The complete, perfect, and only review of Dawkins' The God Delusion that anyone ever needs to read

I have to admit, that sums it up perfectly.

Now PZ even tells us which reviews to read.

I get such a kick out of atheists; after telling me there is no god to tell me what to do, they proceed to...tell me what to do!

I do wonder with Dawkins: those who attack him always seem to attack his atheism as they percieve that he is attacking their religiousness. When in fact surely they should be looking at his rationality and evidence if they want to disagree with him.

He *does* attack religion, but only because of the faith / evidence discrepancies, not for it for its own existance, or for people believing in it.

Is this just because of the percieved threat of his outspoken criticism? Or simply the perception of his critics that since relgion is under his personal hammer, they must strike back at his personal 'religion' or atheism / evolution?

Grady

Confusing PZ's recommendation with gods thunderous ecicts is really deusional.

I must close now for all mention of MY GOD PZ means I have to spend an hour in prayes and I'm now up to two.

Now PZ even tells us which reviews to read.

I get such a kick out of atheists; after telling me there is no god to tell me what to do, they proceed to...tell me what to do!

Someone here has absolutely zero sense of humor.

Grady: "I get such a kick out of atheists; after telling me there is no god to tell me what to do, they proceed to...tell me what to do!"

It's called taking responsibility for your own actions, rather than couching your preferences as the commands of a supreme being.

So: "It's me, ol' PZ, who's telling you to read this review," vs. "God commands you to read this review!"

"Now PZ even tells us which reviews to read.

I get such a kick out of atheists; after telling me there is no god to tell me what to do, they proceed to...tell me what to do!"

Maybe you could explain how you derive any entertainment from this. There's no accounting for taste, but I really don't know what you're getting at.

Now PZ even tells us which reviews to read.

I get such a kick out of atheists; after telling me there is no god to tell me what to do, they proceed to...tell me what to do!

If you read the post, PZ doesn't actually tell us to read it. He simply makes a statement about it (it's the only one anyone needs to read) and offers it up in a link. So really your statement should be: "I get such a kick out of atheists; after telling me there is no god to (recommend book reviews), they proceed to...(recommend book reviews)!" which makes God seem only slightly less magisterial.

Please do not feed the trolls.

I'm afraid that the review is quite accurate. As the vast majority of people are never actually interested in reason, but will respond to the connotations surrounding an argument, Dawkins' works will never have a wide-ranging effect on people in general.

Fortunately, we're not really interested in that type of person.

Phenomenal.

Extendedly phenomenal.

If there WERE a god, there would be no Grady-types in this world.

Another negative post at HuffPo (RJ Eskow):

"Dawkins doesn't strike me as an enlightened thinker, but as a highly emotional activist for a subgenre of atheism that seems increasingly dedicated to promoting an atmosphere of hostility and intolerance.

The flashes of brilliance in his early books have given way to increasing shrillness and ever-weaker arguments."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/contrarianism-on-dawkins-_b_3242…

[sigh]

Grady, must you take everything so literally? Besides, it doesn't actually tell us that we have to read it, that's just your interpretation based on your personal prejudices.

My opinion of the Huffington Post has risen. Love the joke of all the "abusive" flags, too.

Grady, I command you to breathe, eat, and sleep. Now I'm telling you what to do also!

George, that sort of thing is a good sign in my opinion. For so long the religious had a virtual monopoly of public discourse in the US. The fact that they react sharply to the likes of Dawkins shows that they understand the threat to them that is posed when the so-long-silent community of freethinkers starts to find aggressive public voices. May they feel ever more threatened in the future!

George, don't worry about it.

Dawkins doesn't strike me as an enlightened thinker, but as a highly emotional activist...atheism....atmosphere of hostility and intolerance...shrillness and ever-weaker arguments...

And then this supposedly more enlightened thinker quotes Eagleton. Who is shrill and emotional? What a laugh this is all turning out to be.

Dawkins will prevail. This will take time. He probably, and lamentably, won't see the day when people look back with astonishment at this highly defensive, knee-jerk, and fearful outcry. People not going to understand how anyone could reject their "when in doubt, panic" approach to the unknown. Geez, they're already comparing him to Bertrand Russell, and someday, some other thinker will be compared to Dawkins (and all the pastors and priests will fall over themselves saying that "true Christians" didn't condemn Dawkins at all.) Let them rant. There is a pattern to this.

