tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4318375667051435937.post4647353286045419289..comments2023-08-25T16:13:51.356+01:00Comments on Martin In The Margins: On reading 'God Is Not Great'Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15608932251584881007noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4318375667051435937.post-39395322268495342812008-01-29T20:57:00.000+00:002008-01-29T20:57:00.000+00:00I've written elsewhere about my annoyance at the w...<I>I've written elsewhere about my annoyance at the way that much contemporary argument in favour of religion is cast in these utilitarian terms - attempting to show that religion is a 'good thing', rather than to demonstrate its truthfulness or believability.</I><BR/><BR/>Well yes I agree with you but such an argument is inevitable given Dawkins weak resolution of the problem of evils committed under the banner of atheist communism of nazism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4318375667051435937.post-38757355557811855332008-01-03T23:25:00.000+00:002008-01-03T23:25:00.000+00:00"The recent crop of atheist polemics seem to want ...<I>"The recent crop of atheist polemics seem to want to do a number of things at once ... to prove the non-existence of God ... , to expose the mythical or fabricated nature of much accepted religious 'truth', and to demonstrate that religion is bad for us ... Both books tend to be stronger on the first two aims than on the third"</I><BR/><BR/>Admittedly, I haven't read Christopher Hitchens's book - just Dawkins's. But I actually think the second half of <I>The God Delusion</I> was a lot more convincing than the first. He did a passable job of rebutting the "God hypothesis", but it wasn't watertight, and relied too much on the "ultimate 747" argument, which to my mind is putting his eggs in one basket.<BR/><BR/>It surprises me how controversial <I>The God Delusion</I> has turned out to be, to be honest. Most of the ideas aren't new. Dawkins has discussed many of the same ideas in earlier books, but they didn't catch the spotlight in quite the same way, because they were mainly marketed as popular science books about evolution rather than polemics against religion. Not much of it is new, and none of it is particularly more radical or controversial than his own previous books.Jonny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07414994559548890103noreply@blogger.com