Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion

[Martin]

it will be interesting to track this book as a barometer of how the reading public is thinking, and to hear some reactions to it

 

the book's publication date is listed as 18 October 2006, in just a few weeks

and it is already #9 in overall sales rank at amazon.com.

 

I find this surprising. the book isn't even available yet and it is already #9 in the category of all books

 

it is also the #2 bestseller in the "Religion and Spirituality" books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/22/ref=pd_ts_b_nav/103-6432418-0205431

 

The Religion and Spirituality bestseller list goes like this

 

1. Letter to a Christian Nation

by Sam Harris

 

2. The God Delusion

by Richard Dawkins

 

3. Inside My Heart: Choosing to Live with Passion and Purpose

by Robin McGraw

 

4. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

by Sam Harris

 

5. Ask and It Is Given: Learning to Manifest Your Desires

by Esther Hicks

 

6. Night (Oprah's Book Club)

by Elie Wiesel

 

7. The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom (A Toltec Wisdom Book)

by Don Miguel Ruiz

 

8. The Purpose-driven Life: What on Earth Am I Here For?

by Rick Warren

 

=============

 

so what does this mean? Why are the Sam Harris and Dawkins books so popular among Amazon customers? Is it an unrepresentative sample of the reading public?

 

==============

 

Anyway, there are a lot of questions to be asked about this book.

I have some errands but I will get back to this later in the morning.

 

BTW when I looked at the UK amazon earlier today, this book by Dawkins was the number one bestseller in all books at Amazon.co

This is also surprising. The British public is quicker to start buying the book than the US public, so it rises to overall #1 sales rank faster in the UK than in the US (where it is still #9).

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=pd_ts_b_ldr/026-8303087-5718006

 

I just checked again, and there it was #1 in all books.

 

this must indicate something about what the reading public is thinking and what the prevailing interests are.

 

any comment

[YT2095]

let them read what they want.

as long as it doesn`t invade a SCIENCE forum, I couldn`t care less

[GutZ]

The comments on Amazon are kind of interesting

[Martin]

The comments on Amazon are kind of interesting

 

do you mean amazon.co.uk

or amazon.com

or both?

I haven't read Dawkins actually. maybe someone who has read some of his other books can give us a rough sketch of his ideas and message.

 

My understanding is that he is a biologist and opposes acceptance of a biological God. IOW he asserts the sufficiency of natural law to rational biology.

 

I hope you will excuse my ignorance but does he not deny a cosmological God as well, or am I mistaken?

 

Can anyone say what is new about the book "God Delusion" that has just appeared and what it says about the UK public that it has gone immediately to be the all-categories #1 bestseller in Britain?

[gcol]

He was interviewed about it on UK television recently. Newsnight, with Jeremy Paxman. Very interesting, enlightening and reasonably put. Nothing in it that has not been well chewed over in the now unfortunately defunct religion forum. A must read for those concerned about the creeping malaise of creationism.

 

By the way, a nice wheeze to get religion back into the general forum. Very clever, long may it last. Are you looking, Jim?

[Martin]

He was interviewed about it on UK television recently. Newsnight, with Jeremy Paxman...

 

glad to hear it. BTW does anybody know ought of the two Sam Harris books that currently bracket Dawkins on the US amazon list?

 

 

1. Letter to a Christian Nation

by Sam Harris

 

2. The God Delusion

by Richard Dawkins

 

3. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

by Sam Harris

 

I'm interested to get an idea of what the public is reading (those that read) because it is crucial to what politics will be like and how society will feel in the future. a kind of culture that goes along with democratic institutions and is necessary for them to work. concerns me.

 

here's the list.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/22/ref=pd_ts_b_nav/103-6432418-0205431

Harris is currently #1 and #3

what is his POV, anybody know?

[ecoli]

The title of Dawkin's book (though I'll admit I haven't read it) seems to me to be insulting to the theists. Yeah, I get it, you don't believe in God, but why is it necesary to put down people who do? I don't understand the atheist intellectual community. (sorry for the generalization)

[Martin]

The title of Dawkin's book (though I'll admit I haven't read it) seems to me to be insulting to the theists. ..

