EPIC FAIL: The God Delusion

[cienaños]

I love the book. I think Dawkins nailed the majority of it. EXCEPT....

Except the part where he was supposed to present an argument regarding what might replace religion.The last bit of the book.

Educated people can easily grasp his sections on the Burka Slit, Consolation, and Inspiration, but, it is insultingly lacking any clear or simplified tagline. Which is what simpletons require.

Instead, Dawkins delves into this science-driven yada yada that speaks only to the converted. WE KNOW THIS. The choir has been preached to already, WE KNOW.

What interests me, is a philosopher who can swing the guillotine down on those moderates whose gigantic argument is rooted in the question: "What are you gonna replace it with?" In this, Mr Dawkins fails, pathetically.

The strongest rebuttal remains rooted in reality. "Religion is required if we are to keep the dregs in order. Most people are too stupid to understand science anyway."

 

[Marduk]

tldr

 

[aggle-rithm]

"What are you gonna replace it with?" In this, Mr Dawkins fails, pathetically.

The strongest rebuttal remains rooted in reality. "Religion is required if we are to keep the dregs in order. Most people are too stupid to understand science anyway."

Calvin (to Hobbes): It says here, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." What does that mean?

Television set: It means, "Karl Marx, you ain't seen NOTHING yet."

 

[KingMerv00]

I love the book. I think Dawkins nailed the majority of it. EXCEPT....

Except the part where he was supposed to present an argument regarding what might replace religion.The last bit of the book.

Educated people can easily grasp his sections on the Burka Slit, Consolation, and Inspiration, but, it is insultingly lacking any clear or simplified tagline. Which is what simpletons require.

Instead, Dawkins delves into this science-driven yada yada that speaks only to the converted. WE KNOW THIS. The choir has been preached to already, WE KNOW.

What interests me, is a philosopher who can swing the guillotine down on those moderates whose gigantic argument is rooted in the question: "What are you gonna replace it with?" In this, Mr Dawkins fails, pathetically.

The strongest rebuttal remains rooted in reality. "Religion is required if we are to keep the dregs in order. Most people are too stupid to understand science anyway."

I'm an atheist. When I lost my religion I didn't need to replace it with anything. Everything I needed was already there: friendship, community, curiousity, etc.

 

[cienaños]

tldr

Marduk, my brother -- my guess is that you have read this book, did you not get the same sense? Did Dawkins not break-dance around the issue? In terms of actually trying to communicate with the non-brights?

I mean, I think you know me, I am lighthearted in all I say, but, seriously - I felt kind of let down at the end. The language was, like at an 8th grade level (14 yr old). What 'believer' is able to comprehend that message?

Anyway, I got a baptism coming up here pretty soon. Do you know any 19th century illiterate girls who can splash some water on me and mumble some nonsense? I'm trying to avoid the hell thing.

Oh damn. I played with myself earlier. I'm screwed. Tell Radrook I love him.

 

[hgc]

It's a pretty good book, though I didn't learn much new by reading it.

But... he lost me at multiverses. I didn't see how highly speculative cosmology fit into the topic of the book. It felt shoehorned.

 

[cienaños]

I'm an atheist. When I lost my religion I didn't need to replace it with anything. Everything I needed was already there: friendship, community, curiousity, etc.

But you're not an idiot. I want to save the idiots!

Wait. Huh?

 

[cienaños]

It's a pretty good book, though I didn't learn much new by reading it.

But... he lost me at multiverses. I didn't see how highly speculative cosmology fit into the topic of the book. It felt shoehorned.

Agreed. Kind of.

It did seem shoehorned, but at the same time I think he was just trying to tap into that "science is magic enough" tip. I think you're right though, he could have just left it with the 'atom in a stadium' bit - that would've been enough.

 

[KingMerv00]

It's a pretty good book, though I didn't learn much new by reading it.

But... he lost me at multiverses. I didn't see how highly speculative cosmology fit into the topic of the book. It felt shoehorned.

It gives a possible response to the "the universe is unlikely therefore God is necessary" argument.

Granted there is no solid evidence for the multiverse but there is no evidence for God either.

 

[hgc]

Granted there is no solid evidence for the multiverse but there is no evidence for God either.

An unfortunate comparison! I'll say this for multiverses: there's no one currently claiming that The Multiverse condemns me to a lake of fire.

 

[caniswalensis]

There is no doubt that Dr. Dawkins desrerves much respect for his accedemic achievments and scientific works. I would never want to take that away from him.

However, I do find his general tone towards believers to be rude and insulting.

That is why I view the book as a fail. No disrespect to you, Cienaños, but I can not imagine an acceptable replacement for religion. I believe anything that filled that sociological niche would be sufficiently like religion to make it equally undesirable.

The god delusion is a great example of Dr. Dawkins poor behavior towards those that hold religious beliefs. It's very title is a put down. It is an eminently readable book, in which he puts forth many fine arguments. I believe that almost anyone could benefit from reading it, but his insulting tone garauntees right froom the cover that those he wishes to reach the most will see it as a hostile and probably very personal attack. Their backs will be up and they will not be open to his message.

As Cienaños put it, the end result is simply more preaching to the choir.

Regards, Canis

 

[cienaños]

For me, the drag is trying to argue 'religion is not necessary to keep society in order.'