Interesting. My respect for the HP has fallen even farther, but my respect for its readers has increased somewhat, after reading the commentators who put the writer in his place.

"Tolerance" as it seems to be practiced by some, e.g. letting anything you don't find emotionally objectionable fly on past, cannot be part of any rational discourse. Dawkins is quite right to reject such shoddy thinking.

1906: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire.

2006: "I agree with everything you say, but I will whine like a spoiled brat about the way that you said it." --Every damn fool in a public forum.

The attacks on Dawkins are but another symptom of the increasing belligerence and extremism of the fundies amongst us. They are wounded animals, dinosaurs staring at the approaching asteroid, sleepy, stubborn children throwing tantrums at being sent to bed.

In the post-theistic world, we will be kind to those made mad by reality.

Or not.

--2006: "I agree with everything you say, but I will whine like a spoiled brat about the way that you said it." -Every damn fool in a public forum.--

I love that. What are we supposed to do, say our piece so nice and polite it's like saying nothing at all?

Might I point out that beyond a certain sub-set of the population (us) most peple have never freaking heard of Dawkins let alone have read ANY of his books. What percentage of the 300 million people in the US could identify even one of his works on a list? Precious few I would say. Extrapolate that to several billion people worldwide.

I feel certain that even fewer have heard of "MReap". Your point??

Atheist campaign slogans:

I promise not to abandon office when the crisis of the Rapture comes.

Good promise, or moot, considering the character of our politicians? discuss.

You're saying people don't have to read your review of The God Delusion in the latest SEED magazine? :-)

I haven't read Dawkins's book and don't intend to, because nothing I have seen in excerpts or reviews suggests that it will tell me anything of significance I didn't already know. That a book may be redundant is no reason not to write and publish it, of course, since, as Dr. Johnson said, mankind more often needs to be reminded than instructed, but that's no reason for anyone in particular to read it. PZ's recommended review is spot on.
Still, Dawkins's book has become the occasion for some well-worn stuff to be trotted out again, and it is interesting and amusing to watch the latest manifestations.

The only PZ post you ever need to read:

There are some really stupid people out there.
Wow, cephalopods are cool.

;-)

I enjoy reading Dawkins. "The Ancestor's Tale" was brilliant and entertaining. I'll read "The God Delusion" based on prior experience and best evidence, not based on reviews. It's only fitting...

gordonsowner: How about--

Will be there for the crisis when your children realize that the Rapture isn't coming.

Because those parents are not preparing their kids to live very long.

Dawkins sure hates fundies.

And true enough, they dream about the end of the world.

But Science has done better, Science has made it possible.

Ah, Grady, but scientists aren't the ones thinking of using technology that way - the fundies are. So, science may have made it possible, but who is responsible?
(Not that I really think that deserved a comment, and I'll stop feeding the troll now. Where are they all coming from, anyway? Seems like this site has attracted several new ones in the last couple of weeks, unless our old favorites have just changed names.)

Interesting. My respect for the HP has fallen even farther, but my respect for its readers has increased somewhat, after reading the commentators who put the writer in his place.

You mean the ones who didn't understand that it was a joke?

Well, that takes care of that then.

"I get such a kick out of atheists; after telling me there is no god to tell me what to do, they proceed to...tell me what to do!"

No, not we. If so, it is a voice in your head that does that.

BTW, it is boring to see exactly the same strawman argument repeated verbatim too often. Not that I would ever tell you what to do about it.

"Grady-types"

The Grady bunch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAKM0eu14Fs .

I really should not have been surprised. But the sheer number of people irrate at Dawkins, who in their comments illustrate that they have both not read the book nor have ANY CLUE about what Dawkins' stands and statements have been up to this point. He's an atheist standing up and making his points, that is enough for them to go on the attack with the same old cries and complaints.

No doubt if you go over to the Chopra comments you'll find many of them gushing about his insight and wisdom. Or is that an unfair generality.

Kristine!

I like the improvement!

My rates are reasonable. ;-)

Grady: Hearing voices? So you believe in atheists? How do you know that we're not just figments of your...

Oh. Never mind.

Dawkins sure hates fundies.
And true enough, they dream about the end of the world.
But Science has done better, Science has made it possible.

