/lit/ - Literature

[Brownbear !5EJ71eKlNQ!!6SnjW+BUlLP No.1589069]

Anyone read this?
what did everyone think?
i read it recently but when i made a thread it turned into christian vs atheism bullshit, let's try to keep that from happening this time?

i really enjoyed it, though i do not believe in God anyway, so it did not change my views in any way.
I thought his attacks on religion were well thought out and he put across a convincing argument.

People say he's too aggressive, but i believe he has to be in order to be taken seriously

thoughts /lit/?
this is one of the few non-fic books i've read aswell.

inb4 the bible was one of the few non-fic ones I'VE read, OP!

[Anonymous No.1589079]

>inb4 the bible was one of the few non-fic ones I'VE read, OP!

>the bible
>non-fic
>pick one

[Anonymous No.1589083]

[Anonymous No.1589089]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/society#article_continue

read that as a response to Dawkins "God Delusion" and Atheist enterprise.

Also, I recommend reading Dawkins "Selfish Gene" it's a far better book at explaining why there is no god, without even talking about god. That along with any other evolutionary science books whether biology or physics based. Start with those, it gives a scientific reasoning as to why there is no god, not a silly philosophical one.

[Brownbear !5EJ71eKlNQ!!6SnjW+BUlLP No.1589088]

>>1589079
>>1589079

that's the joke i was making

[Anonymous No.1589095]

>>1589069

It's a well-reasoned and internally consistent book.

I loved it.

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1589104]

As an atheist it was a bit of a waste of time

However as a book for making people understand the core arguments which compel people to disregard their belief/apathy towards God it is very effective in my experience.

It's quite well written as well, actually.

[Anonymous No.1589109]

i get what you're saying about being aggressive to be taken serious. but in my opinion this makes the book's point more polarised than necessary. religion has and had some good points as well and i think dawkins fails too see that. he's like the fox news of evolution

[Anonymous No.1589113]

I thought it was crap.

It's basically entry-level philosophy arguments for and against God re-hashed then some arguments about how religion is the ultimate evil when there are deeper explanations for those rifts.

However, I find Dawkins' shows much more annoying as he says 'I don't go out looking for fights' then intentionally finds dumb religious people and argues with them.

I'm an atheist and find it's for people (generally!) who want to masturbate over their own secularism.

[Anonymous No.1589115]

>>1589113
agreed

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1589119]

>entry-level philosophy arguments for and against God

Entry level but legitimate.

Remember he wasn't seeking to write a philosophy book, but he intended to give the case agains't God in a way that you wouldn't need a degree in philosophy to interpret properly.

>some arguments about how religion is the ultimate evil

I really can't remember that part.

[Anonymous No.1589126]

>>1589119
>but he intended to give the case agains't God in a way that you wouldn't need a degree in philosophy to interpret properly.

I think that's exactly what he meant with "entry-level philosophy"

the problem with Dawkins is that he's antagonising religion like a pubescent against his parents. most people of our age already figured this stuff out while growing up which makes Dawkins kind off the sad old man that boarded the train while it was already leaving. i dont say i disagree with him on a lot of poins, it's just that i dont like the way hes doing it

[Anonymous No.1589127]

>>1589119

Yes, but to give it is a basic level is to not treat his opponents with respect: there are Christians who have provided far more eloquent and profound arguments than the ontological or deontological explanations of God.

Referring the how religion is the ultimate evil he seems to claim that terrorism and war are all due to religion when they are ultimately economical and socio-political matters.

A third point I forgot to mention is that Dawkins is raised in the scientific background and believes that as science grows in acceptance, religion should of course decline. He thinks that as one thing that is more truthful appears, one that is more fraudulent should disappear.

But he fails to understand belief in God is not a logical matter or ultimately a matter of evidence. It is an emotional belief someone has in something that is outside of logic. No one believes in Zeus or Ra anymore but it wasn't suddenly disproven so people changed their mind. Simply, another faith becomes attached to the individuals emotionally. When speaking to those who have converted to atheism they always argue that the final blow may be a logical argument but it is ultimately a change in mindset or emotion that sparked it all. Their faith allows them to defy logic at times, even things which their logical mind is aware as a God argument against God.

By writing this book Dawkins does not actually help promote atheism which would gradually change as people's ties to faith weaken over time. But instead he helps present an angry, dangerous viewpoint for religious people to rally themselves against and validate their own opinion.

