"Dawkins Delusion" book on its way. Anyone read it? [Archive]

Musicat

01-30-2008, 03:26 PM

I'm sure many here are familiar with Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. (http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201728035&sr=8-1) A cousin of mine -- to say he is not a Dawkins fan would be an understatement -- is sending me a book he claims is a better work on the subject, The Dawkins Delusion -- Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Devine, (http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism-Denial/dp/083083446X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201728405&sr=8-3) by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath.

I'm curious...has anyone read this and would you care to comment?

Bryan Ekers

01-30-2008, 03:56 PM

Something has to be defined before it can be denied.

I have noted a tendency by some theists to try to describe atheism and related subjects appear cultish. It's not skepticism and reason - it's Dawkinsism! It's not biology and evolution - it's Darwinism! As though these concepts have no value outside of the "cult leaders" who advance them. I don't blame them - it's easier to attack reputations than to delve into that messy confusing "science" stuff.

I admit I'm not likely to read the McGraths' book, but then, I didn't read Dawkins' either. I came to my atheistic views quite independently. The individual who had the most influence? Jerry Zucker, possibly.

Musicat

01-30-2008, 04:06 PM

I admit I'm not likely to read the McGraths' book, but then, I didn't read Dawkins' either. Well, at least you don't play favorites. :)

CalMeacham

01-30-2008, 04:08 PM

Dawkins Delusion -- Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Devine

Why would any rational person deny the existence of Andy Devine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Devine

Musicat

01-30-2008, 04:24 PM

Why would any rational person deny the existence of Andy Devine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_DevineCleopatra, Queen of Denial?

Snarky_Kong

01-30-2008, 04:39 PM

You can listen to Dawkins and McGrath debate on youtube and google video. I'd imagine that they go over pretty much the same information. In the two talks I've listened to I think McGrath doesn't really answer the points Dawkins brings up and isn't very impressive. I bet the book fares better though.

dangermom

01-30-2008, 05:21 PM

42fish

01-30-2008, 07:18 PM

I haven't heard of this book, but the other day I saw this one: There is a God: how the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind (http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201735191&sr=1-2). It looks pretty interesting, and when paging through it I saw that he does make references to Dawkins.

How the world's most notorious atheist changed HIS mind? You mean Madalyn Murray O'Hare not only found God, she had a sex change too?

Musicat

01-30-2008, 07:39 PM

I haven't heard of this book, but the other day I saw this one: There is a God: how the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind (http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201735191&sr=1-2). It looks pretty interesting, and when paging through it I saw that he does make references to Dawkins.Yeah, that's Antony Flew and a story a few years ago. Some people seem to think that if they once didn't believe in God, but now do (or vice-versa), their new belief has more substance than someone who never changed their mind. I don't buy it.

JThunder

01-30-2008, 07:55 PM

Yeah, that's Antony Flew and a story a few years ago. Some people seem to think that if they once didn't believe in God, but now do (or vice-versa), their new belief has more substance than someone who never changed their mind. I don't buy it.I don't think that's automatically the case; after all, you have theists who become atheists, and atheists who become theists. It happens both ways.

In fairness though, people bring up Antony Flew because he wasn't just any atheist. Rather, he was one of the foremost atheistic debaters in his time, as was therefore well-informed regarding the classic arguments for atheism. In other words, while this doesn't automatically justify his newfound beliefs, it does make his conversion atypical.

BTW, this is the point at which a certain Doper invariably says, "But Flew has made contradictory statements regarding his theistic beliefs! Obviously, his testimony can't be trusted!" I think that's both naive and a gross overstatement. Even if his stated beliefs have indeed varied, that should come as no surprise; after all, it could suggest a progression in his own ways of thinking. Indeed, according to Dr. Gary Habermas (one of Flew's erstwhile debate opponents), Antony Flew first converted from atheism to deism, but has since switched to full-blown theism. It should be unsurprising that statements regarding his beliefs will have varied with time..

Terrifel

01-30-2008, 08:17 PM

I've never even heard of "the world's most notorious atheist."

I therefore suspect that he may not really be all that notorious.

robardin

01-30-2008, 08:38 PM

Antony Flew was the son of a minster and no doubt had a religious upbringing. It doesn't seem all that unusual to me that such a person, deep down inside, had a religious need to believe, particularly as he draws close to the end of a long life.

