Theists, agnostics, beleivers: Have you attempted to read a book by Richard Dawkins?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@PBear42

I notice that no one seems to be interested in discussing the strand of my argument which relates to the OP. Whether belief in God is delusional we can discuss, but there’s no getting around the fact that the claim is insulting and effectively terminates the dialogue.

It’s not insulting if it’s true, and pointing out that virtually identical beliefs would be called delusional if we weren’t enculturated to accept them as normal is simply pointing out a fact. It’s not an insult.

Also, let’s recall that the foundational belief of Christianity isn’t the cosmological proof. Nor is it creationism. It’s the proposition that the NT accurately describes an actual historical event which really happened. It’s not at all like radio beams from Pluto, the FSM or the IPU. No wonder Christians do “roll eyes” when arguments like these are trotted out. You’re not talking about their religiion.

It’s exactly like radio beams from Pluto when they say they have a telepathic personal relationship with the ghost of a dead Rabbi from ancient Palestine.

Believing the historical claims requires a bit of self-delusion too.

[SecondJudith]

Nonsense, of course something can be insulting and true. “Your paint looks like a cat threw up on your walls.” “Your baby is ugly.” “That was the worst dinner I’ve eaten in five years.”

I agree with PBear42’s assessment that Dawkins’ books are not aimed at religious observers and/or believers, and are not a good-faith attempt to engage in a dialogue. (Or maybe they are in good faith, but he’s a really, really ineffective and tone-deaf debater. He seems smarter than that, though.)

Really, I don’t think Dawkins particularly cares to start a dialogue with or persuade religious people. At least, none of his actions are effective at doing so. His tone and arguments are dismissive, alienating, disrespectful and derisive. Whether or not it is deserved derision isn’t important; disrespect is an extremely ineffective persuasion tactic. Dawkins is either being disingenuous about his intentions, or is supremely incompetent.

I also agree with these:

@PBear42

Whether belief in God is delusional we can discuss, but there’s no getting around the fact that the claim is insulting and effectively terminates the dialogue.

and

@Pleonast

And because general statements about “Christians” when “fundamentalist Christian” is what is correct raises defensive hackles on those theists who are pro-science and pro-evolution. It’s unnecessarily polarizing and irrational–you’re less convincing when you lump together people who disagree with you by 1% with those you disagree with by 99%.

[Grumman]

@PBear42

I notice that no one seems to be interested in discussing the strand of my argument which relates to the OP. Whether belief in God is delusional we can discuss, but there’s no getting around the fact that the claim is insulting and effectively terminates the dialogue.

If the claim terminates the dialogue this is their fault, not ours. Where else do you believe we should show such respect for irrational ideas? The next time some idiot claims Obama was born in Kenya should we tiptoe around the subject, never pointing out that stubborn belief in the face of all evidence by definition cannot have any resemblance to reality except by coincidence?

That’s why I said (in my first post) that Dawkins’ title assumes the conclusion.

This complaint makes no sense at all. Just because the title is closer to the front of the book does not mean that it was developed first. It’s like assuming a journal entry is unscientific because the abstract is in front of the proof.

[Estilicon]

@CurtC

The accusations against Dawkins of being unschooled in theology and philosophy were answered pretty well by PZ Myers in his Courtier’s Reply, which starts:

And it goes on, but you get the point.

I will grant you that if you reject the existance of God, then you can dismiss theology. Mind you, I don’t agree with you but I’ll grant it to you.
But, are we so decadent that we also reject philosophy?

[Malthus]

@Revenant_Threshold

I would argue, that through suggesting a solution he feels is appropriate which takes the form of “solving” the problem through alternate sources of teaching, that this argument is implicit. It makes sense to me that, if he suggests a solution through teaching alternate ideas, then it is reasonable to conclude that he believes as a theoretical position that solutions may lie in teaching alternate ideas. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point then in your comments about the unpleasantness of the argument. I disagree. Yes to it being a moral one, but it’s that religious parents have no moral right to teach their children to the exclusion of all else. That parents have no moral right to entirely control their children’s education; if it was simply teaching at all, then his expectation that it is impossible to expect parents not to would presumably have left him at an impasse. No, I disagree. As i’ve said, the duty he sees is not to prevent teaching, but to prevent teaching from only one source, to prevent enculturation via one or two individuals. To, essentially, not alter that there is teaching occurring, but rather, to ensure that alternative sources of teaching are avaliable. Hence why his praise of science education is so full - he doesn’t simply suggest it as a poor, but necessary, second best, something that he’ll sigh and accept; he lauds it considerably. And he goes on to say (at some length) *why *science education is so good in his eyes. These don’t read to me as the words of someone who’s settling for something; they read to me as the words of someone extremely committed to the idea, who places a high priority on it.

And beyond that, even if your interpretation were correct, I’d still say you’re making a big leap from him saying “this would be nice” to “this would be nice; any means of enforcing or imposing it would therefore also be nice”.

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.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Estilicon

I will grant you that if you reject the existance of God, then you can dismiss theology. Mind you, I don’t agree with you but I’ll grant it to you.
But, are we so decadent that we also reject philosophy?

There’s nothing in philosophy which supports the God hypothesis any better than in theology. It’s essentially a scientific question, and from a purely scientific standpoint, the God hypothesis is completely baseless.

[Estilicon]

I don’t know what I am. I was born and raised as a Catholic but I simply do not care about religion.
That said, I found Dawkins to be extremely rude and arrogant. As someone said better than me:

His polemic would come rather more convincingly from a man who was a little less arrogantly triumphalistic about science (there are a mere one or two gestures in the book to its fallibility), and who could refrain from writing sentences like ‘this objection [to a particular scientific view] can be answered by the suggestion . . . that there are many universes,’ as though a suggestion constituted a scientific rebuttal.

