The God Delusion: A Critique

[Darth Wong]

I actually don't own a copy of The God Delusion and have no particular plans to buy one. If there's one thing I don't like about Dawkins, it's the fact that he's been built up into a superstar of atheism. Atheism is distinguished by not following a leader around like a flock of sheep.

The minute I say I'm an atheist, people assume I'm a big fan of Richard Dawkins, and I'm not. It's not that I necessarily dislike him or disagree with him; I just don't know any of his work, apart from what other people say about it.

I wouldn't go out of the way to get God Delusion. While its a decent book, its a bit watered down and verbose at times. Sam Harris' The End of Faith, however, I find to be a great read. There were lots of pointed arguments that I hadn't really considered prior to read it.

A lot of the religion debates nowadays quickly descend into "What is consciousness?" and "Where did matter come from?" and "How do you measure love?" because the average religious person knows that the evolution debate has been debated ad nauseum, a debate that the atheist will probably win. One new aspect of the evolution debate, however, is "God might have had a hand in evolution." but this can be quickly disarmed by pointing out that while it is true that God might have had a hand in evolution, but so could have any arbitrary god.

There's a common strategy in chess where the stronger player attempts to win through simple gameplay with no fancy maneuverings while the weaker player attempts to complicate the game as much as possible and hope for the stronger to make a mistake or to force a draw. As with chess, the religious side has shifted the debate from "Does God exist?" to "How did the universe begin?".

I recommend "Losing Faith in Faith". It's written by a former hardcore fundie preacher. One of those totally dedicated fruit loops who goes to impoverished villages in Mexico to bring Christ to the unwashed. His life story's journey from Christianity to hardline fundamentalism, then to doubt and then to atheism is, I think, more interesting than a straight-up examination of what's wrong with theist arguments.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I actually don't own a copy of The God Delusion and have no particular plans to buy one. If there's one thing I don't like about Dawkins, it's the fact that he's been built up into a superstar of atheism. Atheism is distinguished by not following a leader around like a flock of sheep.

The minute I say I'm an atheist, people assume I'm a big fan of Richard Dawkins, and I'm not. It's not that I necessarily dislike him or disagree with him; I just don't know any of his work, apart from what other people say about it.

Its just unfortunately him and Hitchins are the only public and vocal intellectuals we have. Although I don't mind Dawkins because he is very polite and erudite and hard to smear though the theists try desperately.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The God Delusion is, in my mind, a handy textbook on various arguments theists make and how we can debunk them. If you already have years of experience doing this online or in real-life, then a lot of it is somewhat redundant. But I felt that it was quite a useful addition for some of the examples I've not seen before, or just generally more concise ways of illustrating a point to others.

Dawkins is, at least, better suited to writing about evolutionary biology in general and giving talks on atheism. An argument some theists tend to use is the "Dawkins is making himself a religion", which is utter rubbish anyway. Even if we do find him one of the most prominent and articulate speakers for our cause, that does not mean we have our own Messiah. It is, after all, far harder to find people like him that speak out in public bluntly on such matters, than it is to find a Christian pastor who will happily preach his virtues.

[Darth Wong]

Its just unfortunately him and Hitchins are the only public and vocal intellectuals we have.

Actually, they are the only two who have gotten the attention of the mainstream media.

Dan Barker at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (link)is a former fundie preacher who is quite at ease in public, has written books, learned virtually everything there is to know about the Bible including how to read the original documents in their original languages, and can argue any theist to a standstill with ease. But the media ignores him while it lavishes attention upon Hitchens and Dawkins.

Frankly, I think that Hitchens and Dawkins fit neatly into what the average Christian envisions a "militant atheist" to be: someone who is either very dry and scientific or sour and negative. That fits their prejudices much better than the story of a former fundie preacher who realized what a crock of shit the Bible is after studying it inside out, so they run with the story they like.

