?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Hogarth judge

November 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Heresy hunt

Book review: The God Delusion

As an atheist polemic, this fails on multiple levels. Dawkins's scientific work, which is full of interest and merit, is in evolutionary biology. While I believe in God, I accept the fact of evolution and human evolution too. In his zeal to condemn religion, he seems to have forgotten some of his biology.

The shock begins with the preface. Dawkins begins with a catalogue of various atrocities perpetrated by humans who cited religion as a motive. He seems to imagine that, were it not for belief in religions, none of these horrors would have happened and we could all hold hands around the campfire and sing "Imagine". Were he a mere atheist, this might be credible. But as an evolutionary biologist, he ought to realize this utopia is unworthy of belief. Were religion entirely absent, humans would still be violent, tribal, xenophobic, and jealous. They evolved those traits. Religion had nothing to do with it. Removing deities from human culture simply makes them need to choose some other symbol to make war over.

This is why evolution and faith reside happily together in my skull. Biology turns a cold and piercing gaze on the human character, as does the apostle Paul. Dawkins knows that the human character is a problem. The flaws he ascribes to religion are in fact flaws in us; they will not vanish by getting rid of the hypothesis of a deity. He rails against religion, as if it was the one thing that separated him from an earthly paradise, which he could enter if the barrier were removed. Which is why Dawkins makes a poor, unconvincing, and rather boring polemicist as well.

He compares badly to Daniel Dennett, whose Breaking the Spell and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are quite superior to this as atheist apologetics. Even if you don't follow him all the way to his conclusions, you always feel like you're learning something reading these Dennett works. Dennett isn't overcome by the choking fury you see throughout this text. Dennett isn't wasting your time.

Comments

aethism

is the idea that there is no god
no prophets
no moses
no isaah, no elijah
no muhaamad.
How does one forgive thence?
As if no one brought you to being?
Love inside
and love yourself, and then maybe you will see
there is something worth living for?
No se cuanto pero los tengos es los recibar
something like 'i shall not want, therefore i will recieve,'. . .

Re: aethism

i before e
except after c
who came up with that
because there are a few exceptions. . .
like today

Re: aethism

btw im drinking red wine again
if u want me to site the bible
my favorite is psalms
54
particularly
its all about desperations

Re: aethism

darwins elemantary quandry was that he couldn't solve the puzzle.

Re: aethism

his whole problem was one simply reply
the extinct birds
ill give you a hint
it starts with an e
e
but not emu
God and religion are not the same thing. For an eminent scientist, he seems to be completely incapable of understanding this. Where is his logic?

Because of this, people who adopt or accept Dawkins' ideas are embracing yet another belief system. I don't mind this so much as I do those who parade their atheist chic like a thirteen-year-old flaunting a new iPod.

same-

i agree-
why does it matter what religion you are then?
it doesn't right?

Re: same-

if its all same in the end? then it wouldn't matter, you agree?

Re: same-

i suppose theres always carebears and glowworms tho. . . thats what i grew up on . . . lol

Re: same-

and what about butterflies and jellyfish?

Re: same-

they are pretty unique as well

Re: same-

same thing with cartoons

Re: same-

Yes, we don't think it would matter. We think there are an infinite number of paths to God or the Ultimate or whatever you want to call it.
I used to have fairly high regard for Dawkins until I started tangling with his disciples, over the Wikipedia articles on astrology and related subjects. He's become this generation's Ayn Rand.
Great. Just what we need. Did I tell you about the trouble I had with Wikipedian "skeptics" complaining about the articles on things like St. Bernadette and Fátima? People saying things like it was "sad" that any articles on religion were on Wikipedia at all? And the word "credulous" started getting used a lot.

credulious

how about I received a 'D' from a former MSU graduate for writing a paper on KHARMA, or karma, whatever way you would like to spell it. I basically spelled out what Karma means and then I took a picture of a really scary cloud. And attached it to the end of the paper. No wonder that woman gave me a D. She wanted me to send her an e-mail complaining about it. . . ? It's like hey lady, stand up for what you believe it. You want the Jewish community to accept you, heres a born-again muslim?/ catholic evangelist. . . will you accept me?

Re: credulious

by the way, she only received the black and white version, as I was out of color ink that year. . .

Re: credulious

typos are better i suppose they make idioc comments seem less threatening. . .

Re: credulious

idiotic

Re: credulious

and yes i do believe in one God. . .