|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : Faith No More
Looking for Christians | from steam - Friday, March 30, 2007
accessed 1520 times Looking for "book club" partner/s. I enjoyed the book "The God Delusion". I have had a few Christians tell me just how biased and horrible the author Richard Dawkins is. No one has explained this in any specific way to me. If anyone who is a Christian has read this book and would like to point out what they feel the author did or said the was illogical or offensive, I would enjoy a respectful discussion. I propose that if someone is interested in this we take the book chapter by chapter and the critic point out the specific things in the chapter they disagree with and why, and then we discuss that, then on to the next chapter. Keeping the discussion focused. The only ground rule besides obviously no personal attacks on each other would be that each of us admit that there is a chance to learn something new from this discussion. This could be in a public forum or privately I would even be happy to do it by phone. I miss intellectual discussion. Any takers? You can reply here or to my e-mail. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from cheeks
Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 13:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Havn't read it, don't care. Yawn.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from madly
Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 13:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's too bad... out of all these comments, not one of them, including mine, is related to what you asked for in your article... was looking forward, to what seemed would have been, an interesting debate.
(reply to this comment)
| from SeanSwede
Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 05:19
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry but, you won`t find any christians in here.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Samuel
Saturday, March 31, 2007, 06:43
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I have not read the book ( and have not gotten your e-mail roughie), but if you are looking for a discussion on the book, perhaps these will interest you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
It brings up certain criticisms of Dawkin's book, for example Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (written by Oxford theologian Alister McGrath) , and "Is Religion Dangerous?" by Keith Ward.
About what I told you yesterday, I was able to find the quotations from Dawkin's book where he takes John Adams and James Madison out of context. He attributed the following to John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
But Dawkins fails to note the context:
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!' But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell." Letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817.
Dawkins also quotes James Madison out-of-context, attributing this to him:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
The quote comes from his dissent of James Madison to a bill introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religions. Madison's objection was not to Christianity, but to the establishment of state-sponsored "Christianity." This is evident from the first sentence of the quoted section, which Dawkins conveniently leaves out:
"Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity..."
So, from the context, it can be seen that Madison objected to the legal establishment of Christianity (as do I), and not to Christianity itself. In fact, he said it has "efficacy".
Now why did Dawkins offer such poor context for the quotes? That, you have to decide for yourself. While I will read his book if I can manage to get a copy of it from the library (or from Roughneck), I think it's fair to say that at the moment I do not have much respect for the man.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Saturday, March 31, 2007, 10:04
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Fuck off, Samuel. This is meant to be an avenue for intelligent discourse, which markedly rules you out as a participant, IMN-S-HO (Try to work it out). I really think that you should get back to the safety of your fold where you can mingle contentedly with the rest of the sheep, preserving your fragile constructs by smugly regurgitating to one another someone else's supposed justifications against a book that you have not even fucking read. You know what, don't bother looking for the book, i imagine you'll be quite unlikely to grasp much of it anyway. And, seeing as you're unlikely to agree with any parts of it that you do understand, I agree with your assertion that you would not want to, shock horror, waste your time by reading it.
The irony of it is that your prattling on about the importance of context (whilst referencing only the supposed mis-quotes from the book without being able to take into account the wider context of the point being made, since you have not, in fact, read it) is so ridiculously hypocritical that I can't even do it justice.
For your benefit I will state now that Dawkins precedes the relevant quotations (which he explores within the wider context of an hypothesis that America's religiosity stems from it constitutional secularism, within the wider context of the collective secularism of the Founding fathers and possible indications that some of them might have been what we would today define as agnostic or atheist, within a wider context of, oh well I hope you are starting to see how important context is to evaluation) with this statement, which appears on the same set of pages as both of the quotes that you have mentioned: '...It is tantalizing to speculate that at least some of the Founders might have gone beyond deism. Might they have been agnostics or even out-and-out atheists?' Notice the use of words such as, 'speculate' and 'might'?? You know what that means? It means he's exploring a certain possibility, within a certain branch of his concept. He's not basing his entire scope of argument on it, and your willingness to discount everything he says and pronounce him unworthy of your respect on the basis of this one supposed discrepancy, is, frankly, laughable.
P.S. I would like to state categorically that from now on I will engage in absolutely no discussion with you on the subject of faith and/or religion, unless it is at my insitigation. Frankly I find it far too irritating, and my back is starting to hurt from the constant stooping to your level. I expect there are nicer people around who will be happy to oblige you.
P.P.S. Yes, Steam, I realise that this is your thread and that you in fact (Bless your heart for your hunger for challenging discourse) did invite Christians to post here. I realise that Samuel is one of the few vocal Christians to regularly post on the site, so it seems you are likely to be stuck with him. But I still believe it was within my rights to berate him for wading into a debate for which he has done negligible research. I realise that i may be stepping on your toes a bit but hey, I'm an obnoxious cow sometimes.