Many times I have been posed the very real question: Well, who's gonna do it? Who's gonna teach the children this discovery - and furthermore - how will you get the state to do it?

The obvious answer is 'slowly,' right?

But not really. As Dawkins points out, (although persecuted for centuries) the gay movement had balls. And they moved. Why can't the science movement take a similar approach?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Over at Prof D's forum, wasn't there a long list of previously religious types who had given up their crutch after reading TGD?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

For me, the drag is trying to argue 'religion is not necessary to keep society in order.'

Many times I have been posed the very real question: Well, who's gonna do it? Who's gonna teach the children this discovery - and furthermore - how will you get the state to do it?

The obvious answer is 'slowly,' right?

But not really. As Dawkins points out, (although persecuted for centuries) the gay movement had balls. And they moved. Why can't the science movement take a similar approach?

To get gay rights, the religious have to give up a tiny bit of their belief system. To get rid of religion, they have to get rid of it all.

 

[cienaños]

There is no doubt that Dr. Dawkins desrerves much respect for his accedemic achievments and scientific works. I would never want to take that away from him.

However, I do find his general tone towards believers to be rude and insulting.

That is why I view the book as a fail. No disrespect to you, Cienaños, but I can not imagine an acceptable replacement for religion. I believe anything that filled that sociological niche would be sufficiently like religion to make it equally undesirable.

The god delusion is a great example of Dr. Dawkins poor behavior towards those that hold religious beliefs. It's very title is a put down. It is an eminently readable book, in which he puts forth many fine arguments. I believe that almost anyone could benefit from reading it, but his insulting tone garauntees right froom the cover that those he wishes to reach the most will see it as a hostile and probably very personal attack. Their backs will be up and they will not be open to his message.

As Cienaños put it, the end result is simply more preaching to the choir.

Regards, Canis

Thanks Canis.

If I may, I'd like to recommend a book that is far from insulting. Julian Jaynes, "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown.."

Seriously, give it a shot. It's two things. A surprisingly engrossing book, and definitely not a polemic by any stretch. Also, he makes history taste like ice cream.

 

[cienaños]

Over at Prof D's forum, wasn't there a long list of previously religious types who had given up their crutch after reading TGD?

Can you elaborate?

 

[Her Dark Star]

The God Delusion is a pretty good book, not exactly groundbreaking but its a (mostly) well-written summation of the common arguments. I don't think that he'd particularly meant to provide an alternative to religion, my impression from the book is that you don't need an alternative to it because it doesn't serve any purpose.
For most of us on this board it is indeed preaching to the converted. Most of us are familiar with the arguments he discussed already and have spent time thinking through such matters. But imagine that you hadn't heard these arguments before? Imagine that all you knew was religious indoctrination then suddenly everyone is talking about this book, so you give it a read and are presented with all these well written summaries?
The God Delusion may not be a philosophical masterpiece, but its a pretty good introduction to the subject for those who haven't covered this ground.

Oh and yeah, if I remember the multiverse thing was part of an answer to the 'finely-tuned' universe argument for god.

 

[cienaños]

To get gay rights, the religious have to give up a tiny bit of their belief system. To get rid of religion, they have to get rid of it all.

The thing about religion in 2010, is that the people have this tool called the internet. Also, in the US at least, we've had severe 'movements' including the civil rights and the woman's rights.

We have to keep in mind that at some point, the world said: "later, Zeus" and so forth. The same rule applies here.

Only, this time, the new god, is truth. No one will be able to claim it as their own, it'll just be that. The truth. Evidence based truth.

 

[Marduk]

Marduk, my brother -- my guess is that you have read this book, did you not get the same sense? Did Dawkins not break-dance around the issue? In terms of actually trying to communicate with the non-brights?

I haven't read it, not being an atheist its not high on my priority list, I'm more interested in stuffy academic textbooks on history. Books with "God" in the title I have always found to be rather galling (as you seem to have found the second half)

I'd ask someone here to lend me a copy but don't want to be killed in the landslide.


E.T.A. religion does serve a purpose, at the most basic level it unites people who have nothing else in common, if it wasn't for religion we would all be speaking celtic right now, or norse, or saxon, or French (God help us) or german. Can you really see Winston Churchill rallying the country around an atheist cause ?
Everyone knows it was the Nazis who were Godless

"We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea and air--war with all our might and with all the strength God has given us--and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy."

Meanwhile across the cold Atlantic

The creed of our democracy is that liberty is acquired and kept by men and women who are strong and self-reliant, and possessed of such wisdom as God gives mankind -- men and women who are just, and understanding, and generous to others -- men and women who are capable of disciplining themselves. For they are the rulers and they must rule themselves

were they wrong to use Religion in their speeches ?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The thing about religion in 2010, is that the people have this tool called the internet. Also, in the US at least, we've had severe 'movements' including the civil rights and the woman's rights.

We have to keep in mind that at some point, the world said: "later, Zeus" and so forth. The same rule applies here.

Only, this time, the new god, is truth. No one will be able to claim it as their own, it'll just be that. The truth. Evidence based truth.

Minus refrences to the internet (which is a tool for both truth and falsehood, people being people), it seems to me that a small group of upper-class Greeks made similar statements 2500 years ago.