I'm basically an atheist, certainly at least an agnostic, yet I'm pretty sure the last conscious thought in my head (if I'm in a position to be aware of dying) will be, well, here I go to find out if there is any kind of afterlife... I don't see how, but I hope I have an a-ha moment, otherwise it's gonna kinda suck...

Diogenes the Cynic

01-30-2008, 08:56 PM

Antony Flew was persuaded by bad ID arguments. In particular, he was swayed by fallacious statistical arguments regarding abiogenesis which he falsely stated have not been addressed by Dawkins and others. He admits, however, that he hasn't actually kept up with or read any of the science. He basically doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a philosopher, not a scientist.

He is also a pretty obscure figure who most atheists, including me, had never even heard of before religionists started trumpeting his rather unremarkable conversion. Atheism is not an ideology. It has no leaders. The fact that some obscure philosopher was dumb enough to fall for a creationist argument is not making anybody else fall to their knees. From what I've read of his statements, Flew is just a dipshit that's too easily impressed by ID bullshit. He mneeds to take a science class.

As to the OP, I haven't read it cover to cover, but I skimmed a lot of it at the bookstore not too long ago and got a pretty good sense of it. It's not as bad as some of the other stupid, whiny, anti-Dawkins books that are out there but it doesn't offer much to support the existence of God either. It largely addresses some of dawkins' more sweeping claims about religion being toxic in general, claims that he focuses too much on fundie beliefs and generalizes them to all Christians, that he takes the Bible too literally -- or rather, that he assumes all Christians do -- that Christians are necessarily irrational and stupid, etc. These points are all pretty fair, Dawkins does get too polemic at times, too categorical, too sweeping, unecessarily belittling. That's all true. The fact that he is abrasive and belittling, however, is not, in itself, a proof that God exists.

While a lot of time is spent attacking Dawkins' style and his conclusions about religious people in general, I didn't see much in the way of counters to his arguments against the existence of God. There was ad populem argumentation and some fallacious special pleading about the necessity of religion for morality. Maybe there was someything really dynamite that I missed in my reading, but I dount it.

All in all, it didn't strike me as literalist, fundie hogwash like Strobel or McDowell, more like "We're not all Noah's Ark believing knuckle dragging morons kind of stuff. Don't expect anything really substantial in the EoG debate, though.

Two and a Half Inches of Fun

01-30-2008, 08:56 PM

I haven't heard of this book, but the other day I saw this one: There is a God: how the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind (http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201735191&sr=1-2). It looks pretty interesting, and when paging through it I saw that he does make references to Dawkins.

Flew does not appear to have changed his mind so much as lost it to old age.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=anthony+flew&st=nyt&oref=slogin

tychobrahe'snose

01-30-2008, 08:58 PM

The positions are both based on a belief...unprovable in either camp. What's the point? Selling books?

Tycho

Shalmanese

01-30-2008, 09:18 PM

I've never even heard of "the world's most notorious atheist."

I therefore suspect that he may not really be all that notorious.

Flew is famous in the same way that Maynard Smith is famous as a biologist or Ed Witten as a physicist. Fairly well recognised within their field but not as well known to the educated layman as Stephen J Gould or Stephen Hawking.

The NY Times article is very good and worth a read. It goes a lot into the back story behind his decision to convert.

John Mace

01-30-2008, 09:31 PM

I remember that NYT Sunday Magazine article. Seems like Antony Flew over the cuckoo's nest.

lissener

01-30-2008, 09:42 PM

Why would I read such a book? Dawkins may be abrasive, but he's insightful and accurate.

Two and a Half Inches of Fun

01-30-2008, 09:46 PM

He is also a pretty obscure figure who most atheists, including me, had never even heard of before religionists started trumpeting his rather unremarkable conversion.

A lot of people used one of his books in college philosophyhttp://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=MmJHVU9Rv3YC&dq=anthony+flew+A+Dictionary+of+Philosophy&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=ciob6wx3vM&sig=LRvhplsDYiU9WEBcv5vHX45lrAM classes.

Two and a Half Inches of Fun

01-30-2008, 09:47 PM

A lot of people used one of his books in college philosophyhttp://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=MmJHVU9Rv3YC&dq=anthony+flew+A+Dictionary+of+Philosophy&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=ciob6wx3vM&sig=LRvhplsDYiU9WEBcv5vHX45lrAM classes.

