Have any religous people here read "The God Delusion"? What are your objections/book review. thankyou

Question

I have only read a little bit (About 2 chapters). I like what I have read so far, however I feel Dawkins puts a bit too much emotion into his choice of words. I certainly agree with his attitude towards religion, however I think it wise to tone it down a bit (though it is hard to do sometimes)

*****************************
@ hugenex2000

'provide tangable evidence that there is no God' ??? Come on ... I expect a bit better from you hugenex2000. You know no body can provide directy emphirical evidence that directly supports a negative, surely. Certain claims made in support of God have been proven false. Anyway, will leave it for another question etc. Read the book maybe, would like to discuss it after I have finished reading it.
peace

Answer 1

I dont consider myself "religious" although I firmly believe in a Supreme Deity. I haven't read the book, but have heard of it and am interested in reading it.

Will give you my "review" once I've read it! ;- )

Answer 2

I've just finished it this morning. I thought it was fantastically well done. Like a Carl Sagan on a caffeine high :) (Sigh, not religious tho - I'm atheist)

I'm more philosophical than scientific, so I liked that he tackled those issues. I thought it was organized very well. Sometimes in those books they beat "a drum" repeatedly. It wasn't so in this case, although obviously evolution and adaptation plays in all the chapters.

It was funny, sharp, challenging. It definitely made me think of things I've never thought before. I only disagreed with him on one point, which was a very minor one.

One of my Top 5 of All time Books :) I hope you like it half as much as I did. The first chapter of it is on his website if you're interested. www.richarddawkins.net

Answer 3

The scientific approach to religion was quite interesting. I feel to apply a critical analysis to faith to be quite strange. The two do not mix, like water and oil. The very word "faith" as defined in the Bible was not the definition used by Richard Dawkins so I question his scientific model. He poses that "God" would have to be an evolved being and therefore would show up too late in the timeline to be the Creator. This assumes that there is no creator. There is simply no evidence to support his theory. The fact that he assumes there is no God at all indicates his closed mindedness on this issue and makes me doubt his ability to find even scientific answers to problems. Is he a scientist or just another religious nut?
Delusion and Faith are two different things but very similar like Doubt and Fear. Before any exchange of ideas can occur we need to be sure we commonly define the words that convey those ideas. I do not read the Bible to learn about Science and do not look to Science to learn about God. By Mr Dawkins definition, that religion is a belief in something that can not be proven, that has no tangible proof, leads me to believe that Atheism is becoming the next religion. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong by showing me tangible proof that there is no God. His attacks on the God of the Old Testement lacked enough specifics to be credible given that I have read the Old Testement. If taken completely out of context and/or literally there might be some weight to Mr Dawkins' arguments but failing to examine perspective and setting and also using the language that he did leads me to believe that he is simply an angry Atheist. Well, I am slowly becoming an angry Theist because in the face of irrefutable evidence, Mr Dawkins is diverting attention where it belongs both for Scientists and Christians. The attack on religion in general is warrented simply because of the war and death perpetrated by such foolishness. Christians have a doctrine spoken by Christ Himself in the Sermon on the Mount, including to 'love your neighbor' and to 'love your enemies'. This is a formula for Peace not War. As far a Christanity is concerned, I would say, hold someone who calls themself a Christian up to the teachings of Jesus and see if any light shines through. As for Scientists, they should be looking forward to the threats of this Planet Earth at things like Aids, Energy and Global Warming, real threats that will bring all this useless arguing to a Cold Halt as we, an ailing populace, struggle through the next artificially induced Ice Age. I have not yet found a scientist who disagrees with this assessment, except for Richard Dawkins. When we look backwards to the issues of Creation vs Big Bang (which very well could be the very same thing) we fail to look forward to these other very real issues. This looking backwards at the past in this manner is very dangerous; it is like driving a car while looking out the rear window. Eventually we will drive into a ditch. When are we going to solve the scientific problem of Global Warming so that we will have a Planet on which to debate other, less important issues. Dwelling on the past would indicate Depression, on both sides of this argument. Instead, we should be seeking Peace and Security.

To your additional comments: I know, exactly. That is why I refer to Mr. Dawkins as just another religious nut calling the kettle black. By his own definition of religion together with your own assertion that 'you can't prove a negative' surely you can see Atheism as a Religion and so 'the pot calls the kettle black'. You have a belief which is not based on provable fact (by your assertion that there is no God). I can prove a negative however. I can prove that there are NO African elephants living in my house. My doctor can prove that there is NO Tuberculosis in my body. You then should be able to prove that there is NO God. The burden then falls to you for proof.

Answer 4

No, but it looks to be interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

quote:

"Dawkins defines "delusion" as "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder." Regarding "whether [religious faith] is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder," he is inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, who said: "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion."

Answer 5

Not religious but rather an atheist but I would like to know if YOU liked the book and was it worth the read?

Answer 6

B/S