New Richard Dawkins book - The God Delusion

[Guest_225]

Looks like a good read and a very relevant topic right now.

 

"Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and instead characterize their battle as a war against 'terror', as though terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure 'evil'. But they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith."

 

More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5372458.stm

[hoba]

Richard Dawkins is one of my heroes. How many times have I read the Selfish Gene?

 

I'm assuming that this book is the outcome of The Root of All Evil from earlier this year? Or maybe the other way around- the TV programme is a result of the research for the book.

 

Either way, I think I'll have to get this once I can afford it.

[garryn]

"they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith"

 

Not true, with what we've seen recently. Many seem to be homegrown and radicalised in their late teens by influences outside the family

[kel83]

I personally don't like Dawkins. I got halfway through The Selfish Gene and had to stop reading it.

[Guest_225]

Either way, I think I'll have to get this once I can afford it.

 

10 quid from Amazon, less when it comes out in paperback.

[LordChaverly]

I personally don't like Dawkins. I got halfway through The Selfish Gene and had to stop reading it.

 

He attracts a lot of criticism because of his strident and uncompromising views on religion and also because of his rather haughty manner. Arguably, his approach is justified by the tendency to treat organised religion, and also the beliefs of its adherents, with kid gloves. With him, the gloves are definitely off. This puts people's back up.

 

Another reason why some people probably dislike him is that he appears to have it all - i.e. he is intelligent, successful, good looking and attractive to women. I am all of these things too, but am a lot more modest than Dawkins. :hihi:

[nigsmig]

just watched the interview which was quite fun but for a non believer he uses the word believe way too often.

dawkin stars in this rather jolly little clip (with awesome music):

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/atheist-p1.php

enjoy

[LordChaverly]

It's OK to believe in stuff, provided that you've got a proper concept of what it is that you're believing in, and that your beliefs are based on solid reasons.

 

Dawkins believes in science. His 'religion' is Scientism and his 'God' is the knowledge deriving from it.

[LordChaverly]

Care to expand on that?

 

I guess most people 'believe in science' in some sense. Most people would accept many of the main conclusions of science (where they don't impinge on their faith positions).

 

And what do you mean when you accuse him of being religious and treating knowledge like a 'God'?

 

Though I agree he is sometimes a little shrill!

 

What I meant was that he is just as zealous, and in many ways, as intolerant, as the 'believers' he criticises. If he has a faith, it is faith in science (including of course scientific method). For Dawkins, scientific knoweldge does impinge on 'faith positions' and renders the latter absurd as a means of comprehending the world. I was using the word 'God' in a semi-facetious sense here. I don't think 'God' (or for that matter Dawkins) will mind too much.

[Guest_225]

E O Wilson is god, Dawkins is just a disciple....