Better link:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=MmJHVU9Rv3YC&dq=anthony+flew+A+Dictionary+of+Philosophy&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=ciob6wx3vM&sig=LRvhplsDYiU9WEBcv5vHX45lrAM

Princhester

01-30-2008, 10:27 PM

The positions are both based on a belief...unprovable in either camp.

Yeah, in the same way good health is merely a particularly comfortable illness.

Staggerlee

01-31-2008, 06:05 AM

The positions are both based on a belief...unprovable in either camp. What's the point? Selling books?

TychoDawkins makes it clear in his book that while there cannot be certainty when it comes to God's existence/non-existence, you can still consider evidence to establish the most likely state of affairs.

Musicat

01-31-2008, 06:41 AM

I haven't received the book yet, but I am obligated to read it. My fundie cousin read The God Delusion at my urging and feels the McGrath book is the refutation.

I'm urging my cousin to join SDMB so he can participate in these discussions. No matter what his viewpoint, I'm sure he would be an asset here since he has a strong scientific background.

Sailboat

01-31-2008, 07:10 AM

Atheist Fundamentalism? What a laughable attempt to control the terms of the debate to tar your your opponent. What would a "fundamentalist" atheist believe, that everything that's not written down was actually, literally not written down by a nonexistent God? Are they taking back atheism from progressive atheists?

Sailboat

Unauthorized Cinnamon

01-31-2008, 07:15 AM

First of all, anyone who refers to "Atheist fundamentalism" loses quite a bit of credibility with me. The phrase demonstrates such a monumental lack of understanding of Christianity and atheism (or such a cynical appeal to emotion) that it puts me right off. (And yes, that includes atheists and agnostics who use the term.)

Now, I haven't read the book, and Dio's description makes it sound a bit more substantial than I thought (though clearly it rests on moving the goalposts, which gets old fast). However, I have heard the book discussed on Krazy Kristian radio, and those discussions invariably reveal that the hosts haven't read Dawkins (and perhaps not McGrath either!). They'll start in with standard apologetics like the cosmological argument, or moral apologetics, which Dawkins addresses extensively. Yet they don't argue against his arguments - they're just spouting the same old apologetics. Nothing to persuade any thinking person, so much as assuage any doubts among the faithful, who might be a bit worried about all the attention the "new atheists" are receiving and thinking they might be on to something.

I'd be interested to read it - I just don't want to buy it or get on any mailing lists in order to do so.

Musicat

01-31-2008, 08:01 AM

I'd be interested to read it - I just don't want to buy it or get on any mailing lists in order to do so.I'll send you my copy after I'm through with it. That way, the authors don't get richer and encouraged to write another. :)

DanBlather

01-31-2008, 10:54 AM

Meatros

01-31-2008, 10:59 AM

I wasn't particularly impressed with McGrath's prior book 'the twilight of atheism', and nor was I impressed with Dawkin's musings on religion (his biology musings are much better).

I've read portions of McGrath's book (via theists who quote them) and I'm not sure it's going to be worth my time - primarily because I didn't find Dawkin's book impressive, so I don't think a refutation of it would stir my chicken.

Justin_Bailey

01-31-2008, 11:07 AM

He is also a pretty obscure figure who most atheists, including me, had never even heard of before religionists started trumpeting his rather unremarkable conversion. Atheism is not an ideology. It has no leaders.

I'm always amazed that there are athiestic groups though.

If you don't believe in god, why would you bother with "church", the worst part of religion?

Czarcasm

01-31-2008, 11:34 AM

I'm always amazed that there are athiestic groups though.

If you don't believe in god, why would you bother with "church", the worst part of religion?Do you consider all support groups to be "churches"?

Justin_Bailey

01-31-2008, 11:38 AM

Do you consider all support groups to be "churches"?

I'm not talking about support groups. I'm talking about atheist groups. And I call it church because it's a place you have to go for an hour a week to talk about your "beliefs."

I believe in god, but church is the tool of the devil.

Unauthorized Cinnamon

01-31-2008, 12:29 PM

I'm not talking about support groups. I'm talking about atheist groups. And I call it church because it's a place you have to go for an hour a week to talk about your "beliefs."First and foremost, you don't "have to go." That right there makes it a LOT different from many religious gatherings.