[Anonymous No.1589130]

>>1589127
I think the 'emotional belief' part is also supported by the growing spiritual and paranormal beliefs in society. i dont know about youre countries but in mine there are about 4 shows on television where 'mediums' talk to dead people/babies/animals and an additional range of shows like the ghost whisperer and such

[Anonymous No.1589132]

*your, je suis desole

[Anonymous No.1589134]

>>1589130
i also forgot to say that this spiritual stuff is growing as the number of people subscribed to a church is declining. it's a shift of emotional belief is what i meant to say, sorry its early

[Anonymous No.1589133]

>>1589126
> most people of our age already figured this stuff out while growing up which makes Dawkins kind off the sad old man that boarded the train while it was already leaving.

I disagree strongly. It seems pretty obvious that Dawkins got on the train at the right time. He's sold a shit ton of books and generated a lot of attention. So as far as his audience is concerned he is relevant as fuck.

[Anonymous No.1589136]

>>1589133
yeah youre probably right. i was just yelling off my pseudo-intellectual elitist tower. he boarded the train at the right time to lead the masses. too bad these shifts always have to be 180 degrees

[Anonymous No.1589137]

Dry as FUCK.

[Anonymous No.1589138]

>>1589069
> growing spiritual and paranormal beliefs in society.

those sorts of beliefs were literally everywhere 200 years ago. They may still be prominent, but they are surely not growing.

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1589141]

>>1589126

The whole purpose of the book is to be entry level, to make it easy for people who have never considered the alternative to start questioning and criticising their beliefs. Even a religious person might tell you that's a good thing.

And I don't believe he is significantly antagonistic or aggressive.

>>1589127

He actually says in the beginning of his book that he knows it is impossible to convert dyed in the wool (i think is the term he uses) religious believers with rational debate, so he seeks to change the views of the floating agnostics who haven't given the idea of God much thought before or are still unable to make a decision.

I know that for at least one person, my father, Dawkins has succeeded.

[Anonymous No.1589142]

>>1589127
Not the guy you're talking to, but:

>But he fails to understand belief in God is not a logical matter or ultimately a matter of evidence.

That would perfectly OK, but we have to remember that there currently religious groups opposing things like the theory of evolution, which clearly indicates that there is part of the religious mainstream that doesn't follow that approach, and which, in my opinion, should be contested in public debate.

[Anonymous No.1589143]

>>1589138
I know that stuff has been around for ages but I think they're gaining public ground. A shift from the obscure to the mainstream.

[Anonymous No.1589147]

>>1589141
The fact that he's 'converting' people proves to me he's antagonising religion instead of trying to take a more objective meta-stance on its subject

[Anonymous No.1589148]

>most people of our age already figured this stuff out while growing up

Surely, you jest. Look at the numbers man, or just look around you. This is just not true. Dawkin's didn't board the train late, he is fucking conducting it. I think every thinking person goes through a period after they realize that there is no God, where they feel angry towards religion, and towards religious people. It is perfectly understandable. When you realize that it was a big lie you feel angry, when people are adamant about the lie you feel angry at them for not seeing the obvious truth.

Eventually, most people just come to accept the insanity of the situation. You can't stay mad forever unless you turn it into bitterness, and quite a few Atheists are bitter.

About the book, I enjoyed it during that period of my life when I was angry towards religion. It felt good to hear someone justify this new and deviant thought. It may not be philosophically advanced, but it hardly needs to be. The philosophical arguments coming from the religious crowd (or Theologians, if you respect that) are all either laughable or simplistic, you don't need some advanced array of thoughts to counter it. And anything beyond countering it is pointless.

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1589149]

>>1589147

>meta-stance

[Anonymous No.1589151]

I read this book when I was 16, along with Hitchens and Sam Harris. Those books were an alright read, I guess at that point in my life they gave me some sort of confirmation regarding my beliefs in the nonexistence of God. It's a good enough book, in my years studying university level philosophy (only 2) I haven't come across anything that would lead me to believe Dawkins really misrepresents the arguments for God, as is often claimed. He does not treat these arguments very nicely, but nevertheless they are all there, at least at the layman level.

I think it's pretty clear that he gets a bad rep because he talks about religion, a topic people are always itching to get offended over. And he gives them what they want, that is for sure. But I'm not sure the people who are offended by Dawkins deserve not to be offended, or even if they would want to spare themselves the offense.

