http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
Both of these guys review "The God Delusion" and come to the same conclusion, Dawkins needs to stay out of the philosophy and theology business.
Long articles by H. Allen Orr and Alvin Plantinga please take the time to read them.
If we are as interested in truth as we claim this will be fun.
2007-05-30 03:47:31 · 10 answers · asked by HAND 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I read the book and thought it did a good job. I think the first critique missed the point. Dawkins' is described as "middlebrow" by the article, but I think that's something we need in this debate. Dawkins' addresses certain emotional aspects of religious argument, showing that they can be looked at in a logical way. He's not trying to write a thesis on the history of religion and all that's wrong with each variation of each superstition. That's been done already. I don't think Dawkins' book is the end all of atheist literature, but I do think it fills a specific niche, and an important one.
2007-05-30 03:50:12 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I have got both The God Delusion and The Dawkins Delusion on my list of books to read in the near future. I will withhold judgement on Dawkins until I have read them.
However, this may be being presented with spin.
Christians will tend to say Dawkins has poor arguments. Dawkins is arguing that there is no God, so christians will disagree with Dawkins by definition.
In addition, not all atheists will agree with Dawkins. Just because H Allen Orr is one of these, it doesn't make Dawkins arguments bad - H Allen Orr is not an authority.
Compare this to christian evangelical books.
All atheists will disagree with the arguments, as they don't believe in the existance of the biblical god the book is trying to prove. Some christians will disagree with the arguments, purely because they feel the arguments are without merit, or have already been refuted and are outdated.
2007-05-30 11:06:23 · answer #2 · answered by Tom :: Athier than Thou 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Philosophy is a school of thought, not a business. Theology is the real money-making business. Look at how many people you can dupe.
No, we aren't on the same page. Atheists gave up their imaginary friends a long time ago, taking responsibility for their own actions and their own future.
You can continue to peddle false rationalizations, and there will continue to be people like Richard Dawkins to point out your errors.
People like you, and the poster below me, are the problem. If you want to prove someone wrong, do it. Write your own book, "The Richard Dawkins Delusion". Otherwise, don't just flippantly claim he is wrong without any discussion or evidence.
2007-05-30 10:52:44 · answer #3 · answered by Michael 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
On the same page about what- that it is not a good book?
It's the issue behind the book that is important- evolution.
Evolution is NOT a Christian vs Atheist issue, it never has been.
It's a "Blind Faith" vs "Observation and Analysis" issue.
Most Christians understand Science just fine and accept evolution whole heartedly, including the Catholic Church.
It's just a few vocal Fundamentalists, mostly in the US, who are afraid that by accepting evolution they lose their belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and then they lose their entire faith.
Unlike most Christians, Fundamentalists base their whole belief system on Biblical inerrency- and when it crumbles, their whole faith crumbles.
We went through all of this with Galileo, and Christianity managed to survive it.
Now, you would be hard pressed to find a Christian who believes the sun goes arround the Earth.
2007-05-30 10:59:29 · answer #4 · answered by Magenta 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Dawkins is an extremely flawed thinker on the topic of religion, though he is moderately accomplished in other areas. (Though nowhere near so much as his many disciples seem to believe - he is not a major figure in anthropology or biology, and even less so in cosmology or other grand 'why are we here' sciences.)
One of his moderately innovative ideas about behaviourism - the meme - became a soundbite word that the public was able to grasp onto. While Dawkins is not able to latch onto and popularly explain the lofty ideas of Nietsche and Aquinas, people who have written the really serious apologetics against and for God, his new word - the 'meme' - allows people who can't follow complex arguments to feel like they are part of the debate.
Dawkins is basically "atheist apologetics for dummies" if you get right down to it.
2007-05-30 11:03:08 · answer #5 · answered by evolver 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've read a couple of snippets from the Dawkins book, and the guy has a problem developing a logical argument.
Nothing wrong with blow-horns, but Dawkins thinks a bit too much of himself. Maybe a great Biologist, but has demonstrated that he isn't equipped for philosophical discourse.
2007-05-30 10:53:23 · answer #6 · answered by super Bobo 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Others meanwhile have reviewed it and saw it as an interesting and well written book. You can be selective with your sources but the question is are you being totally objective.
2007-05-30 10:51:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
How many books out there do you think are written by so-called "experts?" Richard Dawkins might as well be Richard Dawson, as far as I'm concerned.
2007-05-30 10:52:30 · answer #8 · answered by singwritelaugh 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The beauty of Richard Dawkins is that he is a jerk, but he knows it.
2007-05-30 10:51:40 · answer #9 · answered by Don't Fear the Reaper 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Gotta love it. And this is their messiah. Atheisism truly is a faith based religion.
2007-05-30 11:00:22 · answer #10 · answered by Tzadiq 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