# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/21 "2009-09-18T22:57:14Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I read _The God Delusion_ for the sake of a discussion on this very board. I found it terrible. Dawkins may be slightly better read and more polite than outright hatemongers like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but that’s like saying that someone is more competent than Dubya–in other words, not very impressive. It’s hard to decide where to begin on explaining the flaws in that book, but the most obvious one is simply how much of what he says is outright false. He repeats as many urban legends as Ann Landers. A quote by James Watt claiming that we can ignore the environment because the Rapture will be coming soon is in there. Two minutes of research [would show that the quote is bogus.](http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Hb6tHvnJ8PEJ:www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/244qiuuc.asp+%22Weekly+Standard%22+James+Watt&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) A story about a British mob who attacked a pediatrician after confusing the word with “pedophile” is in there. That’s another urban legend. One might, of course, insist that those are minor issues, but Dawkins is just as wrong on the major issues. In wrapping up his main case that God doesn’t exist because it’s extremely improbable that God would come into being, he insists that certain physicists including Polkinghorne and Davies have never addressed this issue. Actually both have addressed this issue at great length and so have thousands of the other people, all of whom Dawkins deals with by ignoring them. Other errors I’ve started threads on. There’s the section where he disproves the arguments of Thomas Aquinas by making up quotes of his own invention that Aquinas never wrote and then shooting them down. There’s his bizarre claim about Martin Luther King’s nonviolence tactics being based on Gandhi’s teachings rather than those of Jesus, which [King’s words flatly contradict.](http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) There are the Bible passages that Dawkins rips out of context in order to flatly misrepresent. There’s his utterly false claim that the four gospels were selected “arbitrarily” from among many. And there’s… well, suffice to say, there’s a lot more falsehoods, so many that multiple books have been written exposing them. Of course, whenever I point these out in GD, someone insists that me _might_ not be lying, and that it _might_ be honest mistakes on his part. If so, then his research standards are appalling low, but the point that the book is completely unreliable remains the same. > > But even if I could ignore the majority of the book composed of glaring falsehoods, I would still find it a remarkably bad piece of rhetoric. The claims that Dawkins makes, particularly regarding evolution, are obviously completely bosh. Chapter 5 is chock full of pseudoscience, from the oft-debunked claim that temporal lobe epilepsy causes religion experiences to group selection–the later he admits can’t be supported. In fact, the whole chapter has remarkably few references, especially when considering the scope of the claims he’s making. His central hypothesis that “natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and elders tell them” gets a grand total of zero citation, for the obvious reason that it’s not true. (I’m a teacher, so I know.) While he acknowledges that there’s no certainty behind that hypothesis, I’m basically asked to accept that religion is adaptative on Dawkins’ say-so, which would be problematic even if he were more truthful. > > And then there’s the infamous chapter 9, which I hesitate to mention since even Dawkins defenders generally won’t defend it. He says that religious parents should not be allowed to raise their own children. (He also chastises the Catholic Church for once removing a child from his parents. Blatant hypocrisy seems to come standard here.) That might be the one part of the book is useful. I had known previously that some atheist groups often wanted to impose their will on minor issues, such as having a cross in a park, but without reading _The God Delusion_ I would never have known that world’s leading atheist has such total hatred for the most fundamental human rights. > > Other then that, the book’s main effect on me was to further convince me that Dawkins’ beliefs are untenable, and thus it did a great deal to help build my faith in the correctness of Christian doctrine. You have high standards indeed, my friend. I’m curious-using those same high standards, how would you rate the Bible for accuracy and sensitivity to other viewpoints? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/22 "2009-09-18T23:18:21Z")
The majority of theists barely read the bible. > **[Knowledge of Bible declining, poll says](https://www.christian.org.uk/news/knowledge-of-bible-declining-poll-says/)** > > Knowledge of the Bible is declining, with many ignorant of its most significant characters and events, according to a new survey. [http://www.centerforbibleengagement.org/index.php?option=com\_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=7](http://www.centerforbibleengagement.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=7) In an interview with Assist News Service Rhodes quotes a recent poll, which indicates that 35% of born-again Christians do not read the Bible at all. In addition, Rhodes indicates that among those who say they read the Bible, the vast majority only read it during the one hour they attend church each Sunday morning Altemeyer also had some info in his book ‘the authoritarians’ about evangelicals and a general lack of biblical literacy on their parts, but I don’t remember where in his ebook. I would assume a desire to read the work of Dawkins requires the desire to be introspective, and religious fundamentalism is negatively correlated with introspection. According to Robert Altemeyer, religious evangelicalism is correlated with right wing authoritarianism, which has traits such as dogmatism, compartmentalized thinking and closed mindedness. So I’m not surprised that Dawkin’s audience is made up of people who are already agnostics. I don’t think most evangelicals have the kinds of personalities that would lead them to read something by Dawkins. I believe the majority of people who reject Dawkin’s ideas do it because they find religious ideas more comforting and more socially acceptable, not because they’ve logically debated the merits of creationism vs evolution. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/23 "2009-09-19T04:30:20Z")