 

since we are both going by the sound of the titles (not having read the books), would you say that Sam Harris book "Letter to a Christian Nation" sounds more conciliatory?

 

Another book I came across recently which is from an atheist POV but reaches out to find common ground is by Harvard biologist E.O.Wilson and is called The Creation: an Appeal to Save Life on Earth

 

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Appeal-Save-Life-Earth/dp/0393062171/sr=1-1/qid=1159591057/ref=sr_1_1/103-6432418-0205431?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

This is also in the form of a letter addressed to Christians and I gather it says quite frankly up front that the author, Wilson, does not believe in a Creator, but he says in effect "I cherish the rich varied life on this planet and presumably so do you Christians since you consider it the work of your Creator, so lets make common cause and try to save the wonderful variety of species of life and not screw up the biosphere."

 

What I think I've been noticing is an increasing number of books aimed at trying to talk across the US cultural divide (which is polarized by religious differences)

 

to a large extent this is a political crisis and political turmoil of one sort or another probably motivates the books---but although it may be primarily political it can be seen in cultural, religious, and scientific terms.

 

we should probably try to compare Sam Harris message and E.O.Wilson message to Dawkins'. Maybe I can find some key quotes or reviewers' summaries.

[Martin]

Yeah, Wilson's book is another one that just came out this month, and it has sales rank #227 at the moment----very good! somewhat like Smolin's Trouble with Physics (amazon is offering both books in a package deal in fact: Smolin and Wilson)

 

Here are exerpts from comment on Wilson's book:

From Publishers Weekly

"...Wilson...adds his thoughts to the ongoing conversation between science and religion. Couched in the form of letters to a Southern Baptist pastor, the Pulitzer Prize–winning entomologist pleads for the salvation of biodiversity, arguing that both secular humanists like himself and believers in God acknowledge the glory of nature and can work together to save it. The "depth and complexity of living Nature still exceeds human imagination," he asserts (somewhere between 1.5 million and 1.8 million species of plants, animals and microorganisms have been discovered to date), and most of the world around us remains unknowable, as does God. Each species functions as a self-contained universe with its own evolutionary history, its own genetic structure and its own ecological role. Human life is tangled inextricably in this ...

...

... amazing and abundantly diverse natural order, singing its wonders and its beauty and captivating our hearts .... "

 

 

From Booklist

"Famed entomologist, humanist thinker, and cogent writer Wilson issues a forthright call for unity between religion and science in order to save the "creation," or living nature, which is in "deep trouble." Addressing his commonsensical yet ardent discourse to "Dear Pastor," he asks why religious leaders haven't made protecting the creation part of their mission. Forget about life's origins, Wilson suggests, and focus on the fact that while nature achieves "sustainability through complexity," human activities are driving myriad species into extinction, thus depleting the biosphere and jeopardizing civilization. Wilson celebrates individual species, each a "masterpiece of biology," and acutely analyzes the nexus between nature and the human psyche. ...."

 

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Appeal-Save-Life-Earth/dp/0393062171/sr=1-1/qid=1159591057/ref=sr_1_1/103-6432418-0205431?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

one thing about Dawkins though, he certainly knows how to get attention

(his book is THE number one bestseller in the UK at the moment, or was when I looked-----it fluctuates around)

[Severian]

The title of Dawkin's book (though I'll admit I haven't read it) seems to me to be insulting to the theists. Yeah, I get it, you don't believe in God, but why is it necesary to put down people who do? I don't understand the atheist intellectual community. (sorry for the generalization)

 

Dawkins is a zealot - a religious bigot. He is the atheist equivalent of the midwest US 'Christian' fundamentalist shouting that all atheists will burn in hell for eternity. I think his behaviour is deplorable (and I hope that most atheists do too) but I don't think he is representative of atheists in general.