Mostly, judging from the online atheist groups I've seen, people go to hang out and get:
1. Help with practical issues of being an atheist in a predominantly Christian culture - dealing with mixed marriages, how to approach school issues, how to approach it with your kids, etc.
2. Emotional support from like-minded people.
3. The ability to talk about anything without having to internally censor when topics touch on religion.

The same ends (practical help, emotional support, no censoring of views) are served by group meetings of all kinds, from La Leche League to Alanon. They aren't therefore churches!

Justin_Bailey

01-31-2008, 12:37 PM

First and foremost, you don't "have to go." That right there makes it a LOT different from many religious gatherings.

Funny, I don't remember anyone pointing a gun to my head to go to church either. Must be how I'm religious and don't go to church.

I'm mostly pulling my opinions from A.J. Jacobs' attendance of an atheist meeting in "The Year of Living Bibically" and whether the sermon is about belief in god or lack of belief, there was still a sermon.

I guess calling it "church" made the joke fly over people's heads. But the point is that having an organized meeting over what is always professed as a "lack of belief" is just about one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Diogenes the Cynic

01-31-2008, 12:44 PM

Funny, I don't remember anyone pointing a gun to my head to go to church either. Must be how I'm religious and don't go to church.

I'm mostly pulling my opinions from A.J. Jacobs' attendance of an atheist meeting in "The Year of Living Bibically" and whether the sermon is about belief in god or lack of belief, there was still a sermon.

I guess calling it "church" made the joke fly over people's heads. But the point is that having an organized meeting over what is always professed as a "lack of belief" is just about one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
They're basically support groups, not church services. There aren't any sermons. Do you think that any kind of public meeting is automatically religious? Is any non-religious meeting "stupid?" People meet over shared interest and concerns all the time. So what?

Justin_Bailey

01-31-2008, 12:58 PM

They're basically support groups, not church services. There aren't any sermons. Do you think that any kind of public meeting is automatically religious? Is any non-religious meeting "stupid?" People meet over shared interest and concerns all the time. So what?

Support groups for what? The big bad theists keeping the man upstairs?

Jesus Christ, I think religious church meetings are stupid too, that's why I don't go to them. And if the meeting is based around a belief (even a lack of belief), then yeah, it's religion. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a... you get the picture.

And while they all might not have sermons, there most certainly was a sermon in the meeting discussed in "The Year of Living Bibically."

Biffy the Elephant Shrew

01-31-2008, 01:17 PM

Funny, I don't remember anyone pointing a gun to my head to go to church either.
Maybe it's different for those of you whose religion doesn't involve a guy in Italy with a big hat, but I seem to remember something about the fires of Hell awaiting those who don't obey the third commandment (or fourth, for those without the hat guy).

Diogenes the Cynic

01-31-2008, 01:27 PM

Support groups for what? The big bad theists keeping the man upstairs?
I've never been to one but my understanding is that they often involve how to deal with interpersonal and family issues that arise from the issue. People often have trouble coming out to spouses or other family members about it and can also face difficulties professionally. You can sneer if you want to but you don't really know what you're talking about, do you?
Jesus Christ, I think religious church meetings are stupid too, that's why I don't go to them. And if the meeting is based around a belief (even a lack of belief), then yeah, it's religion. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a... you get the picture.
This is complete baloney. Is a political rally automatically religious. A smoke-out for NORML? The kind of atheist meetings you're talking about (which most atheists never attend, incidentally) are not about any kind of ritual or practice or evangelism, just a way for atheists to talk to other atheists and help each other deal with issues that can arise from it.
And while they all might not have sermons, there most certainly was a sermon in the meeting discussed in "The Year of Living Bibically."
Because some writer in some book you read characterized a speech as a "sermon," you now think you have all the ammunition you need to make a sweeping pronouncement that atheist meetings are all quasi-religious services? Sorry, but that's not just so. Atheism is not a religion and that dog is never going to hunt no matter how many times religionsts try to kick it in the ass.

Sitnam

01-31-2008, 01:46 PM

"It is all too easy to confuse fundamentalism with passion. I may well appear passionate when I defend evolution against a fundamentalist creationist, but this is not because of a rival fundamentalism of my own. It is because the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong and I am passionately distressed that my opponent can't see it - or, more usually, refuses to look at it because it contradicts his holy book."

