Yes, I find his arguments to be very logical and often points I've made myself (and many new positions that I'd never considered). However, I find his writing to be pedantic and a bit too "wordy." Also, he quotes other people far too often. All in all, I thought "The God Delusion" was a rather overly-cautious work. It's a bold statement, and should be made boldly.
Wouldn't it make sense to read The God Delusion before you read another book responding to it? Just an observation. =)
2007-11-27 10:32:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by AM Enforcer 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
I admire Dawkins...although, yes, he is annoyingly self-referencing.
Logic is probably a wrong word choice for Dawkins and Atheists like him. "Logic" assumes in part that tricking people with word play or brilliant linguistic arguments is the principle evidence of a winning argument and that's really not the case.
I would argue that Dawkins finds scientific experimentation vastly superior to religious theology and so he publicly compares them in an effort to humiliate religion in the eyes of non-believers and fence sitters.
Assuming you are a believer aka religious, I would also argue that it is a mistake to think that Dawkins cares what you think. He is only concerned with dismantling the power base of religious theology -- not the beliefs, per se.
What I mean is this: in a war between science and theology, what matters is that people vote against and stop funding theology -- NOT whether or not people believe in GOD or think such beliefs are logical.
2007-11-27 18:49:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm not familiar with his stuff either. I recommend not judging him by trusting what Christians say... read him for yourself!
Dawkins discusses evolution for the most part, right? The problem with studying evolution, is that it is vastly complex and requires an understanding of multiple disciplines, including physics, biology, mathematics, anthropology, archaeology, etc etc. Even if you do find a good technical article supporting one view or the other, its going to be very hard to make a decision based on that alone. If you want to know the truth about evolution, read read read.
2007-11-27 18:37:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Thoroughly logical,no.I'm still not sure if that's what he's going for though.It seems like he's writing for a lay audience.I read Michael martin,Theodore drange,Quentin smith,and a few others if I'm looking for thorough logic.Dawkins is excellent and thorough when it comes to science though.I highly recommend his books like the selfish gene that aren't a direct attack on religion.
2007-11-27 18:33:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by vibratorrepairman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is it really fair to read McGrath's rebuttal without reading Dawkins first? How could you know that any "questions" McGrath raises aren't answered by Dawkins in TGD?
2007-11-27 18:35:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bad Liberal 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Oh I do find his work to be quite logical.
Sam Harris has a more thorough way of stating the atheists reasoning. In my opinion at least.
What questions does McGraths work raise?
Do you have any links? I'm curious.
2007-11-27 18:30:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Clint 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
I'm not an atheist, but I read the God Delusion. He talks so DAMN much! He's brilliant, i grant you, but he tries to make the same old tired arguments interesting and fails.
I had to put it down several times for trying to contemplate teapots and fields at the same time while he was off in lala land.
2007-11-27 18:32:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Princess Ninja 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
By and large, yes. The rub is in accepting the premises, as usual.
Is he persuasive? Not to this atheist. I've heard others make much more eloquent and substantive arguments for atheism.
2007-11-27 18:42:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Doc Occam 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've read the Selfish Gene, and yes, it was an excellent book (if you like biology anyway).
2007-11-27 18:52:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by kingdom_of_gold 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Dawkins Delusion? I have to read that book.
Thanks.
2007-11-27 18:29:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