Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
This Week's Flea
by RichardDawkins.net
http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=654057
Read an interview with the latest flea author John Haught at Salon.com here (thanks to Richard Prins)
PZ Myers has done a nice breakdown of the above interview here
In God and the New Atheism a world expert on science and theology gives clear, concise, and compelling answers to the charges against religion laid out in recent bestselling books by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is not Great).
For some, these "new atheists" appear to say extremely well what they believe to be wrong with religion. But, as John Haught shows, the treatment of religion in these books is riddled with logical inconsistencies, shallow misconceptions, and crude generalizations.
Can God really be dismissed as a mere delusion? Is faith really the enemy of reason? And does religion really poison everything?
God and the New Atheism offers a much-needed antidote to the extremist claims of scientific fundamentalism. It will enable readers to see through the rhetorical fog, think through the arguments for themselves, and come to a clearer understanding of the issues at stake in this crucial debate.
PAST FLEAS:
"Challenging Richard Dawkins: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About God"
God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins
UPDATE: This looks like it is actually the SAME book as you see in Richard's flea-orbit below titled "A Catholic Replies to Professor Dawkins (UK)" (they have the same blurb). This must be a case of them trying to hype it up for the US market.
And some general fleas:
The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith
by Becky Garrison
The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity
"The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason & The War on Religion"
by Tina Beattie
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 254 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #100304 by Diacanu on December 18, 2007 at 1:33 pm
God and the New Atheism offers a much-needed antidote...
...trying to think of a situation where poison would be an antidote....
Well, I guess, if you drank the right sort of acid, Drano could be the counter-agent....
Wouldn't ever want to test that one though...
Other Comments by Diacanu
3. Comment #100305 by Diacanu on December 18, 2007 at 1:34 pm
And yay! Hitchens flea!!But as Rtambree said, a third of one.
Well, the cover counts too.
Other Comments by Diacanu
4. Comment #100306 by admin on December 18, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Rtambree, I think you're right, we've got to give this one to Hitch. The yellow cover puts it firmly in his flea-space. These fleas keep appearing so fast, I don't have time to recreate the flea-orbit images!
Josh
Other Comments by admin
5. Comment #100308 by Matt7895 on December 18, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Another on an increasingly long list. Have these charlatans no shame? Other Comments by Matt7895
6. Comment #100311 by seekerofall on December 18, 2007 at 1:40 pm
excuse me.....could someone please explain to me what scientific fundamentalism is......is that an oxymoron?????*rolling eyes in disgust*
Other Comments by seekerofall
7. Comment #100313 by ksskidude on December 18, 2007 at 1:40 pm
We will always have to fight against the constant backlash of flea's and their ilk. It will never stop, ever......
It is sad that we will all die not ever seeing the day that the human race finally grows up and faces reality.
I find it funny that as children we can not wait to grow up, and when we finally do grow up, most act and think like children.
Other Comments by ksskidude
8. Comment #100315 by steve99 on December 18, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I have to say that a critical response to Dawkins, Harris AND Hitchens sounds like it should be a rather substantial volume. Interestingly, Dennett seems to have been excluded.The yellow cover puts it firmly in his flea-space.
Oh dear, some sort of horrible multi-coloured Venn Diagram comes to mind - the various dimensions of 'flea space'.
Other Comments by steve99
9. Comment #100316 by Philster61 on December 18, 2007 at 1:41 pm
When are these fleas gonna go away? Theres a serious lack of flea powder somewhere.Other Comments by Philster61
10. Comment #100321 by DCPirana on December 18, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Has anyone actually tried to read one of these? Of course, I won't buy any of them, but I think I'll check one out at the library, if only for the laughs. "Darwin's Angel" looks particularly amusing...Other Comments by DCPirana
11. Comment #100323 by Arcturus on December 18, 2007 at 1:49 pm
When even from the first line he is creating a straw man:"The only thing new in the so-called new atheism is the sense that we should not tolerate faith"
one wonders where the rest of the interview will take us.
