I am interested in reading Richard Dawkins, but don't know what book to start with. I have read all of the Science of the Discworld novels and a lot of an authors books who goes by the name of- I think- Larry Hatchett, I think it is. And this author seems to be on the ball about this science and god stuff. So what is a good one to get into this works for a novices point of view?
Richard Dawkins?
- Thread starter The rat
- Start date
Agree with you there, Dotsie, on The God Delusion. While I agree with him philosophically, his approach, which relies too much on insult and sarcasm, gets annoying after awhile.
Also agree with you on "The Selfish Gene." If there's one 'user friendly' book that explains the mechanisms that drive evolution and behavior, this is it, although I think that "selfish" anthropomorphizes a bit. "The Blind Watchmaker," while not as accessible as TSG, continues this thread and pokes holes in creationists' theories about watchmakers and monkeys typing Shakespeare.
J-I-B
Also agree with you on "The Selfish Gene." If there's one 'user friendly' book that explains the mechanisms that drive evolution and behavior, this is it, although I think that "selfish" anthropomorphizes a bit. "The Blind Watchmaker," while not as accessible as TSG, continues this thread and pokes holes in creationists' theories about watchmakers and monkeys typing Shakespeare.
J-I-B
Maybe try The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, which is filled with just as much irritation as his other polemic, but has a much wider field of fire than The God Delusion. While he makes some excellent points in TGD, it really could have been a series of essays or articles, instead of a reasonably long (by polemic standards) and quite repetitive book. We get it Richard, you don't believe. There's no need to be prick about it, though. 
As previously recommended, The Blind Watchmaker is far more destructive to creationists and "intelligent design" advocates, though. The God Delusion is Dawkins as demagogue, where he's kind of annoying - almost whiny, in fact. The Blind Watchmaker is Dawkins as scientist, where he's far more coherent, authoritative, knowledgeable and much less exasperating. The Greatest Show on Earth walks a middle ground between the two, although he still stoops to unnecessary insults on occasion. To get a glimpse of what drives Dawkins to such extremes of passionate advocacy, try Unweaving the Rainbow. Genuinely uplifting in places.
As previously recommended, The Blind Watchmaker is far more destructive to creationists and "intelligent design" advocates, though. The God Delusion is Dawkins as demagogue, where he's kind of annoying - almost whiny, in fact. The Blind Watchmaker is Dawkins as scientist, where he's far more coherent, authoritative, knowledgeable and much less exasperating. The Greatest Show on Earth walks a middle ground between the two, although he still stoops to unnecessary insults on occasion. To get a glimpse of what drives Dawkins to such extremes of passionate advocacy, try Unweaving the Rainbow. Genuinely uplifting in places.
Personally I have read both The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. I much preferred TGSOE, as it provided a great overview of the different ways evolution takes place. With the God Delusion I found it was a bit heavy on the attitude, but was still a very worthwhile read. Just got Devil's Chaplain, and will be reading it once I have finished a Phillip K. Dick marathon I've been having! 
I didn't enjoy 'The God Delusion'. It started well but then became really self congratulatory with Dawkins heaping praise on his own theories.
I'm an Atheist because I can't see any sense in organised religion (understatement!) and I dont feel anything spiritually for some higher being either . . . .
Can't prove my disbeliefs of course, and therein lies the dilemna on both sides
Not sure Dawkins or Hitchen are the men the put Atheism in the main stream as one is too smug and the other too angry.
I'm an Atheist because I can't see any sense in organised religion (understatement!) and I dont feel anything spiritually for some higher being either . . . .
Can't prove my disbeliefs of course, and therein lies the dilemna on both sides
Not sure Dawkins or Hitchen are the men the put Atheism in the main stream as one is too smug and the other too angry.
CJDobs said:
Can't prove my disbeliefs of course, and therein lies the dilemna on both sides Not sure Dawkins or Hitchen are the men the put Atheism in the main stream as one is too smug and the other too angry.
Not sure Dawkins or Hitchen are the men the put Atheism in the main stream as one is too smug and the other too angry.
It's a work of fiction about about an American professor who was written a book with the said title that goes out to disprove said 36 arguments that have been through history to 'prove' God exists. The fiction part is absolutely awful--totally self-indulgent academic navel-gazing.