I see, so grady is an atheist too. He's just a confused one.

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Richard Dawkins over the years and like others I mostly agree with what he has to say about religious belief.

However, aside from being a bit more agnostic than he is, I do disagree with how he and others go about presenting the face of non-belief to the public at large.

For one, I don't understand how one expects to influence believers by coming across as smug, arrogant or insulting.

But more importantly, I think the whole entire Godlessness aspect is unnecessary and counterproductive.

What we non-believers really want is a society that respects reason, is tolerant, and bases its public policies and laws on knowledge obtained by science and evidence. Godlessness is not necessarily a requirement.

For instance I believe that a Deistic society and an Atheist society would be largely identical in terms of how they function with regards to reason, science and law. Both would yield rational secular societies.

But we aren't going to get the rational secular society we want by agitating believers. For example, is the mainstream public more or less sympathetic to atheism after Nedow's Pledge of Allegiance suit? If restoring Enlightenment era secularism is the goal, then the current approach by Dawkins and others may not be ideal.

I think there are millions of liberal religious people who are not totally comfortable with the dogma and irrationality of their traditional religions, but still want to hold on to the idea of a Supreme Being. Think of these people as the fence sitters.

If atheists come across as raving mad, militant, religious hating, arrogant bastards they will push these fence sitters squarely back onto the side of their religions.

The best strategic position is not to insult believers or thrust godlessness in their faces, but to convince them with sound and polite reasoning that secularism is the best possible form of government and that secularism works to their own advantage.

We don't need to convince them that their beliefs are ludicrous or that they are stupid. We don't have to convince them to be Godless. We only have to convince them that their faith is exactly that and not absolute proof of their worldview and as such the best arbiter for human affairs is science and reason.

In the long run I believe this silent majority may be persuaded to see the value that a compromise worldview like deism (for example) places on reason and science. And if a non-dogmatic, non-religious, rational theistic (if you will) worldview leads to full fledged agnosticism or atheism so much the better. I don't believe very many people are capable of making the jump straight from believer to positive/strong atheist (those that can are the type that will find their own way there via the Internet, etc.)

alan, I think you are missing something here:

If atheists come across as raving mad, militant, religious hating, arrogant bastards they will push these fence sitters squarely back onto the side of their religions.

that's just the brush the enemies of rationalism use to paint Dawkins with, and you are looking at the painting, instead of the man. Which is, of course, exactly what those doing the painting are hoping for.

Nothing in your statement applies to Dawkins in reality, so why do you use it as a strawman for your argument?

Nothing in your statement applies to Dawkins in reality, so why do you use it as a strawman for your argument?

In all honesty, part of the answer to your question is that I cut and pasted portions of this comment from another older comment a made elsewhere about angry militant atheists in general. Lazy editing.

But also, it is the perception that Dawkins creates with certain statements.

Yes, those statements are exaggerated by the enemies of rationalism, which is all the more reason to be very careful about how the argument is framed. The unfortunate reality is that perception can be "truth", especially to the right wing media inspired masses.

But my main point was that Godlessness in general is not a necessary first step in trying to move people more towards a rational secular society.

As you may notice most of Dawkins eloquent arguments about the dangers of religion are rarely discussed, because his strong atheism naturally takes the conversation directly to the metaphysical existence of a supreme deity.

I don't want to argue with someone whether or not God exists (which seems to be a difficult argument for many to grasp), I would rather spend that time arguing why science and reason should be the tools that we use to formulate the laws of our society. While that requires a rejection of traditional religion and dogma, it does not require total rejection of a higher being.

Repfrom the Eagleton section - but I have a challenge for PZ or indeed that fine historian and philosopher Richard Dawkins or anyone else for that matter!

Good grief the navel gazing is getting worse - silence from a JW half-wit is the triumph of universal rationality and reason - it is perhaps the mysterious world-spirit of the age at work before our eyes. Quick give Dickie Dawkins a call and I bet he will 'come' with excitement at the news.