The new thing is to get rid of religion's unfair status of being shielded from criticism.
"Nietzsche, as well as Sartre and Camus, all expressed it quite correctly. The implications should be nihilism."
So he thinks that this is the "correct" way an atheist should think. He makes me laugh.
edit: Even if he is pro-evolution, I find this guy obnoxious.
Other Comments by Arcturus
12. Comment #100331 by righton on December 18, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have made all of these christian authors a lot of money.Other Comments by righton
13. Comment #100333 by RascoHeldall on December 18, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I am half-tempted to become a Flea myself and write my own response to Dawkins, so pitiful is the general standard of argument in these things. How hard can it be to actually READ what someone writes?Or is strawmanning obligatory with these things?
Other Comments by RascoHeldall
14. Comment #100335 by USA_Limey on December 18, 2007 at 2:01 pm
It is sad that we will all die not ever seeing the day that the human race finally grows up and faces reality.
It's a long shot but it could happen that in our lifetime all this nonsense goes away.
How?
Simple. ET shows up, shows us video footage of himself tinkering with some ape DNA to create us, says, "hi, were back, how you been doing since we saw you last - oh no bad, made a few decent advances but best drop that religious crap eh? Oh - here's the secret to faster than light travel come join us in the galactic community".
Well - that's how it goes in my head anyway.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
15. Comment #100338 by paceetrate on December 18, 2007 at 2:03 pm
"a world expert on science and theology"How does a PhD in Theology make him a "world expert on science"? :P
I never trust a source that says someone is an "expert on science" without specifying what AREA of science.
Google, how I love thee.
Other Comments by paceetrate
16. Comment #100340 by robotaholic on December 18, 2007 at 2:03 pm
wow I hate "The Village Atheist"'s front cover- Sam Harris looks TERRIBLE LOL! - he looks all angry... Other Comments by robotaholic
17. Comment #100349 by Diacanu on December 18, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Not to mention they've got him right next to Pol Pot which is about as classless as old racist stereotype cartoons. Other Comments by Diacanu
18. Comment #100353 by BAEOZ on December 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm
The new atheists don't want to think out the implications of a complete absence of deity. Nietzsche, as well as Sartre and Camus, all expressed it quite correctly. The implications should be nihilism.
Where in the canard collection does this one fit?
Canard a: Atheism is a faith
Canard b: Atheists are immoral.
Canard c: Atheism is self-refuting.
.....
Canard n: Atheism is nihilism.
I couldn't go on after this. The man is a either very ignorant or a liar. Neither interests me much today.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
19. Comment #100354 by jamesspills on December 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm
From the interview"But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning."
Bingo...
Other Comments by jamesspills
20. Comment #100369 by D'Arcy on December 18, 2007 at 2:30 pm
From the interview
"But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning."
Bingo...
James, you are exactly right! The absence of any scientific evidence for the existence of any deity, has gradually pushed the religios further and further from the real world. Apparently now God is "outside" of investigation by science as well as being "outside" of time. How the religios have a relationship with their god is forever a mystery to me. We mere humans just don't have the apparatus to detect God - according to the theologians.
Well that's fine by me, I'll just live without Him.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
21. Comment #100381 by Goldy on December 18, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Athiesm is nihilism
That's what Neil at http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/ is trying to convince me of. Odd really, I tried my best to show that it is in fact the very opposite.
Such a different mind set....
Other Comments by Goldy
22. Comment #100385 by Diacanu on December 18, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Y'know what I do when someone pulls the "atheism is nihilism", argument on me?I shoot 'em in the kidney, clean out their wallet, and go "whaddya know, you're right".
Nah, not really, but that I don't, and presumedly none of you do shows how hollow and hateful a statement it is.
