The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[howard male]

When people say 'you must read this book' it's usually a figure of speech. But with Richard Darkin's 'The God Delusion' you really, really must read this book!

I've not been able to put it down since buying the new paperback in Borders (half price this week only - hurry hurry hurry!) and every page is crammed with lucid insights and mind-blowing facts which make you wonder if we really have any right to call mankind a civilized and rational being.

Beautifully written to me means effortless but immersive reading, and this, to my surprise - despite its complex and difficult subject - really is an effortless read.

If everyone on this planet read this book, and even began to take onboard what it says, there would be hope for the human race.

[NormanD]

If everyone on this planet read this book, and even began to take onboard what it says, there would be hope for the human race.

Whoa, hold your hosses, my friend. Not read the book (yet) but I favour Richard Dawkins greatly. The only reason I quoted your last sentence, Howard - and urge a bit of caution - is because I've heard that said far too many times before, usually by people on my doorstep......and it ain't Richard Dawkins they're trying to sell me.

I'd just hate to see someone cynically misquoting you:
The Bible: If everyone on this planet read this book, and even began to take onboard what it says, there would be hope for the human race. - H. Male, London.

(emoticon: 4th row down, far right)

norman

[Gordon Moore]

Okay, I'm going to come clean. I am actually one of Jehovah's Witnesses (since 91). I don't suppose anyone will talk to me anymore, but hey ho. However, I do feel that I have to raise a defence on the part of those who have a "faith".

So I have a bit of an issue with Mr Dawkins and although I haven't read his book(s), I think I have a pretty good idea of what his central theses are:

1) There is no God/Creator/Supreme Being.

2) Anyone who believes there is such a being is just a fool/uneducated/mindless idiot.

3) I can "prove" I am right, after all I am a Don, and if you don't change your mind you are still an unintelligent dweeb.

Uhmm.

I am loathe to start a theological debate on CG's site as it usually degenerates into a less than "reason"able diatribe of I'm right, you're wrong, and people stop being friendly.

As I see it, and I thought very hard about this before becoming a JW, there are only two positions to take:

a) There is a creator or b) there isn't. I assert both are matters of "faith" since you can't prove either one at this moment in history. However, it is my contention that the evidence for a creator is much stronger than the evidence against.

The nice thing about option b) as far as Mr Dawkins is concerned is that he no longer has to be responsible for what he does. I'm sure he is a caring, moral man, but at the end of the day if he isn't, so what...

The problem with option a) is that it does make us responsible to a "higher authority" for what we do, say. This is a problem if that higher authority says something we don't necessarily agree with.

The other problem with option a) and I think this is what Mr Dawkins and millions of others have a problem with, is that there are innumerable interpretations of what said supreme being has said. These interpretations are promulgated by "religions" and indeed these have caused basically all the suffering the world has ever seen and bear a huge responsibility for this (and in my belief system will pay for it). In this sense, Mr Dawkins does have a point. But, he confuses "Religion" with "Truth".

The interesting thing about religions, from a purely logical point of view (which is admittedly not the strong point of "religion") is that they can't all be right. The many ideas of what life after death is all about is typical.

In my view there can only be one "Truth". There are not many roads to God and he actually does care which way/route/path we take (again in my belief system).

In my opinion, Mr Dawkin's (reported) views are a huge comfort for those who like to justify their behaviour as being acceptable, no matter what the consequences of their actions are. They make me very nervous.

I am hugely concious of where this debate could go, but I feel impelled to make clear my position on this matter.

Regards,

Gordon

[Rob Hall]

It seems to me Gordon that your argument is with Richard Dawkins. I'm sure his publishers will pass onto him any thoughts that you might have on his book. I am at a loss to know why you feel impelled to make your position clear on the forum in this way: if someone has said something to offend you, I suggest that you make use of the private message facility to make your feelings known to that person and sort it out in private.

[howard male]

I could say a lot Gordon, but I'll just say a couple of things. Firstly, moral thought and behavour is perfectly possible (and usual) without one of our current allotted Gods to oversee it. And secondly, please just go and read the book before you decide what Mr Dawkins is or isn't saying.