But, at the end, Goldstein very thoughtfully provides an appendix where she lists each of the 36 arguments for the existence of God (including Pascal's Wager, the anthropic principle, etc.) and uses logic to totally destroy these arguments. This appendix is the only reason to read the book. I wish she would just package this part separately and sell it only because it's a great tool for athiests and agonistics.
J-I-B
I don't really know if I need a tool though, I don't need proof that God doesn't exist and I don't necessarily agree with Dawkins that religion is always bad. Faith schools though, I'm with him on this one. Why bother with a science class if all you'll be teaching is religion? And how come religious education in these schools isn't regulated by the same body as all other subjects? Bad, very bad.
Oh I don't know Dotsie... sometimes a tool can be a good thing... having an 18 inch chrome adjustable spanner in one hand when you answer the door to those lovely Morman boys at 6am on a Tuesday morning can be a valuable tool at times. Sometimes they don't even stay long enough to leave a magazine. Though I shouldn't pick on Mormans. A very nice pair of elderly ladies woke me once to tell me of the virtues of the Catholic Church.
Me:
WHAT?
Them: Hello dear. We are from the Catholic Church and would like to talk to you about the Lord Our Saviour Jes...
Me: WHAT? YOU WOKE ME UP TO TELL ME ABOUT JESUS???? I HAVE A SICK BABY AND HAVEN'T SLEPT FOR THREE, THREE DAYS! THREE DAYS! I JUST GOT HER TO SLEEP AN HOUR AGO (well you get gist of it.....)
No I respect everyones religion. Just don't wake me up to tell me about it.
I once answered the door (VERY ILL) to a Krishna boy who pushed his way into my house, made me a pot of tea and went and got a friend of mine to come over and take me to the doctors; and he came back the next day to check I hadn't died
Me:
WHAT? Them:
Hello dear. We are from the Catholic Church and would like to talk to you about the Lord Our Saviour Jes...Me:
WHAT? YOU WOKE ME UP TO TELL ME ABOUT JESUS???? I HAVE A SICK BABY AND HAVEN'T SLEPT FOR THREE, THREE DAYS! THREE DAYS! I JUST GOT HER TO SLEEP AN HOUR AGO (well you get gist of it.....)No I respect everyones religion. Just don't wake me up to tell me about it.
I once answered the door (VERY ILL) to a Krishna boy who pushed his way into my house, made me a pot of tea and went and got a friend of mine to come over and take me to the doctors; and he came back the next day to check I hadn't died
Dotsie, tools are good if you're going up against someone who tries to create a logical argument that "because of A, God must exist."
I mean, sure you can say, "You're full of it," but that's a bit ad hominem. Using logic to defeat logic has the potential to change minds, or at least to make a believer realize that there is no logic to believe in a deity, only faith itself. Which is absolutely fine. I have nothing against people believing what they want to believe.
Personally, my biggest logical argument against a believer trying to convince me that their God is real would be:
"If there truly is a deity, and your deity is the one true deity (or set of deities) who created the world and shephered your culture according to the stories you believe in, then how do you account for the thousands of other deities and stories that other people and cultures believe in? If there were only one true deity, then everyone would believe in the same creation stories and everyone would worship the same god. This is not so. Explain, other than saying that they're all wrong."
J-I-B
I mean, sure you can say, "You're full of it," but that's a bit ad hominem. Using logic to defeat logic has the potential to change minds, or at least to make a believer realize that there is no logic to believe in a deity, only faith itself. Which is absolutely fine. I have nothing against people believing what they want to believe.
Personally, my biggest logical argument against a believer trying to convince me that their God is real would be:
"If there truly is a deity, and your deity is the one true deity (or set of deities) who created the world and shephered your culture according to the stories you believe in, then how do you account for the thousands of other deities and stories that other people and cultures believe in? If there were only one true deity, then everyone would believe in the same creation stories and everyone would worship the same god. This is not so. Explain, other than saying that they're all wrong."
J-I-B
You're contradicting yourself there Jeff. I don't need a tool for the job because I don't want the job. Why would you want to change someone's mind about God if you have nothing against their beliefs? You could just end up making them unhappy.
