Talking Religion...

[jwinslow]

It was an interesting bit of fiction about a spiritual journey, it was an intriguing read. It is definitely not Christian.

 

[DaytonBuck]

I'm looking for things that could shore up my faith vis a via Christianity

 

[jwinslow]

The first two are excellent. The third was excellent writing but more enjoyable than useful here. The fourth was the anchor that held the whole list together.

 

[Gatorubet]

I'm looking for things that could shore up my faith vis a via Christianity

 

[Brewtus]

I'm looking for things that could shore up my faith vis a via Christianity

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236868917&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: The God Delusion: Richard Dawkins: Books[/ame]

Seriously though, I think every person of faith should read a book about atheism (just like every atheist should be familiar with the world's major religions). It will do one of two things: make your faith even stronger or open up a whole new way of thinking for you.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I like Richard Dawkins in many respects. But, he also strikes me as some how "over the top" in some respects when it concerns the G-d issue. That is to say, I think his ability to explain the mechanics of evolution are very good, but he can also come across as grinding an axe.

Granted, the only Dawkins I've read front to back was the "Blind Watchmaker" (which, again, I quite enjoyed for the most part), so... I'm no expert on him. Just my impression. Edit: I guess what I mean is Dawkins seems to make a leap that if Evolution is true, there need not be a G-d. If there need not be a G-d, there MUST not be one. I believe such reasoning to be in error as a matter of fact, though it is a possible conclusion. If that makes sense.

 

[Brewtus]

I like Richard Dawkins in many respects. But, he also strikes me as some how "over the top" in some respects when it concerns the G-d issue. That is to say, I think his ability to explain the mechanics of evolution are very good, but he can also come across as grinding an axe.

Granted, the only Dawkins I've read front to back was the "Blind Watchmaker" (which, again, I quite enjoyed for the most part), so... I'm no expert on him. Just my impression. Edit: I guess what I mean is Dawkins seems to make a leap that if Evolution is true, there need not be a G-d. If there need not be a G-d, there MUST not be one. I believe such reasoning to be in error as a matter of fact, though it is a possible conclusion. If that makes sense.

I agree that Dawkins (and some other atheist authors) can come across as almost militant in some of their writings. But I think he's just very passionate about his beliefs and sometimes having a strong voice in the minority who stands up to the religious majority isn't always a bad thing.

I also enjoyed for the most part The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion and some of his other writings. And I agree that some of his arguments against God aren't nearly as strong as others, but overall I think he does an admirable job in The God Delusion to explain how irrational belief in God is and how oppressive and dangerous religion can be.

 

[muffler dragon]

but overall I think he does an admirable job in The God Delusion to explain how irrational belief in God is...

*emphasis mine.

Understanding that I've never read any Dawkins nor am I aware of whether you're using his words or your own, but to claim that belief in G-d is irrational is difficult to substantiate. In fact, I would call it an inflammatory non sequitur.

Here's the definition of irrational (that does not deal with numbers) according to www.m-w.com:

: not rational: as a (1): not endowed with reason or understanding (2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b: not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears>

Please feel free to inform me as to how I may be misunderstanding.

 

[Brewtus]

*emphasis mine.

Understanding that I've never read any Dawkins nor am I aware of whether you're using his words or your own, but to claim that belief in G-d is irrational is difficult to substantiate. In fact, I would call it an inflammatory non sequitur.

Here's the definition of irrational (that does not deal with numbers) according to www.m-w.com:

: not rational: as a (1): not endowed with reason or understanding (2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b: not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears>

Please feel free to inform me as to how I may be misunderstanding.

I'm sure that philosophers and non-believers have been using the term irrational when describing belief in God for hundreds or thousands of years so it certainly predates Dawkins. But believing that a supernatural being exists for which there absolutely no physical evidence and is based strictly on faith is the very definition of irrational. No different than belief in dragons, unicorns, fairies or the Spaghetti Monsters being irrational.