Gordon wrote -

The interesting thing about religions, from a purely logical point of view (which is admittedly not the strong point of "religion") is that they can't all be right

The fact that you have already concluded they can't be all right should really have led you to the next logical conclusion that therefore it's unlikely that yours is right either. But, as I say, lets just leave it at that until you've read the book. Seriously, do give it a go. After all, what have you got to lose?

[NormanD]

I feel partially responsible for kicking this one off from my comment about being doorstepped. And JWs are not the only ones who bother me on a Saturday morning. But when Gordon says

Okay, I'm going to come clean. I am actually one of Jehovah's Witnesses (since 91). I don't suppose anyone will talk to me anymore, but hey ho.

all I can reply is: you've already told me, Gordon, and we're still talking....

It's been said that most people pray to god when their car doesn't start on a cold morning. I know I've gone past that stage in my own life - bereavements, personal loss, illnesses, the usual misfortunes - but I've been OK about facing these with support and love from people close to me, rather than a "creator". Religion is no longer a comfort for me. It's taken me a while to get here, but I know where I am. Now, I'm more concerned about life before death rather than what happens after.

Norman

[Dayna]

I could tell you where I stand as far as my belief in God goes, but I don't expect it would change what anyone else thinks, unless it's what they're open to, so I'd just leave it at that.

[howard male]

Gordon M wrote -

a) There is a creator or b) there isn't. I assert both are matters of "faith" since you can't prove either one at this moment in history. However, it is my contention that the evidence for a creator is much stronger than the evidence against.

A few points to add.

Firstly, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have a reasonable discussion on this forum on this subject - this is the books section and the great CG in the DJ booth hasn't said that only certain books can be discussed.

Secondly I too knew from a private message Gordon was a JW and haven't subsequently held it against him - I have learnt to deal with the person first and their beliefs second, unless of course their a fascist bastard, in which case the beliefs and the person are one and the same thing anyway, so...

And thirdly, I thought I'd read through your post again, Gordon, as I am fascinated by this subject and what leads anyone to take a position of belief on it. So, in the spirit of balance, I'd appreciate it if you could briefly state what you feel the strongly outweighing evidence for a creator is. If you don't want to bother, then no worries, we'll just move on.

[Con Murphy]

As I see it, and I thought very hard about this before becoming a JW, there are only two positions to take:

a) There is a creator or b) there isn't.

Have to say I'm very surprised to see such certitude* coming from a scientist, Gordon. My own position as a lapsed Catholic (I was RC till I reached the age of reason) is one of strategically ignorant agnosticism. How can we miniscule organisms living our microscopically brief lives on this temporarily habitable speck of a planet be so arrogant as to think that we know "The Truth" either way? I don't think it's case of a) or b) as let's wait and c) if mankind can ever evolve sufficiently to work out the answer. I've a feeling that whatever controls all this (if indeed anything does) will do for us before we even get close.

PS I've no problem with you being a JW, either. One of my wife's best friends is one, and it's never been an issue, and never will be.


*Edit: need to clarify that - I'm referring to your conviction that people are one or the other when it comes to belief in the existence of a creator, rather than your actual belief itself.

[NormanD]

Here's the scenario:

Con M, Norman D and Quasimodo are sitting talking.

Con says, "I used to be a Catholic".

Norman says, "That's nothing, I used to be a Jew".

Quasimodo says, "Don't make me laugh, you two. I used to be a hunchback".

[Adam Blake]

I'm not quite sure I get that one, Norman. Are you saying that Quasimodo is only kidding himself, and that therefore Jews and Catholics who claim not to be Jews or Catholics anymore are also only kidding themselves?

Sorry to be so obtuse! In my experience, once a Jew always a Jew - and I say that as someone who's been practicising Buddhism for over twenty years and who was only ever half a Jew in the first place. Catholics also, will never really shake it off, you may stop believing but the GUILT goes on! I'm sure you all know the comparative religions poster:

Pardon me, for all you of tender dispositions:

"Shit happens" - Taoist
"Shit happens, and it always happens to us" - Jewish
"Shit happens, if it be the will of Allah" - Muslim
"Shit happens, but this shit happened before" - Hindu
"Shit happens, but it isn't really shit" - Buddhist
"Shit happens, and it's all YOUR fault!" - Catholic
"Shit happens, but it won't if I work harder" - Protestant
"Shit happens shit happens shit happens.......(etc)" - Hare Krishna

Meanwhile, what did the Buddhist say to the Jehovah's Witness?
"Your Beatles cd is ready! I'll post it tomorrow."

