Following the last post (about The God Delusion), I had a look on Technorati to see what others were saying.

This URL is interesting: http://adricv.vox.com/library/post/3-reasons-why-richard-dawkins-is-an-arrogant-prick-despite-having-some-good-ideas.html. Mainly because it is apparent that the author of the blogpost has not read the book.

It is a short blog entry – only having three real points:

• God ‘Delusion’? Is he a psychologist?
• God ‘Delusion’? Who gave him the authority to conclusively say there is no form of deity?
• God ‘Delusion’? I beleive in God in my way – not as a force concerned with terrenal matters, but as something unnamable and higher, a form which could explain the Big Bang – something which Dawkins can’t do

In the book, Dawkins addresses the title in the first few page and explains why the term “delusion” is used and sets the context for it’s use. This largely renders the first point above meaningless.

The second one, is equally irrelevant and meaningless. What authority can be granted to say there is or isn’t a form of deity? Who gave the author of the blog post the authority to challenge Dawkins’ imaginary authority?

The third point hammers home the playground level of the blog post. Dawkins is a Biologist, who expects him to explain the Big Bang. What “explanation” is actually provided by the cop-out “God did it” that does anything but end further learning?

All in all, and this goes for most English language blogs which rail against The God Delusion, most of the critique comes from people who have not read the book and have couched their “complaints” in the terms of a nine year old.

Well, December is always hectic at WhyDontYou, as you can imagine. This tends to mean that our blog posts concentrate into two periods – autumn (fall) and spring. This is not always a bad thing. Sorry for the recent lack in posts, it isn’t because we have run out of ideas – just time!

Oddly (given that Richard Dawkins can be a bit annoying), I have been reading “The God Delusion” and it certainly is something I would recommend to everyone else. The book is interesting, insightful, at times witty and always well written.

In the past I have been concerned that vocal atheists, especially scientists, are running the risk of creating Atheism as a religion. The God Delusion has actually managed to make me re-assess this idea, and see that within reason there is a “need” for vocal, outspoken, well educated, intelligent opponents of “Religion.”

Some of the more pertinent points of the book (and another interesting book – Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris – even has its own “mySpace” space), is how the devout followers of various religions respond to criticism. I frequently read on the Internet and USENET, times where followers of the supposededly peaceful religions threaten non-believers with all manner of physical harm in the name of their peaceful Deity. Strangely, the error in this thinking seems to escape them. In the US, abortionism seems to draw the same sort of response. Killing a collection of cells is “morally wrong” but killing fully grown humans is OK.

I am sure there is some logic there somewhere……

–

As always, the combination of the season, work and education commitments mean there will be very, very few posts here for the next few weeks.

Sorry for the interruption to the service and seasons greetings to everyone.

BBC website – an unending source of blogging topics, thank you, BBC – has some discussion of conspiracy theories about Princess Diana’s death, plus an online questionnaire designed to let you assess how inclined you are to believe in conspiracy theories. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6213226.stm

The questionnaire is designed along the blatantly silly lines you’d expect – after a string of questions on the lines of “Do you believe event x was a conspiracy?” it adds them up and tells you the obvious. Although some aren’t so obvious. I can’t see a connection between feeling politically powerless and being willing to believe everything is the result of a conspiracy. The first seems to indicate a rational assessment and the second like encroaching paranoia.

A big problem with conspiracy theories as a way of understanding the world is that the theories require there to be people with almost godlike powers. These conspirators can foresee every eventuality and turn it to their advantage. Their plans can take years to be put into practice. The big conspiracy theories always rest upon large numbers of people being involved but none of the actors ever give away the secrets.

This seems exactly the reverse of what most people know about the world. Most importantly, people make mistakes. Governments make big costly mistakes. Constantly. People don’t keep secrets. The bigger the secret, the less likely it is to be kept. Once more than one person knows something, the truth starts leaking out. Lies get found out. Plans fall apart because of completely irrelevant accidents – an unexpected traffic jam, an overheard phone conversation, a slip of the tongue. People who plan things together might agree on an objective but start to disagree, as soon as it’s achieved.

When comparatively minor sins – MPs getting paid cash for questions or political parties burgling their opposition’s headquarters – are found out, huge scandals erupt. Could any social group have enough power to stop the leakage of information with such explosive potential as proof that aliens have landed, or the US government manufactured 9/11 or the moon landings were faked.

Once we start believing that there are all-powerful groups who control everything and who aren’t susceptible to normal human failings, we might as well check our brains and lose the tickets.