Expounding on Dawkins OP/ED......

[Brian37]

Ok, Dawkins in "The God Delusion" describes the flaw of gap filling with god claims as "The moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". If I might back that up with another analogy, to overcome that mistake, it is much like when airline pilots are trained NOT to go with their senses, especially with feelings of gravity or up or down, but to go with their instruments. It is because our perceptions as humans are notoriously flawed that we often do not see what is actually going on.

Cops and even passengers of drunk drivers can tell you that that driver cannot see the reality of their real actions and stupidly go with "I did it before, I'm fine". Even without drinking many of us have been in cars as passengers where the driver has been yapping or texting thinking the same "I'm fine". They don't record themselves so they do not have a realistic view of what is actually going on, this is an example of flawed perception.

Psychology explains why god claims exist, not religious books. For the same reason at Halloween we get fooled by those Olives thinking they are real eyeballs. The only thing that helps humans avoid mistakes in logic is to insure our own perceptions are not simply club think or pats on the back, but peer reviewed, much like a dash came provides the data that that driver really was not fine like they thought they were at the time.

[WesOlsen]

I've just finished reading this exact 'moth in the flame' chapter myself. Put myself off Dawkins for ages because he can be such a collosal prick on the screen, but i'm pleasantly surprised that he translates much better in writing. I'd heard a lot of bad press about this book but i'm finding it quite accessible and comprehensive actually, more so than AC Grayling any way.

[Clueless Morgan]

Ok, Dawkins in "The God Delusion" describes the flaw of gap filling with god claims as "The moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". If I might back that up with another analogy, to overcome that mistake, it is much like when airline pilots are trained NOT to go with their senses, especially with feelings of gravity or up or down, but to go with their instruments. It is because our perceptions as humans are notoriously flawed that we often do not see what is actually going on.

It's been a while since I've read God Delusion so I don't really recall the context of the moth example too clearly but I like your plane analogy. I appreciate that it gets at the requirement to sometimes overcome one's natural instinct to rely on one's senses and instead rely on an externally gathered set of data to make the best decisions.

I've just finished reading this exact 'moth in the flame' chapter myself. Put myself off Dawkins for ages because he can be such a collosal prick on the screen, but i'm pleasantly surprised that he translates much better in writing.

I like Dawkins' writing style, I find him incredibly easy to read, whereas Hitchens is way too... cerebral? Esoteric? I don't know, Hitchens just isn't my cup of tea I guess, but I don't begrudge anyone else who likes him. I just don't. Hitchens is meant to be watched in video, IMO, and Dawkins is meant to be read.

[Ryantology]

I've just finished reading this exact 'moth in the flame' chapter myself. Put myself off Dawkins for ages because he can be such a collosal prick on the screen, but i'm pleasantly surprised that he translates much better in writing. I'd heard a lot of bad press about this book but i'm finding it quite accessible and comprehensive actually, more so than AC Grayling any way.

He makes a challenge to what he thinks of as Level 4 agnosticism at the beginning of the book. Reading that passage was what made me come to the conclusion that my position had evolved past the point where giving the God idea even that much credit was dishonest.

[Brian37]

Ok, Dawkins in "The God Delusion" describes the flaw of gap filling with god claims as "The moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". If I might back that up with another analogy, to overcome that mistake, it is much like when airline pilots are trained NOT to go with their senses, especially with feelings of gravity or up or down, but to go with their instruments. It is because our perceptions as humans are notoriously flawed that we often do not see what is actually going on.

It's been a while since I've read God Delusion so I don't really recall the context of the moth example too clearly but I like your plane analogy. I appreciate that it gets at the requirement to sometimes overcome one's natural instinct to rely on one's senses and instead rely on an externally gathered set of data to make the best decisions.

I've just finished reading this exact 'moth in the flame' chapter myself. Put myself off Dawkins for ages because he can be such a collosal prick on the screen, but i'm pleasantly surprised that he translates much better in writing.

I like Dawkins' writing style, I find him incredibly easy to read, whereas Hitchens is way too... cerebral? Esoteric? I don't know, Hitchens just isn't my cup of tea I guess, but I don't begrudge anyone else who likes him. I just don't. Hitchens is meant to be watched in video, IMO, and Dawkins is meant to be read.

I didn't find "God Is Not Great" to be that hard of a read, but his other books, yea, he didn't understand that writing for the experts doesn't translate as well to the common reader.

I don't mind a huge vocabulary, but if you want to better society you still have to speak in their language.

[WesOlsen]

God is not great is pure gratification. It's less of a step-by-step rebuttal to common theistic arguments and more of a 'letting off steam' session. I found it very fiery and very entertaining, but obviously not the best reference for use in a calm debate. It's basically Hitchens letting rip for a few hundred pages, and what it does it does well.

Of course, if you really want to read some difficult material, try reading his brother's shit. His columns in the Daily Mail and other publications are rage inducing. It's hard to imagine how two brothers could end up occupying opposite ends of the Dawkins scale. Every time Pete Hitchens opens his mouth on Question time (A popular televised political and ethical debate show here in the UK) I literally clench my fists with anger. I can find no word more fitting to describe his persona than 'cunt'.