[Anonymous No.1589153]

>>1589148
yeah, about the first part, i made the mistake of looking at my own environment where most people never had to be angry because they never were raised on christian beliefs. from my point of view the anger seems logical but also a reason for people as Dawkins to not be able to see the relative advantages of religion over individualism

[Anonymous No.1589154]

>>1589149
lol, nice argument you have there. keep boohooing about the stupid priest that clouded your mendable mind, while gobbling on the veiny cock of Dawkins' hate.

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1589156]

>>1589153

There are no advantages which won't be outweighed by the corrosive nature of religion on science and critical thinking and that can't be emulated just as well by a functional secular society.

[Anonymous No.1589159]

Christopher Hitchens "God is NOT great"
Is way, way better.

[Anonymous No.1589160]

>>1589148
> Dawkin's didn't board the train late, he is fucking conducting it.

lol

I was a fan of Dawkins and these atheist writers back in my youth, and I still respect them to the extent that they are trying to make the world a better place. I used to be angry as fuck with the religious, maybe I still am. I think I've replaced most of that anger with an anger for the general unthinking populace, which is defendable when you have to live in a democracy where >90% of its people don't even try to think. Being stupid is okay with me, because you can't really help that, but that my life is governed by a public that refuses to think is just gets my panties all in a knot when it doesn't terrify me.

[Anonymous No.1589163]

>>1589156
i think functional secular societies will be a lot less coherent than religious societies. plus most people arent able to think critically and taking away religion wont stop their 'corrosive nature'

[Anonymous No.1589167]

>>1589160
I understand what you're saying, and felt the same way. But life is really an insane thing, it only feels sane because we are so used to it. These religious people are only one of a small number of insanities, many of which include you. It's nice to think of "us" sane people vs. "them" insane people, but being an Atheist means you just hold one less delusion than they do. Our lives are all built up on top of a terrifying number of delusions and simplifications.

[Anonymous No.1589171]

Dawkins book is pretty good, but I think these conversations always leave out a very important point. The sentiment that religious belief rises out of seems to be a very important part of religion, if not the most important, yet no one ever talks about it. That feeling of oneness, or communion with the universe, of being "home" and having a place in the infinite is a part of all religions. Could the lack of this sort of sentiment be the reason why the non religious are a lot unhappier than the religious? IMO, probably.

So if we get rid of religion, which it seems like we must, how do we avoid becoming depressed suicidal fucks? Is it possible to have this religious sentiment without any religion, or even any spirituality?

[Anonymous No.1589174]

>>1589167
> Our lives are all built up on top of a terrifying number of delusions and simplifications.

This is true, and i think it's also true that as hard as we try we cannot always get around these delusions. But my problem with most of the people we share the world with is not that they are deluded, but that they don't seem to be willing to admit that they could be deluded and try to do something about it. We all seem to have the belief that humans are inherently rational, which is clearly false. Try as we may, rationality most often will not come to us. So if we operate under the assumption that we can act rationally naturally, without much thought, we are bound to fail.

[Anonymous No.1589175]

>>1589171

I'm a lot happier since I stopped being religious

[Anonymous No.1589182]

OP how do you feel about Postivism? I find Dawkins/Hitchens/Dennet/Hawking really tend to just re-hash the same statements made by the Logical Positivists of the mid 20th Century.

At least they aren't emotivists, sorry I mean Boo, Emotivism!

[Anonymous No.1589187]

>>1589175
Yeah, religious feeling also includes all kinds of fears; fear of hell, conception of sex as something impure, etc... Not that all these cannot exist in a secular environment, or disappear just after realizing what a bunch of retarded crap religious dogma is, but still...

[discordia !!8v81cpcmIhF No.1589190]

The new atheists aren't that great. They are infamous for tackling 'religion' but all there critiques are about as euro-centric as Freud's view on religion. All one has to mention is the word 'asia' and it all starts to fall apart.

[Anonymous No.1589191]

He's no Bertrand Russel that's for sure

[Anonymous No.1589196]

>>1589187
that is not what I meant at all by religious sentiment. I meant that sort of awe that one might get when praying to god or tripping on acid or maybe in from art. Freud called it the oceanic feeling because it was like looking out on the ocean, perceiving the infinite. Of course that the ocean is not infinite is hardly relevant here.

[Anonymous No.1589206]

I laugh when people say that it is a philosophically sophmoric book.