P. P. P. S (Can one do that indefinitely?) Sorry for any errors, and for my excessive wordiness, I never was one for succinctness (And I am rather fond of excess, anyway).
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Saturday, March 31, 2007, 21:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
When did I say I wanted to enter the discussion? I started off on this thread by saying I could not, as I had never read the book. I had already read about the quotes online, and wanted to see what steam had to say about them. If I read online about problems with the functionality of a particular new car, I would try to find other owners of the same type of car online, and would weigh their opinions on the car before laying down $18,000 for it. By the same token, I wanted to see what steam thought of this problem with the quotations, and why it was that way, before I put hours (and perhaps money)into reading the book. I don't know what makes you think that I would not be able to understand or grasp the book.
While I do love to make you laugh, vix, do realize that I never said he was basing his whole arguement on the quotes. To make such an assumption would be ridiculous, as I have not read the book. To discount everything he says without even knowing what he said would be just as foolish.
If I may, I would like to close by quoting Johnnie Walker:
"There's nothing wrong with firm beliefs in something. What's wrong is the notion that any person who doesn't share your beliefs is inferior. "
This quote was written on Thursday, Junuary 19th, 2006. It can be found here: http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=8&Cat=12&ID=3459
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From conan
Sunday, April 01, 2007, 13:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sammy, Sammy, Sammy…When will you learn?
You’re worried about context? What about the potential context that James Madison was implying when he talked about the efficaciousness of religion? You do realize that religion; specifically early Christianity, Islam, and Judaism were bodies of government in their own right and helped maintain the efficacy of their perspective administration, right? Clearly President Madison was aware of the necessity of religion in the sense that it’s a tool to help maintain the control of the mass populous as it unites the masses in a common goal and helps keep the collective people more adhesive as they strive to achieve their religion’s end goal. Besides which, he says, “…instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion…” i.e. it hasn’t. Anyways, I’m no expert on Madison so I won’t continue to argue this particular topic, but I wanted to point out that you clearly misunderstood not only Madison’s position, but also Dawkins’ intentions when using his quotes.
As far as SAYING that you wanted to enter the discussion, as soon as you posted, you entered the discussion whether you stated your intention to do so or not. Oh, and comparing online issues with a car you’re thinking about buying or a philosophical view point on a book you haven’t read yet but are predisposed to dismiss as irrelevant based on your personal religious beliefs is irresponsible lunacy. It’s amusing that you’re willing to discuss the dissenting views of said book before having even read the pertinent material.
Anyways, I think everyone on this site already knows that I think you’re an idiot, but for the record, I think you’re an idiot!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Monday, April 02, 2007, 02:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm glad that you addressed the actual quotations and offered some understanding of their purpose within the argument. I didn't want to get into it because I thought it only fair to expect people to actually read the book for themselves and find out. It's clear to me (though others might disagree) that the omissions in no way changed the overall meaning of the quotes used, in relation to the given context. It's also worth mentioning that they are only two quotes amongst quite a few.
Anyway, I've bulldozed my way around this topic quite enough already and I'm quite happy to now leave Steam and our esteeemed Christian folk to their respectful discussion.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Sunday, April 01, 2007, 08:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
You entered the discussion as soon as you posted your comment, seeing as it included a specific criticism.
My opinion that you'd be unlikely to grasp the finer points of the book is based on your track record so far. Feel free to prove me wrong though, I'd be absolutely pleased as punch for you if you managed it.
With regards to JW's quote, it's a great one. However, it doesn't apply here because I don't particularly take issue with your beliefs. You don't interest me at all, on any personal level. Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't go about my daily life away from the screen thinking about the latest thing that sammy said in chat. I also don't think that 'any person who doesn't share my beliefs' (or lack thereof) is automatically inferior. But nice try.
I don't think you are inferior to me because of your beliefs. I have a great deal of respect for certain individuals who are very religious and whose entire belief structures are very different to mine. They have earnt my respect and I offer it in abundance, regardless of conflicting viewpoints. I believe you confuse the issue by thinking in terms of inferiority or superiority. It's more accurate to say that you and I are incomparable on an intellectual, emotional and social level. Not once have you demonstrated to my satisfaction that you can actually understand anything of value that I say to you, and the more I try to explain, the more lost you become. I've tried to be generous and support your efforts to improve yourself but your apparent denseness irritates me no end. I cannot abide a lack of intellectual prowess. This doesn't mean that I don't think you are a good person. It also doesn't mean that I think you are less of a human being than I. If one were judging worth on the basis of niceness, a certain naivety and all-round 'wholesomeness' (as many do and that is their prerogative) then one might well conclude that you are, indeed, the bigger person.
