I keep running into this discussion. Christians find The God Delusion and Richard Dawkins offensive. They characterize Dawkins as rude, insulting and bitter. I can understand why, I find Christians who attack my world view offensive too. It feels like the same thing, Dawkins and Dobson have the same mojo when viewed from within opposing camps.
I've always been a live and let live Atheist. However, I find it harder to keep this perspective. Dobson and his ilk are always attacking. America is full of players for the other team, some of whom are mean. I receive a steady stream of hate mail, death threats, and snarky comments (some of which I deserve). I've started to develop a siege mentality - a small siege mind you, but a siege mentality none the less.
When I read posts by Christian bloggers complaining about Dawkins, I feel less sympathetic and more, well... get over it. However, my ignorance is showing. I've owned The God Delusion for six months without reading it. Perhaps with the additional insight gained by reading, I can better understand Christian reactions.
A friend asked why I have not read what he calls "The Atheist Bible". My answer might be hard to understand. I do not watch horror movies. They give me nightmares. I will go so far as to leave the room if Aliens is playing. The same goes for books. I avoid books that fall into the same category as horror movies. That is, if I think the material will cause me a lot of mental angst, I tend to delay the reading. Angst = insomnia - I like my sleep. The first two chapters of The God Delusion started me down the "angst" path. So I set it aside.
I think it is time to... get over it.
9 comments:
I know what you mean. I just have a hard time picking it up again, I can't seem to get off the computer, so much to read on there.
"I think it is time to... get over it."
Most of the time this is easier said than done. The things that send me down the angst path maybe different than yours but I think I know what you mean. Don't be too hard on yourself on this score.
Regards.RED
I sort of liked "The God Delusion". I haven't finished it... Because I er, well, got bored with it!
He makes his point, and then beats it into you. After the first couple of chapters you can get into it. Mainly because you read it previously...
Still, it's a good book but I certainly wouldn't describe it as the "atheists bible". "Letters to a Christian Nation" has better qualifications for that misnomer, moniker.
Carolyn Ann
Dunno about others, but my journey towards atheism took more than a single book. I was a doubter of christianinty, then an agnostic for a short time, then atheist long before Dawkins released The God Delusion.
That's an interesting point, Robert. Serious students of religion need more than 1 book, also.
It's as if those who approach their religion as if it were a comic-strip require only the one book.
Anything complex (and that requires serious thought) needs additional information. This leads me to conclude that atheism is simple (which I've always thought it to be!) because you don't need any books to be an atheist!
Carolyn Ann
The main problem in The God Delusion for us non-theists is that much of it consists of what we already know - physics vs. magic, cognitive dissonance, ancient dead religions that predate and contradict the Judeo/Christian Yaweh, Allah etc.
The book is for the uninitiated (ideologically indoctrinated) and from the tone of it, a peeved Dawkins is lecturing to a bunch of illogical ludites. He assumes they have a good vocabulary, but just a tenuous grasp on reasoning and logic.
The main problem in The God Delusion for us non-theists is that much of it consists of what we already know.
I agree. I feel like I could have written the book myself - with smaller words and less of a hammer. Each page I turn brings me to some fact I might not of known well, but the big ideas are all very much what I’ve know for a long time.
I turn to pages of other books instead.
I like the "The God Delusion" because I know MOST of the points he shows. Yes it is a book for those who have questions about their faith, or who are fence sitters if you will. For me it allows me to take his proofs for arguments and condense them into things I can say to those that ask me questions about why I am an atheist, when I turn it back on them and ask why they REALLY are a christian, etc.
I have read about half of it for a few reasons. One, is I let a friend who needed to read it more than I did borrowed it. Two, there are books in which I think we read only when we NEED to. Meaning, we may not always be psychologically ready for not open to the book at the time, but maybe later. I needed to work out some of my own thoughts before continuing. The other reason, is it is somewhat like "A Peoples History of the United States 1492 - Present", where it can be read in it's entirety or in sections. I Don't NEED to read all of it at once and I can use it as a reference. Dawnkins merely put into excellent words what all of us a Atheists know and understand and give it more fluid thought. To me, it is not like a horror movie, but more of a textbook, lol. I know those can be boring if you know the material. Occasionally though it can surprise you.
As for the rest of your post. I am half and half of a live and let live and a Get the F@#$ over it. The reason is, because there are always different types of people, including christians and Atheist alike that your reaction should be based on them as people not merely their beliefs. So, for those that are nice and willing to discuss and bring more of an open mind I will talk with them give them points and listen to them. But those fundies that seem to waste valuable oxygen on this planet. I will hold no qualms at putting them in their place. Not to say I wont be professional or genuine, but if they cry because I have turned their world upside down, or they want to fight because they have no better argument. I won't bat an eye. I have never been a Ghandi "peaceful" man nor a Malcom X "by any means necessary" man. I fit somewhere in the middle. A direct action. I won't act like christians and seek to convert you, but if you ask and want a debate then by all means if there is means and opportunity.
Sorry for the rant.
The reason that I complain about Dawkins, etc. (I was the one whose blog you linked), isn't because of the content of what he says. Very little is new and most of it is better argued elsewhere. If Christians can't come up with reasonable, rational responses to the arguments raised in the God Delusion, then we are indeed a sorry lot.
However, my problem with Dawkins is the bombastic language he uses which is much worse than the language used by people like Dobson when discussing skeptics. He says that Christians are mentally ill and is calling on other atheists/agnostics to stop treating religion with respect. I would be very surprised to see where Dobson or other legitimate Christian leaders have said such things. While Christians disagree with skeptics, we are not calling them mentally ill. While Christians disagree with skeptics, we are not saying that your views are unworthy of respect.
That's the difference. It's a huge difference. If we cannot discuss matters with respect for each other views and not question the mental competency of the other person, then our relationship is simply going to devolve because we have dropped below civility. That's a problem.
Post a Comment