[gcol]

Dawkins is a zealot - a religious bigot. He is the atheist equivalent of the midwest US 'Christian' fundamentalist shouting that all atheists will burn in hell for eternity. I think his behaviour is deplorable (and I hope that most atheists do too) but I don't think he is representative of atheists in general.

 

Wow, just how reasonable, logical and thoughtful can you get

 

Just the sort of response that killed the religion forum. Was that not a gross ad hominem? With critiques like that, you deserve much worse than the forum moderators will allow in return.

[Martin]

Wow, just how reasonable, logical and thoughtful can you get

 

Just the sort of response that killed the religion forum. Was that not a gross ad hominem? With critiques like that, you deserve much worse than the forum moderators will allow in return.

 

gcol, I value your viewpoint and often times appreciate your posts a lot, but in this case I don't entirely agree.

 

Severian did not attack me or any of us in a grossly ad hominem way. He just attacked Dawkins. Maybe that is OK to do!

 

Severian shows here some fairmindedness in that he says that Dawkins is not representative (in his mind) of all atheists.

 

And he also says that Dawkins AND a hellfire US Midwest Fundamentalist are equally (in his view) reprehensible because they are equivalent---as bigoted zealots.

 

maybe Severian just expresses himself forcefully. As long as he is fairminded and doesnt complain, why should we complain?

 

(let's simply avoid directing animosity against each other---and let public figures take a few punches, they can stand it)

[Severian]

Wow, just how reasonable, logical and thoughtful can you get

 

Just the sort of response that killed the religion forum. Was that not a gross ad hominem? With critiques like that, you deserve much worse than the forum moderators will allow in return.

 

Which bit of my post do you regard as an ad hominem? That I called Dawkins a zealot? He undeniably is - he writes books about his religious beliefs and pontificates about them in public!

 

Do you object to me calling him a religious bigot? He has very clearly expressed his view that he thinks all Christians are idiots, which very clearly shows bigotry. My statement 'I think his behaviour is deplorable' is my personal opinion, so hardly an ad hominem.

 

Perhaps you object to me comparing him to a "midwest US 'Christian' fundamentalist", but that is a simple comparison, not an ad hominem.

[Martin]

I thought your post was very good Severian.

Please excuse any expression of pique on gcol part and let us have good fellowship amongst ourselves.

 

Indeed Dawkins quite possibly IS a zealot:-)

he may also be an attentiongetting opportunist:D

 

it impresses me that the British public is such that the book is just out and immediately the absolute #1 bestseller. what is with you Brits?

are you all very interested in (a)theology?

[Dak]

expressing a derogatory view about a group of people, or publically claiming that they are wrong, or even being intolerant of a group of people/their beliefs is not, in and of itself, bigotry.

 

bigotry requires that the view/intolerance essentially boils down to 'i dont like it, 'cos i dont, so they suck', or 'i dont like it cos its not what i think/would do/etc, so it's bad'.

 

not saying that dawkins isn't bigoted (i've not read his books, and am only vaiguley aware of the foundation for his oppinions), but, afaict, he bases his views on reason, which would make them valid (note: valid does not neccesarily = correct) and thus not bigoty.

 

a mid-US christian fundamentalist will, according to the steriotype, not use reason, instead basing their intolerance upon their views and the bible, irreguardless of wether others accept it, and essentially is, therefore, a bigot.

 

not neccesarily saying that all mid-us christian fundies are like this, but you were comparing to the steriotype, which is quite different from dawkins imo.

 

tho i'd be inclined to agree (but would refrain due to lack of adequate knoweldge about his work) that he is bordering on zealothood... a fundamentalist atheist

[woelen]

Martin you have made your point now with the Dawkins stuff! We know your position. We know it. Really, we know it. No need to repeat all over again.

[gcol]

what is with you Brits?

are you all very interested in (a)theology?

 

Well, we may not be citizens of the self-designated "land of the free" but when we think the spooks are not tapping the wires, we commit the occasional thought crime. I really enjoy the frisson of excitement that the occasional non-pC thought can bring.

 

don't you just love the way Dawkins and others quietly go about their good work of trying to prise open closed minds...... so subtle!

