The God Delusion

I just got Richard Dawkins's latest book, The God Delusion. It seems like it might extend some good controversary and open the door for more discussion about atheism.

If anyone's interested in discussing this book as you read it, let me know.

It is interesting to note that, not only is it available in the U.S. before the U.K. release, the U.K. edition has 416 pages, while the U.S. version has 288 pages. Bakari, by any chance does Dawkins note why that is?

hmm, censorship maybe? Ive found the States to be a touch more sensitive about having their religious toes trodden on than us Brits.

domsablos, I'm highly doubtful. If that were the case, I can't imagine how much further The End of Faith by Sam Harris could go towards vilifying, not only Islam, Christianity.

(size 1) Tiny type, maybe? (/size) :)

Atomicmutant, yes, I believe you're right. That seems almost obvious now. Different publisher / different typeset is probably the reason.

Sorry I'm just now coming back to this discussion. I wish these threads had RSS feeds so I would know when they're updated.

Anyway, the hard back edition I'm reading put out by Houghton Mifflin contains 408 pages, so I'm not clear about the U.S. edition having less pages.

Even though I've only read the first 100 pages or so, I'm really enjoying the book. It's insightful and at time funny.

I'm so glad books like this are being written. It's so important that issues of science (reason) vs. superstition are being put out there for public debate, even though the more we seem to get two steps forward and then two steps backwards when it comes to people thinking more critically and rationally about the life and the human condition.

C-SPAN recently broadcast an appearance by Dawkins at Randolph College (nee Randolph-Macon Woman’s College; http://www.rmwc.edu/) in November 2006. He read from The God Delusion. It was a fascinating program, especially when he took questions from the audience, which included many folks from nearby Liberty University (http://www.liberty.edu/).

You can watch the program on the Randolph College Web site (http://www.rmwc.edu/newsevents/pressreleases/news_detail.asp?id=573) and a DVD is available for purchase from C-SPAN (Product ID: 192709-1 at http://www.c-spanstore.org).

It seems like Dawkins is getting quite of few negative reviews. I've read reviews of his book in The New York Times Review of Books, Harpers and The Nation, and all seem to say that he's arrogant and radical in his approach.

While I don't he should lump liberal religious people together with right wing religious extremist, I think he's right on the money when talking about how religion needs to be scrutinized and challenged in more pulbic spaces. To me that's the purpose of his book and other similar books by Sam Harris and Bennett. They're simply rasing the questions about role of religion in society.

A lot of negative reviews seem to be cookie-cutter: quick pass over The End of Faith and Breaking the Spell, then longer criticism of The God Delusion for not being The Miracle of Theism, but without actually mentioning Mackie.

Have a look at the reviews of the god delusion here on librarything. Some of them are very sad/funny. Funny in their breathtaking somersaults performed to allow them to agree with bits of the book which are negative about Islam and then disagree with the bits which are negative about their own faith. Sad for exactly the same reason.

Regards,

Mark

I'm responding primarily to Bakari's most recent post.

You're right that you shouldn't lump "liberal" religious people in with the extremists (though I'd wager you could find find some "liberal extremists" too), but one can still take issue with the moderates as well. Harris does this in The End of Faith (one probably should read it if he or she reads Dawkins' book, and vice versa (I'm about a quarter of the way through both).

Early in the book, Harris addresses religious "moderation." A brief passage gives the gist of his position: "By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question-i.e. that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us-religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness."

I think that's a valid position. After all, we don't KNOW there is a God. If there is, he could certainly reveal himself "loudly and unequivocally," as Dawkins puts it. That he (or she, it, or they) has not done so doesn't do much for his existence.

I think the question that is being addressed is not what the role of religion is or should be, but whether it should have a role at all.

Religious "moderates" are just inconsistent. They pick and choose in their religious faith even more than the average fundy.