1. Comment #28202 by nickthelight on March 28, 2007 at 10:22 am

I can remember as a child being told by my mother that there was a pot of gold buried at the end of a rainbow. I never asked her which end.

Dawkins has been criticized for 'preaching to the choir'. What on earth are there books for? The people who read them, as Dawkins has so rightly pointed out, tiptoe around the orbit of science when talking to rational humans. In which case who in the rational camp will read these and how will it strengthen or further the argument of the belivers?

Other Comments by nickthelight

2. Comment #28203 by Planeswalker on March 28, 2007 at 10:29 am

Wow, those guys are really serious about it! Richard has a lot of homework and reading to do :P

But I thought the cover David Robertson's book had changed/been corrected?

Other Comments by Planeswalker

3. Comment #28206 by Cancerfish on March 28, 2007 at 10:49 am

more people riding on the coattails of Richard.
For those willing to buy these books for the sake of the 'other side' I will give you a personal guarantee that you have heard it all before.

Other Comments by Cancerfish

4. Comment #28207 by Fishpeddler on March 28, 2007 at 10:51 am

They sure like playing off the title of Dawkins' book. I think his response to the response should be The God Contusion: How the Religious Beat Us Over the Head with this Crap.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

5. Comment #28209 by Ian in OH on March 28, 2007 at 11:00 am

Oh, my kingdom for a big can of Raid.

If the faith of these authors and presumably their intended audience is as strong as they always claim it is, what is the need for these books? Why would a book by Dawkins or any other atheist make any difference or be any kind of threat? Shouldn't it be that 'I'm a Christian and will always be a Christian no matter what any ignorant atheist might say.'

Could it be that after more than 6 months on the NYT Bestseller list, some nerves are starting to fray along the lines of maybe it's not just the evil atheists that are buying and reading TGD.

Could it also be, and this is where the flea analogy is maybe most apt, that sales of any Christian book are liable to increase drastically if browsers in Christian bookstores see the Dawkins name (as opposed to a book titled "The 10 Ways God Has Proven Himself").

In any case, keep up the good work RD. Keep getting up their noses and confronting them at every turn.

Other Comments by Ian in OH

6. Comment #28210 by Ian in OH on March 28, 2007 at 11:03 am

For anyone willing to spend money on the fleas for maybe very good reasons of intellectual honesty and consideration of 'the other side,' I would bet anything 'the other side' is not reciprocating.

Other Comments by Ian in OH

7. Comment #28211 by MartinSGill on March 28, 2007 at 11:14 am

I think all these books are a massive compliment to Richard and his own book.

If Richard's book was anything other than the success it is, no one would bother writing replies.

The more books are written to counter TGD the more deeply he has driven the stake into the heart of the religious.

The theists don't even realise it yet... but every single reply is a nail they are hammering into their own coffin.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

8. Comment #28212 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 11:28 am

"more people riding on the coattails of Richard"

Richard Dawkins was riding on a critique of the most translated the most printed and the most argued about book in human history. Let us not forget who got in first on this one.

But everybody has a right of reply.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

9. Comment #28213 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 11:29 am

"but every single reply is a nail they are hammering into their own coffin"


err... yes.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

10. Comment #28214 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 11:31 am

Wherein could this flea guilty be,
Except in that drop which it suck'd from thee?

Other Comments by cheshirecat

11. Comment #28216 by Mark R on March 28, 2007 at 11:54 am

Their believes have been put to serious tests and they are on damage patrol trying desperately to prevent a new generation from realizing the Truth.
Flea #6 should be in the printing houses by now ready to hit shelves i suspect. I bet they cannot what for the next book i know i can't.

All this does for me is show Richards success!

Other Comments by Mark R

12. Comment #28217 by John the Atheist on March 28, 2007 at 11:56 am

I think it's wonderful that they find Professor Dawkins to be such a threat that so many must respond to his book. Apparently Professor Dawkins has struck a nerve, as several faith-heads that I've been working on just needed to read his book to swing back to the way of reason.

Congratulations Professor!

Other Comments by John the Atheist

13. Comment #28219 by Duff on March 28, 2007 at 12:07 pm

If you've ever read any of this christian "literature" you will find it universally bad. Pedantic, simplistic, anti-intellectual tripe, to be exact. It is comparable to christian "music", which I would characterized as being melodiously simplistic, lyrically moronic and pathetically corny. Other than that, it's great stuff, obviously inspired by God.

