Some people attack work because of what they think that work represents, not because of what it actually says.
Dawkins is seen by some, not as a scientist and an author, but an attacker of The One True Religion (ie their religion).
An enemy of their religion is as close to an agent of the devil as dammit is to swearing. Therefore the contents of their works are unimportant, they must be fought in any way possible before they corrupt decent, god-fearing people.

But what fraction of those decent god-fearing people is likely to be looking on Amazon for books on atheism, and what fraction of that fraction is likely to be put off by semi-literate negative reviews when they'd already know that some believers would be trying (more or less incompetently) to stop them educating themselves?

While I do understand that some paranoid types actually need to manufacture an Enemy in order to convince themselves that they actually have something of value (after all, how can something really be worth anything unless there's someone plotting to take it away?) to be honest, I'd wonder how much publicity Dawkins would actually get for his non-biology books if it wasn't for hysterical religious nuts trying to claim he's the antichrist.

You're in Arizona? So am I. I like my state a little more because of you! =D

trubble76 wrote:Some people attack work because of what they think that work represents, not because of what it actually says.
Dawkins is seen by some, not as a scientist and an author, but an attacker of The One True Religion (ie their religion).
An enemy of their religion is as close to an agent of the devil as dammit is to swearing. Therefore the contents of their works are unimportant, they must be fought in any way possible before they corrupt decent, god-fearing people.

This is a very good point. It very well could explain the reason why I've yet to see a Christian respond to any of Dawkins' actual arguments. They don't care about them.

Denny wrote:You're in Arizona? So am I. I like my state a little more because of you! =D

I think you're referring to me, so, thanks!

Which part? I'm just south of Bullhead City.

Hi Denny,

I'm in Mesa. Not too sure how far Bullhead is from me though. I don't think I've ever been there.

I actually have a number of issues with Dawkins, even on the topic of religion. He is one of several notable atheists who blame religion for war and many other ills, because they fail to understand very much about human nature, war, and so on. Religion is simply one of many available tools for convincing humans to go to war. Religion is neither required nor in any way unique in bringing humans to group level violence.

Sadly, since Dawkins is in extreme dogmatic denial about multi-level selection in evolution, he can only remain ignorant about war.

I also have some very big issues with the whole "selfish-gene" deal since he still fails to understand that selfishness at the genetic level does not automatically translate into selfishness at the phenotypic level or rule out "real" altruism.

Dawkins is not a very good scientist, in my opinion. And his popularity and dogmatic views are doing some very real harm in the world.

You're correct. Religion is not unique to war or conflict. I don't think anyone would dispute that. I also think Richard Dawkins understands that, as well. Religion is, afterall, just a sophisticated idea. An idea is the only thing needed.

However, it would be factual to state that the main source of hatred, conflict and war has been directly tied to religion. Both in present terms and past.

I quarrel with your last sentence. He has converted a lot people with the publciation of his books. Much like Christopher Hitchens. If you make a bold claim like that, please back it up. How exactly is he causing "very real harm" to the world?

The Plc wrote:Paul Kirby's review of four counter New Atheist books on RD.net are very good as well, particularly her assessment of supposed theological heavyweight Alister McGrath and his book The Dawkins Delusion. The book is apparently a 120 page ad hom attack, and McGrath fails to inform the reader of even what religion he belongs to.

Here's the link that I've found (I just wanted to share it with you guys): http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2285
.

It's just not true that Dawkins ever held such an obviously false and simplistic view about 'war'. He even grasps the subtlety behind the Northern Ireland Troubles, a conflict always misunderstood as being exclusively religious in it's causes. Dawkins knows as much as anyone that human affairs are too complex to pin to one source

He's entitled to his scientific views, and he's defended them with actual argument pretty tightly and robustly over the years, without bluster and intemperance, which can't be said for the few people who openingly assert their opposition to him and his ideas. Even he was wrong or right on a scientific issue, it's an absurd leap of logic to say 'since' he's 'dogmatic' about something scientific issue, 'he can only remain ignorant about war'. A classic example of the ad homninem fallacy if there ever was one. He should be judged on his merits on each case.

The negative effect his popularity and views have on the world hasn't been demonstrated.

Hitchens on the other hand (who really should know better), is very dogmatic in his attempt to paint Jihadist Islam as something unique and unexplainable other than it's down to a highly irrational religion, even attempts to comparisons to facism of the 20s and 30s, and then bitterly abuses anyone who even questions this interpretation an Islamofascist terrorist rationaliser. He just won't countenance the view that Jihadism just didn't spring out of nowhere due to irrational beliefs, which were always there. Hitchens way of looking at things is not even GCSE level history.

I will keep it simple here unless people prefer serious complexity. It is incredibly common to hear those who commit acts of heroism state that they "just did what anyone else would do." The belief that people are altruists results in altruism among those who hold that belief.

On the other hand, the belief in the basic selfishness of others is a foundation for neoliberal views and was openly expressed by members of the Bush Jr cabal including Condy Rice and others. In general this belief can only lead to selfishness on the part of those who hold it.

So denial of the truth of altruism (and such altruism can only evolve if Dawkins is wrong about multi-level selection) is a very harmful thing for humans. Belief in altruism leads to good, belief in selfishness leads to evil to put it as simply as possible.

Also, in general, unwarranted attacks on religion as a category of belief cause those who hold religious beliefs to become defensive and less open minded about science in response. This is harmful.

Finally it is impossible to understand the human predisposition for war while denying group level selection and altruism, and what we cannot understand we cannot act effectively against. This again is very harmful. If we gain a good understanding of the psychology of war we can potentially limit its occurence. http://theroadtopeace.blogspot.com/

tribalypredisposed wrote:I will keep it simple here unless people prefer serious complexity. It is incredibly common to hear those who commit acts of heroism state that they "just did what anyone else would do." The belief that people are altruists results in altruism among those who hold that belief.