I tried to read _The God Delusion_, but got bored in the first couple of chapters. He hates religion, blah blah blah, I get it already. In my view, he totally misses the point of religion much of the time–at least of mine. I don’t feel like his rantings even apply to my POV, and even if they did, I have a hard time taking ranting seriously. I’d be much happier to read a calm, civil, reasoned argument. (That said, I have read and am familiar with pretty much every anti- argument out there. BTDT, am moving on into more interesting areas of study.) My husband has really enjoyed his books on evolution, and I’d read one of those. But we both feel that he’s useless on the subject of religion. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/24 "2009-09-19T04:54:11Z")
I’m most of the way through The God Delusion, and have read bits of Climbing Mount Probable. Where Dawkins soars is his description and explanation of evolutionary biology. He fails pretty much anywhere else. I’m taking the book in audio form, and he reads it with his wife, switching between them randomly, making some of it a bit hard to follow. His attacks on religion are pretty much pathetic straw men. To support his idea that atheists in the US are oppressed he cited a few “facts” that aren’t actually the case. Like many learned people, he seems to think that being an expert on one thing has made him an expert on all things. He comes off pretty silly and ignorant actually. ---
**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:** [September 19, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/25 "2009-09-19T05:04:59Z")
I’ve read _The God Delusion_. I must confess that I don’t see the disrespect or mockery that other people seem to find. He uses analogies like the tea tray and stuff and points out that people would quite rightly be called delusional if they expressed some of the same sorts of beliefs about other supernatural beings besides God (for isntance, someone who thinks Zeus is talking to them is considered nuts, but if Jesus talks to them, they’re just fine). There’s nothing “mocking” in any of that, it’s just a way of showing how truly peculiar and empirically unjustified religious belief really is. A lot of people maybe most) never really consider just how strange theistic belief really is, so Dawkins makes them feel uncomfortable. That doesn’t make Dawkins’ points any less valid or unfair, though.A lot of Christians get indignant about Jesus belief being compared to Zeus beliefs, but they can never actually explain why it’s not fair. I like Dawkins, but I think I prefer Hitchens for entertainment value. He’s so dyspeptic and unconcerned about hurting anyone’s feelings. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/26 "2009-09-19T05:07:51Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > No, but then I’m a quasi-Catholic who has no issues with evolution. So, beyond trying to convince me that God doesn’t exist, I don’t see much reason to bother with them. Yeah, that’s me. I read too slowly to waste my time on polemics or mere statements of obvious fact. ---
**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:** [September 19, 2009, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/27 "2009-09-19T05:09:55Z")
I will say that Dawkins reaches too far when he tries to attack organized religion as a social institution. Most of the counterattacks on Dawkins are on that point, since there really isn’t any rebuttal to his demolition of supernatural beliefs. Getting sidetracked onto arguments about whteher the Catholic Church does more good or bad just allows his critics to avoid having to answer any of the really significant stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/28 "2009-09-19T06:45:02Z")
My favorite book of his was The Ancestor’s Tale. I get pissed when people say his books are just hateful diatribes against religion because I don’t recall this one even mentioning religion. I haven’t read The God Delusion for the same reason I didn’t finish _Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them_ and _What’s the Matter with Kansas?_: I already know I agree with it. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/29 "2009-09-19T08:07:02Z")
> [@](#): > > **ITR champion** : There’s his bizarre claim about Martin Luther King’s nonviolence tactics being based on Gandhi’s teachings rather than those of Jesus, which King’s words flatly contradict. From Gunnar Jahn’s 1964 Nobel Peace Prize Presentation Speech To Martin Luther King, Jr. ((Jahn was Chairman of the Nobel Committee): > [@](#): > > “Gandhi” [Dr. King] says, “was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force…” In Gandhi’s teaching he found the answer to a question that had long troubled him: How does one set about carrying out a social reform? "I found " he tells us, “in the nonviolent resistance philosophy of Gandhi… the only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” Yet you claim that the idea that Dr. King had based his nonviolent philosophy upon the work of Gandhi is bizarre and that your link flatly refutes it. Your link doesn’t even mention Gandhi. It just leads to a long sermon. Next time, how about a direct quote instead of wasting my time looking for something to back you up? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/30 "2009-09-19T08:35:34Z")
I think Dawkins shoots himself in the foot. I’ve read a couple of his evolutionary explanations, and they are compelling: beautifully written, and immaculately argued. _River out of Eden_ was particularly good. It would be wonderful if Theists, religious people, could read these books in isolation and marvel at their content. But they can’t, because he wrote _The God delusion_, which is, IMO, a let-down in argument, and needlessly provocative in style. **ITR Chamption** , here’s MLK himself talking about the influence of Gandhi: [video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQayMdP79cg). ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/31 "2009-09-19T13:26:07Z")
