possibly noteworthy wrote:

Dawkins treats Islam as just another deplorable religion, but there is a difference. The difference lies in the extent to which religious certitude lingers in the Islamic world, and in the harm it does. Richard Dawkins’s even-handedness is well-intentioned, but it is misplaced. I share his lack of respect for all religions, but in our times it is folly to disrespect them all equally.

I am not a fan of the latest Dawkins book. This is an interesting take on things.

To me, as a pagan, hearing Dawkins speak is rather laughable. Nature this, nature that, not god but nature, ad nauseum. He's replacing (to me) one word for another - nature for God (Goddess, ect.) He isn't an athiest, he's a pagan. Nature is his god, his supreme power, but he hasn't realized that yet.

possibly noteworthy wrote:

Dawkins treats Islam as just another deplorable religion, but there is a difference. The difference lies in the extent to which religious certitude lingers in the Islamic world, and in the harm it does. Richard Dawkins’s even-handedness is well-intentioned, but it is misplaced. I share his lack of respect for all religions, but in our times it is folly to disrespect them all equally.

I am not a fan of the latest Dawkins book. This is an interesting take on things.

Why not? I'm not discounting the human need for religion (I feel like I'm saying "what about all the good things Hitler did?"), but in our times, what good is it doing? Fundamentalism in every creed is basically at the root of most of the war and strife in the world. Religious institutions are a breeding ground for hate and destruction. And I'm not just talking about religion=God. Money is some people's God too.

possibly noteworthy wrote:

I am not a fan of the latest Dawkins book.

flynn23 wrote:

Why not?

It has little to do with the subject argument of his book, and more to do with his attitude and approach. As the first and still current holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, I expect more of him.

The problem with his approach in The God Delusion (which continues to sit in large quantities on local bookshelves in spite of the sellers' offer of the steepest discounts in the store, outside the bargain bins) is that he has largely adopted the strategy of the most vocal and voluminous authors in the American professional political commentariat.

By this I mean that he has essentially given up on trying to change minds. Instead he has decided to content himself, and to proudly declare his campaign a rousing success, based simply on reinforcing the views of those who already agree with him.

I defy anyone to find a self-described religious person who, upon encountering and reading "Delusion", found himself "won over", his mind changed by the experience.

From 2004, I refer you to this P.J. O'Rourke piece in The Atlantic, wherein you'll find the question:

I wonder, when was the last time a talk show changed a mind?

I feel the same way about "Delusion."

Also from 2004, I refer you to Mr. President in West Virginia:

"You can't talk sense to them," Bush said, referring to terrorists.

"Nooooo!" the audience roared.

Finally, I'll refer you to someone who explains it well: Freeman Dyson. In an essay for The New York Review of Books, published in 2006, Dyson reviews Daniel Dennett's book of the same ilk, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon". In conclusion, Dyson wrote:

If we wish to understand the phenomenon of terrorism in the modern world, and if we wish to take effective measures to lessen its attraction to idealistic young people, the first and most necessary step is to understand our enemies. We must give respect to our enemies, as courageous and capable soldiers enlisted in an evil cause, before we can understand them.

I really appreciated that thought, and so that's what I quoted when I originally recommended the piece. (Alas, no one else recommended it.)

But now, in this context, I would draw attention to a different passage:

In the first section, Dennett defines scientific inquiry in a narrow way, restricting it to the collection of evidence that is reproducible and testable. He makes a sharp distinction betw... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

possibly noteworthy wrote:
possibly noteworthy wrote:

I am not a fan of the latest Dawkins book.

flynn23 wrote:

Why not?

It has little to do with the subject argument of his book, and more to do with his attitude and approach. As the first and still current holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, I expect more of him.

The problem with his approach in The God Delusion (which continues to sit in large quantities on local bookshelves in spite of the sellers' offer of the steepest discounts in the store, outside the bargain bins) is that he has largely adopted the strategy of the most vocal and voluminous authors in the American professional political commentariat.

By this I mean that he has essentially given up on trying to change minds. Instead he has decided to content himself, and to proudly declare his campaign a rousing success, based simply on reinforcing the views of those who already agree with him.

I defy anyone to find a self-described religious person who, upon encountering and reading "Delusion", found himself "won over", his mind changed by the experience.

From 2004, I refer you to this P.J. O'Rourke piece in The Atlantic, wherein you'll find the question:

I wonder, when was the last time a talk show changed a mind?

I feel the same way about "Delusion."

Also from 2004, I refer you to Mr. President in West Virginia:

"You can't talk sense to them," Bush said, referring to terrorists.

"Nooooo!" the audience roared.

Finally, I'll refer you to someone who explains it well: Freeman Dyson. In an essay for The New York Review of Books, published in 2006, Dyson reviews Daniel Dennett's book of the same ilk, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon". In conclusion, Dyson wrote:

If we wish to understand the phenomenon of terrorism in the modern world, and if we wish to take effective measures to lessen its attraction to idealistic young people, the first and most necessary step is to understand our enemies. We must give respect to our enemies, as courageous and capable soldiers enlisted in an evil cause, before we can understand them.

I really appreciated that thought, and so that's what I quoted when I originally recommended the piece. (Alas, no one else recommended it.)

But now, in this context, I would draw attention to a different passage:

In the first section, Dennett defines scientific inquiry in a narrow way, restricting it to the collection of evidence that is reproducible and... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]