Comments on: The God Delusion http://heliologue.com/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/ Let joy be unconfined. Let there be dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons, and necking in the parlor. Wed, 23 May 2012 05:37:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Book review: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins « AcademyX http://heliologue.com/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-156028 Book review: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins « AcademyX Tue, 06 May 2008 11:56:11 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-156028 [...] The God Delusion aims not only to prove the inexistence of God but also that religious belief is responsible for a lot of terrible things (the inquisition, the crusades, terrorist attacks, etc). He also grumbles about a bias against atheists that prevents many people from ‘coming out’ and publicly acknowledging their atheistic belief. Dawkins scoffs at the ‘overweening respect’ accorded to religion throughout the world. He may have a point there, I too see no reason why attacking religion should give rise to so much self-righteous anger. Would people be as angry if someone questioned their choice for President or, horror of horrors, featured him in a newspaper cartoon? Darwinism teaches us that the great complexity found in Nature is the result of gradual evolution and did not arise spontaneously. According to Dawkins, God would have to be incredibly complex in order to have created the world, listen to millions of prayers, sanction the occassional miracle, etc. This obviously raises the question about where such a complex God came from. The standard response I have come across is, “God has no begginning and no end” or, “Our limited intellects are incapable of comprehending God’s true nature”. Whether or not you are convinced by such a response depends to a large extent on your upbringing. Which brings us to Dawkins pet peeve - labelling children as ‘Hindu children’ or ‘Catholic children’. Dawkins feels that since children are too young to decide for themselves whether they beleive in God or not it is wrong to label them with their parents religion. He says religious labelling is equivalent to labelling children by their parents political opinions, wouldn’t you be enraged (or at least puzzled) to hear of a Marxist child? I was dissapointed that Dawkins did not use the problem of evil (or, why does suffering exist when an allegedly all-powerful and benevolent God could simply do away with it?) as an argument against the existence of God. Dawkins is an excellent writer but he comes across as heavily biased due to his own traumatic encounters with religion as a child. By the end of the book I was fairly convinced of the negative effects of religion. This was my first book on atheism, please pardon any stupidity. You can also read Heliologue’s knowledgeable review by clicking here. [...] [...] The God Delusion aims not only to prove the inexistence of God but also that religious belief is responsible for a lot of terrible things (the inquisition, the crusades, terrorist attacks, etc). He also grumbles about a bias against atheists that prevents many people from ‘coming out’ and publicly acknowledging their atheistic belief. Dawkins scoffs at the ‘overweening respect’ accorded to religion throughout the world. He may have a point there, I too see no reason why attacking religion should give rise to so much self-righteous anger. Would people be as angry if someone questioned their choice for President or, horror of horrors, featured him in a newspaper cartoon? Darwinism teaches us that the great complexity found in Nature is the result of gradual evolution and did not arise spontaneously. According to Dawkins, God would have to be incredibly complex in order to have created the world, listen to millions of prayers, sanction the occassional miracle, etc. This obviously raises the question about where such a complex God came from. The standard response I have come across is, “God has no begginning and no end” or, “Our limited intellects are incapable of comprehending God’s true nature”. Whether or not you are convinced by such a response depends to a large extent on your upbringing. Which brings us to Dawkins pet peeve – labelling children as ‘Hindu children’ or ‘Catholic children’. Dawkins feels that since children are too young to decide for themselves whether they beleive in God or not it is wrong to label them with their parents religion. He says religious labelling is equivalent to labelling children by their parents political opinions, wouldn’t you be enraged (or at least puzzled) to hear of a Marxist child? I was dissapointed that Dawkins did not use the problem of evil (or, why does suffering exist when an allegedly all-powerful and benevolent God could simply do away with it?) as an argument against the existence of God. Dawkins is an excellent writer but he comes across as heavily biased due to his own traumatic encounters with religion as a child. By the end of the book I was fairly convinced of the negative effects of religion. This was my first book on atheism, please pardon any stupidity. You can also read Heliologue’s knowledgeable review by clicking here. [...]

]]> By: Brady http://heliologue.com/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110263 Brady Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:20:37 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110263 Yeah, that's one of the perks of living in NYC. Dave Barry is going to be at that same B+N sometime next month. Yeah, that’s one of the perks of living in NYC. Dave Barry is going to be at that same B+N sometime next month.