He's worked out a way to articulate his argument without plunging to the depths of sophistry. It's BETTER for it.

I read these threads and see people throwing $5 words around (positivism/meta-stance/etc) when that approach is divergent to his thesis. How much eloquency is needed to prop up a false argument?

[Anonymous No.1589209]

>>1589206
>Implying it isn't positivism

It's just calling it what it is
inb4 courtier's reply

[Anonymous No.1589213]

>>1589196
Yeah, it seems that feeling can be triggered stimulating a part of the brain (though each person experiences it according to their background)

[Anonymous No.1589319]

>>1589069
I actually just bought a copy from amazon. About through the first chapter, though I haven't picked it up since classes started this semester. This thread has reminded me to do so!

[Donne !!+SByMppsy+r No.1589325]

A lovely general introduction, but won't really challenge anyone's faith.

[Anonymous No.1589356]

It's pretty obvious that organized religions, the Church, God as defined by Christians or Muslims or Jews or... etc. are all bullshit. The real questionning of God is elsewhere and has nothing to do with religion. Atheists who think they prove the inexistence of god by pointing the contradictions in the sacred texts, the attitude of the Church, the official definition of God, etc. are just pointing the obvious and are plain stupid.

[Anonymous No.1589365]

>>1589356

This.

And also to point out that following Dawkins is efectively becoming a religion in and of itself - the new breed of atheists know no more, in the main, about the genetics and biology that Dawkins interprets than the average christian or moslem knows of scripture and theology - they just take the word of the priest or the imam and accept his interpretation.

I don't give a shit what Dawkins thinks about god and the afterlife, or anyone else for that matter - I suspect I'll find out the truth for myself eventually, one way or the other. However, trying to disprove the existence of God by pointing at the idiocy and egregiousness of the churches and priesthoods is like criticising grass for making cowshit.

[Anonymous No.1589367]

>>1589356
This this and this. God is the main motion picture and religions are the spinoff miniseries.

[Anonymous No.1589368]

>>1589356

I agree with this.

I think belief in a specific God is silly as someone who believed in Zeus or whatever who visited modern times would be shocked and the same would occur in the future. They change all the time.

But belief in an actual God is a different matter. I don't accept it but wouldn't blame someone if they did.

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1589373]

>>1589356

Deism is slightly less absurd, yes.

[Anonymous No.1589394]

>>1589373

It's all equally absurd. on the one hand, you have scientists telling us this is a hologrammatic universe created by the overlapping and intersection of multiple dimensions that we can't even begin to estimate a number for, let alone see. Or the universe is made of 90% dark matter that we can't see, interact with, prove the existence of or even agree about. Alternatively, the universe is a harmony played on cosmic superstrings resonating in the universe. Or spacetime is a block, and consciousness passes through it, intersecting with reality bit by bit in a way that creates an illusion of linear time. Or the whole universe is illusion and maya, and what we call life is like shadows projected onto the wall of a cave, or we are all aspects of one entity, expressing itself in multiple forms as it downloads itself through four dimensional space. Both religion and science have expressed these thoughts in one way or another over the years.

I honestly don't know - but I know that these questions can't be answered by science, or religion - they cunts are allfjust flapping their gums and coming up with a best guess.

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1589402]

>>1589394

Those are theories and hypothesis relating to the explanation of quantum mechanics, and none of them propose a supernatural explanation as religion does and perhaps will always do.

And I think it is extremely fatalistic to say that we can never truly understand the universe through science.

Of course there is a chance you are right, perhaps we will hit a roadblock one day where mathematics and the scientific method will be powerless to interpret any further information about the universe.

But that day hasn't came yet.

[Anonymous No.1589415]

MATERIALISTS MATERIALISTS EVERYWHERE!

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1589417]

>>1589415

Absurdist, actually.

[Anonymous No.1590228]

It was a very good read, but I don't think he gave enough criticisms to some of the arguments for the existence of God. IMO the best criticisms are those of Kant. Still don't understand how he comes up with brilliant criticisms then propounds the Moral Argument, which is crap
Captcha: seleasd Ontology

[Anonymous No.1590321]

>>1590228
Cause that's the main problem of thinking a universe without god, that there's no base for moral judgment. If there's no retribution in the afterlife for human actions, anything is allowed. What Kant did was making the individual responsible of judging his own actions from a universal standpoint.