Onto more serious matters I'd really like for one of the moral imbeciles and buffoons on here to go and tell, face to face, 100 people living on less than a dollar a day that 'progress' moral or otherwise is 'obvious'. I really cannot comprehend the mindset that thinks the 20th century was not a profoundly barbaric one. Industrialized cold-bloodied mass murder in one of the most 'civilized' nations on Earth does give anyone with an IQ above room temperature a very good reason to pause and think when words like 'progress' are bandied about. Let alone the implicit idea that the whole 'fuss' is overblown and a bit of clever PR? Of course it isn't just the horrors of the Holocaust but also the horrors of the First World War (remember it was going to end all wars), Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Nixon's bombing of around a million people into an early grave, the brutally of the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia, the famines in Africa - let alone the Rwandan genocide, death-squads in Latin America - the list could go on and on. Yes the 20th century what an unambiguously great time for everyone!

Now someone mentioned Native Americans - perhaps Thanksgiving Day should be renamed "ThankFuckWe KilledThoseScumInTheNameReason&ProgressDay"? So for those of the religion of unproblematic progress please to tell us how many people is ok to kill, torture, maim, starve, etc. to achieve this progress? I think that it is safe bet that Dawkins and people from his socio-economic strata are unlikely to be the ones on the receiving end of the downside of progress. It's a question of political justice. And it's a really rather difficult issue. Unfortunately we cannot, as Leibniz suggested, sit down a do a bit of calculus to solve the problem. And the idea that we should judge people not as individuals but in groups so long as those doing the judging have convinced themselves that their criteria are 'objective' is repugnant- perhaps the people being judged might like a say?

So long as someone accepts the board findings of modern science and is for equality, compassion and human dignity I'm with them even if they derive their views from within a religious framework. I do hate the psychopathology called fundamentalism with a passion and I am uncompromising in my anti-clericalism and defense of secularism, and I would prefer if people were not religious but what is so wrong about someone reading the Bible getting something from it and as a result working for the poor or becoming more compassionate etc. So long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and don't push their views when they are not asked to then I find it really hard to get mad. In a liberal society people are allowed to disagree with each other you know (don't take reasonable disagreement as some personal attack).

I'm puzzled as to the smug, supercilious, and angry attitude towards anyone that dares to question Dawkins or that displays any interest in religion, in any regard (as Eagleton does in regard to it being a form of popular culture). For fuck's sake grow up and stop behaving like teenagers rebelling against Daddy. If you had to live in grinding poverty in Africa you just might turn to religion for comfort. Let's try to have a little imaginative sympathy and empathy towards other human beings shall we? Remember dehumanizing people (people being divided into "us -good and them - evil") is the first step towards the gas chambers -and it is something all fundamentalists do IMHO.

Now PZ can perhaps we have a skeptical post from you about the uses and abuses of instrumental rationality in modern society? Go on amaze us all please?

But also, it is the perception that Dawkins creates with certain statements.

perhaps we should examine the statements themselves, rather than the perceptions of them then, eh?

why don't you find some of the statements that spur your thought processes and then we can examine what perceptions they generate without reference to 3rd party airbrushing?

do make sure you read the statements in the context they were spoken, and not as snippets taken out of context, though.

My point is, that you might find it's the perceptions that are unwarranted, not the statements they are based on.

I'm puzzled as to the smug, supercilious, and angry attitude towards anyone that dares to question Dawkins or that displays any interest in religion, in any regard (as Eagleton does in regard to it being a form of popular culture). For fuck's sake grow up and stop behaving like teenagers rebelling against Daddy

are you also puzzled as to those who claim Miller is "not a true xian" because he recongizes and utilizes the evidence in support of the ToE?

"For fucks sake", grow up and drop that silly rabbit's foot you carry around with you.

I'm puzzled as to the smug, supercilious, and angry attitude towards anyone that dares to question Dawkins or that displays any interest in religion, in any regard (as Eagleton does in regard to it being a form of popular culture). For fuck's sake grow up and stop behaving like teenagers rebelling against Daddy

Who is Daddy in this imagery? Assuming that the caiptalization indicates something, how could we be rebelling against a "Daddy" who doesn't exist?

quork, I think uncle JJP writes off all attempts at rationality as being the efforts of "rebels without a cause".

how dare we rebel against the 50's! We're just a bunch of slackers, right JJP?

of course, if he wanted to do more than troll, he would have posted actual arguments in favor of his notion of the "abuses of instrumental rationality in modern society"; rather than assume that PZ would even care what he was blithering about.

Let's try to have a little imaginative sympathy and empathy towards other human beings shall we?

