Disagree. Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. He cannot admit the tiniest possibility that he could be wrong. He is righteous in his doctrinal purity and considers unbelievers to be lost souls at best, and damnable heretics at worst. His mind contains different beliefs but very much the same 'structure' as the mind of a religious fundamentalist.
Disagree. Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. He cannot admit the tiniest possibility that he could be wrong. He is righteous in his doctrinal purity and considers unbelievers to be lost souls at best, and damnable heretics at worst. His mind contains different beliefs but very much the same 'structure' as the mind of a religious fundamentalist.
He's a militant atheist. Fundamentalism would require a doctrine and atheism is more the absence of one.
I find his directness and unapologetic candor to be enriching and cathartic. But I understand what you're saying.
He finds religion disgusting. I am aware that some people, probably way under half, are moved by faith to do good things. I admire people like that. I don't admire clinic bombers or Lauren Boebert.
I resent like hell when people say that atheists are incapable of morality. I will capture a venomous spider or snake and put it outside instead of killing it. Atheists were disproportionately represented in every social advance as far back as I know about.
After his last book, I have no respect for Dawkins. He used many old and disproven arguments against Christianity in his last book, he frankly lies about a lot or purposefully misrepresents what Christianity is, and he does this on purpose I think. He is taking advantage of our society’s lack of critical thinking skill to push his viewpoint. Deliberately drawing up a strawman to knock down. I have no respect for that.
Well, there is that fundamentalism. It makes him harsh and nasty. I'd like to go for a swim with him, see if there might be some way of getting him to relax and smile a bit. He needs a few jokes. He's a Holy Warrior for his Truth and it makes him cheat. Think the Trumpists vs. the wokeies -- anything is fair to stop THEM.
(1) Assyriologist George Heath-Whyte tweeted a long thread pointing out all of Dawkins’ factual errors regarding Gilgamesh.
(2) He claims that Christians believe that Sarah (and Muslims with Shaytan) has god-like powers, and therefore they can’t claim to be monotheistic religions. This is a gross misrepresentation/misunderstanding of these religions. Elsewhere he thinks the Trinity also contradicts monotheism, which is a bit more understandable of a mistake, as Christians have struggled to make sense of a 3-in-1 God for centuries. But he disregards this wrestling and the fact after libraries have been written on the subject, most Christian scholars agree that there is no contradiction between Trinitarian theology and monotheism. (I think Dawkins knows that this are gross misrepresentations but simply doesn’t care to represent religions accurately or use any nuance in talking about the different beliefs, and knows that someone who is unfamiliar with orthodox Christian beliefs won’t know any better. That is deception on a high-level.)
(3) In Chapter 2 he says: “But nobody has the faintest idea who really wrote the gospels. We have no convincing evidence in any of the four cases.” Sorry but that is patently false. He seems to think that it was like a game of telephone, which is false. We have lots of evidence that the Gospel writers drew from eye witness accounts and they named their sources. Not only that but from the oldest New Testament manuscripts to the later ones, 99% of any textual variations are variations in spelling or things like saying “a” instead of “an.” That is an incredible amount of agreement.
(4) Also in Ch 2 (I think) He claims that it was little more than chance as to which books got included in the canon. Also patently false. There was a systematic process as to which got included in the canon.
(5) In Ch 3 he claims that no Bible scholar takes OT history seriously. Also false. Some don’t for sure, but most do. Ignoring Genesis for a moment, the history of Israelites in Egypt, as well as history of Israel and Judea kingdoms through the OT history books mc and each of their exiles is EXACTLY taken as serious real history by many, many history scholars. We have archaeological evidence that a lot of OT events really happened, and that’s with only about 5% of Israel being excavated. With more archaeological discoveries, we may get even more evidence for these Biblical events. He essentially ignores all archeological evidence.
(6)Dawkins claims the resurrection claim was added to Christianity later. There is no evidence that this is true, and it doesn’t make any sense logically for the new believers either. Jesus‘s resurrection is repeatedly asserted in the earliest writings about him, and we have plenty of evidence (as mentioned before) that the writings were NOT distorted or exaggerated over time, so there is no good reason believe that the resurrection was a lien inserted by later Christians. (It’s fine if Dawkins doesn’t want to believe in the resurrection himself, but it’s a lie to claim it was added to the Christian accounts later.) Indeed, Dawkins scholarship of the Bible and what Christians really believe is dismal. For as intelligent as he is, I have a hard time believing he doesn’t really know these things or hasn’t been acquainted with these facts that theologians have written whole books defending. So he is either negligent in his scholarship, or deliberately lying/misleading.
