This is the problem with a) shifting into FanboyMode and b) trying to have a conversation with a person that constantly overrides you (not you, the Other One). One speaks faster than one thinks, with the end result being that one says something slightly different from what one means.
I don't mean you. You're not like that, is the common footnote to complaints about religion and religious people. I'm always pleased not to be hated, but am often disquieted by the accompanying assumption that I'm not a real Christian.
The assumption isn't that you're not a Real Christian. You are. You just don't believe some of the dangerous and stupid things that Other Christians believe. While your belief is 'delusional,' it's not nearly as dangerous as some of the other religites out there. That is all I mean. You can accept some science, even if you have problems understanding the details. You can read the Bible in context. You realise that some of the laws and stories are to help a nomadic tribal people and no longer apply to the real world.
You're delusional, but you only have a mild strand of what could be a much more dangerous illness.
"I'm not talking about you," he qualified. "People like you and Highly... Highly's faith is beautiful. Dawkins isn't talking about you guys. He says so in chapter such-and-such."
But that's not how it works. You can't say "The God Delusion" and then want to exempt those whose delusions are pretty.
Argh. This is what said, but not what I meant. Curse you, fanboy mode! *shakes fist*
What I meant was that not all of Dawkins' arguments apply to you. Some of them are about the Argument from Design, or the Argument from Morality, and you don't make those arguments. Dawkins thinks you're wrong. He touches on why. But several of his important arguments are aimed at beliefs that you, personally, don't have. When I said "he doesn't mean you," that is what I meant.
Your belief in a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us?* That he thinks is a delusion and yes, a dangerous one. But some of his arguments won't apply -you'll already agree with them- because your delusion isn't as bad as is is for some others.
I'm probably one of those who ought to finish this book as an atheist.
We've had conversations about this. I certainly would like you to think rationally about this, even as I feel that it's unlikely to completely change your mind. Neither does Dawkins, I don't think. What the passage you refer to is really saying is, Pick it up and read it. Don't just accept things because you were told 'this is the way it is.' I honestly feel that Dawkins would give you a respectful nod for having actually read the book, unlike so many of his critics, even if you still had faith.
Of course, then he would try and argue with you, because that's the point.
Anyway, you won't find an exclusion clause. Just don't do what several of his critics have done, and get snooty because he's not 'talking about my God.' His definition of 'God' is clearly spelled out, and he makes his arguments there. He will take issue with any definition of faith -and does so- but not all his arguments work with every particular strand of religiosity.
As for you and Joe Nutjob, you are both in the body of Christ. You both have the same delusion, but one of you is healthier than the other. One of you can function in the 21st century, one of you needs to go live in a monastery during the 12th century.
Good luck. I shall read with avid interest.
--- *Dawkins, p.31. His definition of 'God' for the purpose of his argument.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-11-20 05:07 am (UTC)I don't mean you. You're not like that, is the common footnote to complaints about religion and religious people. I'm always pleased not to be hated, but am often disquieted by the accompanying assumption that I'm not a real Christian.
The assumption isn't that you're not a Real Christian. You are. You just don't believe some of the dangerous and stupid things that Other Christians believe. While your belief is 'delusional,' it's not nearly as dangerous as some of the other religites out there. That is all I mean. You can accept some science, even if you have problems understanding the details. You can read the Bible in context. You realise that some of the laws and stories are to help a nomadic tribal people and no longer apply to the real world.
You're delusional, but you only have a mild strand of what could be a much more dangerous illness.
"I'm not talking about you," he qualified. "People like you and Highly... Highly's faith is beautiful. Dawkins isn't talking about you guys. He says so in chapter such-and-such."
But that's not how it works. You can't say "The God Delusion" and then want to exempt those whose delusions are pretty.
Argh. This is what said, but not what I meant. Curse you, fanboy mode! *shakes fist*
What I meant was that not all of Dawkins' arguments apply to you. Some of them are about the Argument from Design, or the Argument from Morality, and you don't make those arguments. Dawkins thinks you're wrong. He touches on why. But several of his important arguments are aimed at beliefs that you, personally, don't have. When I said "he doesn't mean you," that is what I meant.
Your belief in a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us?* That he thinks is a delusion and yes, a dangerous one. But some of his arguments won't apply -you'll already agree with them- because your delusion isn't as bad as is is for some others.
I'm probably one of those who ought to finish this book as an atheist.
We've had conversations about this. I certainly would like you to think rationally about this, even as I feel that it's unlikely to completely change your mind. Neither does Dawkins, I don't think. What the passage you refer to is really saying is, Pick it up and read it. Don't just accept things because you were told 'this is the way it is.' I honestly feel that Dawkins would give you a respectful nod for having actually read the book, unlike so many of his critics, even if you still had faith.
Of course, then he would try and argue with you, because that's the point.
Anyway, you won't find an exclusion clause. Just don't do what several of his critics have done, and get snooty because he's not 'talking about my God.' His definition of 'God' is clearly spelled out, and he makes his arguments there. He will take issue with any definition of faith -and does so- but not all his arguments work with every particular strand of religiosity.
As for you and Joe Nutjob, you are both in the body of Christ. You both have the same delusion, but one of you is healthier than the other. One of you can function in the 21st century, one of you needs to go live in a monastery during the 12th century.
Good luck. I shall read with avid interest.
---
*Dawkins, p.31. His definition of 'God' for the purpose of his argument.