]]> By: Ben http://heliologue.com/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110226 Ben Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:53:30 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110226 You got to see Hitchens? You jerk. You got to see Hitchens? You jerk.

]]> By: Brady http://heliologue.com/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110225 Brady Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:51:49 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110225 Yeah, good stuff. I also saw him speak at Barnes and Noble a couple of months ago. It almost seems like he takes a stance on something, gets in the good graces of a particular group, then says something incredibly antithetical and offensive to that group, which gets him the support of another group, etc. It's like he wants to turn every topic he speaks on into an oblique discussion of censorship and free speech. I guess for as much as he admires Orwell, that's a fitting tack to take. Yeah, good stuff. I also saw him speak at Barnes and Noble a couple of months ago.

It almost seems like he takes a stance on something, gets in the good graces of a particular group, then says something incredibly antithetical and offensive to that group, which gets him the support of another group, etc. It’s like he wants to turn every topic he speaks on into an oblique discussion of censorship and free speech.

I guess for as much as he admires Orwell, that’s a fitting tack to take.

]]> By: Ben http://heliologue.com/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110217 Ben Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:22:27 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110217 You've seen the <a href="http://heliologue.com/2007/02/16/christopher-hitchens-on-free-speech/" rel="nofollow">videos</a> I have here of his speech on free speech, right? You’ve seen the videos I have here of his speech on free speech, right?

]]> By: Brady http://heliologue.com/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110207 Brady Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:18:12 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110207 Hitchens is a fascinating character in himself. He's one of the most vehement critics of religion. He thinks Mother Teresa's renown is one of the biggest con-jobs in the twentieth century. Yet he hates Noam Chomsky, and he called Bill Clinton a rapist and a liar who should be tried for war crimes. He was incredibly outspoken against George H.W. Bush's war against Iraq, yet he's incredibly supportive of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, so much that he's been called a neocon. What's the deal with this guy? Hitchens is a fascinating character in himself.

He’s one of the most vehement critics of religion. He thinks Mother Teresa’s renown is one of the biggest con-jobs in the twentieth century.

Yet he hates Noam Chomsky, and he called Bill Clinton a rapist and a liar who should be tried for war crimes.

He was incredibly outspoken against George H.W. Bush’s war against Iraq, yet he’s incredibly supportive of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, so much that he’s been called a neocon.

What’s the deal with this guy?

]]> By: Ben http://heliologue.com/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110204 Ben Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:05:38 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110204 Probably the most vehement must be Hitchens, I think, who will set down his drink, peer over the tops of his cheaters condescendingly, and the proffer a devastating phrase with a slightly slurred British delivery. He's wonderful theatre if nothing else. Probably the most vehement must be Hitchens, I think, who will set down his drink, peer over the tops of his cheaters condescendingly, and the proffer a devastating phrase with a slightly slurred British delivery. He’s wonderful theatre if nothing else.

]]> By: Brady http://heliologue.com/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110202 Brady Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:56:18 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2007/08/23/the-god-delusion/#comment-110202 Funny that you should post about this now- I've been spending a couple of hours per day reading this at Barnes and Noble. I'm not quite finished with it, but I wasn't blown away by the book, either. Dawkins is a good writer, and he makes some good points, but it wasn't nearly as thorough or eloquent as I expected. Most of his interesting points were actually made by others, merely cited in the book. I've heard so much about how rabidly Dawkins attacks religion, but he seems a puppy dog compared to people like Sam Harris, who aggressively badgers religious moderates and fundamentalists alike (even though I doubt many or any of them are reading him). Funny that you should post about this now- I’ve been spending a couple of hours per day reading this at Barnes and Noble.

I’m not quite finished with it, but I wasn’t blown away by the book, either. Dawkins is a good writer, and he makes some good points, but it wasn’t nearly as thorough or eloquent as I expected. Most of his interesting points were actually made by others, merely cited in the book.

I’ve heard so much about how rabidly Dawkins attacks religion, but he seems a puppy dog compared to people like Sam Harris, who aggressively badgers religious moderates and fundamentalists alike (even though I doubt many or any of them are reading him).

]]>