Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 1 of 167 (352775)
09-28-2006 7:50 AM


I'm wondering if anyone has read The God Delusion, a new book by Richard Dawkins.
If so, I'm interested in what thoughts you have.
All I've seen of the book so far are the excerpts hosted online by BBC.
That's where the link takes you.

Archer
All species are transitional.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 09-28-2006 8:05 AM Archer Opteryx has replied
 Message 8 by Quetzal, posted 09-28-2006 9:47 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 20 by SteveN, posted 09-29-2006 8:23 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 58 by ohnhai, posted 10-24-2006 11:34 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-07-2007 4:53 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 72 by randman, posted 02-08-2007 1:52 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 130 by Malachi-II, posted 02-13-2007 9:29 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 167 (352777)
09-28-2006 8:00 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 167 (352779)
09-28-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
09-28-2006 7:50 AM


Dawkins: The God Delusion
I have not yet read that book, Archer. I did read an article in Discover magazine about Dawkins, however, and the feedback from that article was quite controversial.
What does Sir. Richard address in this latest book? Clue us in!
AbE: I see where you have just seen the B.B.C. links---what did you think of those? What other Dawkins books have you read?
AbE again....
I just looked at the B.B.C. link.
Dawkins writes:
Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it, as Bishop John Shelby Spong, in The Sins of Scripture, rightly observed. Bishop Spong, by the way, is a nice example of a liberal bishop whose beliefs are so advanced as to be almost unrecognizable to the majority of those who call themselves Christians. A British counterpart is Richard Holloway, recently retired as Bishop of Edinburgh. Bishop Holloway even describes himself as a 'recovering Christian'.
I have read some of Shelby Spong, and although I can't place myself quite as liberal as he is, I DO respect the man. I have not read Holloway, however.
Perhaps anyone who has read Dawkins latest book has added insights?
Edited by Phat, : clarification
Edited by Phat, : AbE again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-28-2006 7:50 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-28-2006 9:18 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2006 2:37 AM Phat has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 4 of 167 (352789)
09-28-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
09-28-2006 8:05 AM


Online excerpts
Hi, Phat. The new avatar is a winner.
I've not read anything by Dawkins other than the BBC excerpts I linked in the OP. I see his name bandied about whenever the theory of evolution is in someone's crosshairs, though, so I figured other people at EvC would be familiar with his books.
I can see how he would be controversial. Read his take on religion and you know Bob Jones University is not going to invite him to speak at commencement anytime soon.
My impression of the excerpts at BBC?
The first one struck me as a routine rant. Valid points as far as they go, but cliches by now. I have read Bishop Spong and am familiar with the revenge fantasies of Pat Robertson, two figures he mentions. His riff on the story of Lot was occasionally amusing, but come on--Lot is an easy target. Everybody knows that story is sordid, fundies included. And I think our Mystery Science Theater comedians at EvC could get a lot more laughs out of a sulfurous matinee like The Adventures of Lot and His Family than Dawkins manages.
The second excerpt struck me as being in a different class--something more perceptive, even necessary. The subject is terrorism. Dawkins notes that terrorists do not do what they do because of 'evil,' jealousy of our freedoms, or the shortcomings of Mr Blair or Mr Bush--all the convenient scapegoats we muster. Their actions are motivated by religion. The London suicide bombers believed what the Koran told them. Literally. They willingly traded their young lives--and the innocent lives of their victims--for the eternity in paradise promised to them in a book.
Dawkins finds it interesting that our public discussions of terrorism avoid mentioning religion. The terrorists do not shrink from the subject at all. Pay attention to what they tell you, says Dawkins, and the message is clear. They do what they do because they really believe this stuff.
Food for thought.
How about you, Phat? Thoughts?
__
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Punctutation.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 09-28-2006 8:05 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by iano, posted 09-28-2006 9:45 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 167 (352792)
09-28-2006 9:35 AM


Paxman/Dawkins interview wrt this book
Can be found here
quote:
Paxman (quoting Dawkins): ...'God almost certainly does not exist', you're leaving open the possibility that he does.
Dawkins: Of course. Any scientist would leave open that possibility. You can't absolutely disprove the existence of anything...so just as we can't disprove the existence of Thor and Zeus and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can't be dogmatic and say it is certain that God doesn't exist...but we can say it is as unlikely as Thor with his hammer.
And Dawkins' final word:- "I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable".
Edited by Modulous, : changing the url, the new link should take you to the 'D' section of all the featured interviews - Dawkins is right there (currently second behind David Davis)

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 09-28-2006 9:38 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 167 (352794)
09-28-2006 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
09-28-2006 9:35 AM


Re: Paxman/Dawkins interview wrt this book
Modulous writes:
And Dawkins' final word:- "I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable".
At least I agree with Sir.Richard on this point!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2006 9:35 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 12:12 PM Phat has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 7 of 167 (352796)
09-28-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Archer Opteryx
09-28-2006 9:18 AM


