Atanu’s response: Jeebus Christ! This is so flawed that one does not even know where to begin to address it. So I will just let it be for everyone to read and marvel at the sheer incoherence of the argument.

A “law and order problem” can be created by one or 10 people running around with knifes, irrespective of the content of the work. This is tragic.

What is doubly tragic is that people feel that they can protest and get something banned, if it offends them. I am all for protests, but both points of view must be put across.

The arbitrary “law and order” rule must be removed and replaced with a more objective definition dealing with the content of the material. Something like the First Amendmendment in the USA. Unless the citlzens of our contry demand this, in law, such outrages shall continue.

However, if this is the case, he is counter-productive against the more important goal of weakening the extremists’ resolve. Agnostics are not a particularly dangerous group of people (at least not with respect to their agnosticism). Even if he does strengthen the scepticism of a few agnostics, the cost of his doing so is that a few religious people are further entrenched in their views.

Can the devoutly religious change their minds? Yes, occasionally. I’m sure we all know one or two who have done so. But what’s more certain is that the devoutly religious can turn into the homicidally religious if you prod them the wrong way — and that’s something Dawkins should perhaps give more consideration to.

(Bertrand Russell is one person who’s written some essays on the subject I’d consider effective. Some of them are here.)

Dawkins aims to convert agnostics into atheists; he is not interested in converting the deeply religious.

Here is a youtube video along the lines of your comment and Dawkins’ response: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o

There are a number of videos on youtube where Dawkins reads from his books and participates in Q&A’s.

What you fault him for is how other’s react to his point of view, that is, they get offended.

I don’t think you understand my objection. I would have no problem at all with Dawkins going around offending people, if doing so had no further consequences.

Dawkins’ objective, as far as I can tell, is to introduce a little more sanity into the world by bringing more people over to his point of view. Unfortunately, the way to do this is not by offending people who disagree him. Offending them makes them less receptive to the ideas he’s trying to promote.

In other words, even though it’s the people who are taking offence who are to blame (if you find the distribution blame a useful pastime), it is Dawkin’s (very worthy) cause that is being hindered. There’s not much point telling it like you see it if doing so damages your cause; a little more strategy is required.

If I’m still not making myself clear, perhaps we should continue this discussion over email. I wouldn’t want to spam your blog.

I share your abhorrence for monotheistic religions. In fact, I dislike any form of organized religion. I am sure you are aware of the intelligent design theory and all the noise about evolution doing the rounds in the US; I find that amusing in a way, that all that should be happening in the most scientifically advanced country!

You might be interested in this web site http://www.randi.org if you are not already aware of it. Also check the TV series on HBO by the magicians Penn & Teller. I am convinced they will warm your heart too on a lazy sunday afternoon.

Atanu’s response: I don’t suppose you see the irony in what you wrote? You don’t find what he says objectionable. What you fault him for is how other’s react to his point of view, that is, they get offended. It is time to grow up a bit, don’t you think, when telling it like one sees it causes one to feel offended?

The worst part is that those who feel offended at the stoke of a pen are usually over zealous in their criticism of others. In fact, their criticism takes the form of inflicting violence on others, not merely debating the point. This point has also been made in the introductory chapter of the book. Read it sometime.

What I find amusing here, is Mr Deys insistance that the book is mainly a critique of monotheistic faiths. Not that there isn’t any, but viewed in a larger context, Dawkins words are targetted at the dadagiri of religious institutions, their clashes with science and the ignorance of not only the masses but of academics as well. As he mentions in the very first chapters, the book
“is intended to raise consciousness – raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one.”
What purpose does it serve to quote chosen passages to make it look more like a bible basher than a deep study of the control and influence religion commands over people these days ? To summarize it as a critique of monotheistic religions is a travesty, in the very least.

Atanu’s response: HK wrote “What I find amusing here, is Mr Deys insistance that the book is mainly a critique of monotheistic faiths.” I suppose that HK would find it even more amusing when he finds that Dawkins himself insists that he is mainly addressing the “God” that is represented by the monotheistic faiths.

I am discussing a book that I like on my blog. The purpose is basically to convey my point of view. I find monotheism abhorrent and that is why I am quoting Dawkins as he appears to share my distaste for the monotheistic god. Yes, I choose the passages to quote. You may choose different passages from different books. If you read the post, you will notice that nowhere have I claimed that it is a summary of Dawkins’ book. That summary is really unnecessary as the first chapter pretty much lays out what the book is all about. The rest of the book is mere elaboration.

I will look forward to hearing more on this especially how Indian “religions” are treated in the book, if at all.

Regarding how he treats Indian religions – he defines the “God hypothesis” as any “supernatural” entity which supposedly answers our prayers, reward us for “good” behavior and punishes us for “sin”. So in that sense it really encompasses a majority of Hindus, since the notion of God in contemporary Hinduism does match the above definition quite well. (this is irrespective of the number of Gods you believe in).

There is however a line of thought in Hinduism which treats the Brahman as the base of all creation. The Brahman is not concerned with petty human problems. It just IS! everything else is governed by the laws of nature and human life particularly is governed additionally by the law of Karma. This “variant” of Hinduism – even though it believes in supernatural elements – does not quite fall into the God Hypothesis.

Buddhism ofcourse reject any permanant substance such as soul or Brahman or God.

Mr. Dawkins will not be able to answer how come an illiterate man in the desert comes up with a book like the Quran?

Have you even read the Koran. The book is full of exhortations to kill the infidels. No wonder an illiterate man in the desert came up with it.

Oh wait! that’s not true… no “man” could write the Koran… it is the literal word of god!

Atanu’s response: Yes, yes, of course, that is why it is called the Religion of Peace, isn’t it? Why just look around, whereever Islam is, there is peace. It’s the Buddhists and Jains with their murderous ideologies that are dangerous.

http://mambo.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2903&Itemid=247

Atanu’s response: Thanks, Raghuveer, for that link. Sam Harris is a favorite of mine. Check him out on pointofinquiry.org also. Here’s quoting Harris from the link above:

One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. In a world that has long been terrorized by fratricidal Sky-God religions, the ascendance of Buddhism would surely be a welcome development. But this will not happen. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Buddhism can successfully compete with the relentless evangelizing of Christianity and Islam. Nor should it try to.

I remembered Rajiv Malhotra’s article comparing religions

http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2004/11/myth-of-hindu-sameness.htm

PS: Can you add a preview button to your comment editor ?