Kevin's Watch

So I'm minding my own business when my daughter (Kevin's Watch member Prorider514) suggests that I read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. She has been exploring different aspects of faith and religion and had watched a video debate with Mr. Dawkins and became intrigued enough to purchase his book. Once she completed the book she approached me with the idea that I ought to read it too. I made her a counter proposal. I would indeed read the book however she would have to finally read the copy of Lord Foul's Bane that I purchased for her some years ago. She agreed to my terms and we began.
She tells me she has reached the moment in LFB where Covenant has been translated into the presence of Lord Foul and Drool Rockworm. I believe I've made greater progress than she has but we've both been faithful to the agreement thus far. However I find that so far my task seems to be more difficult of the two.
My problem begins with the fact that I simply dislike nonfiction. I don't enjoy reading biographies or instruction manuals or text books but when pressed I usually stumble through to the end. I have no doubt I will complete this book however it has been an unusual trial. First of all I'm a believer which puts me in a different camp than Mr. Dawkins right from the start. To be fair the man makes his points with confidence and educated authority, citing examples and quotes that are immediately referenced and easily verified which I appreciate. My biggest complaint thus far, after reading only a quarter of the book, is that Dawkins seems particularly on edge and takes many paragraphs to respond to his critics while at the same time trying to make his point which seems to be simply that according to his understanding of the verifiable facts, the existence of God is not probable therefore it is logical and reasonable to conclude that he does not and has not ever existed. In order to reinforce his opinion he frequently references God along with mythological characters such as Odin, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter and the oft mentioned "The Fairies at the bottom of my garden". I'm told by my daughter that the remainder of the book maintains a tone of pointed sarcasm and personal aggravation to the very end. I am genuinely interested in the content of what lies ahead however on another level I'm not looking forward to spending my time in the thoughtful presence of an author in such a state of aggravation. I get the feeling that the book is a best seller due largely to the patronage of many who feel a kinship with Dawkins point of view and of course also those who wish to know "what the enemy thinks" as referenced in the forward of the book which is dedicated to responding to critics who read and reviewed an earlier released version, probably the hard back.
I find many of the author’s opinions to be too heavy handed for my tastes. The idea that an agnostic is just someone who isn’t honest enough with himself to get off the fence and pick a belief and a believer is someone who had been deluded by their parents/upbringing and culture into accepting something that any enlightened and rational person would find ridiculous. My impression is that the book is strongly biased toward the author’s point of view and is uncompromising as such. Which is exactly what it should be however I feel like I’m reading the handbook for a club I’d never join or the home owners association rules in a community I’d never purchase a house in. I pledged to give the book it’s full consideration but I’m sure I’m not going to be as entertained as I believe my daughter will be when she finally comes to know the works of one Stephen R. Donaldson after all these years.

Those darn kids! They always nail ya when you're minding your own business.

Hmm..
I'll add it to my list, but I find the middle path to be a little different than "sitting on the fence." And I've never appreciated anyone angry talking to me, face to face or in writing.

Your daughter might like "The Evolution of God" by Wright. The author is much more levelheaded and looks at the evolution of religious beliefs without telling people that there never has been a God.
I tried reading The God Delusion once. It bored me.

Then again, Lord Foul's Bane bored me! Make sure she reads the Illearth War before she gives up as that was where the series took off for me.

I'm with Brinn!

The book gets a lot more interesting in the end, when you go to hell just for owning a copy of it!

___ wrote:The book gets a lot more interesting in the end, when you go to hell just for owning a copy of it!

Well it will end up on the shelf next to Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. Oh and of course the Sword of Shannara. Not to mention the collective works of Dan Pigeon.

Sword of Shannara....good lord, you just made me throw up on my keyboard!

___ wrote:Sword of Shannara....good lord, you just made me throw up on my keyboard!

Hey, Elfstones of Shannara was pretty good.......................... gee, I've got a sick sense of humor!

Haven't read that one, but recently read The Selfish Gene which was pretty good.

--A

Avatar wrote:Haven't read that one, but recently read The Selfish Gene which was pretty good.

