please forgive me
I am currently reading (though not yet enjoying) Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, which is his scientific approach to "proving" that there is no God. I have been a comfortable skeptic for quite some time now, meaning that I'd like to believe very strongly in God, but I cannot reconcile the kind of God I'd like to believe in (a personal God who
( Read more... )
It seems that you read a different book than I, and are criticizing it before finishing it.
A. Dawkins is not claiming that God does not exist, only that it's very unlikely that he does, and the probability that he does is smaller than other, more scientific explanations for the way the world works. He also spends a good deal of his time debunking proofs that god *does* exist, which is not the same thing as proving he doesn't. Explain to me where in the entire book does he say "I am proving god does not exist."
B. A good 1/4-1/3 of the book is spent trying to explain why people do choose religion - try getting that far before you use it as a base of attack.
C. This book is, to some extent, an amalgamation of his previous work, which dilutes its detail.
D. I think the basis of Dawkin's argument is one of secular humanism, not fervent atheism (he isn't trying to convert people Scott, atheism isn't something you can convert too, because it doesn't require belief).
The God Dillusion is the result of built up frustration and the persecution and pervesion of science by the religious right for thousands of years. This guy writes one book of protest and suddenly the world comes down on his head? Do you get equally as upset by, I don't know, the Christian Business Network, which gets played on Malawi's National news station? Have some perspective Scott.
It's not a proof that God doesn't exist, just a suggestion that he probably doesn't, and that he's pretty much irrelevant anyway.
Reply
you're right, he's not proving that god does not exist, merely debunking "proofs" that god exists. there is a difference and it's not merely semantics.
i dont buy your argument that he's not trying to convert people because athiesm "doesnt require belief." He most certainly is trying to "convert" people (if you can find a better word, please do so). whether or not the basis of his argument is secular humanism or atheism, he is still trying to change our mind (which is ok).
however, my core complaint still holds: that if he's trying to show us a world without god and without religion then he's going to leave a great big empty space that needs filling; and he doesnt offer anything to fill it.
sure, he suggests a "new ten commandments" but people (not everyone but most of them) need to feel connected to something bigger. i suggest looking at eastern, godless practices like taoism which seem to provide the necessary comfort humans need without the same opportunity for extremism in their "religion" if you can call it that.
sure, there are much bigger problems in the world than dawkin's unfinished line of thought, i do have *some* sense of perspective. but i'm reading this book right now and that's what i'm thinking about. besides, this blog would get awfully (more) boring if all i ever did was harp on the major issues facing this country and the world.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment