| | |  | This is the Conversation Forum for Ask h2g2
<< What is my speed ?
So, I've never seen an episode of Dr Who. My question is... >> | |
|  |
| |
| | | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by Edward the Bonobo - Gone.
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
10
  | | I'll admit to a wee niggle with Dawkins. Now, nobody is more of an Atheist Fundamentalist than me. But it seems to me that he's concentrated on trashing the easy arguments. He states the bleedin' obvious.
But some religious people claim that the empirical, scientific arguments are irrelevant. Their god is some kind of transcendent 'Other'. I haven't the faintest clue what they mean, and strongly suspect that they don't either, but the point is that Dawkins gives them wriggle room by not confronting this aspect of religion. As Dawkins' pal Daniel Dennett says, we have to look at what the religious actually *believe*. Dawkins makes too many assumptions.
Myself, I'm looking forward to Christopher Hitchens' forthcoming 'God Is Not Great'.
|
| | | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Mar 26, 2007 by  taliesin
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
11
| | >But some religious people claim that the empirical, scientific arguments are irrelevant. Their god is some kind of transcendent 'Other'.<
Some? I thought they _all_ did that 
In fact, I thought 'super-natural' claims formed the basis for all/any religious belief
Which is why, imo, 'god-talk' lacks any meaning whatsoever.
iirc, there is a recent, typical example of 'transcendent' argument lingering unchallenged on another thread here somewhere 
|
| | | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Edward the Bonobo - Gone.
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
13
| | >>Some? I thought they _all_ did that
Yes and no. Some are foolish enough to argue against evolution. They seem to believe in a literalist god who told Noah tom build a big ark, etc. etc. Dawkins' arguments obviously make them look silly.
But some would say that their god is not even susceptible to scientific argument. It cannot be reasoned about in empirical terms. Science does not make this god irrelevant. Dawkins - imho - doesn't touch on them. They are left smugly saying "He's too arrogant and hasn't made the effort to listen."
Try 'Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' by Daniel Dennett. He at least questions them on their own terms.
|
| | | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Random Mood
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
14
| | Perhaps it's time for me to nail my colours to the mast! I'm reading the book from a Christian perspective, and as someone with a scientific background. I would not begin to argue against evolution, but I would take issue with the claim that evolution inevitably leads to atheism - although I hestitate to make an overall judgement on the book until I have finished reading it, and so I will not do so. There is much in the book that I would agree with, not least Richard Dawkin's criticisms of the things that have been done/are being done in the name of religion. I am fully willing to consider all the issues raised in the book, and would certainly not regard myself as fundamentalist - indeed, like many people I am wary of any fundamentalism, religious or atheistic.
Random Mood 
|
| | | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by taliesin
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
15
| | Ed, I'm not disagreeing with you, ok? 
I'm attempting to express the concept that, at the heart, religious belief is based on irrational, superstitious thinking
This mode of thought includes, for example, such notions as the personalization of transcendence, yet simultaneously makes the claim that the same personalized transcendence cannot be discussed empirically.
But it is the superstitious, 'magical' style of thinking which enables the contradiction to exist without apparent dissonance
The 'Dawkins style' argument with Bible literalists becomes annoyingly sophomoric because it pays too much attention to the trivial, obvious nonsense, and misses the core of the delusion...
And I do rather enjoy Dennett 
|
| | | Subject: Reading/Read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins?
Posted Mar 27, 2007 by Edward the Bonobo - Gone.
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
18
| | I don't pretend to understand the argument...but it seems to be along the lines that there are some Big Questions that cannot be addressed by 'Mere Empiricism' (in-joke for Christians ).
The problem is, they have difficulty explaining what these questions are. Whenever issues such as morality are raised, I have no difficulty whatsoever in placing them within a rationalist, empirical framework. I think they're talking about 'The Meaning of Life'. Well, Dawkins is quite clear in the opening chapter of 'The Ancestor's Tale' that the universe/evolution isn't a process directed at delivering Us. Our life *has* no meaning, in any grand, universal scheme.
But maybe I'm misrepresenting the argument? As I say...I don't understand it.
|
|
|
   
 
> >>
Conversation list
|
