Comments Lounge
OK, now I must read that book.
i don't like black and white thinking. i believe in a power greater than myself and i believe in science. quantum physics fascinates me. i don't understand as much about that kind of intricate science (i had to stop reading that passage, cause i couldn't stay with it), but i'm definitely not a "cause god said so" person.
i believe with all my soul that if god created us in 'his/her/its' own image, then we're way effin' smart. and meant to be figuring all sorts of stuff out. sometimes too smart for our own good, if you're into the whole adam/eve thing (i'm not).
but, i just hate the idea that i'm supposed to be staunchly in the "i love science, therefore i must reject god" camp or "i love god, therefore i must reject science" camp.
i love all the quantum physics guys who are doing the science and loving the science and believe in evolution and math and everything, but get to a point where they shrug and say "we don't effin' know. and we think that's probably god. it's the mystery. but we're going to keep looking." i also have a big love for albert einstein from what i have a grasp of his basic ideologies.
i'm done.
Only Flea could write a stellar post regarding religion and atheism and throw in a reference to furries.
Thanks for your review! It inspired me to order this for my dad for Father's Day. He's a strident atheist and I am a strident evolutionist.
It's very sad that this "fear of offending the religious" thing basically means "fear of offending the *obnoxious* religious." Most of the religious people I know aren't the least bit offended by athiesm, including athiesm of the "religion is bullshit" variety.
I've been attending a UU church, where many people are the dreaded "secular humanist". On Sunday I drove up to the Rockford UU church to listen to a talk by Michael Dowd, author of Thank God for Evolution. There's an excerpt from Richard Dawkins' book A Devil's Chaplain. Dowd and his atheist scientist wife, Connie Barlow travel the country giving these talks to everything from atheist groups to fundamentalist churches (at least, the open ones). Here is the website: http://www.thegreatstory.org/
This is how I see it: every human group since we started making things mean something has had a creation story. This was based on the best info they had. They used these stories to make sense of the world of their understanding. Our cultural creation stories are based on 5,000 year old scriptures and we don't really believe them anymore. Scientists have a creation story which is pretty much accepted by the majority. However, it isn't tied in with our spiritual belief systems, so it feels cold and disconnected. Barlow & Dowd call themselves evolutionary evangelists. They are finding ways to bring spiritual depth using scientific facts.
One of their "myths" is called "we are stardust". I didn't know that all the elements on the periodic table are created in various kinds of stars as they die. Those atoms become planets. Those atoms are in our bodies. This totally blew my mind. Maybe it's obvious to other people but I always felt very disconnected from the earth and the universe. Now I feel like I'm really part of it all. I am not my separate self. Now it seems silly to have thought that I wasn't part of the universe. DUH!
Valerie
I totally have an internet crush on you. In fact, the last religious post (that I remember) about kids and atheism was so good I didn't know how to comment. So I just didn't.
I often feel alone for being an atheist. I know I'm not, but I feel like I can't escape the religious right that is Indiana. Blah.
BitchPhD - yes, that's true. I have to admit that New York Times review really annoyed me, because trying to make Dawkins look like the bad guy because he was offended by Swinburne's attempt to put a positive spin on the Holocaust in order to make God look less cruel is, to me, really unforgivable outrageous. I would like to think that most religious people would at least say they didn't know what God's reasoning was.
Valerie, that's an interesting idea about creation stories. I like it!
Amy - thanks! Steve and I are looking around at atheist parenting groups in our area. Maybe there's one in yours?
M'kay, so did you get paid to write the review or do yoou just really, really really like this book? 
Seriously, I'm thinking I must check this Dawkins guy out. I am an affirmed Athiest and I enjoy nothing more than reading intelligent people as the cut religion to ribbons.
Definitely enticing. Thanks for sharing. Though I think I'll be careful to avoid blinding myself or attracting crows. I don't like crows.
Yours is the first review of Dawkins' work that induced in me the feeling that he might have something to offer.
Most professional atheists seem to be blind to the fact that they are as fundamentalist in their belief in NO divinity as religious fundamentalists are in their belief in .
IME, and Descartes' E as well, the rigorous application of reason will land you at agnosticism, every time.
But most folks want something more conclusive than agnosticism to hang their hats on.
Sorry, something weird happened to the end of my second paragraph up there.
It should read,
... as religious fundamentalists are in their belief in "insert preferred form of divinity here."
Actually, in the book Dawkins says on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being "absolutely believes in God" and 7 being "absolutely does not believe in God," he would classify himself as a 6. I think most religious fundamentalists would consider themselves a 1.
Dawkins has said if given proof of God, he would change his views. I don't think he or any other outspoken atheist can be equated with a fundamentalist.
Beach - I wish! I really, really wish!
I read the book when if first came out and I loved it. I kind of have a nerd crush on Dawkins, though. I haven't had a chance to read his other stuff, but it's definitely on my list.
I also don't really get why people tend to be all offended by Dawkins and Harris and those guys. I've read both and seen them in interviews and they come across as generally reasonable guys, not at all fundamentalist in their lack of belief. Sure, they find religion pretty offensive and they have low bullshit thresholds, but that only makes me like them more.
Maybe there's a Unitarian Universalist church nearby that has a parenting group? I think there's one in Joliet.
That's interesting, flea. Thank you for the follow-up.
To my understanding of the terms, only a 7 would be an actual atheist, and only a 1 would be a believer. 2-6 would all be various shades of agnosticism (or ignoring the question altogether).
Muslims are your superior. They actually WORK on their relationship with the gods. You are corrupt Christians, slipping into godlessness, thinking someone is going to save you in the end.
