Dawkins - God Delusion....

[squidette]

Hi

I am half way through reading Richard Dawkins new book, The God Delusion, and loving it. I am finding myself laughing and smiling in that 'phew! someone else thinks the same thing!' kind of way that i had when reading Russell's Why i am not a Christian lectures.

I was wondering if anyone else has read it and what their thoughts were.

[bossykate]

just as long as you remember that dawkins is an eminent scientist, not an eminent theologian. i understand qualified reviewers have slated this book.

[sorrell]

I am wondering what you would call a 'qualified' reviewer, exactly?

[squidette]

will do

Have you read it?

[bossykate]

sorrell, well, let's say someone as knowledgeable about the study of religion as dawkins is knowledgeable in his field. theology is an academic discipline in the same way that science is - i hardly imagine that a book about by say rowan williams would garner much credibility...

squidette, i would like and indeed have been dipping my toe in the water of theological reading recently...

[bossykate]

oh and a bit less of the "tone" pls sorrell.

[Blandmum]

I would imagine it would go down about as well as 'intellegent design' being put about as a 'science' BK

[bossykate]

exactly, mb. i'm afraid what dawkins has done here is the 180 of intelligent design iyswim... or at least that's what i've heard, better read it myself!

[KathyDCLXVI]

DH and I have been reading it (nearly finished it).

We're not particularly qualified but dh did RE A level so is familiar with a lot of the theology and I did Philosophy as part of my degree at uni so I have come across the moral philosophy stuff before - and we reckon it's not particularly profound in either of these areas but there's nothing actually wrong with what he says, just that he labours the point rather.

DH also feels that he could have made more reference to other atheist thinkers like Feuerbach.

I know it has been criticised for not taking into account the good things that people actually get out of religion, and I think I agree with that - he has an incredibly bleak view of religion and I think actually quite a lot of good has been done in the name of religion and you can accept that even as an atheist.

However I know exactly what you mean about "laughing and smiling in that 'phew! someone else thinks the same thing!' kind of way that i had when reading Russell's Why i am not a Christian lectures", Squidette - it is such a relief to find someone who is not afraid to say all this stuff, in a world where people are so deferential to religion. He is a terrific writer, too - really funny sometimes.

It's nice to read him really slaughtering the anti-evolution arguments too (which he probably does better than anyone) - I get so depressed when people say the world is too complex to have evolved by accident - duh, it's not an accident, it's evolution, that's the whole point....!

[KathyDCLXVI]

and just in case anyone is smirking at us claiming any kind of expertise on the basis of an A level and a few uni courses.... Dawkins never really gets deeper than a sort of 'A level' level in discussing these things

[Blandmum]

I was not best please to recieve a very glossy DVD of 'resources' preporting to be an aid for GCSE scinec that was developed by a creationist group.

Sugested 'activities' included getting students to write an essay explaining that fossils were actually manufactured in China.


THis was suppesed to imrpove their 'reasoning' skills

My copy was filled under B for Bin

[bossykate]

here is what one qualified reviewer thinks! Terry Eagleton's review in the LRB

ok no more from me until i've read it myself promise!

[sorrell]

Well, if you believe, as I do, that theology is basically quibbling about fiction, it makes sense that of course Dawkins wouldn't be one. He's a scientist.
And I wouldn't say that a theologian would give exactly an unbiased review of a book that criticises belief itself.

[DominiConnor]

Bossykate has a valid point about people writing outside of their domains. Sadly of course, religious leaders bleat endlessly about their views of "science". We get dodgy biology in both evolution and female reproduction, and rather naive ideas about climate change and economics.

However I do like the idea that Dawkins books was "Qualified reviewers slated" his book. Given his long held proposition the religion, and hence theology is basically bollocks, it's like saying to a "qualified" soccer referee that football is an over hyped and tedious.

[bossykate]

here's a great quote from that review...

"Where, given that he invites us at one point to question everything, is Dawkins?s own critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism and the like?"

[bossykate]

ok, so only people who agree with him can review the book? and they mustn't have any knowledge of religious thought to do it? if they disagree, we don't need to engage with their arguments because they're biased? ok, got it now

[jellybrainsalloverthewall]

I will go and get this book it sounds fascinating and then I will be able to comment intelligently - up to now I have just agreed with the radio every time Dawkins has been interviewed on R4 - but I know that by the time i have finished i will be too late to add my views to this thread. Dawkins will be preaching to the converted as I have always viewed organised religion as the 'opiate of the masses' - except for a brief period of wanting to be a nun after watching 'the sound of music' - apparently i used to go and 'pray' at the war memorial and crossed myself a lot - but i digress

I don't think that you have to be a theologian to be allowed to publish works related to theology Dawkins is certainly entitled to enter the debate and be respected in this field.

[bossykate]

agree - he can enter the debate. but i don't think he gets away with his views unquestioned because he's a scientist.

here's another quote from that review,

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don?t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday."

anyway, i really am going now, terry eagleton says it better than i could.

[sorrell]

I don't think a Marxist university lecturer is particularly'qualified' . He's certainly entitled to his opinion, is an intelligent man and is a reviewer, but I don't see that this makes him particularly 'qualified'. I don't really understand what you mean by 'qualified' in this case, tbh. If you mean a theologian, then obviously they will seek to demolish the book, if you don't then surely the term 'qualified' is meaningless? Naturally a polemic will always divide reviewers. I think he has had good and bad reviews.

[KathyDCLXVI]

OK, just speed-read the review and resulting correspondence - thanks for posting that, Bossykate.
Of course Eagleton isn't 'qualified' either if you have to be qualified, because he's a lit critic, not a philosopher or theologian.
I think he rather misses the point (as pointed out by Dawkins' mate Grayling in the LRB letter) that Dawkins' attack is on the whole premise of theology, so it's not really clear that the book is undermined by his lack of theological knowledge.
It's also not true that Dawkins only acknowledges one view of what 'god' is, though he does focus on that one rather a lot.
Very sharp review otherwise though.

[bossykate]

marxist university lecturer? i think it is very mean spirited to deliberately downgrade terry eagleston's credentials as a philosopher and academic purely because you don't agree with him.

here's his wikipedia entry Terry Eagleton

[sorrell]

I love this quote!
McGrath challenges Dawkins? knowledge of Christian theology. Dawkins responds:

?Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor?s hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?

The only part of theology that could possibly demand my attention is the part that purports to demonstrate that God does exist. This part of theology I have, indeed, studied with considerable attention. And found it utterly wanting.

As for McGrath?s book, I read it with genuine curiosity to discover whether he had any argument to offer in favor of his theistic belief. The nearest I could find was his statement that you cannot disprove it. Well, that may be true, but it isn?t very impressive, is it??

[bossykate]

ok, i should have said "knowledgeable" or "well read" or an accredited academic in either theology or philosophy. but it is being wilfully obtuse to focus responses to my (or rather his!)comments on that one word.

[frogs]

Terry Eagleton isn't a theologian, sorrell, he's a Marxist literary theorist.

[sorrell]

I didn't do anything of the sort (meanly and deliberately downgrade) - that is purely your interpretation. I was wondering why he was more 'qualified' than Dawkins. And he is a Marxist academic.

[bossykate]

dawkins defends his own book against hostile reviews - shocker!