Other Comments by Duff

14. Comment #28220 by cry4turtles on March 28, 2007 at 12:17 pm

C-cat, Richard Dawkins isn't the first to ride "on a critique of the most translated the most printed and the most argued about book in human history."

He is simply the most handsome:)

Other Comments by cry4turtles

15. Comment #28224 by hoops mccann on March 28, 2007 at 12:33 pm

He's created a whole new literary genre!

Other Comments by hoops mccann

16. Comment #28227 by Richard H on March 28, 2007 at 12:38 pm

You know this crap will be bandied about by the evangelicals:

"Dawkins has been refuted! I saw a book about it!"

Other Comments by Richard H

17. Comment #28232 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 12:53 pm

You know this crap will be bandied about by the evangelicals

I quite agree that this is dissapointing because I think that there is quite a convincing secular critique you can make against Dawkins on his percieved role of religion in society.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

18. Comment #28233 by Proud Okie Atheist on March 28, 2007 at 12:58 pm

All these 'flea' books look suspiciously like hastily-authored damage control. Does it seem conceivable that the religionists are starting to be on the defensive?

Other Comments by Proud Okie Atheist

19. Comment #28235 by epeeist on March 28, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Its a pity its a flea and not a louse. Otherwise Burn's poem would be incredibly apposite.

Other Comments by epeeist

20. Comment #28237 by Ian Jackson on March 28, 2007 at 1:17 pm

TGD seems to have really kicked over the theist applecart. All of these 'rebuttals' are exactly what you call them, POA: hastily-authored damage control.

I've just been listening to Richard's debate with Alister McGrath, one of the fleas, at Oxford. It still befuddles me that so intelligent and eloquent an individual as McGrath can not just believe, but actively profess to believe, complete absurdities.

Other Comments by Ian Jackson

21. Comment #28240 by drive1 on March 28, 2007 at 1:23 pm

@epeeist: John Donne. Poacher turned Gamekeeper. I always thought his early secular poems superior to the religious stuff he churned out in later life.
[/pendantry]

Other Comments by drive1

22. Comment #28241 by Richard H on March 28, 2007 at 1:23 pm

"Does it seem conceivable that the religionists are starting to be on the defensive?"

What seems observable to me is that if a non-religious person makes a big enough noise about the poverty of a religious idea, religious fundamentalists will automatically react with a frantic and often misplaced defense of their beliefs.

We saw this with the DaVinci Code. We saw it with the Muhammad (God's peace and blessings be upon him, by the way) cartoons.

These things only generate a backlash if they are popular enough shake a few coins out of the Church's coffers!

Other Comments by Richard H

23. Comment #28242 by bwana ndege on March 28, 2007 at 1:25 pm

'Hastily-authored damage control' or charlatans fleecing the gullible?

Other Comments by bwana ndege

24. Comment #28244 by Corylus on March 28, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Cheshire Cat

Wherein could this flea guilty be,
Except in that drop which it suck'd from thee?

John Donne is one of my favourite poets, please do not demean his beautiful, sensual poem 'The Flea' by quoting it in this context.

The relationship between Dawkins and these other authors has no relevance to love poetry.

P.S. Yes, I know Donne was a religious man, but he was a child of his time.

Other Comments by Corylus

25. Comment #28249 by scottishgeologist on March 28, 2007 at 2:08 pm

I think people are actually waking up to the "elephant in the room" and starting to ask hard questions. People like RD have catalysed this and the theists realise it. Hence the panic.

The elephant in the room of course was mentioned in one of Prof Dawkins most incisive, revealing pieces of prose (Religions Misguided Missiles):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html

In this article, RD cuts through the BS of religion and gives it straight, tells it like it is. No punch pulling or "respect" here.

"I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life"

One of the best articles I have ever read.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

26. Comment #28253 by Katherine on March 28, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Is John Cornwell the guy that delivered a 'Christmas Thunderbolt' to Dawkins in the Sunday Times last year?

Other Comments by Katherine

27. Comment #28254 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Katherine, he is, click here to see!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

28. Comment #28267 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 3:06 pm

In this article, RD cuts through the BS of religion and gives it straight, tells it like it is. No punch pulling or "respect" here.