The famed "Demented Fuckwit" thread was one long argument for (and against) toleration.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/rapture_rubbish_and_apocalyp…

Let fundies do their thing, treat them with respect, don't call them Demented Fuckwits, get more flies with honey, being nice doesn't cost anything, etc.

This is a forum for godless liberals, lots of whom are angry at the fundie takeover of the country and don't want to extend "imaginative sympathy" to nutcases who gleefully await the rapture, hope to turn the country into a theocracy, and think all atheists will spend eternity burning in hell.

George,

In re the Eskow post, that guy has no credibility. In between quotes from the Eagleton review, he throws in this jab at Sam Harris.

I would add that some of Dawkins' American followers (like Sam Harris) also have the nasty habit of picking on Muslims, already a persecuted minority in this country, hoping to capitalize on anti-Islamic bigotry and fears to gain new followers. That's neither an admirable deed nor a pretty sight.

Not only does this show that he obviously hasn't read and understood what Harris has written about Islam, but it actually proves Harris' point about the taboo-ness (taboo-ality?) of critisizing religion.

Ichthyic

Read this if you cannot grasp what instrumental rationality is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_rationality

Ok what about this issue the use of cluster bombs. Is it 'rational' to use them, well it is in these terms; (I) they wound people rather than killing them - hence the enemy in this case must waste resources (time and effort) on injured people that might be used in other ways; (ii) it injures civilians breaking the 'will' to go on fighting of the enemy population and (iii) it will be most cost effective than more expensive forms of warfare and risk fewer causalities on 'our' side.

Is this the type of 'rational' decision you wish to defend? The point I'm making is that such decisions as to use cluster bombs or not to not flow from disembodied 'reason' or 'rationality'. They occur within a social, political and ethical framework that is open to dispute, in so far as there exists asymmetries of power at work and different interests at stake. So from which point of view/framework is it 'rational' to drop the cluster bombs - in whose interests is this a 'rational' decision? I think the naive view that the 'rational' is self evident is problematic, to say the least, and one that no serious person can subscribe to. So maybe you should get your head out of your arse and to some hard thinking - perhaps you might even enjoy the process.

Ok Science Pundit shall we try a thought experiment - as a good Enlightenment liberal imagine yourself as a German in the late 30's; a lot of rather nasty propaganda is going about the place about Jews. So do you think under such circumstances it would be perfectly ok to bang on about the 'evils' of religion regardless of the social context? Perhaps you do and what if within that enlightened debate someone points out that whilst Christianity is bad Judaism is slightly worse etc. No let's assume that your not acting in bad faith, and you insist that your right to have a rational debate about religion must be respected and you will continue to make you views known, the very best that could be said is for you under those conditions is that you would be 'useful idiot' for forces far more pernicious than moderate religious belief.

By the way I'm not a troll but I am someone with slightly more nuanced views that the average poster at the blog - perhaps that's that not allowed - welcome to our world of 'rational' debate. Everyone is entitled to their ever so rational and skeptical view - err so long as you all agree with the party line that is (i.e. no tough questions please).

JJP, some of the biggest defenders of the Jews and also of refugees from the war in Spain were those who hated religion--particularly French intellectuals such as the surrealists and the avant guarde, the people in Nin's circle, etc. There were a lot of atheist Jews also being persecuted in Germany (Einstein among them--don't be fooled by his rhetorial use of the term "God"). Atheists died in the French Resistance (such as Robert Desnos). Instead of your little thought "experiment," do some research. Reason is the response to any situation.

What about the former Muslims that I know who denounce Islam?

By the way I'm not a troll but I am someone with slightly more nuanced views that the average poster at the blog- perhaps that's that not allowed - welcome to our world of 'rational' debate.

You're assurances that your not a troll have been noted.

Ichthyic,

First, as I mentioned, my main point was that a focus on Godlessness by strong atheists in general may not be fully productive or necessary and I apologize for using the Dawkins post to work that comment in. The original statement again was meant to more apply to militant atheists and not necessarily Dawkins.

Secondly, I want to re-iterate that I am a Dawkins fan. I find most of his writing to be intellectually and emotionally moving, some of stunningly so. But then again I speak his language in that I have been reading skeptical, free thought and atheist writings for years. And when I discovered Dawkins, I was more than ready to listen to what he had to say. A condition that is not so true of a current devout believer.