Lastly, although not a lie, throughout the book, Dawkins constantly evokes emotionalism rather than logical thought or reasoning to further his arguments. He takes a dismissive attitude that makes it sounds that no counter evidence exists. This is grossly misleading for people who may not know the full current scholarship of both science and theology. If he had engaged in the actual scholarship, admitted where his opponents are correct, and made a logical, evidence-based claim for his viewpoint, I could at least respect him even if I disagree with his conclusions. But he doesn’t do that. I have no respect for the strawmaning, dismissive attitude, misleading statements, and negligent scholarship from him.
"Christians believe that Sarah (and Muslims with Shaytan) has god-like powers"
He does? That's illiterate. Stupid. Why would he make an ass of himself?
"Elsewhere he thinks the Trinity also contradicts monotheism"
It contradicts simple logic. I'm glad my childhood religion rejected the Trinity, it's just so much easier not to have to attempt to believe that.
"We have archaeological evidence that a lot of OT events really happened"
Damned right. The OT is unique among ancient documents in that, rather than being a list of the god-king's wonderful victories, it's a list of failures. It combines stories that are clearly fables (Jonah), semi-history (Abraham), and a whole lot of stuff that's probably essentially true and provable. The Jew-book is absolutely unique.
Yeah Dawkins should keep his nose out of theology, he doesn't know what he's talking about -- literally.
Well he seems to think that he doesn’t need to take religion seriously. But he doesn’t understand that others do, and if he genuinely wants to win people to his side of what he sees as the truth, it would be much better (and more honest) to deal with religious claims seriously and make actual decent arguments against them.
Yeah, that flippant dismissal, it's arrogant at the least and intellectually lazy. God has been a serious idea for a very long time, he shouldn't be compared to the tooth fairy. As I say, if the Observer Effect is real then God is logically unavoidable. Brahman, who dreams the universe into existence is just another way of saying that nothing exists that is not observed, and as Knox explained ...
Naturally. Anyone who thinks for themselves and speaks their mind will go to the stake eventually. Some few escape but they have extraordinary talent at keeping out of trouble.
Disagree. Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. He cannot admit the tiniest possibility that he could be wrong. He is righteous in his doctrinal purity and considers unbelievers to be lost souls at best, and damnable heretics at worst. His mind contains different beliefs but very much the same 'structure' as the mind of a religious fundamentalist.
He's a militant atheist. Fundamentalism would require a doctrine and atheism is more the absence of one.
I find his directness and unapologetic candor to be enriching and cathartic. But I understand what you're saying.
He finds religion disgusting. I am aware that some people, probably way under half, are moved by faith to do good things. I admire people like that. I don't admire clinic bombers or Lauren Boebert.
I resent like hell when people say that atheists are incapable of morality. I will capture a venomous spider or snake and put it outside instead of killing it. Atheists were disproportionately represented in every social advance as far back as I know about.
I respect Dawkins. Even like him. I think his totalism is mistaken but he's no bullshitter. He has integrity.
"I resent like hell when people say that atheists are incapable of morality."
They are capable of a higher morality -- one that is chosen, not imposed. God-as-we-have-him is surely a traffic-cop in the sky, mostly.
After his last book, I have no respect for Dawkins. He used many old and disproven arguments against Christianity in his last book, he frankly lies about a lot or purposefully misrepresents what Christianity is, and he does this on purpose I think. He is taking advantage of our society’s lack of critical thinking skill to push his viewpoint. Deliberately drawing up a strawman to knock down. I have no respect for that.
Well, there is that fundamentalism. It makes him harsh and nasty. I'd like to go for a swim with him, see if there might be some way of getting him to relax and smile a bit. He needs a few jokes. He's a Holy Warrior for his Truth and it makes him cheat. Think the Trumpists vs. the wokeies -- anything is fair to stop THEM.
Hahaha, indeed.
Can you name a few of these lies? I don't feature Dawkins as a dissembler, he has plenty to work with and no need to lie.
A few of the problems in the book:
(1) Assyriologist George Heath-Whyte tweeted a long thread pointing out all of Dawkins’ factual errors regarding Gilgamesh.
(2) He claims that Christians believe that Sarah (and Muslims with Shaytan) has god-like powers, and therefore they can’t claim to be monotheistic religions. This is a gross misrepresentation/misunderstanding of these religions. Elsewhere he thinks the Trinity also contradicts monotheism, which is a bit more understandable of a mistake, as Christians have struggled to make sense of a 3-in-1 God for centuries. But he disregards this wrestling and the fact after libraries have been written on the subject, most Christian scholars agree that there is no contradiction between Trinitarian theology and monotheism. (I think Dawkins knows that this are gross misrepresentations but simply doesn’t care to represent religions accurately or use any nuance in talking about the different beliefs, and knows that someone who is unfamiliar with orthodox Christian beliefs won’t know any better. That is deception on a high-level.)