Cashier@GSqfamilymemberreincarnated.com
This is how the gods do business:::::They use temptation and deception to compel people to chase something that has already been decided. It's children who go to "beaven". OLd people have to come back. The gods will use their power to contradict this, corrupting people and compelling them to incurr evil::::They used the Italians to ruin life in the 20th century, cost you the Final Prophet and the result will be death as you wait for the Italian Second Coming of Christ to save you.
This is the god's positioning and it IS going to be enforced. Never forget::::The gods have always offered "protection" to those genuinely religious. It is something that was always respected, even in the wicked 20th century.
As people begin to age the gods employ corrupting tactics. They ultimately begin to look down on the children and the wisdom they recently understood:::
They voluntarily turn their back on their opportunity to ascend and instead embrace evil.
It's not old people who go to heaven. Old people must come back because of the mistakes they've made throughout their lives. Children are the ones who have the opportunity to ascend.
Children are discounted by adults in society. The gods corrupt people as they age, use trust-building tactics and soon adults view the children as ignorant, yet to understand the god's system, and subsequently look down on the children. This is one of the most bitter, painful ironies the gods employ, for people consciously turn their back on and lose their opportunity to ascend::::
Religions teach that old people to go to heaven when they die. They don't. Old people are reincarnated. It's the children who go to heaven, those who have a chance at immortality.
The wisdom the gods impart to children, either through their innocence/purity or religious-based educational pursuits are the gods sharing the truth with their most favored people::::It's the children whom the gods teach the right way for it is the children who have a chance. For example, they teach children to have faith, for understanding the god's geographical clues hurts people by illustrating negative things, opening the door for the god's to employ deceptive tactics.
Old people don't go to heaven. Old people must come back because of the mistakes they've made throughout their lives. It's the children who have the opportunity to go to "heaven". They must behave apprioriately, think correctly and be genuinely god-fearing. Their innocence and lack of desensitization ensures they have a real opportunity to achieve this goal.
This is charecteristic of the gods methodology::::The big prize gone early, deception compels people to chase something that has already been decided. They sent th
"Dawkins seems to be a decent person who brings more to the table than merely being an obnoxious big mouth"
He has a lot of brilliant insights, he isn't intimidated by fundamentalist finger-wagging, and all kinds of goodness, but he's *also* an obnoxious big mouth; and it gets tiresome to hear the atheism-as-a-lifestyle brigade insist that if you don't love Dawkins, the only possible explanation must be that you're afraid of the truth.
Hey, another UU here. I would guess that the closest thing you will find to an athiest parents group will be a UU church. Try the one in Naperville, St. Charles, Hinsdale or Geneva or go to UUA.org to find another. They all have very different feels to them.
Thanks Flea! I am going to buy several copies of this book to share with friends.
Karen, in Wheaton where being non-Christian is a project in itself.
I almost never get trolls and weirdos, but what's lacking in quantity is more than made up for in quality, don't you think?
My husband is an atheist, I considered myself agnostic until I read this book. It's extremely well written and persuasive.
About raising kids without religion - when I was pregnant we decided we wanted to do a welcoming ceremony for our son similar to a baptism, except not religious. We went to a few UU congregations near us and at one of them someone joked that the definition of a Unitarian Universalist is "an atheist with children".
Hey, look! Another Candace, and spelled the 'right' way and everything!
Anyway, I've had this book on my list for some time and I'm going to bump it up so I read it sooner rather than later. Thanks for the review.
I never thought to look for atheist/non-religious parent groups, but I'm going to start now. My kids and I attended a UU church once or twice and I liked it well enough, but this particular church still focused a bit too much on Jesus for my liking. I suppose it's a bit difficult for Catholic-centric Cincinnatians to really let go of those beliefs. I'll keep looking, though, because I really like the community aspect of the UU churches.
This review is great! I'm currently reading this book but would not be able to praise it as eloquently as you have. All I can say is that I am using a pink highlighter as my bookmark because there are so many clever parts that I want to highlight and remember.
I'm a little confused, flea. You say the atheist part of Dawkins' book is a "rebuttal to common arguments for the existence of God" and "scientific explanations for what is commonly seen as evidence of God." It seems from what you say that Dawkins isn't so much arguing against the existence of a god as he is arguing against bullshit religious apologetics--that is, that his issue is not with God per se but with bad reasons for believing in one. Is this impression correct, or have I misunderstood and the book is more pro-atheism than merely anti-crap-reasoning?
Erk. It's both, actually. He argues against the existence of God, while addressing the illogic of common proofs, and he also goes off the rails from time to time and chews the butts of fundamentalists who horn in on science. There's over 450 pages in this book. He covers a lot of ground. The parts that resonated with me were the explanation of how biological organisms develop their unique traits. I'm a biology nerd that way, and I think it's really fascinating.
I will pray for you. It doesn't take scientific explanations for me to believe in God. My life and things that have happened are enough for me. I cannot imagine a life without God but I don't know why you need to spend time convincing people there is no God. Live your life, we will all find out in the end
Late, as usual. In my switch to Linux I lost my Bookmarks and had to find you again.
What does Dawkins think of polonium and the origin of granite?
Dawkins *is* obnoxious, from what I have heard. Mentioning that he is British makes his bias that much more known, and I say bias even in the way the Greek philosophers originally understood it.
Many Brits I have met have a distaste for organized religion. Some simply are content with their alternate path, some are rather apathetic, and some *do* actually make flippant remarks without too much deep consideration of whom they might offend. But you can find all of that in the United States as well; Brits are just more skilled at being nonchalant about it.
Although I have not read the book itself and merely have heard of it by third-hand reports, I think it would be a mistake to assume he has no aggressive intent. More importantly, his words ARE being used by those with such motives.
Commenting by HaloScan
