I just found a copy of 'The Dawkins Delusion' at work. I don't have enough time to read the whole book as I'm supposed to be working, but from what I can tell from a brief read of the first chapter it's not as convincing as the god delusion. It's well written and you get a bit lost in McGrath's speedy wording. Sadly though, he just doesn't back anything up. He even mentions a lecture in which someone was angry at him for proving Dawkins to be wrong. this could be true but we have no idea if it as he doesn't go into detail of how he proved Dawkins wrong. We have to take his word. which is typical of all the theologians answers I've come across; 'this is the answer because it is'. In 'The God Delusion', Dawkins looks at religion from a scientific point of view. He ways up the facts and attempts to find the answer without using human characteristics like faith and hope.
Unlike 'The God Delusion', 'The Dawkins Delusion' doesn't look at the facts. All this book does is try to undermine Ricahrd Dawkins without backing up it's argument. You can't prove a point without backing it up. I learnt that whilst during GSCE english. You can't base an arguement without proof that's right or something to back it up, that's common logic taught to us at school.
I don't hate religion. I think it gives a reason for communities to form and for people to find support within that community. People have often told me they like the going to shurch because it's 'nice'. It's a shame that people feel that without god/religion in theirlives they won't feel 'nice'.
I spoke to a Jehovah's Witness the other day and even though I proved him to be either in correct or that his arguments weren't valid, he still wouldn't admit to being wrong. What's wrong with being wrong? I'm wrong all the time. It's not a bad thing to be wrong. You learn from being wrong. It's how you learn to be right.
ps - i apoligise for the bad punctuation in my last post. i can't be asked to edit it/does it really matter.
Unlike 'The God Delusion', 'The Dawkins Delusion' doesn't look at the facts. All this book does is try to undermine Ricahrd Dawkins without backing up it's argument. You can't prove a point without backing it up. I learnt that whilst during GSCE english. You can't base an arguement without proof that's right or something to back it up, that's common logic taught to us at school.
I don't hate religion. I think it gives a reason for communities to form and for people to find support within that community. People have often told me they like the going to shurch because it's 'nice'. It's a shame that people feel that without god/religion in theirlives they won't feel 'nice'.
I spoke to a Jehovah's Witness the other day and even though I proved him to be either in correct or that his arguments weren't valid, he still wouldn't admit to being wrong. What's wrong with being wrong? I'm wrong all the time. It's not a bad thing to be wrong. You learn from being wrong. It's how you learn to be right.
ps - i apoligise for the bad punctuation in my last post. i can't be asked to edit it/does it really matter.
2 comments:
There's another book in response to The God Delusion I remember leafing through ages ago. It was called Darwin's Angels, I think. I imagine there are more. I can't really remember what its point was (apart from "god does so exist") and I'm not really sure what my point is. It is quite interesting though, the way in which people try to prove something that by its nature isn't provable - and just who are they trying to prove it to? People who believe they have knowledge of god surely don't need any proof other than that - and there isn't any tangible proof for those who require it. I suppose it goes both ways.
i just get how people can believe in something that isn't provable. i suppose it's like how i'll never be able to understand what it's like to be a woman until i become one. that's a really bad example because it'll never happen. i just want someone to give a good argument about god's existence, with points of reference (not from the bible) that will make me and others see it differently.
Post a Comment