Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.
2BTRIPP
Have not gotten around to reading that yet, but obtained it, along with The Selfish Gene and A Devil's Chaplain from my kids for Xmas (I was also featured in a book by my elder daughter "The Dad Who Hates Christmas", so they knew what stuff I wanted to read!).
3LolaWalser
I got it from the library and skimmed a bit, but I'm not sure I'll read it this time (no renewals since it's a hot item). To state my position--I'm an atheist (and a scientist as it happens) and an un-American. :) As a European, where religion has been relegated more or less to colourful "mysteries" a while back, I thought in the past that Dawkins' militant atheism was much ado about nothing, but it seems I'm changing my mind, what with the lunacy in the US and the rising tide elsewhere.
So I haven't read the book yet, but yes, I have a quibble about something he says right off, ennumerating the crimes of religion; to wit, that if there had been no religion, we wouldn't have had 9/11 and the civil war in Yugoslavia etc. I'd need to argue each example separately, because generally I can only say this is so simplistic as to be a complete distortion of the truth.
In my view (coming from my experience in Yugoslavia and the Middle East, FWIW), in these cases religion is simply a handy distinguishing marker, whereby two or more groups can differentiate into separate warring camps. The war in Yugoslavia certainly wasn't a religious war, and neither is the conflict in Israel driven by religion as such.
Of course, this doesn't matter much for Dawkins' argument, but I wish he'd been less flippant; there's plenty of ground to indict religion without saying false or silly things.
That said, I'm glad these books are being written because it does look like we're in the hour of need.
So I haven't read the book yet, but yes, I have a quibble about something he says right off, ennumerating the crimes of religion; to wit, that if there had been no religion, we wouldn't have had 9/11 and the civil war in Yugoslavia etc. I'd need to argue each example separately, because generally I can only say this is so simplistic as to be a complete distortion of the truth.
In my view (coming from my experience in Yugoslavia and the Middle East, FWIW), in these cases religion is simply a handy distinguishing marker, whereby two or more groups can differentiate into separate warring camps. The war in Yugoslavia certainly wasn't a religious war, and neither is the conflict in Israel driven by religion as such.
Of course, this doesn't matter much for Dawkins' argument, but I wish he'd been less flippant; there's plenty of ground to indict religion without saying false or silly things.
That said, I'm glad these books are being written because it does look like we're in the hour of need.
4azureyes
I agree completely about Dawkins's flippancy. Before reading The God Delusion, I'd actually listened to him & his wife reading it on an audible.com download. Although I think he's done a great service in putting a lot of the arguments against religion together in one place, I found the patronizing tone annoying myself (since I'm already an atheist) and can only imagine that it would be off-putting to others.
There are some moments in "...Delusion" that don't seem to me to rise to the level of scientific rigor. (My apologies for paraphrasing - I've lent the book to a friend & can't quote directly.) When Dawkins rehearses the arguments that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and that highly evolved extraterrestrials might be perceived as supernatural beings, I think he's making rhetorical hay, and not really advancing his arguments.
I also think that he might profitably spend more time than he does discussing the evolutionary advantages of systems of religious belief - if there are any - the better to show that they are vestigial but not, perhaps, surprising. I'd like to know what he thinks about cognitive illusions - basic limits to human rationality - and whether they play a part in leaps of faith.
Still, there were things in the book that I'd heard but wanted to see, so I bought it again, along with The Selfish Gene (he's made a lot of money off me lately!). Tone aside, some of his arguments are so insightful, incisive, and compelling that it's difficult to imagine how a reasonably intelligent person wouldn't be swayed by them. And his arguments directed to the fence-straddlers - in favor of being serious about and confident in expressing one's non-belief, and in becoming an outspoken political humanist/naturalist/atheist - are strong.
There are some moments in "...Delusion" that don't seem to me to rise to the level of scientific rigor. (My apologies for paraphrasing - I've lent the book to a friend & can't quote directly.) When Dawkins rehearses the arguments that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and that highly evolved extraterrestrials might be perceived as supernatural beings, I think he's making rhetorical hay, and not really advancing his arguments.
I also think that he might profitably spend more time than he does discussing the evolutionary advantages of systems of religious belief - if there are any - the better to show that they are vestigial but not, perhaps, surprising. I'd like to know what he thinks about cognitive illusions - basic limits to human rationality - and whether they play a part in leaps of faith.
Still, there were things in the book that I'd heard but wanted to see, so I bought it again, along with The Selfish Gene (he's made a lot of money off me lately!). Tone aside, some of his arguments are so insightful, incisive, and compelling that it's difficult to imagine how a reasonably intelligent person wouldn't be swayed by them. And his arguments directed to the fence-straddlers - in favor of being serious about and confident in expressing one's non-belief, and in becoming an outspoken political humanist/naturalist/atheist - are strong.
