# Theists, agnostics, beleivers: Have you attempted to read a book by Richard Dawkins? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 18, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623 "2009-09-18T18:06:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/281 "2009-09-24T20:43:26Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > All [The God Delusion] can do, if you will excuse the expression, is preach to the the choir. I thought this too, which is why I haven’t read it, but someone (way, way) upthread made a very good point about why it’s more than preaching to the choir. It’s telling the choir they’re not crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/282 "2009-09-24T20:52:02Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I thought this too, which is why I haven’t read it, but someone (way, way) upthread made a very good point about why it’s more than preaching to the choir. It’s telling the choir they’re not crazy. 😕 You think the intent or effect of the book is to tell atheists they are not crazy? For my money, I don’t give much of a shit if people don’t like the tone. I’m convinced that believers are never going to listen to gentle and thoughtful argument. They’ve generally spent their lives throwing softball questions about belief at their leaders and are convinced positively by facile argumentation such as that of Aquinas. I’m a bit sad to be so cynical, but I do think that there is a sheep-like quality that may be more likely to be shocked into reality by a forceful counterargument than a “well gee of course you may be right, but…” argument. And I also think that there is more mileage to be gained by preaching to the choir, since my own reaction to _The God Delusion_ was to feel empowered to speak more plainly about atheism and not to feel worried about hurting believers feelings by simply expressing a contrary belief. So, perhaps in that sense you are right. Maybe Dawkins was telling me I was crazy to be so deferential to religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/283 "2009-09-24T21:10:34Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I’m convinced that believers are never going to listen to gentle and thoughtful argument. I think most people come to their beliefs on their own terms and having their beliefs called asinine simply leads them to circle the wagons. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/284 "2009-09-24T21:30:51Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I sense we are going around in circles to an extent. I merely point out that, by his own account, outside teaching is insufficient to prevent “enculturation” - he expressly states that those being 'enculturated" become as it were accomplices to their own isolation. Science education is certainly a _necessary_ condition (his unobjectionable point), but it is clearly not, in his mind, a _sufficient_ condition. His self-declared central point is that parents who are religious are: > > 1. Very naturally and indeed inevitably going to “enculturate” their children with their own opinions, whether other forms of education are available or not; > > 2. Children are so vulnerable to parental influence that merely providing alternative sources is not sufficient to counteract it; and > > 3. By his proposed test, parents are _immoral_ for so doing, have no _right_ to do it, and society has a _duty_ to prevent them from doing it. > > He himself recognizes that this is an illiberal position and one which his audience may find offensive. He is correct in this at least - it is illiberal and offensive (or at least it _ought_ to be offensive, to those allergic to the notion of giving anyone the power to decide which ideas are ‘harmful’ for others to propogate). It is not merely an argument for mandatory public education - he quite clearly recognizes this. I think I agree with you, but I think you take it too far. Yes, i’d say he feels that science education, or outside education in general, isn’t a full solution to the issue. But, where I disagree, is the idea that because he feels that education is basically “not enough”, that he would therefore be in favour of further measures. As far as I can tell, your reading is that he is saying that he’s in favour of science education, but since it is not enough, and there is a duty towards solving the problem, he would likely be in favour of different (and, perhaps, more effective) solutions. My reading is that he sets aside further measures entirely; essentially, that while further methods would be possibly more effective, and the duty does exist, anything more than science education would be either inappropriate or less effective in practical terms. That while science education, as a means to combat enculturation, is not a perfect solution, it is still the best one taking everything into account, and that it is the one that has his full support. In essence, there are two arguments. What is the moral, theoretical and practical result of parents enculturating their children, as a specific, and then, what should be done about it, in those terms but in general and in real terms. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/285 "2009-09-24T21:45:38Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I find it interesting that since religious people can’t win any argument for religion, they resort to reframing it, which includes trying to make other people look bad for having beliefs. Beyond being wrong, it comes off looking like, “You’re just as dumb as us! HAHAHA!” And I find it interesting that you think I was rephrasing **Dio’s** argument or calling him dumb. I just found it mildly humorous that moments earlier he was chastising someone for misrepresenting the atheist stance (in that it’s not their belief, rather the lack thereof that makes one an atheist), only to go on and say that atheists “know what [they] believe”. One of those “paging Dr. Freud” moments, if you will. > [@Cisco](#): > > I thought this too, which is why I haven’t read it, but someone (way, way) upthread made a very good point about why it’s more than preaching to the choir. It’s telling the choir they’re not crazy. I also find it interesting that you’re able to tell us all about what a book you haven’t read sets out to do. Or is this nothing more than a “me too” post? Before you ask, I read it and was underwhelmed. I picked it up wondering if it would change my worldview, and instead I found it self-aggrandizing and wordy. It reeked of a college student trying to meet some arbitrary minimum number of words. Also, he tailored his arguments around the beliefs of people who would never read it, making it little more than an exercise in intellectual masturbation. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/286 "2009-09-24T21:50:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t know why you waste your time with this. It is very well established in srious philosophical discussions that strong atheism is only a subset of atheism. No, it isn’t. It’s “established” in some popular atheist literature, but every single encyclopedia of philosophy that I’ve consulted affirms that atheism is primarily defined as the active rejection of God’s existence. It’s also how the vast majority of dictionaries present its usage. