5 ms·
(As an atheist who found The God Delusion to be one of the most important books I've ever read, as it gave me a solid framework of arguing in what I already con
by Err_Eek 3y ago
(As an atheist who found The God Delusion to be one of the most important books I've ever read, as it gave me a solid framework of arguing in what I already considered to be true)
It's okay to read more digestible books, and not serious academic studies. In fact it's more than okay -- in order to understand an academic study you likely need to do a lot of reading on the topic before hand. A pop sci/culture book is very self contained. I can assure you that very few people in the world can read The Genealogy of Morals and understand much of it without having read a significant amount of philosophy before.
Personally, I read Thus Spoke Zarathustra before reading The God Delusion. I can't remember much of the Nietzsche book, but The God Delusion's arguments are forever etched into my brain. It doesn't matter if I didn't get the Russell's teapot argument from a primary source, it matters that I got it.
- keiferski 3y agoIt’s not so much about accessibility, just quality of argument. As I said, basically no one that has read and thought significantly about religion thinks that Dawkins’ works are anything other than simple-minded polemics. It’s the equivalent of watching a 5-hour YouTube video about programming and thinking you understand computer science, except that books by Dawkins et al are not even very good, impartial introductions to the topic. All I can say is: if the topic of religion is interesting to you, these are not good books to start with. I also really don’t think Genealogy of Morality is all that complicated. Edit: I just remembered this excellent book by Julian Young, Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Religion. I really recommend that if you’re looking for a more nuanced but modern take of what Nietzsche thought about religion.
- rapsacnz 3y agoThe more the nuanced the take, the less people will be drawn to it. Hence the popularity of the Bible and the Koran etc.
- keiferski 3y agoThe Bible has over fifty books and is perhaps one of the most nuanced works of all time, hence the wide variety of Christian denominations. I'm not familiar enough with the Qur'an to comment on it.
- atq2119 3y agoThe Bible isn't nuanced because it's not even coherent. It's pretty much all over the place. This is a feature for its followers, because they can and do pick and choose the parts they like and ignore the rest.
- lesuorac 3y agoI don't think the Bible is as popular as you make it out to be. Its really the songs / performances that carry the Christian belief; few people actually read the bible but they can all re-iterate to you that Christ was born in a manager because there was no room in the inn (not in the Bible).
- 5041us 3y agoNietzsche's Genealogy of Morality might not be complicated to read. And while all this stuff about good and evil is valuable context to understand religion, all the other slave morality babble feels pretty close to a YoutTube rant video.
- ZainRiz 3y agoThe challenge with books like The God Delusion is that it's barely one step above strawman arguments. It attacks claims made by some simple lay people, based on their half-baked understanding of their own faiths (which they never really dug into). However, people well versed in the religion don't actually make any such claims. The arguments being debunked are ones that religious scholars themselves would have disagreed with. Such misrepresentations don't guide anyone
- andsoitis 3y ago> people well versed in the religion don't actually make any such claims What is a good example?
- keiferski 3y agoThis is a decent book and the reviews highlight a few examples of what you’re looking for: https://www.amazon.com/God-New-Atheism-Critical-Response/dp/066423304X#aw-udpv3-customer-reviews_feature_div https://www.amazon.com/God-New-Atheism-Critical-Response/dp/...
- za3faran 3y agoAs a Muslim, I've seen Dawkins make very basic and laughably incorrect claims about Islam. It clearly shows he has extremely shallow knowledge about what he claims to criticize. Niel DeGrasse Tyson is also guilty of the same. Here's a short clip of Dr. Sami Ameri, a published author and expert, discussing but one of Dawkin's fallacies in his book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsNpvZN76zU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsNpvZN76zU
- mediascreen 3y agoOk, I just suffered through the 13 minutes of nonsens from this "expert". One problem is that he doesn't understand what he is arguing against. Dawkins doesn't argue that, because people tend to have similar beliefs as those around them, he has disproved those beliefs. He just uses it to illustrate the close minded way some people take the supremacy of their particular religion for granted. The question "What if you are wrong?" comes with a lot of assumptions. It's also laughable for an expert (for a number of reasons) to claim that C.S. Lewis has disproved atheism.