5LolaWalser
Ah, his tone, his tone. :) It's probably the reason I've so far read only "The selfish gene" (way back at the university), and abandoned another one... not that I feel any necessity to read him for information, and as for atheism, he's preaching to the choir in my case. I'm glad you think some patient souls might yet bear with him to the point of allowing to be persuaded.
By the way, do you know Pharyngula?
It's an EXCELLENT science blog written by a professor of biology, P. Z. Myers, a "godless liberal". He has many posts (and hundreds comments more) on Dawkins (he's his staunch supporter), and his books and the "new atheism" in general. There's no better single source on the various readings of "The God delusion".
By the way, do you know Pharyngula?
It's an EXCELLENT science blog written by a professor of biology, P. Z. Myers, a "godless liberal". He has many posts (and hundreds comments more) on Dawkins (he's his staunch supporter), and his books and the "new atheism" in general. There's no better single source on the various readings of "The God delusion".
6LolaWalser
Okay, I started reading "The god delusion" and I'm loving it! So much so that I'll just return this and buy my own copy.
7nperrin
6>
I'm glad to hear it. I was tempted to post after I read your first complaint about his being too flippant, and then also about his tone, that I keep hearing this from people who haven't read it yet. I find it so frustrating, because I went into it thinking the same thing, and came out pleasantly surprised. So I hope you continue to enjoy it.
Complaints that bug me because they indicate not having read the book:
He's rude - he's really just not.
He claims that it's impossible for there to be a god - he simply doesn't make such a claim, he just thinks it's highly unlikely.
Complaints that bug me for other reasons:
No reason for atheists to be so "angry".
He doesn't address XYZ contemporary Christian apologist/theologian.
In general I thought The God Delusion was well done - simplistic, yes, a bit, but it's written for a particular audience. I think in general his points are well-made and easy to understand, and I don't recall anything making me angry or annoyed or finding myself disagreeing with things.
Oh, and I love Pharyngula - longtime reader and sometime commenter.
I'm glad to hear it. I was tempted to post after I read your first complaint about his being too flippant, and then also about his tone, that I keep hearing this from people who haven't read it yet. I find it so frustrating, because I went into it thinking the same thing, and came out pleasantly surprised. So I hope you continue to enjoy it.
Complaints that bug me because they indicate not having read the book:
He's rude - he's really just not.
He claims that it's impossible for there to be a god - he simply doesn't make such a claim, he just thinks it's highly unlikely.
Complaints that bug me for other reasons:
No reason for atheists to be so "angry".
He doesn't address XYZ contemporary Christian apologist/theologian.
In general I thought The God Delusion was well done - simplistic, yes, a bit, but it's written for a particular audience. I think in general his points are well-made and easy to understand, and I don't recall anything making me angry or annoyed or finding myself disagreeing with things.
Oh, and I love Pharyngula - longtime reader and sometime commenter.
8LolaWalser
about his tone, that I keep hearing this from people who haven't read it yet.
That's funny, how would they know if they hadn't read him? Oh, I forget he's also on TV... I don't have one, so I've never experienced Dawkins viva voce... saw a short YouTube clip the other day, with the gay scandal preacher, he (Dawkins) couldn't get a word in, poor thing.
Well, I'm only one third through, but so far it reads much better than I expected. His argumentation is mostly impeccable (I don't buy the probability-of- god exercises, though--from either side) although I still wish he'd been subtler with the "religion causes war" examples. But as you say, considering the type of public he's predominantly addressing...
>He claims that it's impossible for there to be a god - he simply doesn't make such a claim, he just thinks it's highly unlikely.
Wellllll... Ah, that damned statistics lingo. :) See, in real life we take many a high-improbability (ergo, not-entirely-impossibility) to actually MEAN zero possibility. Consider the DNA matching tests, with results expressed as, say, "there's a 1 in 650,000 chance that the DNA comes from someone other than X." This isn't the end of it--this will be taken to mean "the DNA in question DID come from X."
So, while Dawkins does describe the likelihood of god as "highly improbable" in theory, to me it reads "zero possibility" in practice.
Nice to see another Pharyngulist here. I commented a few times too--at least once to compare Dawkins negatively to Gould, Medawar and Mayr. :)
That's funny, how would they know if they hadn't read him? Oh, I forget he's also on TV... I don't have one, so I've never experienced Dawkins viva voce... saw a short YouTube clip the other day, with the gay scandal preacher, he (Dawkins) couldn't get a word in, poor thing.
Well, I'm only one third through, but so far it reads much better than I expected. His argumentation is mostly impeccable (I don't buy the probability-of- god exercises, though--from either side) although I still wish he'd been subtler with the "religion causes war" examples. But as you say, considering the type of public he's predominantly addressing...
>He claims that it's impossible for there to be a god - he simply doesn't make such a claim, he just thinks it's highly unlikely.
Wellllll... Ah, that damned statistics lingo. :) See, in real life we take many a high-improbability (ergo, not-entirely-impossibility) to actually MEAN zero possibility. Consider the DNA matching tests, with results expressed as, say, "there's a 1 in 650,000 chance that the DNA comes from someone other than X." This isn't the end of it--this will be taken to mean "the DNA in question DID come from X."