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What do you expect to accomplish by trying to insist that all atheists are strong atheists? Do you think we don’t really know what we believe? What do you expect to accomplish by blatantly misrepresenting my claim? At no point did I say that all atheist are strong atheists. Rather, I said that you’re incorrect in your repeated insistence that atheism is defined as nothing more than an absence of belief in God. That’s simply not true. At best, one could argue that this is simply one usage of the term – and it’s not even the traditional usage. To say that atheism is just a lack of belief is a gross oversimplification, to put it mildly. I’ve had this discussion with you several times now, so I strongly suspect that you will continue to insist that atheism is nothing more than an absence of belief. For my part, I will simply repeat what I’ve always said – that this is one usage of the term (albeit not the traditional one), and that it’s foolish to insist that this is the specific definition of atheism. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/287 "2009-09-25T05:44:17Z")
At this point, I think all the arguments have been put on the table. As is typical in such things, it’s apparent neither side is going to persuade the other. If there are any lurkers, they can draw their own conclusions. All I will add, and I stated this earlier, is that the rule I (and others) advocate is the rule I follow in all cases, not just in debates about religion. ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/288 "2009-10-24T11:06:35Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > Inspired by [Atheists, agnostics, & non-believers: do you enjoy reading any part of the Bible?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=532539). > > …I can quite beleive that a large proportion of Theists/Beleiver (and to a lesser extent - Agnostics) would actually be frightened to read one of the books, for fear of ‘betraying’ their religiousness and their God… And, from what the fellow aethists here have posted, it seems they are afraid to read the Bible. Even if you don’t believe in G-d, you cannot deny the stories about human behavior are timeless. Man’s cruelties and false dealings with their fellow man (or woman)…we could all learn to be better people - even in this modern society. But, we’re modern now and above all that stuff, right? None of that raping and pillaging goes on today…right “Mr. Madoffs” of the world? I encourage the aethists to look past the evolution bandwagon, and be more open-minded to the lessons that are to be learned by anyone…about simply being a better being! ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/289 "2009-10-24T11:50:42Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > And, from what the fellow aethists here have posted, it seems they are afraid to read the Bible. Even if you don’t believe in G-d, you cannot deny the stories about human behavior are timeless. Man’s cruelties and false dealings with their fellow man (or woman)…we could all learn to be better people - even in this modern society. But, we’re modern now and above all that stuff, right? None of that raping and pillaging goes on today…right “Mr. Madoffs” of the world? Yeah, reading the Bible sure made me a good person. I learned valuable lessons about how to treat my slaves, stone my whore daughter, kill witches, and perform genocide when humanity pisses me off. Real good book of moral lessons there. You’ll say, ‘But there’s good stuff there, too!’ The point being that one must \*already \*have a moral compass to know what in the Bible is worth keeping and what needs ditching. > [@](#): > > I encourage the aethists to look past the evolution bandwagon, and be more open-minded to the lessons that are to be learned by anyone…about simply being a better being! You think evolution is just a ‘bandwagon’, and naturalists believe it because it’s popular? Educate yourself. And what does evolution have to do with being a better being, or failure to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/290 "2009-10-24T11:55:09Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > What Dawkins does or says doesn’t particularly affect me, but _The God Delusion_ is ineffective as a piece of persuasive literature. Its tone is offputting to religious people, many of its arguments are sloppy\*, and it is not respectful. And since when has respecting their beliefs done anything but help convince them they are right? And anything but shameless sucking up is “offputting” to the religious. And for Dawkins to show the respect you demand would undercut his arguments, not help them. It would be interpreted as a sign of weakness; after all, if the matter was that clearcut, why is he showing religion respect? There’s also the problem that respecting religion would be dishonest of him; something else that would no doubt be picked up on. Showing religion respect would require that he pretend that it is something that he clearly thinks it is not. As for persuasion; I think that cracking the shell around the believer’s bubble and making it clear to them that not everyone in the world thinks that what they believe is obviously true is a good thing. > [@Jinx](#): > > And, from what the fellow aethists here have posted, it seems they are afraid to read the Bible. Even if you don’t believe in G-d, you cannot deny the stories about human behavior are timeless. Timeless? In that case, why not just read a modern work? Something better written, more reality based and less evil. > [@Jinx](#): > > I encourage the aethists to look past the evolution bandwagon, and be more open-minded to the lessons that are to be learned by anyone…about simply being a better being! “Evolution bandwagon”? And if someone’s goal is to be a better person, the Bible is hardly something to encourage that. It’s a collection of nasty, primitive myths. The Bible teaches people how to be worse, not better. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/291 "2009-10-24T15:39:04Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > And, from what the fellow aethists here have posted, it seems they are afraid to read the Bible. Even if you don’t believe in G-d, you cannot deny the stories about human behavior are timeless. Man’s cruelties and false dealings with their fellow man (or woman)…we could all learn to be better people - even in this modern society. But, we’re modern now and above all that stuff, right? None of that raping and pillaging goes on today…right “Mr. Madoffs” of the world? > > I encourage the aethists to look past the evolution bandwagon, and be more open-minded to the lessons that are to be learned by anyone…about simply being a better being! [ul][li]It’s spelled “atheist.”[/li][li]I’ve read the Bible more than most theists I’ve known. I studied it formally in college. I learned Biblical Greek so I could understand the New Testament in its original language. Your assumption that atheists “are afraid” to read the Bible is baseless and untrue. Reading the Bible is one of the number one causes of atheism.[/li][li]Lots of mythology and literature is “timeless.” How is the Bible any more insightful in that regard than Homer or _Gilgamesh_, or the _Mahabarata_ or Shakespeare or Hollywood, for that matter?[/li] [li]Who says that modern people are “above” anything? That’s not an atheist sentiment that I’ve ever heard of.[/li][\*]What does evolution have to do with anything?[/ul] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623.md?page=14)