As for an example of statements which may generate a negative perception, perhaps the most well known is:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

From a strict point of view, the statement is completely defensible. But words like "stupid" and "ignorant" carry a certain connotation and are loaded in that they automatically put the receiver in a defensive position.

He also frequently uses the word "nonsense" which again to a believer generates the impression that Dawkins perceives his position to be completely unassailable, hence the assertion that he is arrogant. Even the title of his new book, automatically puts a believer on the defensive because it implies they are delusional. They may well be, but you rarely get a person's attention by flatly calling it out. (But to counter my own argument, he may not be trying to reach the true believer so much as to give the potential closet atheist the courage to speak up)

But I don't want to quibble with you, because you have a point. Dawkins is not that outrageous. He does though inspire others who comment in blogs and may not be as eloquent, hence attracting negative perception by association (not his fault).

Kristine I do know that - my example was trying to illustrate a point that debates occur within political and ethical framework. To insist on debating the evils of 'the religious' in Nazi Germany would mark one as either a fool or a knave given the context.

In this regard Harris with his argument that Islam is the 'worst religion' - well it occurs within a framework of a very reactionary push to advance US power/interests in the Arab world which as part of that push stigmatizes millions of people as being sub-human barbarians. See Bush on the need to defend 'civilization'. (Oh so Iraqi's are NOT part of that club then?) Can you imagine Bush saying that 'more or less' 2000 Americans have died in Iraq - no - but that's the language he used for the number of Iraqi's killed. Moreover the US isn't even interested in finding out how many people they have killed in the course of their actions.

What does this point to - they, nor in fact the American public, give a damn about the people they have killed and maimed - it's not really an important issue. Part of way this framework is constructed is that people dehumanize the victims on the other side - well they are all mad Arabs etc., so who gives a fuck right?

Harris is a subtle part of this in that he claims that all religious belief no matter how peaceful and moderate is 'dangerous' - self evidently not true. Are the 10% that attend the Church of England a dangerous mob to be confronted - not really - they are only if one is delusional.

Furthermore Harris continually suggests that Islam is a bit worse than other religions - now lets try putting two and two together perhaps? Harris is a useful idiot in so far as he helps to rationalize the killing of lots of people as they are 'dangerous' religious types and what's more they belong to the most 'dangerous' religion of all - well sorry so many of them have to die but it's just the unfortunate outcome of the need to save 'civilization' oh and by the way torture is a necessary evil too etc etc.

So in my view Harris is the face that presents a 'liberal' rationalization for a really reactionary and malignant US administration - and it's policies. But the again maybe I'm not as rational as you guys.

Furthermore I note that the substantive part of my last post hasn't been answered - so is the use of cluster bombs rational etc., given all of you KNOW what the rational course of action is right - it's self-evident for those on this blog right?

sorry about the various typos people

Well, they're not all Arabs for one thing; I probably don't need to remind people here that (as stated much more eloquently by the scholar Edward Said) Muslim does not equal Arab does not equal Middle East. As it happens, Christians are particularly persecuted in the Middle East. Especially in Palestine, by Israel (people forget this). The majority of Arabs in America are Christian, and the majority of Muslims in the world are, I believe, Asian.

I can't speak for Harris, being that I have not read his works yet. I do have a number of Muslim and ex-Muslim friends. I am as outraged by the war in Iraq and by cluster bombs as you. But again, this is not the point.

I agree that rational arguments must take place in an ethical and political framework, but how I choose to frame that is, killing people for their beliefs, religious or not, is always immoral, being, to quote Dawkins, "hideous murder, and completely irrational."

I should think that calling oneself an atheist against religion would draw that particular violence toward oneself, and away from the convenient scapegoat of the moment! It must be remembered that Weimar Germany tolerated Hitler's underdog Brown Shirts because, at least, they beat up the godless communists at every turn. Then there came a point when Hitler became more frightening than the people against which he was used.

I mean, at what point in the 1930s are we talking about? Before or after the series of elections that brought Hitler to power? What are the conditions of "peace" that lead to war? (And don't get me started on the complicity of the god-fearing Americans, like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, who supported Hitler and were virulent anti-semites.) Hitler also invoked Christianity whenever it suited him (and stated that he admired Islam when it suited him), although in my opinion he never really worshipped anything but himself.

