[Squinky]

What? No! DIE, THREAD™!

[Catbert]

Originally Posted by Squinky

And now for something completely different: How to Avoid Uncomfortable Conversations About Religion!

I could never look the other way or say "interesting!", because the minute someone brings up the whole theme I feel like going postal on them. I guess this is the one issue I get so pissed off about I can never look away and let go.

[rlpw]

Originally Posted by Squinky

And now for something completely different: How to Avoid Uncomfortable Conversations About Religion!

I love this part

Recognize the reasons you believe what you believe, or why you do not believe in anything in particular. Understanding your own beliefs, or lack thereof, will strengthen your resolve. You do not need to argue your reasons and, in fact, you are better off not arguing.

And

Although it is rude for a religious person to refuse to leave you alone when you have asked them to, it is also rude for you to treat a person as though what matters most to them in the world is ultimately insignificant.

[Kingzjester]

This thread is almost awesome. If I were only four or five years younger I would have gladly spewed bile all over it. I also like the title.

I like Dawkins, I think he smart. But I also think his newest book may be kinda weak. Here's a good review.

NYRoB FTW.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

I like Dawkins, I think he smart. But I also think his newest book may be kinda weak. Here's a good review.

Why would you need to go through the mass of theology, when you reject the premise that God exists in the first place? It's a bit like being asked to discuss the colour of fairys wings, when you believe there is no reason to believe in fairies in the first place. I think Orr has misunderstood the purpose of the book, and what "religious thought" is he refering to?

In some areas Dawkins isn't so strong, the book isn't weak as a whole. Others are much better at some things, he's only human, Weinberg, Harris, Dennett, etc... wouldn't have to write their books if Dawkins could do it all.

Dawkins comes across such criticism a lot.

Originally Posted by Dawkins

You can't criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology.

If, as one self-consciously intellectual critic wished, I had expounded the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope (as he vainly hoped I would), my book would have been more than a surprise bestseller, it would have been a miracle. I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise. For the rest, I cannot better the "Courtier's Reply" on P. Z. Myers's splendid Pharyngula website, where he takes me to task for outing the Emperor's nudity while ignoring learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear. Most Christians happily disavow Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reference to monographs of Baalian exegesis or Pastafarian theology.

You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . "you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury."

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.

Originally Posted by Dennett

If it were a book in biology—Orr's discipline—I daresay he'd pounce on it like a pit bull, but like many others he adopts a double standard when the topic is religion. As Orr says, both James and Wittgenstein "struggled with the question of belief," in their admirable and entirely different ways, but both also steer clear of the issues that Orr chides Dawkins for oversimplifying. I wonder which themes in these fine thinkers Orr would champion in the current discussion, beyond the speculation he cites from James, that "the visible world is part of a more spiritual universe." I'd be curious to know what Orr thinks that means.

Dennett rebuttal to Orr's review, and Orr's response
Dennett's response

[Kingzjester]

The Dennett & Orr back-and-forth seems kinda unnecessary. All that Orr is saying is that Dawkins could've composed a tighter book, whereas Dennett seems to believe Orr wants Dawkins to bow down before religion. Orr's objections are almost purely aesthetic, constructive, encouraging against sloppiness and cheap shots in lieu of something potentially on the whole more relevant, whereas Dennett is insulted Orr would even dare find objection...

Personally, I think Bertrand Russell has said all atheists can say, and Dawkins is just wasting some time making a better mouse trap. Though, I guess this era, just like Russell's, needs a vocal advocate of reason, if not moreso.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

The Dennett & Orr back-and-forth seems kinda unnecessary. All that Orr is saying is that Dawkins could've composed a tighter book, whereas Dennett seems to believe Orr wants Dawkins to bow down before religion. Orr's objections are almost purely aesthetic, constructive, encouraging against sloppiness and cheap shots in lieu of something potentially on the whole more relevant, whereas Dennett is insulted Orr would even dare find objection...

Personally, I think Bertrand Russell has said all atheists can say, and Dawkins is just wasting some time making a better mouse trap. Though, I guess this era, just like Russell's, needs a vocal advocate of reason, if not moreso.

That's not what Orr's arguments were about at all. Dennett addresses the arguments he disagrees with, he is not insulted, you've clearly not bothered with his responses. It has nothing to do with objecting with Dawkins, it's about the dismissive non-arguments, and Orr's are damn silly, not contructive at all. Dennett is quite clear in which ones were.

Orr's point about the "tightness" of the book are down to misunderstanding the purpose, as Dawkins and Dennett have said. Critcisms like "middlebrow", give that away. It's just a misunderstanding, Orr's point is probably valuable for you and others, but not in general. That seems like the only criticism you see in his review (and the only sensible criticism), but there are obviously more. If that was the only criticism, it would have only taken one paragraph.

Yes, Dawkins arguments are not new, there would be no need for The God Delusion if people read Russell. We do need a vocal advocate of reason and the best man for the job is Dawkins, and he is doing a fine job so far.

Dennett's response was obviously necessary, if people are going to praise Orr's review.

Originally Posted by Dennett

Note that I have not yet claimed that you have no idea what you're talking about; we philosophers try not to jump to conclusions. I have however asked you, twice now, to tell us what you're talking about. Please.

It might seem pointless because Orr isn't going to explain what he's talking about.

[rlpw]

We are just all paying for the sins of Robert Tilton
(I cannot believe he is back on the airwaves)

[Starflux]

I just started reading The God Delusion (and on the Dutch Christian holiday Whitmonday no less! What an excellent way of spending such a pointless free day!) and though it offers me nothing I didn't already learn either through reading Dawkins' other works, those of Bertrand Russell or musings of my own, it is on the whole a very pleasant read. It might not be as eye-opening as The Selfish Gene, but it's good reading nonetheless. As for its supposed sloppiness, I can't say anything yet. I'm only at chapter three.

But the witticisms alone are worth it; they make me laugh out loud.

Also, I cannot for the life of me prevent myself from assuming Dawkins' splendidly British accent when reading this book necessarily aloud.

[rlpw]

[SnorkleCat]

Originally Posted by rlpw

We are just all paying for the sins of Robert Tilton
(I cannot believe he is back on the airwaves)

Is he really? That's unbelievable. This is the fool who says that poverty is directly caused by sin and the way to cleanse oneself is to send him money- preferably in $1000 increments. He reminds me of car salesmen like Cal Worthington.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

And still, Tilton provides much entertainment.

[SnorkleCat]

Haha...I'd find his stuff amusing even without the flatulence. Those fakey facial expressions...and those statements where he calls himself an "angel" BWAAHAHAA.

....unfortunately, from that Tilton link I started watching other stuff... like clips from Jesus Camp. Now I feel all depressed.