On the other hand, the belief in the basic selfishness of others is a foundation for neoliberal views and was openly expressed by members of the Bush Jr cabal including Condy Rice and others. In general this belief can only lead to selfishness on the part of those who hold it.

So what you are saying is that Human have evolved the ability of being able to “Make sense of the world” through the use of beliefs which by their nature can be extremely flexible and varied? Additionally, as one of the many drivers for behaviour, these varying beliefs that we hold can generate selflessness or altruism in human beings?

tribalypredisposed wrote:So denial of the truth of altruism (and such altruism can only evolve if Dawkins is wrong about multi-level selection) is a very harmful thing for humans. Belief in altruism leads to good, belief in selfishness leads to evil to put it as simply as possible.

I don’t believe that is true, denial or otherwise is irrelevant. In any case from my understanding, your point about Dawkins and multi-level selection is a false dichotomy. He has always maintained that any adaption must be beneficial to the individual only and provides many examples of how this could be the case, see The Extended Phenotype.

The point is we have largely evolved to a point where we have the cognitive ability to asses the world around us, take action accordingly and be responsible for those actions.

tribalypredisposed wrote:Also, in general, unwarranted attacks on religion as a category of belief cause those who hold religious beliefs to become defensive and less open minded about science in response. This is harmful.

True, I agree we do need to mindful in how we handle debates with people who not only believe different things from us but use different approaches to forming up those beliefs such as faith and hope, which is what I believe is harmful and must be tackled.

tribalypredisposed wrote:Finally it is impossible to understand the human predisposition for war while denying group level selection and altruism, and what we cannot understand we cannot act effectively against. This again is very harmful. If we gain a good understanding of the psychology of war we can potentially limit its occurence.

This is too vague a generalisation and over simplistic. Humans go to war, that is obvious but the reason for it may not be because they have a predisposition to. For example it may be a side effect of a greed for power in some individuals with others assessing the benefit of war for themselves. Either way I suspect the answer will be complex whatever it is.

John

tribalypredisposed wrote:
So denial of the truth of altruism (and such altruism can only evolve if Dawkins is wrong about multi-level selection) is a very harmful thing for humans. Belief in altruism leads to good, belief in selfishness leads to evil to put it as simply as possible.

The selfish gene idea is not incompatible with altruism as Dawkins discussed in his book 'The Selfish Gene'.

tribalypredisposed wrote:
Also, in general, unwarranted attacks on religion as a category of belief cause those who hold religious beliefs to become defensive and less open minded about science in response. This is harmful.

Would you elaborate on why you think his attacks on religion is unwarranted and which of his attacks in unwarranted?
.

Who would be in a position to determine that any criticism is "misguided?" While I enjoy Mr. Dawkin's works and watching him speak on television, I can certainly see where others may not. That doesn't make their criticisms of him "misguided" or even inaccurate unless they lack factually accuracy. That just makes them their opinions.

I'm hesitant to criticize other opinions unless they are insulting,demeaning or factually inaccurate. I don't feel personally that I am in any position to judge whether they are "misguided" or not.

nojesusknowpeace wrote:Who would be in a position to determine that any criticism is "misguided?"

Well, the OP was talking about factual errors in various critiques of Dawkins and the God Delusion.

Whether the analysis of any specific point someone made is judged to be correct or not, there would seem to be an opportunity for people to study the arguments and form their own opinion on whether 'misguided' was right.

Likewise, with points people made later in the thread, if someone else disagrees, they generally say why they disagree.

If people were going to assume that other people weren't going to read what was written and decide for themselves, presumably they wouldn't writing much beyond a statement of opinion.

tribalypredisposed,

I don’t recall Dawkins arguing that humans can’t be altruistic and that most wars should be blamed on religion. In The Selfish Gene Dawkins was describing evolution at the level of the gene only, I believe, so from that point of view evolution is selfish. Though, at the level of the organism, altruism is common despite our selfish genes. Maybe that’s why Dawkins did not discuss altruism much in that book. He was discussing evolution from a different perspective. From his other writings I think he does believe in altruism, but I could be mistaken.

I heard this claim about blaming wars on religion in this book I’m writing a refutation of, The Irrational Atheist, and I don’t recall reading ANY of the new atheists saying such a thing. All they do is note some of the wars that have a religious element and the violence that can spring from religion. However, I know that many atheists on the web do make such claims, but to attribute that opinion to the new atheists is wrong. But I plan on reading each of their books in their entirety and I’ll double check that myself.

nojesusknowpeace,

I agree with tolman. I found many factual errors by Marshall (over 100 in fact) and presented my case in the link in the opening post. Anyone is free to dispute any argument I make if they’d like.

With regard to the comments on 'who begat who', I was wondering why the Bible should actually care about Joseph's male-line ancestry at all?

For a start, he isn't supposed to be Jesus' father, and in any case, surely an all-knowing deity must know that male-line descent is pretty meaningless when it comes to heredity.
Why should a deity guiding people to write an innerrant holy book not take the chance to educate them with the truth?

Looking forward to reading the whole thing sometime this weekend, Ken. Kudos for putting in all that work. Have you read this book, perchance?

http://www.amazon.com/Scientists-Confro ... 600&sr=8-2

It's a great book, IMO, but it seems to fly way under the radar, unfortunately.

No I haven't read that book, but I've heard it was good. I've read so much about Creationism that I'm tired of reading about it and probably won't buy any more books on it.