So, while Dawkins does describe the likelihood of god as "highly improbable" in theory, to me it reads "zero possibility" in practice.
Nice to see another Pharyngulist here. I commented a few times too--at least once to compare Dawkins negatively to Gould, Medawar and Mayr. :)
9nperrin
I haven't seen Dawkins on TV, but I have heard him on the radio, and that's one reason I find complaints about his tone so far off...he always sounds so pleasant to me, very soft-spoken and calm, so I don't get it at all.
See, in real life we take many a high-improbability (ergo, not-entirely-impossibility) to actually MEAN zero possibility. Consider the DNA matching tests, with results expressed as, say, "there's a 1 in 650,000 chance that the DNA comes from someone other than X." This isn't the end of it--this will be taken to mean "the DNA in question DID come from X."
So, while Dawkins does describe the likelihood of god as "highly improbable" in theory, to me it reads "zero possibility" in practice.
Well, yes - when something is highly improbable, we ignore that tiny statistical possibility because otherwise we wouldn't function very well. This is why people like Dawkins argue that it's rational to be an atheist (as opposed to those who claim the only rational position is agnosticism). But to ignore that possibility for the purposes of day-to-day life is not the same as denying that the possibility exists at all, and more importantly, denying that there could be any evidence that would change your mind - that's why atheists get accused of being "faith-based" even though it's hardly ever true. And I don't think it's true of Dawkins.
I'm not disagreeing with you, because I agree that it means zero possibility in practice, but I do think that Dawkins is careful enough not say things like "There is no way there could ever possibly be a higher power than me because I am so awesome" which, like I said, is the kind of thing he gets accused of.
See, in real life we take many a high-improbability (ergo, not-entirely-impossibility) to actually MEAN zero possibility. Consider the DNA matching tests, with results expressed as, say, "there's a 1 in 650,000 chance that the DNA comes from someone other than X." This isn't the end of it--this will be taken to mean "the DNA in question DID come from X."
So, while Dawkins does describe the likelihood of god as "highly improbable" in theory, to me it reads "zero possibility" in practice.
Well, yes - when something is highly improbable, we ignore that tiny statistical possibility because otherwise we wouldn't function very well. This is why people like Dawkins argue that it's rational to be an atheist (as opposed to those who claim the only rational position is agnosticism). But to ignore that possibility for the purposes of day-to-day life is not the same as denying that the possibility exists at all, and more importantly, denying that there could be any evidence that would change your mind - that's why atheists get accused of being "faith-based" even though it's hardly ever true. And I don't think it's true of Dawkins.
I'm not disagreeing with you, because I agree that it means zero possibility in practice, but I do think that Dawkins is careful enough not say things like "There is no way there could ever possibly be a higher power than me because I am so awesome" which, like I said, is the kind of thing he gets accused of.
10azureyes
My take on Dawkins's arguments about the spectrum of belief in god running from absolute certainty of faith on one end to absolute atheism on the other is that he's trying to help leverage armchair agnostics into activist atheists. The very small probability Dawkins leaves open for the existence of god is a gesture of pure scientific honesty. It is the skeptic's statistical margin-of-error, not some sort of wishful thinking. For me, it's equivalent to the graininess of my perceptions and the imprecision of my senses and rationality, not a vacuum the supernatural would or could fill.
What's most interesting for those who haven't made up their minds about god is what Dawkins does with the probabilities towards the middle of the spectrum - showing that it's pretty easy to demonstrate - without doing the equivalent of dividing by zero or proving a negative - that the burden of proof always rests firmly on the shoulders of the faithful.
And, if I've I understand him, that their positive assertions for the existence of god, taken one by one, never rise to the level of falsifiability anyway.
I've been a tolerant, multicultural liberal most of my life - and a non-believer in god(s) for the last twenty-five of my forty-four years. But Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris (The End of Faith : religion, terror, and the future of reason, Letter to a Christian Nation), Robert Spencer, and others have me wondering seriously whether religious tolerance might actually be in some real sense unethical.
Anybody else have that uncomfortable feeling?
What's most interesting for those who haven't made up their minds about god is what Dawkins does with the probabilities towards the middle of the spectrum - showing that it's pretty easy to demonstrate - without doing the equivalent of dividing by zero or proving a negative - that the burden of proof always rests firmly on the shoulders of the faithful.
And, if I've I understand him, that their positive assertions for the existence of god, taken one by one, never rise to the level of falsifiability anyway.
I've been a tolerant, multicultural liberal most of my life - and a non-believer in god(s) for the last twenty-five of my forty-four years. But Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris (The End of Faith : religion, terror, and the future of reason, Letter to a Christian Nation), Robert Spencer, and others have me wondering seriously whether religious tolerance might actually be in some real sense unethical.
Anybody else have that uncomfortable feeling?
Anmelden um mitzuschreiben.