I thought The Selfish Gene was very good until he started talking about religion. He seemed very much out of his depth and made a lot of mistakes about theology, but hey, he’s a biologist, he should stick to that. No idea how he became the spokesman for atheism based on his arguments against theism I’ve read. I’m agnostic. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/32 "2009-09-19T14:48:24Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > I think Dawkins shoots himself in the foot. > > I’ve read a couple of his evolutionary explanations, and they are compelling: beautifully written, and immaculately argued. _River out of Eden_ was particularly good. > > It would be wonderful if Theists, religious people, could read these books in isolation and marvel at their content. But they can’t, because he wrote _The God delusion_, which is, IMO, a let-down in argument, and needlessly provocative in style. Personally, I liked the God delusion, but then, I’m already an atheist, and I think that puts me right in the intended audience. Maybe his next book “The Greatest Show on Earth” (out this month) will be less confrontational to (some) believers; it’s supposed to be all about the evidence for evolution. [TLS | Times Literary Supplement](http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/33 "2009-09-19T15:44:17Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > A story about a British mob who attacked a pediatrician after confusing the word with “pedophile” is in there. That’s another urban legend. Your fact checking could use a little [fact checking](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm), to say nothing of your logic. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/34 "2009-09-19T15:48:04Z")
I read part of the God Delusion but never felt he was talking about beliefs I held. He seemed to be speaking of more traditional Christian beliefs. I never finished. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/35 "2009-09-19T15:48:42Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > My favorite book of his was The Ancestor’s Tale. I get pissed when people say his books are just hateful diatribes against religion because I don’t recall this one even mentioning religion. Me, too. That was one of the most interesting books I’ve read in the last decade. I find myself going back to it all the time. ---
**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 19, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/36 "2009-09-19T16:18:52Z")
I don’t think i’d call Dawkins openly mocking, per se. That is to say, I don’t believe that on all occasions in the book where offense may be found it’s due to him wanting to cause offense. He just seems to have something of a logical disconnect - he gets that religious people have strong, personal views on the subject, he gets that questioning those viewpoints can itself be considered rude or unpleasant, more so than questioning many other subjects, but then doesn’t really tailor his book to suit those ideas. It’s like saying, “Hey, people don’t like it when you insult them, you idiot”. I don’t know whether the book is supposed to be written with theists in mind (really, i’d have to agree it seems to be preaching to the choir), but theists are going to read it regardless. That said, while I certainly don’t hold the same views that I recall \*\*ITR Champion \*\*holding from that series of threads, I don’t think he’s particularly fantastic as far as a representative or an explainer of atheism goes. As far as the biology goes, perhaps more so, but i’m not really knowledgeable enough myself to be able to evalutate that. But I don’t really consider that he has much in the way of especial insights or formulation of argument that makes up for the fact what negatives he brings. Really, what’s needed at this point is someone who’s more polite and more careful. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/37 "2009-09-19T16:21:46Z")
I am of a different school of evolutionary thought than Dawkins, so I tend to disagree with his scientific works (e.g., _The Selfish Gene_, _The Extended Phenotype_, etc.). Not that he has _nothing_ worthwhile in his theories, but I believe he tends to overreach them far too often, and seems to want natural selection to be the _only_ driver of evolution, rather than just the primary one. If I want to know something about ethology, I might look up what he has to say on the matter (given that he is an ethologist by training). Genetics? Not so much. Evolution in general? He doesn’t say anything that hasn’t really already been said, and been said better. I can’t say I really care much for his prose, either. I couldn’t care less what he has to say about religion or creationism vs. evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/38 "2009-09-19T16:43:15Z")
What other drivers are there for evolution? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/39 "2009-09-19T17:17:08Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Really, what’s needed at this point is someone who’s more polite and more careful. I don’t see why. People who don’t think objectively aren’t going to be persuaded on the basis of logic. If the cumulative weight of cosmology, biology, geology, some-other-ology, and the internal logical and moral fallacies of religion haven’t provided a believer with the impetus to realise their faith is misguided, explaining it more eloquently won’t change that fact. I seriously doubt the number of believers that have ‘seen the light’ in this forum on the basis of discussion would approach the number of digits on one hand. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/40 "2009-09-19T17:18:48Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > What other drivers are there for evolution? Sexual selection and genetic drift, to name two. There are also the limiting factors of genetic, developmental, or morphological constraints. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623.md?page=3)