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins p. 320

Diogenes the Cynic

01-31-2008, 01:57 PM

Sitnam

01-31-2008, 02:42 PM

The phrase "atheist fundamentalism" doesn't even make sarcastic sense since religious fundamentalism, by definition, is strict, literal adherence to a wriiten book or doctrine. Atheism has no written (or unwritten) doctrine or scripture so "atheist fundamentalism" is logically impossible. There is nothing to adhere to.
I dunno. A Doctrine doesn't have to be teachings or life lessons it can simply be a body of axioms.

- All Atheists believe humans have no souls and when they die they are gone.

- All Atheists believe life on Earth evolved or was created through a process not yet known.

- All Atheists believe in reason/proof over conventional wisdom.

- All Atheists believe all the faithful are fools.

These are all things you can impart on a young child and it is ideological dogma, the actual truth (or lack of it) of the learned axioms isn't relevant.

Diogenes the Cynic

01-31-2008, 02:49 PM

I dunno. A Doctrine doesn't have to be teachings or life lessons it can simply be a body of axioms.

- All Atheists believe humans have no souls and when they die they are gone.
This is actually not true. It is possible to believe in souls without believing in Gods. There are nontheistic religions which believve in reinacrnation, for instance.

Beyond that, lacking a belief in souls does not constitute a belief in itself and it's certainly not a "doctrine," just a scientific observation that there is a lack of evidence for souls.

- All Atheists believe life on Earth evolved or was created through a process not yet known.
Evolution is not a belief any more than gravity is a belief.

- All Atheists believe in reason/proof over conventional wisdom.
I don't know what you mean by "conventional wisdom," but I doubt this statement is true.

- All Atheists believe all the faithful are fools.
This is definitely not true.
These are all things you can impart on a young child and it is ideological dogma, the actual truth (or lack of it) of the learned axioms isn't relevant.
Evolution is not ideological. Absence of doctrine is not doctrine. None of the beliefs you ascribe to atheists are even universal to them.

Equipoise

01-31-2008, 03:07 PM

- All Atheists believe all the faithful are fools.I'm an atheist and I don't believe "all the faithful" are fools. Most of them are well-meaning people and I have no problem with them. Many are believers because they just go along with what they grew up with and never stop to think about why they believe. The only believers I think are fools (besides those who try to force their beliefs down my throat via laws) are those who give money to quacks posing as religious leaders.

Sitnam

01-31-2008, 03:57 PM

Diogenes the Cynic, when a child sits on the park bench and asks questions about the world you answer. It doesn't matter what you answer, but those answers form a frame of reference in this childs life. Those frames of reference are axioms until that child grows up and forms unique ones. Telling your child, 'your mother is a whore' over and over becomes a belief that child will hold on too. The child isn't old enough to make arguments for or against the principles you set out so until they learn better they will hold on to it as fact. To them, Evolution IS an ideology.

In retrospect I shouldn't have tried to expound a structure to Athiests the only fact of which they have in common is that they don't believe in God. Still, they define themselves by what they aren't, much like Libertarians....maybe that's why we can't get any traction for the next generation.

Equipoise, if you don't think that fool means, "...just go along with what they grew up with and never stop to think about why they believe." you are fooling yourself.

Musicat

01-31-2008, 04:24 PM

So...anyone read any good books lately?

Yumblie

01-31-2008, 04:39 PM

It's a common mistake to try and come up with axioms that define the "dogma" of atheism, since religious people grow up with a set of rules, and it seems hard to imagine a "belief" system not having its own complimentry set of rules.

Atheist is just a term to describe someone. It's like calling someone racist, or rational, or disorganized. If you try and come up with a set of commandments for disorganized people, no one's going to agree on anything, because there's no holy book or prophet on disorganizism, because it's not a religion. Atheism is the default position; it means one simply does not believe in supernatural deities. If someone chooses to believe in a certain supernatural deity, they can be described as following a religion, otherwise, they do not follow a religion. Just like a racist can be otherwise intelligent, an atheist can be irrational and stupid. Hell, an atheist could even not believe in evolution (maybe creditting aliens instead of a god for intelligent design). Setting atheism against religion gives too much credit to atheism: it's like asking who would win in a fight between Batman and no one.

I haven't read either of the books but anytime someone tries to "debunk" atheism, it just makes them look desperate and silly. Religion is a matter of personal faith, going out trying to "prove" it is just an insult to one's fellow followers.