Does the man on the street with a can of special brew that screams 'there is no God' at the sky not perform a similar feat. He claims that religion damages society but produces no statistics or evidence to back it up except for the tiresome arguements about Hitler and suicide bombers. (the point is these are exceptions to all rules). For someone who claims to be a scientist he does little science, produces little evidence and holds unreasonable views about religion and its relationship to people.

How is he advancing the understanding of science among the public as his role should suggest? Scientists should be calm and composed and write books on science.Everything he writes at the moment has a pent up agression in it. Who are we persuading here?

Other Comments by cheshirecat

29. Comment #28268 by ImagineAZ on March 28, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I absolutely disagree that RD is preaching to the choir. How many people are in the Converts Corner? I have personally spoken to a good dozen or so whose beliefs changed or went away from reading Richard or something similar.

Yes, TGD provides strength of argument for atheists, but it also reaches out to people who were not sure, and to people who labeled themselves as Christian or whatever, but didn't realize that they don't really believe the crap.

Conversely, the MANY responses like this are directly aimed at Christians to keep them from leaving.

Have you all ever read the attack on Dan Barker's book? It was like a 50-page pile of crap with this conclusion: "You don't have to worry about Dan Barker's book; it's not a threat to your faith." It took 50 pages to say "You don't have to worry about it."

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

30. Comment #28281 by mummymonkey on March 28, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Epeeist is correct:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!

O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion:
What airs in dress and gait would leave us,
And even devotion!

Other Comments by mummymonkey

31. Comment #28282 by shetlandforpeace on March 28, 2007 at 3:48 pm

No, RD hasn't created a whole new genre, he just seems to have rattled a few cages.

Scottishgeologist, many thanks for the link to that great article. I think you hit the nail on the head; it's the disrespect that does it. That, if anything, is what seems to be provoking these responses.

Christians, please understand that atheists are rational people. Your arguments fail to convince us on a rational level. It would be interesting to hear from someone out there who would like to commend these books as reasoned responses to TGD and explain, in plain language, just what it is that we're missing.

Other Comments by shetlandforpeace

32. Comment #28286 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Oh I completely agree that most of the arguement against is weak (some is remarkably good). Christian music and writing is of a very poor quality of late. Even if you go back 60 years to the greatest archbishop of Canterbury in modern times you find it to be substantially better. William Temple's christianity and the social order is typical of what used to be written. I have no doubt that there is good modern christian wrting. I think the problem is most christians song writers get caught in the emotion rather than actually saying anything meaningful in music. Most of it is hardly John Wesley or Donne for that matter ( and I think his spiritual writing was the equal of his poetry - he preached his own funeral sermon wearing a shroud and then went home and was dead within three days - genius).

There is a criticism to the God delusion.

Its knowledge of religion is not sharp enough - I think to attack the violence of the old testament is to misread its place in christian thought.

I'll give an example or two. People give the old eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth quoptation and say this why the bible is immoral.

but in Mathew it says

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: / But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

The story about Abraham sacraficing his son is about trusting in God whatever he says not about sacrificing things.

the books of the Kings - are about war becaus they are essentially the foundation myths of the jewish people.

Also the premise that religion harms society is not backed up except in anecdotal fashion - I doubt that there is any truth in it except in specific cases.

The case against religion is made but not for alternative values. Maybe this is beyond the scope of the book but any good book on atheism should counter the arguement that atheists have no values.

The points often made sneeringly. not the best way to win people over. Be generous to your opponents and your arguement will be all the more powerful.

I do not think any christians will leave because of the God delusion. I think the books were written out of irritation with Richard Dawkins.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

33. Comment #28289 by shetlandforpeace on March 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm

I mean to say that what the world needs now more than ever is disrespect for irrational beliefs. Let all right-minded people see this mind-set for what it is; the ultimate danger to our planet.

Other Comments by shetlandforpeace

34. Comment #28291 by shetlandforpeace on March 28, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Cheshirecat I always enjoy reading your comments. Do you think that RD's tactic in 'disrespecting' religion is not the most effective then? Is irritation a good enough reason to write a book or is that not counter-productive?

