h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And I've read W***pedia on 'The Dawkins Delusion'.

Yes, in some places Dawkins has clearly set himself up to fall - principally by not examining what the religious actually *believe*. They don't all believe in a capricious god...although I'd suggest to any Christian that they do, to at least some extent, carry over ideas which they would say they've abandoned. So Dawkins' criticism doesn't go far enough because he fails to nail them at their best.

And, no, Evolution isn't fundamentally inconsistent with the idea of god. Certainly it's a nail in god's coffin, though. It showed how apparent order can come from chaos without intervention. If in species, why not elsewhere? What is there left for god to *do* in creation? Post-Darwin, the Christians have been forced to radically revise their god into something rather different to the one that they (and Jesus?) meant before. One suspects they're making it up as they go along. Perhaps Dawkins thinks this is all so obvious that he forgets to spell it out.

On the Faith issue...Dawkins is on more solid ground. McGrath (if the article reflects him accurately) fails to understand that faith-based reasoning is neither necessary nor desirable. Why start with assumptions when we can have facts? Why faith in god and not fairies? Why a Christian god and not any of the other possibilities on offer?

Granted this is only a dissection of the W***pedia article, and I'll admit that I'm unlikely to read the book (not read TGD either, but have read/heard his views many times). However...I'd like to put the glove on the other foot...Why god? Why Christianity? How does it square withnthe (lack of) supporting evidence? What does it explain? What are its benefits? What is it *for*?

Sorry for the delay in replying. But before I answer what Christianity/faith is *for*, let me share my views on TGD by Dawkins.

Unfortunately, because he hates religion so much (and his stated intention is to convert people to atheism), his reasoning is often suspect, his knowledge of theology is lacking, and he wilfully misrepresents faith. It is a shame that a leading Oxford professor is biased in his arguments, I was able to reject some of his arguments as ridiculous rather than really challenging.

Having said that, there is much in the book to make theists think. I just think he is a bad ambassador for atheism, as Michael Ruse says (on the front of 'The Dawkins Delusion?') 'The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.'

Interestingly, Dawkins (by presenting evolution as inevitably atheistic) is partly responsible for the rise of Creationism, as fundamentalist Christians react against a perceived threat.

Well, that's enough for now!

Random Mood.

Random,

He may misrepresent your faith, but there are so many flavours of faith around, even within Christianity, it doesn't seem that unlikely that he is near the mark with some.

That's a good point. What is it that the anti-Dawkinsites are defending? What part of their faith does he leave unshaken?

And as a supplementary...isn't there some disingenuity here? People have chosen to identify with (eg) Christianity. Is this the same Christianity that existed pre-Darwin and continues to exust to this day? Or is it some other entirely unrelated faith?

Hi RM!

"Interestingly, Dawkins (by presenting evolution as inevitably atheistic) is partly responsible for the rise of Creationism, as fundamentalist Christians react against a perceived threat."

There is an interesting take on this in the Pharyngula blog - first few paragraphs.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/nisbet_and_mooney_in_the_wapo.php

There are other criticisms in 'The Dawkins Delusion' of Dawkins getting his theology wrong (eg on original sin; the trinity). It has to be said that these are arcane ideas, pretty much opaque (and irrelevant!) to non-believers. And I suspect - I need some clarification here - to many *believers* also.

Isn't it right that Dawkins should have a pop at them? Shouldn't the onus be on the believers to say why they have to be taken in, lock, stock and barrel?

How can you criticize Dawkins for getting his theology wrong? Theologists get their theology wrong. Any attempt to generalize about religion is like attempting to staple jello to the wall. Once you start seriously questioning theists about their beliefs, the answers change from question to question.

Another excellent point...and related to mine.

The very worst that can be said about Dawkins is that he perhaps attacks the easy targets. Others can moan that this doesn't represent the whole of Christianity. Sure - but it represents a lot of it, both diachronically and synchronically. 'What else have you got?'

So, why didn't anyone tell me about this discussion?

Durn ye!

I'm about to kick-start the main AF thread again...

Ta-daa: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F2217673?thread=695898&post=47703987#p47703987

"is like attempting to staple jello to the wall"
Somewhere opn youtube (I think) is a science video of someone doing and experiment to see if you can nail jelly to the wall. can;t find the link atm though.
Might be on the bad science site.

Hi all, I know I got some some stuff to answer here - but life hectic at the moment, involving travel and days away. I'll try and get my head round this and other threads asap.

Random Mood.