(3) In Chapter 2 he says: “But nobody has the faintest idea who really wrote the gospels. We have no convincing evidence in any of the four cases.” Sorry but that is patently false. He seems to think that it was like a game of telephone, which is false. We have lots of evidence that the Gospel writers drew from eye witness accounts and they named their sources. Not only that but from the oldest New Testament manuscripts to the later ones, 99% of any textual variations are variations in spelling or things like saying “a” instead of “an.” That is an incredible amount of agreement.
(4) Also in Ch 2 (I think) He claims that it was little more than chance as to which books got included in the canon. Also patently false. There was a systematic process as to which got included in the canon.
(5) In Ch 3 he claims that no Bible scholar takes OT history seriously. Also false. Some don’t for sure, but most do. Ignoring Genesis for a moment, the history of Israelites in Egypt, as well as history of Israel and Judea kingdoms through the OT history books mc and each of their exiles is EXACTLY taken as serious real history by many, many history scholars. We have archaeological evidence that a lot of OT events really happened, and that’s with only about 5% of Israel being excavated. With more archaeological discoveries, we may get even more evidence for these Biblical events. He essentially ignores all archeological evidence.
(6)Dawkins claims the resurrection claim was added to Christianity later. There is no evidence that this is true, and it doesn’t make any sense logically for the new believers either. Jesus‘s resurrection is repeatedly asserted in the earliest writings about him, and we have plenty of evidence (as mentioned before) that the writings were NOT distorted or exaggerated over time, so there is no good reason believe that the resurrection was a lien inserted by later Christians. (It’s fine if Dawkins doesn’t want to believe in the resurrection himself, but it’s a lie to claim it was added to the Christian accounts later.) Indeed, Dawkins scholarship of the Bible and what Christians really believe is dismal. For as intelligent as he is, I have a hard time believing he doesn’t really know these things or hasn’t been acquainted with these facts that theologians have written whole books defending. So he is either negligent in his scholarship, or deliberately lying/misleading.
Lastly, although not a lie, throughout the book, Dawkins constantly evokes emotionalism rather than logical thought or reasoning to further his arguments. He takes a dismissive attitude that makes it sounds that no counter evidence exists. This is grossly misleading for people who may not know the full current scholarship of both science and theology. If he had engaged in the actual scholarship, admitted where his opponents are correct, and made a logical, evidence-based claim for his viewpoint, I could at least respect him even if I disagree with his conclusions. But he doesn’t do that. I have no respect for the strawmaning, dismissive attitude, misleading statements, and negligent scholarship from him.
Interestingly, Alister McGrath has a new book out called Coming to Faith Through Dawkins that is 12 stories from people who became disillusioned with Dawkins and couldn’t find the fallacies in Christianity that Dawkins speaks of, and they ended up converting to Christianity largely because of him! https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Faith-Through-Dawkins-Christianity/dp/0825448220/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=8S4EBVFVYDN7&keywords=alister+mcgrath&qid=1695071758&sprefix=alister%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-2
So there’s that.
"Christians believe that Sarah (and Muslims with Shaytan) has god-like powers"
He does? That's illiterate. Stupid. Why would he make an ass of himself?
"Elsewhere he thinks the Trinity also contradicts monotheism"
It contradicts simple logic. I'm glad my childhood religion rejected the Trinity, it's just so much easier not to have to attempt to believe that.
"We have archaeological evidence that a lot of OT events really happened"
Damned right. The OT is unique among ancient documents in that, rather than being a list of the god-king's wonderful victories, it's a list of failures. It combines stories that are clearly fables (Jonah), semi-history (Abraham), and a whole lot of stuff that's probably essentially true and provable. The Jew-book is absolutely unique.
Yeah Dawkins should keep his nose out of theology, he doesn't know what he's talking about -- literally.
Well he seems to think that he doesn’t need to take religion seriously. But he doesn’t understand that others do, and if he genuinely wants to win people to his side of what he sees as the truth, it would be much better (and more honest) to deal with religious claims seriously and make actual decent arguments against them.
Yeah, that flippant dismissal, it's arrogant at the least and intellectually lazy. God has been a serious idea for a very long time, he shouldn't be compared to the tooth fairy. As I say, if the Observer Effect is real then God is logically unavoidable. Brahman, who dreams the universe into existence is just another way of saying that nothing exists that is not observed, and as Knox explained ...
I'm as direct as he is and I get in tons of trouble.
Naturally. Anyone who thinks for themselves and speaks their mind will go to the stake eventually. Some few escape but they have extraordinary talent at keeping out of trouble.