Well, I think quite a few theists will read it, but I'm not sure how many will take it seriously. Probably about as many as will take Desmond Tutu seriously about stem cell research.

Still, Terry Eagleton had a stab - utterly cracking writing.

Doh - you stripped my links!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

And by "seriously about stem cell research", I obviously mean when Desmond's writing a long scientific paper about the topic. Being the well-regarded scientist he is. I _didn't_ mean that he had anything against it as a concept.

(Brain not in gear today, alas).

That's a very interesting article you link to, Tom. Interesting in just how far it misses the point, that is. ;-) Dawkins isn't pointing to any particular religion, so the fine detail of Eagleton's personal flavour of cult is utterly irrelevant. And the "God isn't in *or* out of the Universe" crap doesn't deserve the dignity of a response.

All covered in the book, of course. ;-)

There's a nice response to Eagleton's nonsense at http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/ which is being discussed on the Richard Dawkins web site at http://richarddawkins.net/article,255,The-God-Conundrum,Sean-Carroll

To paraphrase the discussion, Eagleton says that Dawkins shouldn't be taken seriously on theology because he hasn't studied it. That's a point that Dawkins already covers in the book when he points out that you don't have to read all the books on fairies in order to know that they are all nonsense.

Thanks, Dave. Fascinating post.

Well, I'm sorry to be the voice of dissent here, but if Dawkins is likening theology to books of fairies then he is seriously ignorant of what he is actually writing about. It is certainly true that to critique and opine on the subject of God, you should at least have read what your opponents think on the subject, otherwise you are indeed shouting at straw men and nonsense and just preaching to your own already converted. It is preposterous arrogance to think you can write authoritatively on the subject of god and faith without having at least tried to get your head round what the faithful think.

Katherine,

But theology is nonsense. It's all built on a non-existant foundation. If you were going to argue at that level, then you'd need to argue with theological theory from _all_ religions. And that's an impossible task.

Dawkins gets round that and addresses the problem at a far lower level. He defines something that he calls "the god hypothesis" which is sort of a "lowest common denominator" across the religions. The hypothesis that he comes up with is something like (and I don't have the book to hand, so I'm paraphrasing) "there exists a supernatural being who created the universe and still takes a day to day interest in its running". That's the hypothesis that he goes on to debate. He addresses it purely as a problem in science and probability. And I can't really see how any level of knowledge of theology would effect his argument.

Katherine,
He *does* try to get his head around what the faithful think - he goes into it at length. It's just that he doesn't single out any particular religion - and surely he can't know the detailed theology of *every* religion.

And please, read the book. I don't think that you'll find him arrogant at all.

If he does in fact say that he doesn't have to read up on theology (of whatever religion) in order to comment on issues of god and belief then that is exactly what he is: arrogant.

What you both seem to be saying is that Dawkins doesn't have to read what other people think or have said over many centuries about religion to say that it is nonsense. He has decided that belief is this thing, and discussed that thing, without even finding out whether people who believe actually believe in the way he has hypothesised? How can I possibly take that as a serious discussion of religion and why people believe in god?

To simply say "theology is nonsense" without having bothering to find out what theology is and says is preposterous. I'm not saying that having found out you wouldn't still say that it is nonsense, but the comparison with fairies is fatuous. There are plenty of respected thinkers who have seriously discussed issues of theology and to dismiss that as thinking about fairies is astonishing.

Katherine,
*Which* people? Some of them - which he has - or all of them - which he hasn't, obviously. He's not saying that it's OK to argue from ignorance, and he isn't. The thing is that it's the essential character of religion that he's talking about, and that's similar across all.

It's ironic that you are condemning a book that you haven't read on the basis that the author hasn't read widely enough.

One thing all theologies that I'm aware of have in common is a mix of hereness and not-hereness - immanence and transcendence. And one of Dawkins' points is that to the extent that a deity (or whatever) is transcendent, it has no effect, and can't really be said to exist at all, and to the extent to which it is immanent, it is perfectly amenable to scientific study.

I'm not condemning a book, I am saying that if what you and Dave are saying is true - that he hasn't bothered to read up on theology before opining on the subject of belief on that basis that you don't have to read all the books on fairies to say that fairies are nonsense - then I seriously question whether there is any point to what he is saying. As I said, to opine on the structure of belief and belief itself, without looking into what people who believe have said about what belief is, well, rather pointless as far as I can see. Standard strawman argument even. Tell me what sources he says he has drawn on and perhaps I'll see your point, but it was Dave above who made the comparison with books on fairies, not me.

What thinkers? Well, Descartes for a start, that model of rational thought.

Ah, well, that's where the misunderstanding lies. It's not that he's not bothered to read up on theology - he has. his bible knowledge is particularly good, for example. It's that having done so, he thinks that the fine detail of any particular theology is not relevant - it's that which all the theologies have in common that he's arguing are ridiculous. So, yes, you need to know a bit about them to decide that they are irrelevant, and he does.

So - he's not saying "it's irrelevant, so I won't bother looking at it", he's saying "I've looked, and found it's irrelevant."

Obviously, he can't know *every* theology intimately, but a fair cross section get an airing.