I think it's time to invoke Godwin's law: time to take the NaziTalk down a notch, m'kay? My tender eyes are hurt by the hundreds of lines of banal, freshman college bullshittery.

JJP, you brought the Nazi Germany analogy up first, therefore you suck, period. Kristine, you are usually truly awesome, but you should know better...

Can this thread die now, please?

God does not exist. There is no big bearded man, or love-on field, or whatever, that created the universe or parted the red sea or any other superphysical act.

And yet, in another sense, God may exist. We humans, with our puny brains, are incapable of really understanding the totality of phenomena which we experience. Even if we had a Theory of Everything and a (working) Theory of Intelligence, we'd still be unable to really grasp it all. There will always be something greater than us. Language in general is a device that simplifies for the purpose of communication, and it is certainly not proven (with, I'd say, plenty of anecdotal counterevidence) that scientific language is always the most conducive of useful understanding in the long run, in domains outside physics and mathematics. Perhaps religious language is the best way to certain valid understandings about human nature or the search for meaning in life.

Dawkins opens a valid question: given that God doesn't exist, why do so many people cling to him/her/it? But putting that question with inflammatory language ("ignorant, stupid, delusion") does not contribute to answering it usefully. (OK, ignorant and stupid were only applied to evolution-deniers, which is valid. But I hold firm on delusion.) In fact, it actively closes off one fruitful line of inquiry, the "what good is religion" one in the previous paragraph. I see no reason why the question can't be addressed in the agnostic terms which a large number of scientists instinctively adopt when God comes up - even if they're personally atheists - because they want to sidestep a counterproductive confrontation. I.e., "Given that there is no objective evidence for God, what evidence can we find about why people continue to cling to him/her/it, what theories can we build that are logically supported by that evidence, and what further study do these theories suggest?"

After all, the scientific method was developed in these terms, as a set of ground rules that people of different points of view can agree on, not as the be-all-and-end-all of epistemology. Any one of you believes things for reasons other than the scientific method, so, as someone inspired by their belief once usefully said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

(Now, on the other hand, I think Dawkins was quite useful for moving the debate. I'd rather have some radical further out than me so I can look like a moderate, and I have no illusions that some people won't get offended by my agnostic version of the question. But please no dawkins-dittoheads. This is, like, such a total echo chamb)

Any one of you believes things for reasons other than the scientific method, so, as someone inspired by their belief once usefully said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

Oh, really? Name one thing I believe for reasons other than the scientific method.

And yet, in another sense, God may exist. We humans, with our puny brains, are incapable of really understanding the totality of phenomena which we experience.

Yes we are.

Today's world: the lunatic religious fringe is trying to change America and ignorant lunatics blows themselves everyday on behalf of a stupid male fantasy.

Dawkins writes a book, one book, to refute idiotic religious notions and people immediately go on the attack. It's just too much! Be rational!

Go to your local bookstore, go to the religion section, read the totality of crap people spew relentlessly year after year after year, get really upset, then praise Richard Dawkins to the skies and start complaining vociferously that there are not more people like him out there.

If half the hostility directed at Dawkins were turned on the religious nutjobs, the world would be a better place.

j.t.delaney go fuck yourself with your silly non-points. Try again when you have an IQ above room temp.

The point I was making isn't specifically about what happened in Germany. Rather it was a far more subtle point that you or Kristine cannot seemingly comprehend (don't worry some of the most erudite and thoughtful liberal philosophers can't grasp this point); it's not that rational debates occur within ethical of political framework - they do but even this modest insight isn't shared by many on this blog. (Given that yesterday self-styled defenders of 'rationality' opined that the horrors of the 20th century constitute some insignificant 'droplets' into a metaphorical bucket of blood and death in the course of history so what's the big deal etc., along with a 'moral' theory that placed the highest virtue to be getting along with your 'tribe' - actually I can think of many scenarios in which the morally virtuous thing is to not get along with your 'tribe' perhaps by opposing slavery in a slave owning society?)

