RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceSpanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset once claimed that “to live is to feel oneself lost.” Those words have stayed with me, both for their simple lyricism and for the ambivalent thoughts they provoke. On one hand, Ortega y Gasset ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Andrew, are you serious..."The God Delusion?" I hope that quip was a bit of irony, and that you don't actually take that book seriously. It is a load of sophomoric (or perhaps freshmanic) BS written by a philosophically illiterate, belligerent biologist who is an embarrassment even to his most stridently atheistic colleagues. No self-respecting thinker who values rigorous discussion of ideas can take that book seriously. Dawkins is a sad, angry man, and an ignoramus about history, philosophy, and religion in general, and his pseudo-scholarship is an insult to all academics who actually give their interlocutors the benefit of the doubt.
It's a concise refutation of the religious beliefs of 95% of the theistic population. It doesn't address the perversely intricate apologetics of contemporary theologians, true, but as those positions are held by a tiny, tiny minority it's unreasonable to expect a mass-market introduction to a subject to go into details relevant only to a few.
Your other allegations might mean something if you substantiated them in the slightest, but hey, I guess your pseudo-scholarship indicates you don't actually give your interlocutors the benefit of the doubt, eh?
@11, you've got to be kidding me. Dawkins is a fool. No serious thinkers at universities take him seriously. Ask someone in the Princeton philosophy department. And no, you're terribly ignorant if you think Dawkins even begins to understand the "religious beliefs of 95% of the theistic population." It's the exact opposite. He has quite a fun time dealing with religious fundamentalism, which is something most religious people themselves look down on. He does NOT come to grips with the real experience of God and utterly reasonable arguments for believing in him. Also, even if what you're alleging were true, how would it be to Dawkins' credit? The question is whether religion and God are true, not a survey of what people think. It saddens me greatly that anyone at a university would take Dawkins seriously. The man is a fool.
Of course Andrew meant the "God Delusion" quip ironically. The whole argument about atheists is just a foil anyway -- this article is meant to attack the Chastity and Abstinence center, but in a typical, subtle Sarafine manner. Good job, Andrew!
@@'11
Well, you've certainly shown that you understand how to repeat a point!
Dawkins will no doubt be disturbed to learn that the Oxford professors who gave him tenure aren't "serious thinkers who take him seriously" - nor are a good number of Nobelists.
It is wonderful to learn that the majority of religious believers look down on fundamentalism - I'll be sure to tell the majority of Americans who are creationists and the plurality of American churchgoers who are evangelicals that this is the case!
Are you really disputing that 95% of theists, if asked why they held their beliefs, wouldn't answer with a subjective personal experience, an appeal to the Bible, an appeal to tradition or "how I was raised," or a primitive variation on something like the argument from design or Pascal's Wager? All of these are shoddy reasons to believe so fanciful a claim, and it's a breath of fresh air to see them cleanly disposed of. This is not a book for the remaining 5% - academic philosophers can deal with those few - but neither I nor Dawkins claims that it is. His target is religious belief as it exists in the world, and he does a quite a good job of skewering it.
@@@'11, just because a large number of religious believers might appeal to what seem like tautologies, does not mean they would not also assent to more comprehensive reasons for belief in God, if prompted. You're talking about religion in anthropological terms. And do you really think most atheists are trained philosophers? Dawkins cleanly disposes of nothing...he has no new arguments--nor is the issue at hand new by any means--and he does not demonstrate understanding of religious points of view. Lastly, Dawkins got tenure a long time ago, when he was writing brilliant books on evolution--something on which he actually IS, and continues to be, an expert. He only started publicly to hate religion recently, post 9/11. But I repeat the challenge: ask someone in the Princeton philosophy department if they take Dawkins' sloppy writing seriously. If you can't do that, then show me one serious scholar, believer or not, who has given Dawkins a good review.
@@@'11, p.s., you're right: sometimes repetition is necessary.
@@@'11, also, you need to do your homework on fundamentalism. it does not consist in the belief that God created being and matter. Rather, it's a particular form of protestant Christianity adhered to by a small portion of American protestants. More generally, fundamentalism is fideism, that is, the belief that faith can function without reason (the view is easily refutable and leads to logical absurdities). The Catholic Church, the largest group of Christians worldwide, has roundly condemned this idea many times over. By this definition, though, Dawkins can (and has) been called an atheist fundamentalist...he has his doctrines (materialism, etc.) and is not open to the reason of those who disagree. Rather, he has a kind of blind faith in atheism.
@@@@
But he/she/you weren't using "fundamentalism" in the strict sense, and neither was Dawkins. He's not attacking a certain strain of American Christianity (fundamentalism in the formal sense), he's attacking all religion that leads to patently idiotic or immoral beliefs or actions. Creationism very clearly fits the latter definition, and unfortunately the majority of Americans, and perhaps the majority of more-than-occasional-churchgoers worldwide, subscribe to it.
Dawkins doesn't have essentially new arguments, nor does he claim to. His value is in his skill at presenting the old arguments forcefully to new audiences, and for puncturing the "utmost respect" bubble of stulifying inanity that most public intellectuals have stayed in for too long.
@ugh: are Steven Pinker and James Watson serious enough for you?
@@@@@@@ wait, what is your idea of Creationism? do you mean young-earth stuff? that's one thing, but belief in God as the first cause on which the universe is contingent is quite another.