 

......... is a zealot - a religious bigot. He is the .......equivalent of the midwest US 'Christian' fundamentalist shouting that all .......will burn in hell for eternity. I think his behaviour is deplorable (and I hope that most ......... do too) but I don't think he is representative of ........ in general

 

Trying to have some fun filling in the blanks I have created in Sev's previous post. The possibilities are hilarious. Any ideas?

[AL]

I don't think Dawkins is very tactful, but I think calling him a bigot and comparing him to the most extreme religious zealots is far from fair. I don't ever recall Dawkins advocating violence against religious people, or arguing that the religious should be persecuted or censored, or otherwise coerced out of their beliefs. He disagrees with religion and he's very blunt about it, but this is hardly comparable to the types of religious extremism that get criticized -- blowing people up who disagree, or trying to pass laws to outlaw the activities of homosexual men and so forth. If you can show me a quote where Dawkins advocates violence or persecution, my opinion of him will rapidly deteriorate for the worst, but until then, he's just someone who disagrees with religion just like me, albeit much more rude and cranky about it.

[Martin]

I don't think Dawkins is very tactful, but I think calling him a bigot and comparing him to the most extreme religious zealots is far from fair. I don't ever recall Dawkins advocating violence ... he's just someone who disagrees with religion just like me, albeit much more rude and cranky about it.

 

I think it is neat that we are all defending each others privilege of speaking out.

 

I strongly support Severian in his right to call Dawkins a bigot.

personally I actually think that Dawkins is probably a ZEALOT and that it is nice to have a few zealous people, as long as they have good manners.

Personally I don't see him as a bigot----I would need more data on that.

 

what's more important is that Severian thinks he is a bigot and SAYS so, which is in the outspoken Anglo-rough-and-tumble-Saxon heckle-your-ass tradition of politics.

 

And on the other hand you, AL, are defending Richard Dawkins right to say what he says, and you point out that look he stops short of violence and is reasonably well-bred, though a bit more "rude and cranky" than you would choose to be. But still all right.

 

So everybody is behaving decently. Congratulations all!

Well, we may not be citizens of the self-designated "land of the free" but when we think the spooks are not tapping the wires, we commit the occasional thought crime. I really enjoy the frisson of excitement that the occasional non-pC thought can bring.

 

me too

[gcol]

what's more important is that Severian thinks he is a bigot and SAYS so,

 

most people are trying to be so damn nice it is depressing, but could not help laughing at that. Perils of the English language. Difference between what you meant to say and what you actually said.

[Martin]

I think bigot is such an interesting (even important) word that it would be fun to check the etymology. It has to do with Rollo, a kind of pirate, who was the great-great-great-grandfather of William the

Conqueror, or perhaps wasnt.

It was Rollo's refusal to kiss someone's foot ["bei Gott!"] unless he "held it up for the purpose". That is said to have started the word

 

====Wikipedia=====

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman.

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

 

The exact origin of the term is unknown, but may have come from the German bei and gott, or the English by God. William Camden wrote that the Normans were first called bigots, when their Duke Rollo, who receiving Gisla, daughter of King Charles, in marriage, and with her the investiture of the dukedom, refused to kiss the king's foot in token of subjection, unless the king would hold it out for that purpose. And being urged to it by those present, Rollo answered hastily, "No by God", whereupon the King turning about, called him bigot; which name passed from him to his people [1]. This is likely fictional, however, as Gisla is unknown in Frankish sources. It is true that the French used the term bigot as an abuse for the Normans.

The 12th century Anglo-Norman author Wace claimed that bigot was an insult that the French used against the Normans, but it is unclear whether it entered the English language via this route.[3]

According to Egon Friedell, "bigot" is of the same root as "visigoth". ...

... The Spanish word bigote means a beard style silmilar to that alleged to Visigoths. Since both Normans and Goths were Germanic peoples, the Franks as a Romance nation might well have referred the Normans as "Visigoths" with the expression bigot. This claim is also supported by the fact that the word bigoth for Visigoths appear in Medieval Latin language....

