The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
Chapter 1: A Deeply Religious Non-Believer
From the preface: "Chapters 1 and 10 top and tail the book by explaining, in their different ways, how a proper understanding of the magnificence of the real world, while never becoming a religion, can fill the inspirational role that religion has historically--and inadequately--usurped."
10 comments:
I guess I'll start it out. I think God is great.
And here I was, suddenly alarmed that I had forgotten all about the book discussion. Come to find out, there's only one comment, and it's just Chris espousing the gospel.
Was it just me, or couldn't this have been a better chapter in a book by Carl Sagan or Albert Einstein? Already I feel like Dawkins relies way too heavily on parenthetical citation. Hopefully this is merely his way of introducing his thesis.
In the same vein, though, (and perhaps my bigger complaint) almost all the people he quotes in support of his argument are extremely well-respected thinkers. However, virtually all the religious minds he chooses to pick are random samplings that even I would have to agree exhibit "intellectual and moral cowardice."
I like his distinction between Supernatural God and Metaphorical God, but if Dawkins wants to win "converts," he ought to better avoid the narrow-mindedness he rails against.
Way to start off the discussion with some sophisticated criticism there, Christopher. This is what happens when you go to acting school.
I find little in this chapter to really discuss, but I'll point out the two points I found interesting. First, I'm glad Dawkins stated right off the bat the distinction between religion of the hazy, Eastern-style awe-of-the-universe, and religion of the personal God of Abraham.
Second, and more substantive, is his argument that we give religion too much respect in our society, especially by protecting religious prejudices that we otherwise wouldn't (for example, discrimination against gays), and even more especially how we ascribe professional theologians the same respect we would ascribe to a doctor or scientists. Dawkins' point that these people are no more qualified to discuss the nature of God than the average person was especially interesting, I thought, in light of the fact that a key feature of Protestant doctrine is precisely that.
On the whole, though, I don't see much in this chapter that isn't extrapolated further in the book, or isn't a provocative but unsubstantive comment. If I may, I think we should move to chapters 2 and 3, and discuss them simultaneously.
Zhub, are we the only ones who read the homework?
Although I have already complained about Dawkins' over-citation, I think the best point made the the "Undeserved Respect" section was that of Douglas Adams. If someone says, I mustn't use a light switch on Saturday, we most certainly should be free to ask WHY? without fear of reproach (or hanging). The why, after all, is the most important part to any belief, and the absence thereof (in the case of mainstream Christianity, anyways) is what got us in such a mess in the first place.
At least allowing a why every once in a while would challenge people's opinions. This isn't about the book, but I don't know when religion became about never asking questions. We must change that.
Again, I am loath to accept as legitimate the arguments posed by someone who devotes three and a half pages to the most extreme and absurd example in modern history. I agree with you (even more so, however) that much of this chapter is "provocative but unsubstantive."
Per the discussion schedule, this is admittedly a very short chapter, but I hope everyone gets to put in at least a word or two during this, the inaugural week. Also, I actually think that if we're going to combine the discussion of any two chapters it should be 3 and 4, as the latter is more or less an response to the former.
Chapter 2, which sums up precisely what Dawkins percieves the God Hypothesis to be, seems deserving of its own forum.
Well, I think he's just setting a tone for the rest of the book. His arguments come later - this part is just about pointing across the ring and taunting the guy in the other corner.
I agree that the first chapter doesn't really have any meat in it. It's just a set up.
And I agree with Zhubin on the Undeserved Respect section.
I don't really have much to add, but I thought I'd let everyone know I'm here.
I agree with everyone about the undeserved respect segment. I especially liked Joe's comments about why being the crux of beliefs, not an inconvenience. I don't think that religion should be given any special priveliges, and, in fact, I believe that doing so has led to a majority of people believing without knowing why.
You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but I have been busy over the last couple of weeks and have only read the first chapter, so if I talk about something that is later addressed in the book, forgive me.
I do think that he mistakenly groups all people that believe in a God into one category. From my perspective as a Christian, I could just as easily group people into Christian and Non-Christian. I could follow to make harsh generalizations about all Non-Christians just because one particular sect of non-Christians behaves foolishly.
It seems to me that Dawkins' main opposition to religion in this chapter has to do with acts of violence, especially in the form of "holy war". As a Christian, I believe that the foundation of all actions should be love, and I don't believe any of the wars that were fought in the name of Christianity were actually focused on Christian values. Instead, it was a convenient excuse to not have to give any true supporting evidence for invasion.
I agree that religious ideals are given a free pass that they should not receive, but it is folly to mistake those who use their religion as an excuse to do what they want with those who truly have a real foundation for their beliefs.
Again, I imagine that much of my arguments are addressed later in the book (at least I hope so), but those are my impressions upon reading only the first chapter.
Tim, save those arguments about his opposition to religion - they're addressed toward the end of the book, and exactly toward your point.
Joe, you want to begin Chapter 2 on Saturday, then, rather than 2-3?
Tim: As long as you've read the chapter we're discussing at the time, feel free to jump on in whenever. Glad you're here.
Zhubin: That's what I had in mind.
I think we've more than covered this opening. I do see the best analogy, at least up through the first chapter, as Zhubin's taunting the individual across the ring. I think as we go on, it will be interesting as a side note to try and unravel when Dawkins truly believes something and when he is taunting to get the reaction that will give him substance and precedenct to make further accusations (if that makes any sense). It should be interesting to see when he is espousing beliefs and when he is simply looking for a reaction or to change the ideas of the unread, uncultured, or unchallenged. I will also apologize because I am on tour and will post sporadically. Still, think we are off to a good start and agree with Joe on the reading schedule. Ok, off to bed now...two shows tomorrow and three on saturday!!!!
Post a Comment