--A

I agree. The Selfish Gene was fairly interesting and informative compared to Dawkins' disorganized rants about anyone less atheist than him.

For what it's worth, I'm an atheist and I think Richard Dawkins (qua atheist) is uninteresting and counterproductive to religious discussion.

Lord Mhoram wrote:For what it's worth, I'm an atheist and I think Richard Dawkins (qua atheist) is uninteresting and counterproductive to religious discussion.

Oh come on!!
Now you're an atheist?
When did that happen?
It was just a few years ago I told you that you weren't a Catholic.
I feel.....vindicated!



I think Dawkins is a dick too and I agree with most of what he says.

I think I'll skip it. Stick to his books on genetics. At least he has the science to back it up.

--A

aTOMiC wrote:The idea that an agnostic is just someone who isn’t honest enough with himself to get off the fence and pick a belief...

I'm not a fan of Dawkins myself, but from what I've read, he does go to considerable length to support those statements. For instance, if some guy proposed to you that the Earth is growing over time (not a couple centimeters a year from cosmic dust, but enough to explain the shifting of continents), you probably wouldn't believe him. If he then offered support of this theory, you would likely compare it to the theory of plate tectonics and side with the latter. Let's say you're not intimately familiar with plate tectonics (atheistic), and you acknowledge that the growing Earth theory could be true, though you have no idea how. You still think the plate tectonics theory is more valid. Would you consider yourself 'agnostic' toward the growing earth theory, or would you just say you don't believe it? Not believing things for which we have no good reason to believe is logically sound, even in the face of alternate theories that we cannot easily explain away. But if you just tell the growing Earth guy that you haven't made up your mind, you're likely just trying to humor the nut.

I believe this is what Dawkins is trying to say. Rightly or wrongly, people who reject Christianity/Buddhism/whatever usually do so for what they consider logical reasons. Denying the logical conclusion of this line of thinking is itself illogical. Logically speaking, the growing Earth guy's line of thinking is more valid than your own.

I don't think that's the only answer, only conclusion.
There are probably innumerable [though that may be exaggeration] situations where a person could logically say: There is enough evidence to conclude that belief X is not true. But not enough to conclude belief Y must be.

edited to say, but I think in general, on God issue might be correct: something other than logic is scaring most "agnostics" away from the end point. That's just what I think, and anecdotal.

I own, have read, and love this book. As a child who also suffered (what I consider to be) religious abuse from his parents, I identify completely with his message.

I was agnostic until I read this book. I thought that it was just as irrational to proclaim that god didn't exist as it was to proclaim he did. I always stood firm in my conviction that we can't make claims beyond this universe, one way or the other. But Dawkins' point is that "the god hypothesis" isn't merely a claim about a Being beyond this universe ... in most cases, it's a claim about a being who created and interferes in this universe. That's a physical hypothesis!! And as such, it is suitable for testing. If we can show that a magical being wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe, then that disconfirms the Creator hypothesis (and modern quantum cosmology goes a long way toward showing that). And if we can show the idea of an all-powerful being who interferes in our affairs is nonsensical, then that is also a path off the fence of agnosticism.

In short, the move from agnosticism to atheism isn't the same as skepticism to a negative "faith." Instead, it is an honest, authentic skepticism.

No one has a problem being an atheist with regards to zeus, apollo, etc. That's the point of bringing up those examples ... not to ridicule the "god" concept by comparing it to examples we all consider to be mythology, but to point out that in many cases it's perfectly reasonable to not be agnostic. None of us are agnostic when it comes to zeus. Why is that? He's not trying to make "god" seem silly. Instead, he's trying to make the hesitancy of agnosticism seem silly.

Should we move this discussion to the Close? (To be honest, I'm leery of throwing it into rusmeister's orbit...)

Happy to move it if y'all want.

As I make further progress though the book I find little change in tone or message so my expectation that I will encounter more of the same was justified.

As to whether this topic should reside in the Close I don't mind since some of the side discussions apply directly to the conent of the book I'm referencing though my main thrust was simply the idea of the deal I struck with my daughter and the lengths I was willing to go to get her to read Lord Foul's Bane.