a book on Dawkins, but it goes on rather longer than is really justified by what it has to say.

 

He might also have avoided being the second most frequently mentioned individual in his book – if you count God as an individual.

 

[it was worth reading the whole thing to get to this last line. Thanks.]

 

There is a huge difference between telling someone they don't seem to know the Truth and telling them they are history-deniers and child abusers :glare:.

 

Dawkins turns a lot of folks off, and it's not because he's an atheist.

[nmoira]

 

Is there anything that doesn't foster fanaticism and extremism in some people? Politics certainly does. There have been shootings resulting from the rivalry between East and West coast rappers. Soccer games have led to riots. It seems to me that people have an enormous capacity for responding with fanaticism to just about anything, and perhaps how few people in the scheme of things (given how many people in the world are religious in one way or another) actually do commit extreme, fanatical acts in the name of religion indicates that religion does a pretty good job, for the most part, of moderating that impulse.

I'm not touching this... the debate will go nowhere good on this board. :leaving:

[KidsHappen]

It`s here.

 

He also wrote a book on Dawkins, but it goes on rather longer than is really justified by what it has to say.

 

Thanks. I bookmarked it to read later.

[twoforjoy]

I'm not touching this... the debate will go nowhere good on this board. :leaving:

 

Just to be clear, I do NOT mean that religion is necessary to moderate that impulse, or that other things can't do a better job. I'm just saying that, for example, religion--especially post-Crusades and particularly post-Holocaust--might have some features that moderate that impulse in a way that, say, competitive sports doesn't. Considering that the vast, vast majority of people have some form of religious faith, and only a very tiny number of them are committing acts of extremism in the name of their faith, I think it's very, very difficult to argue that religion causes violence/fanaticism moreso than other institutions or ideologies.

 

See, it's this constantly being misunderstood and interpreted in the worst possible light that I kind of blame the New Atheists for. I have spent my entire adult live attending or teaching at large secular research universities. I have always been around many atheists and agnostics. And I don't remember having to be constantly qualifying what I say so that I'm not misunderstood before New Atheism took off. I don't remember people immediately jumping to the conclusion that I must be saying that people need religion to be good, or that by talking about what I believe I'm saying that other people should believe it too, or whatever. But this idea is now there that ALL religious believers think certain things or want certain things, and it turns what should be pleasant discussions into minefields. I pretty much never, ever, ever talk about my religious beliefs IRL. The only time I do is when somebody who has beliefs similar to my own brings it up. I don't talk about it otherwise. But some people take simply knowing that you aren't an atheist as proof that you side with Rick Perry on everything.

 

I feel like it's created a destructive amount of distrust and animosity between people who had previously gotten along just fine.

Edited October 5, 2011 by twoforjoy

[nmoira]

Just to be clear, I do NOT mean that religion is necessary to moderate that impulse, or that other things can't do a better job. I'm just saying that, for example, religion--especially post-Crusades and particularly post-Holocaust--might have some features that moderate that impulse in a way that, say, competitive sports doesn't.

I understood you. :001_smile: I just don't think this is the right forum for a candid discussion of the topic... particularly in a thread with "Richard Dawkins" in the title.

 

See, it's this constantly being misunderstood and interpreted in the worst possible light that I kind of blame the New Atheists for. I have spent my entire adult live attending or teaching at large secular research universities. I have always been around many atheists and agnostics. And I don't remember having to be constantly qualifying what I say so that I'm not misunderstood before New Atheism took off. I don't remember people immediately jumping to the conclusion that I must be saying that people need religion to be good, or that by talking about what I believe I'm saying that other people should believe it too, or whatever. But this idea is now there that ALL religious believers think certain things or want certain things, and it turns what should be pleasant discussions into minefields.

 

I feel like it's created a destructive amount of distrust and animosity between people who had previously gotten along just fine.

[justamouse]

I stayed away from this thread well, because of who it's about. But it's a brilliant thread. Blue and two, if I could like your posts...

 

Dawkins bothers me because he is intolerant and arrogant. It's not the "There's no God" part of his message that bothers me, but the "and anybody who doesn't agree with me is either stupid, deluded, or brainwashed" part.

 

That's what I don't like about him. There is no gray. And, from there, you can't even go into how many shades of gray there are. Which really is a shame. And that's apart from his work (on religion) being redundant.

Edited October 5, 2011 by justamouse