From now on you'd be better off directing questions to other more generous individuals in this community; I have no desire to be the object of your fawning reverence.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, April 02, 2007, 05:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, I entered the discussion. I entered it out of curiosity, to see what other people who had read the book had to say about it, specifically about the "misquotations". There is nothing wrong with that. If I asked these questions to people who had not read the book, they would not have known the answers, and I would not have learned anything from that discussion.
If I asked these questions of people at church, they may be able to tell me what someone else said about the book, but it is doubtful that they would known the answers to my questions (and if they did, they would probably offer a view of the book that I had already seen and been exposed to online at godandscience.org). That wasn't what I wanted at all. I wanted to see what "the other side" had to say. That's you, and steam, and other atheists and agnostics who have read the book. If I had a copy of the book with me, I could have read it, specifically those pages where the quotations were, but I don't have one with me. Do you see where there's a problem here?
Personally, I think you overreacted, but I can understand how you might think I was trying to denounce the book without reading the first. Just because you think that doesn't make it true, though.
As far as my fawning over you, let's look at the Oxford English Dictionary this time:
verb 1 give a servile display of exaggerated flattery or affection.
2 (of an animal, especially a dog) show slavish devotion.
I don't know when I've ever done that. If I do show flattery to someone, I would exxagerate it to the point that they can be certain I'm joking with them. Maybe I ask your advice too often. It just seems convenient as your usually the one in the chatroom where I like to talk about certain things without posting a comment on the site for the whole MO community, The Family, and the media to see. I'll try to stop doing that. Usually you are one to give your advice anyway, whether others want it or not (I just wish you'd told me how you felt about the "misquotations" before I started WWIII on this thread). And you should know by now that I'm not devoted to you, when I disagree with you I let you know.
Anyway, sorry about ruffling everyone's feathers on here. It was not my intention. I have the information I wanted now, and I will leave this discussion to the professionals. Good luck, steam.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From vix
Thursday, May 17, 2007, 14:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is as good a time as any to do this:
Samuel, I am going to apologise here for the way I addressed you in the above exchange. My hostility toward you was actually not about you or what you had said but was based on my own anger and hurt that day, about something quite separate from this forum. I was angry with myself and most of what I said here reflected that, in fact the main gist of what I said was unconsciously directed at myself. You're a good guy. You're not excessively irritating and lately I've found you hilarious more than anything else, which isn't ever a bad thing.
I laid into you in public for no good reason, so I am apologising in public as well.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from Oddman
Friday, March 30, 2007 - 16:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Shouldn't this be in literature reviews? And if it's so good, why isn't it in my "reading list" thread. Humbug. Is there anywhere I can purchase this as an Ebook? I hate waiting weeks for books to arrive from overseas, and can't find this one locally.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from MegaGroan
Friday, March 30, 2007 - 16:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
You should watch the new South Park episode about him, it was a 2 part episode where Cartman tries to go into the future to play the Wii and overshoots and ends up far in the future where the Great Dawkins is revered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go
(reply to this comment)
| from Samuel
Friday, March 30, 2007 - 15:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
I cannot participate in your discussion, steam, as I have not read the book. I will say that from what I have read about Richard Dawkins, I find him to be rather close minded. I can tell you that he took the words of two American Presidents out of context in Chapter 2 of his book, but that's about it.
(reply to this comment)
| From afflick
Friday, March 30, 2007, 17:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wait. What, Samuel? You haven't read the book, but what you have read ABOUT him (I assume from Christian authors) you find him close[d] minded? I have met Mr. Dawkins (he was a fellow at a college I attended in England) and I found him to be very open, very curious about life, very fair.
I read his book "The God Delusion" and thought it was well-thought out and pragmatically written. Of course, I am a happy athiest, so you may dismiss my appraisal. All I'm saying, Samuel, is that you READ his work, HIS work, before you condemn him as "close minded."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from rainy
Friday, March 30, 2007 - 14:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Samuel may be interested, ad he recently sent me a dissertation on the subject. Better do it by email though.
(reply to this comment)
| from v
Friday, March 30, 2007 - 13:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not a Christian but I'm certainly up for a discussion of the book. I found it an excellent read, with many well-argued points and a conclusion that I could relate to (but then I am ever so slightly biased).
There's actually an article posted that deals with it, albeit indirectly and without much exploration of the actual content of the book. You can find it here:
http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=3&Cat=25&ID=3902
However the thread morphed into a discussion on morality rather than one specifically about the book, most likely due to the fact that there didn't seem to be many who had read it.
The old faith vs. non-faith debate does sometimes feel like one that's been done to death here so you might not get many takers straight away, but yeah, I do think it's a worthy subject if it can be kept as specific as possible (and hopefully between people who've actually read the book and heard/read more of what Dawkins has to say) so that we don't get into another one of those generic arguments.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]