===endquote===

 

the fact is that Rollo really was a pirate

and the French king was only giving him a Dukedom as a bribe to get him to settle down and stop his pirating.

 

I remember that Rollo used to like to make love out doors in plain view on the ground and was witnessed doing so on one famous occasion, maybe when he was becoming the great-great-great-grandfather of William the Conqueror (unless I have confused several historical events)

 

for more details see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Magnificent

the Wikipedia article on Robert the Magnificent

 

anyway that is what Wikipedia says about bigot, and this other thing says

 

===quote from online etymology dictionary===

bigot

1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a bitch). But the earliest Fr. use of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul. The earliest Eng. sense is of "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may be influenced by beguine. Sense extended 1687 to other than religious opinions.

===endquote===

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bigot

 

the source of the Rollo story and the origin of the word bigot is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

 

It is always very helpful in important discussions to have clear definitions of the terms:-)

[Moonquake]

The title of Dawkin's book (though I'll admit I haven't read it) seems to me to be insulting to the theists. Yeah, I get it, you don't believe in God, but why is it necesary to put down people who do? I don't understand the atheist intellectual community. (sorry for the generalization)

 

One of the reviews on Amazon addresses this:

"And why, indeed, should anyone take pains to assure believers that they aren't "stupid" when they believe in something without a single iota of evidence? What would we say about someone who professed a belief in fairies or unicorns? Ought we to show respect for such unsupported beliefs? Dawkins maintains that we should not; by respecting unsupported supernatural beliefs, we are enabling the delusion to linger. He proposes that we treat the religiously delusional as we'd treat flat-earthers or alchemists. He offers the world a much needed dose of common sense."

[blike]

I'm a Christian and I rather agree with Dawkins attitudes and disdain for organized religion in modern society. Religion was a powerful tool for ancient societies in that it provided means for leaders to control the masses while simultaneously lending powerful explanatory power which satisfied human curiosity. In modern times religion has become largely irrelevant and even detrimental to society on the whole.

 

An interesting dichotomy, I suppose, but a position I hold nonetheless.

[bascule]

I don't think there are many who question the historical significance of the church and the positive role it played in society. After the fall of Rome, the church provided virtually the only means of long-distance communication in medieval Europe, primarily since they had the only group with people who could read and write: the scribes.

 

The Dark Ages also ended as an outgrowth of the Crusades, when the Spanish Arabs were conquered and the information they had horded... tons of Greek and Roman texts lost after the fall of Rome were translated from Latin into Arabic, and were subsequently translated and allowed to spread throughout Europe, ushering in the Renaissance.

 

But, I certainly agree... in modern times religion has become largely irrelevant and even detrimental to society on the whole.

[padren]

Unless I am mistaken, Dawkins puts forth his views in a rational critical assesment of the effects of religion within society, and voices - at times loudly - that he finds the religious condition to be alarmingly harmful to society.

 

Are people that cry alarm about the actions of tabacco producers "bigots" against those in the industry because the research they've done is unflattering upon them?

 

To me, you have to make derogatory claims outside of the scope of your research due to personal bias before you are labeled a bigot.

 

 

Personally I disagree with the notion that if you can't sustain your beliefs rationally that you should abandon them. We need a "safety valve" from reason so that we can go soley on what we feel when appropriate - we are very instinctive creatures and its helped us for a long time. What I dislike is when people try to rationalize their feelings by spinning mythical stories and the resulting pseudo-logic. I do feel that is harmful to society but at the same time telling people how they are allowed to think is also harmful to society - so what can you do?

 

Before someone finds Dawkins' words insulting, I think it would be worth while isolating what words are insulting. If I was religious I'd have to admit I had no more rational basis for them than there are for believing in unicorns, and many other things that could make me look "dumb" on the whole. But if he's not creating those conditions - just pointing them out - what is there to argue with? There is nothing wrong with accepting that one's faith is completely unfounded from a rational perspective, so one's faith shouldn't feel threatened by it or any other demonstratable characteristic of one's faith.