…Dawkins could have told us all this without being so appallingly bitchy about those of his scientific colleagues who disagree with him, and without being so theologically illiterate. He might also have avoided being the second most frequently mentioned individual in his book – if you count God as an individual.

link.

[SecondJudith]

@Grumman

If the claim terminates the dialogue this is their fault, not ours. Where else do you believe we should show such respect for irrational ideas?

Obviously you don’t have to respect anything you don’t want to, but you do have to respect people and their opinions if you want to persuade them. “I’m right and you’re stupid” may be true, but it won’t convince anyone of anything other than “wow, that guy’s an asshole”.

[Malthus]

@SecondJudith

Obviously you don’t have to respect anything you don’t want to, but you do have to respect people and their opinions if you want to persuade them. “I’m right and you’re stupid” may be true, but it won’t convince anyone of anything other than “wow, that guy’s an asshole”.

I couldn’t agree more; but Dawkin’s use of this style of argumentation does tend to explain his popularity on websites such as this, where that form of argumentation seems to be so very prevelant.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Dawkins does not insult people, and he doesn’t call anybody stupid. Pointing out that a belief is objectively irrational is not an insult. Is it insulting people and calling them “stupid” to tell them that it’s irrational to believe that illness is caused by evil spirits?

[SecondJudith]

“Deluded” has a strongly pejorative connotation, and, again, something can be both objectively true and insulting.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

So your real objection is to Dawkins telling the truth? He should lie instead?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

So your real objection is to Dawkins telling the truth? He should lie instead?

I’m assuming that their suggestion woudl be that he should tell a softer truth. I would object to this because I found the book to be very helpful because he doesn’t suffer from being overly deferential to religion.

I suspect that much of the criticism of the tone of the book is not because it is objectively rude, but that it violates the tradition of being unduly deferential to religion, so it appears to be rude. I think giving great scrutiny to how and why relgion must be handled with kid gloves is quite a worthwhile endeavor.

[SecondJudith]

I think there may be an excluded middle there.

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.

Should non-religious atheists be respectful of religious observers and believers? Only if they want to engage in conversation with them. Dawkins says he does, but he isn’t going about it very well.

*for reasons I’ve discussed in this thread already; whether or not you think his generalisations are appropriate, they are generalisations and factually inaccurate

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@SecondJudith

*for reasons I’ve discussed in this thread already; whether or not you think his generalisations are appropriate, they are generalisations and factually inaccurate

Just to clarify - generalizations that apply to about 90% of the US population. That’s a generalization I’m reasonably comfortable with.

[Jophiel]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I suspect that much of the criticism of the tone of the book is not because it is objectively rude, but that it violates the tradition of being unduly deferential to religion, so it appears to be rude. I think giving great scrutiny to how and why relgion must be handled with kid gloves is quite a worthwhile endeavor.

Well, that goes both ways. I’ve heard any number of complaints from (for example) non-Christians who claim that some Christians dared to try to save their souls from an eternity of brimstone and hellfire and horned red dudes with pointy-thingies. I never heard any of them say “Boy, am I glad they weren’t unduly deferential to my personal religious choices.”

I’m to just talking about people getting up in your face; I could go to a random forum, write a post about how everyone who hasn’t accepted Christ as Lord is doomed to burn in Hell and I’ll have people all offended and upset that I dared talk like that to them.

That’s not to say that Dawkins is right or wrong or whatever. Just that the expectation that your personal beliefs will be treated with kid gloves is pretty universal.

[Malthus]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I’m assuming that their suggestion woudl be that he should tell a softer truth. I would object to this because I found the book to be very helpful because he doesn’t suffer from being overly deferential to religion.

I suspect that much of the criticism of the tone of the book is not because it is objectively rude, but that it violates the tradition of being unduly deferential to religion, so it appears to be rude. I think giving great scrutiny to how and why relgion must be handled with kid gloves is quite a worthwhile endeavor.

Helpful in what sense? What is the goal in labelling one’s intended audience “delusional”?

I suppose the book works well in reaffirming people who agree with him, but on the central point (the non-provability of the existance of the traditonal God, a point on which I happen to agree) his work is the less effective the more he strays into polemics.

Worse, he has cranky ideas about the history and anthropology of religion. These make it relatively easy to dismiss him as a crank. Imagining a world without religion as having significantly less conflict (for example, as eliminating the Arab-Israeli conflict as he alleges) seems strangely naïve. His tendancy is to over-simplify and polemicize the roots of social discord and make of religion the scape-goat for probems which have more than one source, or for which religion is a pretext covering ethnic or class conflict, while quite overlooking the role of religion as a social institution and its role in cultural evolution.

The point being that a hypothetical anthropologist from Mars would not recognize his potrait of religion and the religious as literally correct.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Jophiel

That’s not to say that Dawkins is right or wrong or whatever. Just that the expectation that your personal beliefs will be treated with kid gloves is pretty universal.

Really? If I ran for office and expressed my atheistic beliefs, could I reasonably expect to be treated with kid gloves?

[SecondJudith]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Just to clarify - generalizations that apply to about 90% of the US population. That’s a generalization I’m reasonably comfortable with.

Okay. That’s cool. But you aren’t in the audience Dawkins says he is trying to convince. You’re (presumably) on side already.

[Jophiel]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Really? If I ran for office and expressed my atheistic beliefs, could I reasonably expect to be treated with kid gloves?

The question is, would you be offended if you weren’t? Would you say “My faith choices don’t deserve any deference so I welcome and embrace your comments.”?