I was planning to do a multi-part review of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. However, after further consideration, I have decided not to.
This blog, this ministry, I wish to focus on positive things. And while someone might think tearing down TGD is good, it doesn't help.
Let's be honest, my review is not going to change any minds - much like the book failed to change mine.
For the book, I will say this: I was disappointed. If it challenged ANYONE to seriously question their faith, I would wonder it's strength to begin with.
If you do wish to find a critique on this book can find many out there. Mine, however, will not be one of them.
Chris
Showing posts with label The God Delusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The God Delusion. Show all posts
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The God Delusion - Part 2 - The God Hypothesis
The following is a post I submitted to richarddawkins.net so some of it is more geared to the followers of that sight. There I was told my input on the book would be appreciated. We shall see!
Okay, for those of you who are ravenous here is my perspective. Like Dawkins I'm not much for labels, so rather than saying "Christian" I prefer to say I'm a follower of Jesus.
That being said, let's move on shall we? I know you are ready with your replies. So am I.
I'm skipping right up to Ch 2 - The God Hypothesis.
"The God of the OT is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
There's a mouthful.
Strong words from Dawkins who claims later that he's "not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
Yet, most of his book, in arguments against “God” is against the “Christian” God – including Jesus. Yes, he takes small glimpses at other gods, but still his main focus is on the Christian God. But, then again, he really doesn’t as most of the “attacks” and arguments about God are really only pointed at religion – some of his arguments I agree with.
His opening statement in Ch. 2. However says TO ME two things, which I have pointed out. 1) A lack of understanding of the Bible (which is different than knowledge of). 2) or a purposeful misrepresentation of the Bible for argumentative purposes.
For point 1 it could be innocent lack of understanding from someone who doesn’t dive into the word to fully understand not only the “what’s” of the Bible, but the “why’s” “how’s” and “what’s really going on.”
By the sheer differences of denominations in church points out that this really is not so easy of a task.
Personally, I think if someone makes such a comment they should – if they truly want to be so critical – do a couple things.
1) Provide “proof” from the Bible. Verses, etc.
2) Read, look into, study, various critical analysis of the text that “proves” one’s assertions – such as Dawkins makes.
But Dawkins doesn’t even do step one. He just says it, as if he’s an authority of OT scholarship. Which he never states.
None of you would accept this type of characterization of Dawkins (or Darwin) without AT LEAST someone doing some quoting, or examples…
Though, his character sketch aligns (or influences) yours so no further, critical thinking, work is needed to be done on your (the readers) part.
Remember, Dawkins states that he hopes religious leaders become atheists at the end of his book – that’s a pretty tall order considering said leaders DO critically study the Bible.
Pretty much if I said “evolution is a false, delusional, pathetic, valueless means to describe life as we know it.”
You would AT LEAST want me to back up my argument. Or hint I’m about to do so.
Dawkins does try, later on to justify his statement – but we’ll get to that when he does.
As for attacking God – as of page 41 he hasn’t done so (outside of his statement). He only has attacked religion. He finally says this: “The deist God is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible.” And what about the other gods? He doesn’t say. Nor, again, does he even provide even a piece of evidence of this so-called-monster.
Not yet.
Dawkins also states that he doesn’t see any reason “theology” should be a subject at all.
I could see why he would think so.
Also on page 57 he asks the question: …by what criteria do we then decide which of religion’s moral values to accept?
By religion, he means the Bible. Yet, not an attack on God (any/all) just on religion.
But this argument again implies that 1) Dawkins is a Biblical scholar and understands all of what is going on in the Bible. 2) Given this “fact” there is no further need to look into those section of the Bible for possible further understanding. Or 3) again, deliberate misleading on Dawkins’ part.
I for one subscribe to point – 1. Just for clarification.
The rest of this chapter is more attacks on religion and not so much on God. I didn’t highlight, but a quick scan reveals no quotes from the Bible…nor attacks on any/all gods as he claimed.
I know you are probably chomping at the bit to tell me to “prove” my claims that Dawkins isn’t representing the Bible correction (for either stated reason).
I will…but not now. Dawkins doesn’t feel the need to “prove” his assertions at this point in the book, so I don’t feel the need to “prove” mine in this post.
I’ll just follow his lead.
However, that shouldn’t stop you from looking into yourself.
Next post: Argument’s For God’s Existence
Peace and Love
Chris
Okay, for those of you who are ravenous here is my perspective. Like Dawkins I'm not much for labels, so rather than saying "Christian" I prefer to say I'm a follower of Jesus.
That being said, let's move on shall we? I know you are ready with your replies. So am I.
I'm skipping right up to Ch 2 - The God Hypothesis.
"The God of the OT is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
There's a mouthful.
Strong words from Dawkins who claims later that he's "not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
Yet, most of his book, in arguments against “God” is against the “Christian” God – including Jesus. Yes, he takes small glimpses at other gods, but still his main focus is on the Christian God. But, then again, he really doesn’t as most of the “attacks” and arguments about God are really only pointed at religion – some of his arguments I agree with.
