Celebrity Crisis?Jul 2nd, 2007 - 21:51:10

Excuse me if I could care less what Richard Dawkins has to say about anything that even remotely smacks of religion. With his over-the-top book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins has become the poster child for angry atheists everywhere. The basic premise of his book is that religion and religious thought should be blamed for every evil in the world. Such a viewpoint seems exceedingly narrow-minded and (in a very real sense) bigoted.

Thus, it is no surprise that he should look at a scientific venture (yes, I said 'scientific venture') that might lead one to conclude that a deity exists and ridicule it. After all, he has set up the persona of being the clever, witty spokesman of those who hate religion and he cannot pass up the opportunity to ridicule anything that even comes close to being religion. He has apparently enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame, and will do almost anything to keep it running as long as he can.

The best advice is to treat anything written by Dawkins which even comes close to religion as the prattlings of the moment's cause celeb trying to keep himself in the spotlight.

Report this comment

M&C Jessica SchneiderJul 2nd, 2007 - 22:51:16

Controversy and celebrity sells. But yes, it was a very biased review, and I'm sure that's why they asked him to do it.

Report this comment

Dawkins DefenderJul 3rd, 2007 - 21:34:31

Have you even read Dawkins' book, 'The God Delusion'? He does not mention anywhere that religion is to blame for all the problems in the world. He essentially goes through the hypothesis that god is a real entity and shows very clearly that it does not hold up under the evidence. He goes on to show that religious belief is fundamentally illogical and nonsensical. Because it is so irrational, it does not deserve its privileged place in society today. Sense and reason should be held up as shining examples of quality thinking, while religious ideas should be openly questioned for any semblance of reality.

Report this comment

dawkinsisrightthoJul 4th, 2007 - 07:13:14

evolution seems obvious if you give it some thought and there is a wealth of evidence to support it, unlike creationism and intelligent design which seem crude and illogical, and have no evidence to support them

Report this comment

Read Dawkins' Book?Jul 6th, 2007 - 22:02:10

Well, I started to read it, but I got so frustrated by the misinformation and bad argumentation that I couldn't continue. Dawkins, though, has been critiqued and very effectively in a large number of places. One of the most recent is the book 'The Darwin Delusion' by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicut McGrath. They note:

It is, in fact, actually rather difficult to write a response to this book [The God Delusion]--but not because it is well-argued or because it marshals such overwhelming evidence in its favor. The book is often little more than an aggregation of convenient factoids suitably overstated to achieve maximum impact and loosely arranged to suggest that they constitute an argument. To rebut this highly selective appeal to evidence would be unspeakably tedious and would simply lead to a hopelessly dull book that seemed tetchy and reactive.

(Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicut McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, pg. 13 (InterVarsity Press, 2007).)

Report this comment

JayeshOct 30th, 2007 - 03:50:28

Which part of the God Delusion did u find the ssertion that religion is the basis of all the evil in the world? I hav read it & dont find that anywhere. The assertion is responsible for a significant amount of wrong is, however, undeniable. i cant see how an american can deny that after what has been happening for last half a decade, nor can i as a n indian deny it after what has been happening for last 700 years in indian history. read about muslim oppression (specificaly driven by faith), hindu reactions(again driven by faith) & the atempts of christian missionaries to further drive the wedge.... its all a mess...... believe me

Report this comment

Miguel ChavezJul 11th, 2009 - 00:11:45

I'll never understand why the faithful love to criticize Dawkins without having read him. They say his arguments are poor, yet never address them. They call him dogmatic because he occasionally uses strong language when describing the behavior of the Old testament deity (never mind that his adjectives are fully appropriate). Critics like McGrath ignore the meat of Dawkins arguments and labor over the most trivial of points. Surely criticisms of Dawkins are common, but are they substantive? Hardly. McGrath *would* offer rebuttals to Dawkins arguments, but they don't want to bore us with them, claiming such an effort would be 'difficult' and 'tedious.' By all means McGrath, bore us with your counterarguments!

It is understandable that the faithful are irrationally hostile towards Dawkins. He argues against their faith, which they hold very dear, and does so clearly and eloquently. Of course the goal of their remarks is to poison the well, and dissuade people from reading Dawkins works. I suggest everyone read both sides of the issue and see who's arguments find themelves on top. Best, Miguel Chavez

Report this comment