[Ted]

The interesting thing about religions, from a purely logical point of view (which is admittedly not the strong point of "religion") is that they can't all be right.

So what you're saying is that you are 99.9% Atheist - in that you don't believe in all those other gods.


I have met a few JWs. They tend to be the parents who won't let their kids come round to play with mine. Which frankly doesn't endear them to me.

Although its not just christian sects. One muslim family wanted to come and inspect our gaff before their daughter could come round to play. Maxine said "what are they looking for? Dirt? Alcohol? Atheism? They'll find plenty of all three".


TW

[Rob Hall]

Firstly, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have a reasonable discussion on this forum on this subject - this is the books section and the great CG in the DJ booth hasn't said that only certain books can be discussed.

...

So, in the spirit of balance, I'd appreciate it if you could briefly state what you feel the strongly outweighing evidence for a creator is. If you don't want to bother, then no worries, we'll just move on.

A request: if you wish to have a theological discussion, then please clearly label it as such and put it somewhere where I will not stumble across it by accident, as it is positively the last thing I wish to read here.

Thank you.

PS:

I could tell you where I stand as far as my belief in God goes, but I don't expect it would change what anyone else thinks, unless it's what they're open to, so I'd just leave it at that.

Give that girl a coconut.

[Con Murphy]

Here's the scenario:

Con M, Norman D and Quasimodo are sitting talking.

Con says, "I used to be a Catholic".

Norman says, "That's nothing, I used to be a Jew".

Quasimodo says, "Don't make me laugh, you two. I used to be a hunchback".

Yeah, there is that - who is it who said "I'm not a Jew, I'm Jew-ish"? That probably goes for all religions. And the Quasimodo analogy also works well as a metaphor so far as Catholicism goes.

[howard male]

Con wrote -

Yeah, there is that - who is it who said "I'm not a Jew, I'm Jew-ish"? That probably goes for all religions. And the Quasimodo analogy also works well as a metaphor so far as Catholicism goes.

Curiously enough not for me. My father was a fairly strict Presbyterian. I remember having to go to Sunday school but I don't recall heavy indoctrination, only hippyish teachers with acoustic guitars making us sing 'dance, dance, wherever you may be, I am the Lord of the Dance said he,' etc. Is there anything in the Bible about Jesus being into dancing? Gordon?

Other than that I just resented being deprived of a big chunk of my weekend.

Rob wrote -

A request: if you wish to have a theological discussion, then please clearly label it as such and put it somewhere where I will not stumble across it by accident, as it is positively the last thing I wish to read here.

Your such a grumpy old so and so, Rob. Don't you think it's at all possible that such a debate on the very meaning of your existence on this planet might be, at the very least, interesting and at the best enlightening? Or are you already equipped with all the answers? If the latter, please pass those answers on before you leave, as I'm still looking. And don't slam that door!

Interesting that Gordon hasn't got back to us yet. Too busy turning the other cheek I imagine. Sorry Gordon, couldn't resist.

I'm sure you'd agree that you've got to laugh at this whole business otherwise you'd cry: millions dying over millennia because they can't agree to disagree on the finer points of a book which is an arbitrary selection of reports which weren't even filed at the alleged times of the events they purport to describe.

Here's an interesting fact from Mr Dawkins' book:

A Gallup poll taken in 1999 asked Americans whether they would vote for a person to go into public office if they were a woman. 95% would. If they were Catholic it was 94%, Jew, 90%, black, 92%, homosexual, 79%. And right at the bottom, now clearly the most despised form of human being in American, atheist, 49% - that's nearly half as many people as in any other category. Scary.

So if your feeling persecuted here, Gordon, how do you think we feel? (sob!) And by the way, I'm only teasing you cause I know you've got a sense of humour and I know you can take it. Peace.