[Durandal]

Hitchens is not exactly the best person to represent atheists. The guy's an alcoholic, for one. He drinks like a fucking fish. He came to my school to speak once, and I enjoyed it thoroughly, but you could tell he'd had a few before the speech. We went outside after the speech for a Q&A, where he chain-smoked and dealt with several dozen students firing questions at him, including one pretentious dolt who thought he was in the fucking House of Parliament or something and kept saying stuff like "The gentleman is trying to say ..." and such. God I wanted to punch that idiot in the face. But I digress.

He did some great work examining Mother Teresa and documenting where the myth came from, but he's also an Iraq War hawk. He's a great speaker, but he makes no secret of enjoying certain vices.

[Darth Wong]

Hitchens is not exactly the best person to represent atheists. The guy's an alcoholic, for one. He drinks like a fucking fish. He came to my school to speak once, and I enjoyed it thoroughly, but you could tell he'd had a few before the speech. We went outside after the speech for a Q&A, where he chain-smoked and dealt with several dozen students firing questions at him, including one pretentious dolt who thought he was in the fucking House of Parliament or something and kept saying stuff like "The gentleman is trying to say ..." and such. God I wanted to punch that idiot in the face. But I digress.

He did some great work examining Mother Teresa and documenting where the myth came from, but he's also an Iraq War hawk. He's a great speaker, but he makes no secret of enjoying certain vices.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. There's no shortage of eloquent writers on the subject of religion, but the MSM has chosen to make people aware of atheist writers who just happen to fit neatly into the two stereotypes that Christians have about atheists: the sterile scientist and the embittered cynic. What a remarkably convenient coincidence.

[Illuminatus Primus]

With Dawkins its just a bunch of smearing drivel. The man is a fantastically successful academic, scientist, author, and person. He's married to an actress for Christ's sake. The average beer-belly redneck should shut the fuck up.

[Darth Wong]

With Dawkins its just a bunch of smearing drivel. The man is a fantastically successful academic, scientist, author, and person. He's married to an actress for Christ's sake. The average beer-belly redneck should shut the fuck up.

Yes, but as far as they're concerned, he's still a sterile scientist. The fact that he's married to an actress means nothing; the guy in Revenge of the Nerds nailed the cheerleader too, but he's still a nerd.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I forgot manliness is just posturing and watching football and swigging beer. Even if you're a fatass loser with a dead-end job and few loser or no friends. What matters is you don't trust academics and you have good ol' fashioned common sense and you believe simplistic generalization and "politically incorrect" (bigotted) beliefs. My mistake. It cannot be taking responsiblity for one's self, being successful, and actually getting laid. Anything but that.

[Darth Wong]

I forgot manliness is just posturing and watching football and swigging beer. Even if you're a fatass loser with a dead-end job and few loser or no friends. What matters is you don't trust academics and you have good ol' fashioned common sense and you believe simplistic generalization and "politically incorrect" (bigotted) beliefs. My mistake. It cannot be taking responsiblity for one's self, being successful, and actually getting laid. Anything but that.

This is the result of populism run amok.

Step 1: attack the belief that the common man is worthless compared to the educated elite.

Step 2: attack the belief that the common man is inferior in any way compared to the educated elite.

Step 3: promote the belief that the common man is actually superior to the educated elite.

Step 5: promote the belief that the educated elite is worthless compared to the common man.

Step 6: punch anybody in the mouth if he notices that you can't count to 4.

[Fire Fly]

Holy fuck, I just realized that the text from the OP was written by Tony Blair (didn't notice the small end text). I use to respect this man and wish that Bush could be more like him; it seems that Blair is becoming more like Bush at times. What the hell happen to the guy who was in office during the early 2000s? I don't dislike Blair but I don't have the same affection, however meager it was, that I used to have for him.

Is there a resurgence in religion in Great Britain? I read more and more about religion interfering with government and science lately, when I would typically hear almost nothing.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Who's ready for some semantics fun?

Valdemar .. look if you're willing to back the dictionary about terms which carry biblical meanings due to the bible being the most published book in the world you are the same as any evangelist blowing on about how the bible represents the one true religion.

