The God Delusion is the new book by Richard Dawkins. Readers of Dawkins would already know Dawkins position on religion. Beebs has an interview with Dawkins in it's Newsnight programme. You can watch the video online. Quite interesting. Prospect Magazine has a review which is worth a read if you want to see the kind of reactions that Dawkins evokes in some people.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
One of the guests on tonight's edition of the One Show, BBC1's highly enjoyable magazine programme, was Lord Winston, the famous fertility scientist and TV presenter. Discussing a segment entitled "Are we ashamed of God?", Lord Winston said that science was only one of multiple truths, or words to…
On a recent trip to the local Barnes and Noble, I noticed a remarkable thing. On the main kiosk, the place where the Stephen King and John Grisham books are located, there were two prominently placed volumes that caught my eye. One was The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, the other was God: The…
Continuing my perusal of the new Notices of the American Mathematical Society, I came across this review (PDF format) of John Allen Paulos recent book Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up. The review is by mathematician Olle Haggstrom. Paulos' book has…
This week's New York Times Book Review features a review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion that judges the book fairly harshly:
The least satisfying part of this book is Dawkins's treatment of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. The "ontological argument" says that God must…
A very positive review in the Grauniad
The Grauniad prints an excerpt
From Guardian: "an arcane survival mechanism is operating in grossly distorted circumstances". Worth pondering.
That review in Prospect was pure dreck.
Yet under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood was exterminated simply for being priests, as were the clergy of other religions and hundreds of thousands of Baptists. Oh, not this nonsense again! Yes, Stalin killed the priesthood. But it was not them being priests, it was that they were an ecclesiastical institution that held political power. Stalin also killed his secular political opposition, even that within his own party. Stalin came from the Czarist tradition that glorified absolute power, i.e., he was far more of a Russian than he was an atheist.
Literally everything in that review is as daft as that. China doesn't allow free speech, French Revolution, Tamil Tigers were suicide bombers too. Nothing of substance, no actual answers to Dawkins' arguments. Like I said, pure dreck. I'm dumber from having read it.
If atheism has to take the hit for Stalin, christianity gets the african slave trade, a centuries long killing spree with a death toll in the hundreds of millions, and the hundred years war, which killed a full third of the population of Europe.
The tamil situation is way, way more complicated than that glib little bit about "marxists in sri lanka" would suggest, too.
I have a certain sympathy for th argument that there is not a precise link between religion (specifically, Islam) and suicide bombing. At any given time, the practice of religion is an artefact of its social, political and historical context. The origins of islamicist suicide bombing were similar to the origins of militant islamicism as a significant force in the middle east: the Iranian regime. (Suicide bombing was an essential tool of an under-equipped Iranian military when faced with Iraqi armour).
Certainly, though, religion is a significant factor in the glorification of suicide bombing as something worthwile in itself, rather than a regretably necessary tactic.
I do have some qualms about Dawkins, though. I don't think he always makes his arguments with sufficient precision. He can't resist the temptation to taunt.