Re: Online excerpts
I've not read anything by Dawkins other than the BBC excerpts I linked in the OP. I see his name bandied about whenever the theory of evolution is in someone's crosshairs, though, so I figured other people at EvC would be familiar with his books.
He has (I think) accurately been described as "the British medias atheist-in-waiting, never slow to let fly with both barrels whenever he gets a believer in his sights"
He is very bright and wickedly witty. I can't help but be amused whenever he's on. Reminds me very much of Saul of Tarsus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-28-2006 9:18 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 167 (352797)
09-28-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
09-28-2006 7:50 AM


Although I have not read The God Delusion, I have read many of his other works. I tend to stay away from the "religion-bashing" aspects of his work.
For those interested, his website has links to numerous articles discussing the book, including from the Guardian and the Economist, as well as a BBC interview.
For Archer: Dawkins has been a prolific "pop-sci" author on evolution for many years. He is quite a good writer, and well worth reading. The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, and The Selfish Gene are all what I would consider classics of the genre. On the other hand, he HAS gotten himself into trouble - both with scientists and laypeople - on occasion. For instance, he was sort of "forced" to write The Extended Phenotype to "correct" misunderstandings and misinterpretations (his words) contained in The Selfish Gene. In Phenotype he both backed off from some of his earlier assertions, and expanded on others, making it a substantially better book all around.
Other books I have read of his include Unweaving the Rainbow (a counter to the "believers'" assertion that only through the supernatural can one have a sense of wonder), River Out of Eden (about life evolution from the point of view of the flow of genes down through the aeons), and The Ancestor's Tale (using the metaphor of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales to "backtrack" the lineage ending in humanity to its origin as a single cell). Of the three, the latter is probably the best of the lot. I personally rank Dawkins just below Sagan and Azimov, and certainly on a par with Ehrlich and Diamond (and just ahead of Gould), as a scientist who is capable of describing highly complex subjects and concepts to laypersons in an engaging and understandable manner, while at the same time retaining the "hard science" of the most recent research.
Edited to add: There is a lengthy discussion of The God Delusion at iidb.org, although most of the thread is discussing Dawkins, rather than the book. Still, there might be some interest there.
Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-28-2006 7:50 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 167 (352814)
09-28-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
09-28-2006 9:38 AM


Re: Paxman/Dawkins interview wrt this book
And Dawkins' final word:- "I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable".
What an odd comment. If Dawkins is right, we were not "put here" for any reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 09-28-2006 9:38 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by iano, posted 09-28-2006 12:18 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2006 12:46 PM robinrohan has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 10 of 167 (352817)
09-28-2006 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by robinrohan
09-28-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Paxman/Dawkins interview wrt this book
It was just rip in the Matrix.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 12:12 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 12:46 PM iano has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 167 (352823)
09-28-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by iano
09-28-2006 12:18 PM


Re: Paxman/Dawkins interview wrt this book
It was just rip in the Matrix
Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by iano, posted 09-28-2006 12:18 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 5:28 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 167 (352824)
09-28-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by robinrohan
09-28-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Paxman/Dawkins interview wrt this book
What an odd comment. If Dawkins is right, we were not "put here" for any reason.
In the same interview he was asked if there was any purpose in humans. He said that of course there is purpose: to propagate our genes.
That is why we were put here, in Dawkins' view...we were put here by our genes as vehicles to aid in those same genes to propagate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 12:12 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 12:53 PM Modulous has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 167 (352828)
09-28-2006 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
09-28-2006 12:46 PM


Re: Paxman/Dawkins interview wrt this book
In the same interview he was asked if there was any purpose in humans. He said that of course there is purpose: to propagate our genes
That could hardly be called a "purpose."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2006 12:46 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 09-28-2006 12:56 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 15 by Parasomnium, posted 09-28-2006 3:04 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2006 3:52 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 50 by dwise1, posted 09-29-2006 4:02 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 14 of 167 (352831)
09-28-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by robinrohan
09-28-2006 12:53 PM


Re: Paxman/Dawkins interview wrt this book
robinrohan
No purpose you say? Try doing without the genes then and see how much purpose come to fruition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 12:53 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 09-28-2006 4:47 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 15 of 167 (352869)
09-28-2006 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by robinrohan
09-28-2006 12:53 PM


The intentional stance
robinrohan writes:
In the same interview he was asked if there was any purpose in humans. He said that of course there is purpose: to propagate our genes
That could hardly be called a "purpose."
I think it could be called a purpose with the same justification with which Dawkins calls genes "selfish". Of course genes are not conscious entities, and in that sense they cannot be said to be selfish or to have a purpose in mind for the bodies they reside in. But in the same vein as saying that there is design in nature, we can say that genes are selfish and that they have a purpose in mind for us.
Taking that stance - an intentional stance, as Dennett calls it - we can say that our purpose, the purpose of a human body, is to make more genes. The chicken is just the egg's way of making more eggs, that sort of stuff.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 12:53 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 3:22 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024