His opening statement in Ch. 2. However says TO ME two things, which I have pointed out. 1) A lack of understanding of the Bible (which is different than knowledge of). 2) or a purposeful misrepresentation of the Bible for argumentative purposes.
For point 1 it could be innocent lack of understanding from someone who doesn’t dive into the word to fully understand not only the “what’s” of the Bible, but the “why’s” “how’s” and “what’s really going on.”
By the sheer differences of denominations in church points out that this really is not so easy of a task.
Personally, I think if someone makes such a comment they should – if they truly want to be so critical – do a couple things.
1) Provide “proof” from the Bible. Verses, etc.
2) Read, look into, study, various critical analysis of the text that “proves” one’s assertions – such as Dawkins makes.
But Dawkins doesn’t even do step one. He just says it, as if he’s an authority of OT scholarship. Which he never states.
None of you would accept this type of characterization of Dawkins (or Darwin) without AT LEAST someone doing some quoting, or examples…
Though, his character sketch aligns (or influences) yours so no further, critical thinking, work is needed to be done on your (the readers) part.
Remember, Dawkins states that he hopes religious leaders become atheists at the end of his book – that’s a pretty tall order considering said leaders DO critically study the Bible.
Pretty much if I said “evolution is a false, delusional, pathetic, valueless means to describe life as we know it.”
You would AT LEAST want me to back up my argument. Or hint I’m about to do so.
Dawkins does try, later on to justify his statement – but we’ll get to that when he does.
As for attacking God – as of page 41 he hasn’t done so (outside of his statement). He only has attacked religion. He finally says this: “The deist God is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible.” And what about the other gods? He doesn’t say. Nor, again, does he even provide even a piece of evidence of this so-called-monster.
Not yet.
Dawkins also states that he doesn’t see any reason “theology” should be a subject at all.
I could see why he would think so.
Also on page 57 he asks the question: …by what criteria do we then decide which of religion’s moral values to accept?
By religion, he means the Bible. Yet, not an attack on God (any/all) just on religion.
But this argument again implies that 1) Dawkins is a Biblical scholar and understands all of what is going on in the Bible. 2) Given this “fact” there is no further need to look into those section of the Bible for possible further understanding. Or 3) again, deliberate misleading on Dawkins’ part.
I for one subscribe to point – 1. Just for clarification.
The rest of this chapter is more attacks on religion and not so much on God. I didn’t highlight, but a quick scan reveals no quotes from the Bible…nor attacks on any/all gods as he claimed.
I know you are probably chomping at the bit to tell me to “prove” my claims that Dawkins isn’t representing the Bible correction (for either stated reason).
I will…but not now. Dawkins doesn’t feel the need to “prove” his assertions at this point in the book, so I don’t feel the need to “prove” mine in this post.
I’ll just follow his lead.
However, that shouldn’t stop you from looking into yourself.
Next post: Argument’s For God’s Existence
Peace and Love
Chris
Monday, May 23, 2011
The God Delusion (a review) - Preface
Well, I might as well start at the beginning. The Preface.
Dawkins states his book, "..is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one."
Interesting wording. One can aspire to be an atheist?
But really, all the Preface does is allude to what will be "discussed" in the chapters ahead. I put "discuss" in quotes because, well, it's not a discussion. Anything he is against, doesn't get a true look - but, hey it's his book, he can do what he wants.
Dawkins does go on to say that "for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." and that he hopes religious leaders will be atheists at the end of the book.
Also in the premise, it becomes quite clear - Dawkins dislikes religion (of any, but mainly Christian). And that yes, to believe in a deity, one is not only delusional, but as he stated, perhaps not one of sound mind.
The main point of the preface is that of pointing us to certain sections, if we were so inclined, rather than feeling that we had to read straight through.
Overall, nothing enlightening.
Peace and Love
Chris
Dawkins states his book, "..is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one."
Interesting wording. One can aspire to be an atheist?
But really, all the Preface does is allude to what will be "discussed" in the chapters ahead. I put "discuss" in quotes because, well, it's not a discussion. Anything he is against, doesn't get a true look - but, hey it's his book, he can do what he wants.
Dawkins does go on to say that "for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." and that he hopes religious leaders will be atheists at the end of the book.
Also in the premise, it becomes quite clear - Dawkins dislikes religion (of any, but mainly Christian). And that yes, to believe in a deity, one is not only delusional, but as he stated, perhaps not one of sound mind.
The main point of the preface is that of pointing us to certain sections, if we were so inclined, rather than feeling that we had to read straight through.
Overall, nothing enlightening.
Peace and Love
Chris
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Facing the Giant (or) Will Richard Dawkins Kill My Faith?
I have seen him speak, heard him debate, and read his quotes, and I have glanced at this book, but I have never read it front to back.
Of his books available, I figured the one that dealt with God would be the one to start with. And since I'm a firm believer that you aren't really sure what you believe, until it's been challenged, I figured I should challenge what I believe - what better way than facing the Giant?
Richard has admitted, that he's it out to "kill a religion" - Christianity.
So, can his book kill my faith?
I guess we shall see!
As I read through, and find something of interest, I will try and post it AND as usual, comments are welcomed (don't be afraid!)
Peace and Love
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)