Why do you find Dawkin's The God Delusion an embarrasment?

Question

I've read several posts where Christians say this is what they think of the book, but haven't seen an explanation of why they do.

Bill Mac, I've seen this phrase posted a few times, and I know most Christians aren't embarrassed by it nor have claimed they are. This question is aimed at the ones who do feel embarrassed by it and have openly said so.

Answer 1

I do find it to be an embarrassment, although not to me personally. It's an embarrassment to people like Sam Harris or other atheists whose work is of much higher quality than Dawkins' and who deserve to be publicly represented a little bit better than he represents them as "the world's most outspoken atheist" (a phrase which describes Dawkins on the cover flap of The GOD Delusion).

The book is very well-written, but unfortunately, the crux of the argument is not very well supported.

Dawkins, in Chapter 4 (Why there almost certainly is no God) does a very good job giving reasons how certain seemingly created phenomena could have evolved through Darwinian Natural Selection rather than having been created. This part of his argument I found very interesting and well-supported.

Afterwards, though, it all built up to a large argument based on the Anthropic Principle. Darwin's use of the Anthropic Principle, unlike the Principle itself (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ), simply purports that "no matter how unlikely the evolution of our universe is, it has to have happened, because here we are in our universe talking about it." The obvious flaw is that the answer doesn't answer the question at hand, but really answers just itself.

For instance, let's substitute "pastafarian creation" for "evolution":

"No matter how unlikely the pastafarian creation of our universe is, it has to have happened, because here we are in our universe talking about it."

Dawkins would have us accept this principle as "proof" (or at least unrefutable evidence) of his cosmic evolutionary view, yet forgets the simple notion that his same principle and logic would also "prove" (or at least unrefutably evidence) alternate theories.

That being said, the title of the chapter is quite inappropriate, since God's existence is really no less probable at the end of the chapter than it is at the beginning. Since this is the main chapter in the theory of the book, and the one upon which precedent and subsequent chapters are based, the entire book must be reevaluated. Without Chapter 4, however, the book is virtually worthless in showing that belief in God is "delusional."

Answer 2

Well because most of them have never read the book. They just think they're supposed to dislike anything that questions their faith.

The strength of Christianity or any religion for that matter is their ignorance. All(and I think it's safe to say "all") religions preach to their followers to never question their faith, and when they do they say "it's the devil". It's a scare tactic used by religion to keep their followers from thinking for themselves. It's safe to say anyone who happened to look into science and any research on evolution would be forced to seriously re-think their religious views. Think about it, take any religious view and isolate it away from religion and you have the characteristics and beliefs of a crazy person. Many Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, contrary to ALL evidence and science leading the the earth being some where in the ball park of 4-5 billions years old.

The belief in a religious god IS a delusion. Religious people have no idea how crazy and delusional they sound when they make non-negotiable claims about the world based on some book. I would respect religion if the followers talked about their hope in a god. I could accept hope for their reasoning but people don't hope. For example, Christians claim for certain that the creator of the universe hates gay people. There is a huge difference between hoping for something and believing.

Example, I can hope I won the lottery. Everyone hopes they win the lottery. It's when I believe I've won the lottery that everything changes. Once I believe I've won the lottery I think I can go on a spending spree because I'm certain I won. These are basic representations of the world. One is realistic and the other is delusional.

Dawkins is a great author. I believe most of his critics have never read any of his material. They just been told to fell ashamed by people like Ted Haggard and all the other Christian nuts.

Answer 3

I have not read this book, but while at my brothers house, i spotted it and asked if i could take a look, he directed me to a bit where dawkins listed how much people believe or disbelieve in God, Number one was totally believe as in I know God exists, then it goes on to I think God exists, and so on to I know God does not exist. My brother asks how I stand in my faith, I said the first one, I know he exists, my brother said it was impossible. He sits on the fence, as in, well their could be a God, but if their is, he is a horrible, hateful God. My brother was struck by a lorry at the age of thirty, he has been paraplegic since, so I understand his anger, I wonder why dawkins is so angry with God?

Answer 4

I think you are deluding yourself... most Christians are not "embarrassed" because of it. You may want to believe this, but it simply is not the case. Same goes for the book.

Answer 5

I don't, it's just a bit far-fetched.

Answer 6

No i don`t.

Answer 7

They were told to. They didn't ask why.

Answer 8

did they really read it?