Other Comments by shetlandforpeace

35. Comment #28297 by cheshirecat on March 28, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Why not write a book for atheism rather than against religion. I cannot see that religion will ever go away so the goal needs to be more limited.
To give humanism a status alongside other modes of though should be the goal. To give it a literature that rivals other religion. Most of the people who care and hold logically coherent systems of belief have already worked Dawkin's arguements though at university with their friends. As for the rest who are indifferent or to whom religion consists of a mix of astrology and vague belief in a god I do not think they read the book or much care. The old story - 'well i've seen a ghost so there must be something going on musn't there?' attitude still prevails in some places.

We need a thoughtful and positive book. For all I disagree with Dawkins he has been one of the publishing events of the year. However I think there is too much bad reasoning going on there. Too much polemic that will be easily used against humanists especially in America. Some are bound to turn the 'God delusion' in on itself to become the 'Dawkins delusion'. I think if there is a Dakins delusion its the belief that Richard seems to have that non belief makes you a better person. I see no reason why non belief should make you more charitable or more willing to listen or even more rational or logical. People disbelieve in God for the strangest reasons just as people believe in God for the strangest reasons.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

36. Comment #28298 by Barnacle on March 28, 2007 at 4:42 pm

"I quite agree that this is dissapointing because I think that there is quite a convincing secular critique you can make against Dawkins on his percieved role of religion in society."

Then someone should write a good book about that.

"The case against religion is made but not for alternative values. Maybe this is beyond the scope of the book but any good book on atheism should counter the arguement that atheists have no values."

That's simply not true. A lot is said in TGD about atheists and their values and it is made very clear that we do have values - but not the values we are told we should have by a book.

Also cheshirecat, you are ignoring the attention given to the New Testament in TGD. The criticism was not only aimed at the Old Testament, which, I'd have to agree, is generally ignored by moderates anyway (bar the creation story - which is unfortunate). Of course, that was part of the point anyway - to demonstrate that the (moderately) religious do not derive their morals from scripture to the extent that they claim they do - and that those who trully do are those who we call 'fundamentalists'.

The attitude of TGD towards theists may well not convert the majority (though it has done a few at least) but it might demonstrate to a few people that the beliefs they thought they held in fact play less of a role in their life than they assumed. Even if it were to have no effect at all directly on the religious, it has certainly drawn some (well, quite a lot!) attention to our side of the debate. That, for me, is what really matters.

There is an undeniable place for Dawkin's attitude towards religion. There are others who go for the more subtle approach.

Other Comments by Barnacle

37. Comment #28299 by shetlandforpeace on March 28, 2007 at 4:46 pm

I'm sorry I have to go to sleep now cheshirecat but hopefully someone will continue the thread.

I can see your point about making atheism positive rather than negative. I wonder what the relative proportions of abusive, foul-mouthed emails are? I guess I would be offended if I read such a thing from an atheist 'arguing his case' but I don't think it would change my view of my own beliefs. Reading some of the 'ugly' comments just makes me think "how typically irrational of a believer; see where it leads?" - it doesn't affect my personal thinking.

Other Comments by shetlandforpeace

38. Comment #28323 by Veronique on March 28, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Can any of you here tell me how to get a link to Josh for possible inclusion as a re-post?

I came across this today- it's a re-post from Truthdig to Alternet and written by Chris Hedges.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/49811/

I am very unimpressed with the power, money and other resources that allow things like this to happen. To my mind, things appear worse. My natural optimism is severely tested when reading about the advance of ID.

V

Other Comments by Veronique

39. Comment #28337 by Kimpatsu on March 28, 2007 at 8:04 pm

The God Delusion wins awards. Have these fleas won anything...?

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

40. Comment #28342 by PrimeNumbers on March 28, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Just as you don't need to be an expert in mathematics to know that 2+2 doesn't equal 5, you don't need to be an expert in religion to know that it's fundamentally wrong.

If Dawkins had attacked a subtle part of religion, I could understand the need for him to have a deep knowledge of it, but he attacks the core fundamentals of religion, and for that, only a modest knowledge is needed. Indeed his lack of knowledge of silly little trivialities of religion means he doesn't get bogged down in details that only matter to theologists, but instead he concentrates on the broad points that everyone can understand.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

41. Comment #28347 by Shuggy on March 28, 2007 at 9:35 pm

Duff wrote:

It is comparable to christian "music", which I would characterized as being melodiously simplistic, lyrically moronic and pathetically corny.

