|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dawkins - 'The God Delusion' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
I'm wondering if anyone has read The God Delusion, a new book by Richard Dawkins.
If so, I'm interested in what thoughts you have. All I've seen of the book so far are the excerpts hosted online by BBC.That's where the link takes you. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I have not yet read that book, Archer. I did read an article in Discover magazine about Dawkins, however, and the feedback from that article was quite controversial.
What does Sir. Richard address in this latest book? Clue us in! AbE: I see where you have just seen the B.B.C. links---what did you think of those? What other Dawkins books have you read? AbE again....I just looked at the B.B.C. link. Dawkins writes: Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it, as Bishop John Shelby Spong, in The Sins of Scripture, rightly observed. Bishop Spong, by the way, is a nice example of a liberal bishop whose beliefs are so advanced as to be almost unrecognizable to the majority of those who call themselves Christians. A British counterpart is Richard Holloway, recently retired as Bishop of Edinburgh. Bishop Holloway even describes himself as a 'recovering Christian'. I have read some of Shelby Spong, and although I can't place myself quite as liberal as he is, I DO respect the man. I have not read Holloway, however. Perhaps anyone who has read Dawkins latest book has added insights? Edited by Phat, : clarification Edited by Phat, : AbE again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Hi, Phat. The new avatar is a winner.
I've not read anything by Dawkins other than the BBC excerpts I linked in the OP. I see his name bandied about whenever the theory of evolution is in someone's crosshairs, though, so I figured other people at EvC would be familiar with his books. I can see how he would be controversial. Read his take on religion and you know Bob Jones University is not going to invite him to speak at commencement anytime soon. My impression of the excerpts at BBC? The first one struck me as a routine rant. Valid points as far as they go, but cliches by now. I have read Bishop Spong and am familiar with the revenge fantasies of Pat Robertson, two figures he mentions. His riff on the story of Lot was occasionally amusing, but come on--Lot is an easy target. Everybody knows that story is sordid, fundies included. And I think our Mystery Science Theater comedians at EvC could get a lot more laughs out of a sulfurous matinee like The Adventures of Lot and His Family than Dawkins manages. The second excerpt struck me as being in a different class--something more perceptive, even necessary. The subject is terrorism. Dawkins notes that terrorists do not do what they do because of 'evil,' jealousy of our freedoms, or the shortcomings of Mr Blair or Mr Bush--all the convenient scapegoats we muster. Their actions are motivated by religion. The London suicide bombers believed what the Koran told them. Literally. They willingly traded their young lives--and the innocent lives of their victims--for the eternity in paradise promised to them in a book. Dawkins finds it interesting that our public discussions of terrorism avoid mentioning religion. The terrorists do not shrink from the subject at all. Pay attention to what they tell you, says Dawkins, and the message is clear. They do what they do because they really believe this stuff. Food for thought. How about you, Phat? Thoughts? __ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Punctutation. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Can be found here
quote: And Dawkins' final word:- "I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable". Edited by Modulous, : changing the url, the new link should take you to the 'D' section of all the featured interviews - Dawkins is right there (currently second behind David Davis)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Modulous writes: At least I agree with Sir.Richard on this point!
And Dawkins' final word:- "I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I've not read anything by Dawkins other than the BBC excerpts I linked in the OP. I see his name bandied about whenever the theory of evolution is in someone's crosshairs, though, so I figured other people at EvC would be familiar with his books. He has (I think) accurately been described as "the British medias atheist-in-waiting, never slow to let fly with both barrels whenever he gets a believer in his sights" He is very bright and wickedly witty. I can't help but be amused whenever he's on. Reminds me very much of Saul of Tarsus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Although I have not read The God Delusion, I have read many of his other works. I tend to stay away from the "religion-bashing" aspects of his work.
For those interested, his website has links to numerous articles discussing the book, including from the Guardian and the Economist, as well as a BBC interview. For Archer: Dawkins has been a prolific "pop-sci" author on evolution for many years. He is quite a good writer, and well worth reading. The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, and The Selfish Gene are all what I would consider classics of the genre. On the other hand, he HAS gotten himself into trouble - both with scientists and laypeople - on occasion. For instance, he was sort of "forced" to write The Extended Phenotype to "correct" misunderstandings and misinterpretations (his words) contained in The Selfish Gene. In Phenotype he both backed off from some of his earlier assertions, and expanded on others, making it a substantially better book all around. Other books I have read of his include Unweaving the Rainbow (a counter to the "believers'" assertion that only through the supernatural can one have a sense of wonder), River Out of Eden (about life evolution from the point of view of the flow of genes down through the aeons), and The Ancestor's Tale (using the metaphor of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales to "backtrack" the lineage ending in humanity to its origin as a single cell). Of the three, the latter is probably the best of the lot. I personally rank Dawkins just below Sagan and Azimov, and certainly on a par with Ehrlich and Diamond (and just ahead of Gould), as a scientist who is capable of describing highly complex subjects and concepts to laypersons in an engaging and understandable manner, while at the same time retaining the "hard science" of the most recent research. Edited to add: There is a lengthy discussion of The God Delusion at iidb.org, although most of the thread is discussing Dawkins, rather than the book. Still, there might be some interest there. Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
And Dawkins' final word:- "I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable". What an odd comment. If Dawkins is right, we were not "put here" for any reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
It was just rip in the Matrix.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It was just rip in the Matrix Huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
What an odd comment. If Dawkins is right, we were not "put here" for any reason. In the same interview he was asked if there was any purpose in humans. He said that of course there is purpose: to propagate our genes. That is why we were put here, in Dawkins' view...we were put here by our genes as vehicles to aid in those same genes to propagate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
In the same interview he was asked if there was any purpose in humans. He said that of course there is purpose: to propagate our genes That could hardly be called a "purpose."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
robinrohan
No purpose you say? Try doing without the genes then and see how much purpose come to fruition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
robinrohan writes: In the same interview he was asked if there was any purpose in humans. He said that of course there is purpose: to propagate our genes That could hardly be called a "purpose." I think it could be called a purpose with the same justification with which Dawkins calls genes "selfish". Of course genes are not conscious entities, and in that sense they cannot be said to be selfish or to have a purpose in mind for the bodies they reside in. But in the same vein as saying that there is design in nature, we can say that genes are selfish and that they have a purpose in mind for us. Taking that stance - an intentional stance, as Dennett calls it - we can say that our purpose, the purpose of a human body, is to make more genes. The chicken is just the egg's way of making more eggs, that sort of stuff. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024