I have explained as clearly as I can that Dawkins is pro theistic monopoly over religion & human thought about faith. You will not & cannot even begin to hear me so long as you are willing to adopt whatever you're told religion is, faith is, god is referring to by those who you perceive to be better qualified to answer these questions than yourself.

This fundamental inability to discern between concepts that are concrete & concepts that are abstract is the problem. Dawkins just uses this foolish propensity in people to forward his own name.

Look up Pythagoras, Laotse, Buddha if you want some real insight into religious ideas outside of theistic ideas.

authority words are nothing without their meaning to you, & if the meaning of the word god is a person in your mind, be that person natural or supernatural your living in somebody's shadow.

I can say may God bless you & be speaking of a waterfall, whether you can comprehend this other realm of religous ideas outside of worship & deities, it frankly your problem. If I were you I wouldn't die thinking God was somebody's name. But then I think atheism is the future of religon, liberated from autocrats be they living or imagined.

Are you going to insist on using your own definition over the one accepted by everyone else? No one cares about what YOU see "God" as defined as, because no one is going to be stupid and say "What you call a 'waterfall' is actually 'God'". Do you also defy the convention of calling a conveyance with four wheels and an engine a "car" because that'd mean obeying Big Auto's propaganda of the world?

This is just really bad debating at its finest. You can't accept a definition then it's your problem, not ours. God and atheism are clearly defined, so quit splitting hairs and showing a condescending tone as if we're all ignorant of being in some tinfoil conspiracy you're enlightening us about. You've done nothing to actually refute Dawkins actual arguments but get into this hopelessly dumb debate over what one means by "God" and how atheism... isn't atheism. Apparently someone must care, because you keep going on about it. How about addressing the incredulous claims of an omnipotent deity (let's call it a teapot so there's no ambiguity here, because I mean Jehovah when I say that) or the hilarious claim you need religion to have a moral compass.

Valdemar the dictonary uses the Bible as its source of the meaning of the word God. Where do you get your meaning of the word God ? Dawkins uses the dictonary/Bible .. many people do this, many people live in the shadow of a church or have seen the Bible in courtrooms. Do you also think the Bible is the source of truth about God, faith & religious thinking ? Or are you like many, simply a part of the religious machine, that has been driven by oligarchies & autocrats since the 4th century, which is oblivious to the relgious ideas outside of the theistic machine ?

[Rye]

There's a few things to note here:

1) Dawkins also uses Zeus and Thor as counterpoints to Yahweh, which shows precisely what he is referring to as a god delusion, a cultural artifact as much as anything else.

2) Pythagoras and Daoism are of little consequence in the english speaking world, so do not warrant exposition on the level of Yahweh and the Bible anyway. You might as well demand he start devoting sections to Quezacotl too. Obviously, since ChinUp didn't mention Quezacotl, he mustn't know enough about religion or something?

3) Even buddhism and daoism and ol' Quezzy are products of faith, so they are addressed, albeit indirectly, in the faith section.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Got another post:

You, Valdemar, like Dawkins have taken the little wolf, the bishop who converted the goths after returning from Constantine's court, as your personal saviour.

Check the root of the word.

Uh, yeah. His point?

[Rye]

His point is that anyone that agrees with Dawkins are obviously just as crazy and silly as religious people. That's why you've no doubt got a bomb vest on right now and are marching towards your nearest tube station.

[Darth Wong]

That's the problem with people who self-segregate themselves, as hardcore religious folk tend to do. Self-segregation tends to filter out different ways of thinking, living, etc., to the point that people who have lived their entire lives in a state of self-segregation are completely incapable of comprehending how others can live without a direct analogue for every ritual, belief, and habit that they have.

That's why religious people always assume atheists have some kind of saviour or prophet that they follow: they honestly cannot conceive of the idea of a person living without a saviour or prophet. The idea is so alien to them, and their minds are so limited by their narrow range of experience, that they simply can't understand it. They force everything you say into their model.