I trust you're referring to the likes of "From a Distance" and not Bach's St Matthew Passion or Handel's Messiah?

And this is something I don't think RD does justice to. Religion has inspired the most sublime art, music and architecture. I'm sure that if there were no religion, people would have expressed their deepest emotions in music just as good with different words, buildings just as lofty with different purposes, but it needs to be spelt out.

Other Comments by Shuggy

42. Comment #28349 by Fishpeddler on March 28, 2007 at 10:26 pm

I hate to be put into the position where I'll sound like I think The God Delusion is the greatest book in the history of the planet, but some of the criticisms I'm seeing even just within this thread are absurd:

Complaint #1: The book isn't scientific enough (as exemplified in the line "He claims that religion damages society but produces no statistics or evidence to back it up except for the tiresome arguements about Hitler and suicide bombers.")

How many thousands of pages was this book supposed to be? And why should an argument be avoided simply because of the intellectual fatigue of a few readers?

The question "Does religion do greater good or harm to society?" is not one that can be answered by one man in his spare time, especially not if it's to be done with scientific rigor. Dawkins' claim was fairly simple: that a great deal of human suffering is the result of religious belief, while any alleviation of suffering which could be attributed to it could be achieved through other means. He gave a few examples of the suffering caused, probably relied on the reader's familiarity with human history for many more, and briefly discussed alternative ways people are motivated to do good. This approach is certainly not exhaustive or scientific, but appropriate within the context.

Remember, the main message of the book was not that religion is bad for society. That point was made only in service of the larger message that belief in God was unjustified. And that point was offered not as proof of the larger message, but to demonstrate its monumental importance.

There have always been unheard voices saying, "The emperor has no clothes." But now Dawkins has screamed it, and even some of the emperor's sycophants have heard. I, for one, am glad he raised his voice BEFORE waiting until all the lab tests were in.

I guess I'll stop at Complaint #1, because I am up WAY past my bedtime.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

43. Comment #28351 by stevencarrwork on March 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm

CHESHIRE CAT
I think to attack the violence of the old testament is to misread its place in christian thought.

CARR
Judaism only has an Old Testament.

Does this mean that Christians concede that Dawkins has demolished other religions, like Judaism, but somehow their religion survived Dawkins criticisms?

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

44. Comment #28357 by socrates8181 on March 29, 2007 at 12:16 am

Just think, these books will lead to more sales of the God Delusion itself... just as all of the books and media on The DaVinci Code led to more sales of The DaVinci Code. Hurrah!

Other Comments by socrates8181

45. Comment #28372 by HunterZolomon on March 29, 2007 at 2:09 am

I really hope these fleas get published online somewhere. I'm ashamed to say that I find a perverse sense of pleasure in reading religious damage control. Especially when they're up against RD.

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

46. Comment #28445 by waxwings on March 29, 2007 at 8:20 am

The God Solution: 3 parts water, 1 part God

Other Comments by waxwings

47. Comment #28465 by Gourdboy on March 29, 2007 at 9:25 am

Come on nickthelight!!! You ask, "What end of the rainbow is the pot of gold under?" Its the end with the Leprechaun silly. Geez! I learned that when I was like four and stuff.

Other Comments by Gourdboy

48. Comment #28466 by Estragon on March 29, 2007 at 9:37 am

Just think, you get to the end and there's Richard Dawkins doing a book signing for Unweaving the Rainbow . . .

"The wonders of Science offer far greater treasures to the enquiring mind than any infantile pot of gold myth" lol

Other Comments by Estragon

49. Comment #28469 by BaronOchs on March 29, 2007 at 9:49 am

The God Delusion wins awards. Have these fleas won anything...?

How much d'you want to bet McGrath has a Templeton Prize heading in his direction?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

50. Comment #28478 by cheshirecat on March 29, 2007 at 10:37 am

How many thousands of pages was this book supposed to be? And why should an argument be avoided simply because of the intellectual fatigue of a few readers?

If he researched the paper himself and then referred to the results in a popular work or referred to someone else's study and explained why it was a good study.

Other Comments by cheshirecat