I only have a problem if children are taught religion as science (and terrorism and stuff is pretty bad too, obviously).
I only have a problem if children are taught religion as science (and terrorism and stuff is pretty bad too, obviously).
The thing is you are already giving credibility to the notion of a 'creator' god. You must strike at the heart of the matter if you want to challenge indoctrinated minds!
Most people believe in a creator based on the assumed improbablility of life, and the way that everything on the earth seems to have been made for us humans. e.g. Our muscles require oxygen, and it just so happens that there is an abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere etc, but these same people do not realise that evolution gives the great illusion of design, as we adapt and evolve to be better suited to the environment we are in. Think of it this way, it's almost like arguing that a stream or river was carved out before the water was added, and that's why it is the right shape and size for it. It's the same logic! Anyway getting back on track, the logic that something as improbable as complex life requires an infinatley more complex creator creates an infinite regress, as an infinatley complex creator would require something infinatley more complex to have created that also.
Aaaanyway....
Most people believe in a creator based on the assumed improbablility of life, and the way that everything on the earth seems to have been made for us humans. e.g. Our muscles require oxygen, and it just so happens that there is an abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere etc, but these same people do not realise that evolution gives the great illusion of design, as we adapt and evolve to be better suited to the environment we are in. Think of it this way, it's almost like arguing that a stream or river was carved out before the water was added, and that's why it is the right shape and size for it. It's the same logic! Anyway getting back on track, the logic that something as improbable as complex life requires an infinatley more complex creator creates an infinite regress, as an infinatley complex creator would require something infinatley more complex to have created that also.
Aaaanyway....
What I want to know is why does there have to be a creator - so far as I can see you don't get any bloody thanks for it, a load of cheek and people deliberately twisting your edicts the whole rotten time! As for the "sacrifices..." *muttesrmumblesprefertheBBQoptionwithextrawowwowsaucebutalligetisbloodydrivellyprayersthewholesoddingtimemumblesmutters*
*muttersmumblesandwotisitwithvirginsthewholetimeanywaymuttersmumbles*
See! Absolutely no job satisfaction AT ALL! If there are Creators out there the complaints queue would be massive (not to mention eternal) so why bother doing it in the 1st place? None of it makes sense - I wish I was a bloody amoeba - life would be a whole lot simpler!
*muttesrmumblesprefertheBBQoptionwithextrawowwowsaucebutalligetisbloodydrivellyprayersthewholesoddingtimemumblesmutters**muttersmumblesandwotisitwithvirginsthewholetimeanywaymuttersmumbles*
See! Absolutely no job satisfaction AT ALL!
If there are Creators out there the complaints queue would be massive (not to mention eternal) so why bother doing it in the 1st place? None of it makes sense - I wish I was a bloody amoeba - life would be a whole lot simpler! Well, see you give people a lot more intellectual credit than I would.
Most people don't think a creator exist mainly because of their perceptions of the improbability of life. They think a creator exists because they were brought up to believe that a creator exists or because they attribute to a creator responsibility for things that happen. Only people who are intellectuals and understand something about biology or those who live in perfect commune with nature would make the intelligent designer argument. The rest of the believers just think, "I'm a Christian/Jew/Hindu/animist/whatever, and because of this I believe my god created the world and manages it."
J-I-B
J-I-B
Most people don't think a creator exist mainly because of their perceptions of the improbability of life. They think a creator exists because they were brought up to believe that a creator exists or because they attribute to a creator responsibility for things that happen. Only people who are intellectuals and understand something about biology or those who live in perfect commune with nature would make the intelligent designer argument. The rest of the believers just think, "I'm a Christian/Jew/Hindu/animist/whatever, and because of this I believe my god created the world and manages it."
J-I-B
J-I-B
As someone who has read all of Richard Dawkins books if I was introd ucing any one to his writing The God Delusion is probobly the last book I would reccomend as a starter,a good start woukd be The Devils Chaplain,a collection of short articals and essays or River out of Eden a general introduction to Darwinian evolution. I find the god delusion a bit to tub thumping (and also vering on the fundamentalist ) also it would be worth looking here http://richarddawkins.net/
Bob
Bob