 

[Gatorubet]

I'm sure that philosophers and non-believers have been using the term irrational when describing belief in God for hundreds or thousands of years so it certainly predates Dawkins. But believing that a supernatural being exists for which there absolutely no physical evidence and is based strictly on faith is the very definition of irrational. No different than belief in dragons, unicorns, fairies or the Spaghetti Monsters being irrational.

I dunno. Thinking that all of the stuff in the universe came into being without some creating force always struck me as illogical. Big Bang theory is fine, but how did the stuff that made up the universe get created in the first place, and what made it go "Bang"?

Sort of irrational to think that stuff came into being without a Creator. And who created the Creator, but - ya now - that still get you back to at minimum a fascinating question.

But once you have a bucket full of religions, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that they can't all be the only right religion. Then it becomes more of a how were you raised, what flavor matches your philosophy and intellect thing. Very arbitrary to be sure, and certainly not worth killing people over.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Wait... what? No Killing?

Fuck this...

I'm out.

:p

 

[BayBuck]

I'm sure that philosophers and non-believers have been using the term irrational when describing belief in God for hundreds or thousands of years so it certainly predates Dawkins. But believing that a supernatural being exists for which there absolutely no physical evidence and is based strictly on faith is the very definition of irrational. No different than belief in dragons, unicorns, fairies or the Spaghetti Monsters being irrational.

Claiming that an informed decision to take the leap of faith is by definition "not endowed with reason or understanding" or "lacking...mental clarity" is pretty simplistic IMO (along with many of Dawkins' theological arguments). It is quite possible for an intelligent person to come to come to a conclusion which may not be supported by scientific evidence and yet is still entirely rational (science and reason are not identical concepts). The opposite view seems to be supported primarily by those trying to convince themselves that their own aversion to religious faith is purely rational and therefore obviously true.

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm sure that philosophers and non-believers have been using the term irrational when describing belief in God for hundreds or thousands of years so it certainly predates Dawkins. But believing that a supernatural being exists for which there absolutely no physical evidence and is based strictly on faith is the very definition of irrational. No different than belief in dragons, unicorns, fairies or the Spaghetti Monsters being irrational.

ubet and Bay have rather summed up my response.

We may be using different definitions of irrational, reason, and understanding. That's fine.

 

[Brewtus]

I dunno. Thinking that all of the stuff in the universe came into being without some creating force always struck me as illogical. Big Bang theory is fine, but how did the stuff that made up the universe get created in the first place, and what made it go "Bang"?

Sort of irrational to think that stuff came into being without a Creator. And who created the Creator, but - ya now - that still get you back to at minimum a fascinating question.

Substituting ignorance of how the universe came to be (or anything else for that matter) with God is irrational. And why is God the de facto best alternative to ignorance? I'm content saying that I don't know for sure how the universe was created, but I do have some hypotheses (and I'll even acknowledge that God could be the creator, although I give that a very low probability).

Claiming that an informed decision to take the leap of faith is by definition "not endowed with reason or understanding" or "lacking...mental clarity" is pretty simplistic IMO (along with many of Dawkins' theological arguments). It is quite possible for an intelligent person to come to come to a conclusion which may not be supported by scientific evidence and yet is still entirely rational (science and reason are not identical concepts). The opposite view seems to be supported primarily by those trying to convince themselves that their own aversion to religious faith is purely rational and therefore obviously true.

I have to disagree with you that "It is quite possible for an intelligent person to come to a conclusion which may not be supported by scientific evidence and yet is still entirely rational". So it would be rational to claim that the sun revolves around the earth, or that possession by evil spirits causes mental disorders, or that Catholics are drinking actual blood during the Eucharist? Or what specific conclusion did you have in mind (and please don't state a belief in God because there is no scientific evidence for that)?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

FWIW - I've never understood the word "irrational" - used in the philosophical sense of the word - to be derogatory in any way. I've always considered it as a word describing a certain type of thought. One based more on the emotional than the physical.... Not saying my understanding is "correct" just that I don't think the word is used in philosophical contexts to connote any degree of particular contempt.