So to develop my point the issue of 'rationality' for example with respect to my example of cluster bombs is that what is considered 'rational' in this context is already and inevitably a profoundly political and ethical argument. Why because the use of 'instrumental rationality' is a process in which differing agents enjoy asymmetries of power and different interests are at stake - and hence the outcome is inevitably an ideological and political affair. So for the powerful military general there is a 'rational' case to use cluster bombs. However for the rather less powerful child maimed by a cluster bomb this talk of 'rationality' might seem like so much self-serving hypocrisy and cant. Moreover it is a political act that allows certain people, certain interests (usually the most powerful people in a society) to claim the mantle of 'rationality' and ipso facto labels anyone disagreeing as 'irrational' allowing for the rationalization of all sort of barbarisms. Powerful people at various points have maintained that slavery is a 'rational' state of affairs, that the oppression of women is 'rational' that involuntary eugenics was 'rational' - even till today when depleted uranium and cluster bombs are defended upon 'rational' grounds etc., Given a great deal of what's passed for the 'rational' in the last couple of centuries perhaps some skepticism might be in order when people bandy about that concept. Even more so when it's declared that what is rational is self-evident (to whom and on what terms is it self-evident?). Even worse is the scientism of suggestion that the 'rational' is simply a matter of having 'scientific' attitude. On that point Caledonian I'm sure you have a view, a belief if you will, on validity the Iraq war policy that the US has enacted. Tell me if it scientific view please. For example did you run a sample size of 50 Iraq wars and determined a p value for the 'rightness' of the policy?

To conclude if we look at history and the history of what at various points has passed for the 'rational' we might just think that the history of this 'rationality' is nightmare from which the human race needs to escape. And I am a scientist, a non-believer, et al., but I'm also aware that there is more complexity and nuance to debates about 'rationality' than anyone on this blog seems to appreciate or acknowledge. But then my mental 'universe' does consist of more than Pharyngula, The New York Times, SUV's, 'cheese' in a can and fourth rate popular science books - let alone fifth rate popular philosophy. Progress it's a funny old thing as someone one pointed out that modernity is both the best and worst thing to ever happen to humans - recognizing the shades of gray within human history is IMHO rather important. Then again I don't understand Dawkins's 'mysterious zeitgeist' theory of inevitable historical progress - sounds like a vaguely religious idea to me - not quite a scientific theory of history - well not to my 'irrational' mind with which I try to demand an attempt at logical coherence and the use of empirical evidence for any argument.

Hello, Pharyngula Readers-Thinkers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! :)

But then my mental 'universe' does consist of more than Pharyngula, The New York Times, SUV's, 'cheese' in a can and fourth rate popular science books - let alone fifth rate popular philosophy.

How about add one more, Harper's Magazine (November) wherein I just read an excellent review of The God Delusion by the American scholar-novelist Marilynne Robinson entitled Hysterical Scientism: The Ecstasy of Richard Dawkins. I think she also understands your pondering of "Dawkins's 'mysterious zeitgeist' theory of inevitable historical progress - sounds like a vaguely religious idea to me - not quite a scientific theory of history - well not to my 'irrational' mind with which I try to demand an attempt at logical coherence and the use of empirical evidence for any argument"?!

Talking about hysterical Scientism, if Freud were to psychoanalyze the statement below, he would no doubt say: What a madding Dawkinsian ibot hysteria!

Dawkins will prevail. This will take time. He probably, and lamentably, won't see the day when people look back with astonishment at this highly defensive, knee-jerk, and fearful outcry. People not going to understand how anyone could reject their "when in doubt, panic" approach to the unknown. Geez, they're already comparing him to Bertrand Russell, and someday, some other thinker will be compared to Dawkins (and all the pastors and priests will fall over themselves saying that "true Christians" didn't condemn Dawkins at all). Let them rant. There is a pattern to this.

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter--just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :)

Best wishes, Mong 10/26/6usct10:05p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

JJP: "I'm not a troll but I am someone with slightly more nuanced views that the average poster at the blog"

Nuances like "Dickie Dawkins", "come with excitement", "moral imbeciles", and strawman arguments of what we say? Right. But hey, you never responded to my rebbutal in the Eagleton comments.

Just try to imagine Darwin, or Newton, or Einstein, denying that human understanding is limited, or that sometimes it is helped by something outside science...

(I was going to put up some choice quotes from each that I vaguely remember, but their vocabularies were too big to easily google a specific quote from the idea it expresses.)

Also, at least half those who insist most vociferously that they are completely rational and have no hidden agenda, are actually trying to hide their agenda. Which makes you wonder what purpose the other half are serving, you know, purely in an objective sense.