Other Comments by Diacanu
23. Comment #100386 by Planeswalker on December 18, 2007 at 2:46 pm
He left Dennett out? How dares he?!Other Comments by Planeswalker
24. Comment #100389 by Skutter on December 18, 2007 at 2:48 pm
But, as John Haught shows, the treatment of religion in these books is riddled with logical inconsistencies, shallow misconceptions, and crude generalizations.
Is he talking about Dawkins et al or the bible? I'm confused now.
Other Comments by Skutter
25. Comment #100390 by Goldy on December 18, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Hmmm, now that would be interesting, Diacanu. I shall try and get some examples next time i'm there, but the site makes my computer crash (can computers be athiest?) and I have to ask why I bother.Some of the other contributers (mostly female names, oddly) asked why athiests seem to attack Christianity so much - they believe we don't question other religions....well, at least in the States, where Neil is, they assume that...
Other Comments by Goldy
26. Comment #100393 by Zaphod on December 18, 2007 at 2:51 pm
The flea population seems to be infinite. Other Comments by Zaphod
27. Comment #100415 by notsobad on December 18, 2007 at 3:20 pm
a world expert on science and theology
right
Other Comments by notsobad
28. Comment #100421 by Szymanowski on December 18, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Presumably the publisher can say to Xian bookshops: "Stock this... or be judged". Other Comments by Szymanowski
29. Comment #100429 by home8896 on December 18, 2007 at 3:37 pm
*laughs hysterically* "compelling answers" *snorts* *chortles* Oh, that's rich. Other Comments by home8896
30. Comment #100430 by Red Foot Okie on December 18, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Actually, the response on the Salon.com letters section was almost overwhelmingly against Haught. I didn't go through all of them, but that's the gist I got.Which is a good sign.
Although Haught DID come out ID at the Dover trial, though. So you have to give him props for that.
Although he then tries to argue (I think) that science can't say anything about god, but that religeous "faith" is a crucial part of science.
Other Comments by Red Foot Okie
31. Comment #100435 by Diacanu on December 18, 2007 at 3:48 pm
The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity
Just saw this one.
How can God be challenged? He's omnipotent, ain't he? Kick our asses, and get it over with.
Oh wait, no, it's his fanclub that's challenged, and always gets offended on his behalf.
And oh yeah, that's right, God is imaginary.
They're getting offended on behalf of their imaginary friend.
Funny, every kid I knew who had an imaginary friend never got freaked out if you said anything to the effect he/she wasn't real.
Christians, Muslims, they flip right the fuck out.
Not so much the Jews, they roll with the punches fairly well.
And that's another thing, there's always this pissiness when you compare God belief to Santa belief.
As if God belief is "serious adult business".
All the needs God belief fulfills are raw basic child emotions.
It's not like God belief balances your checkbook, takes the kids to soccer practice, and gives you an erotic massage at the end of the day.
What makes God "serious business"?
The Hell shit I guess.
But children learn about Hell.
Ah, I'm rambling, aren't I?
Other Comments by Diacanu
32. Comment #100449 by RichardPrins on December 18, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Credit goes to forum user darkhorse, who posted it first on the forum. I forwarded a link to Josh.News on new specimens of Ctenocephalides atheosis is always welcome!
Other Comments by RichardPrins
33. Comment #100456 by Zamboro on December 18, 2007 at 4:27 pm
"scientific fundamentalism"?When I hear this I can't help but think of hucketers on TV selling "holistic remedies", warning that they offer cures "Big Science" doesn't want you to know about.
Other Comments by Zamboro
34. Comment #100465 by Blake C. Stacey on December 18, 2007 at 4:45 pm
RascoHeldall wrote,I am half-tempted to become a Flea myself and write my own response to Dawkins, so pitiful is the general standard of argument in these things. How hard can it be to actually READ what someone writes?
Or is strawmanning obligatory with these things?
I'm actually planning to do just that, starting in about a month (when a few more pressing obligations will hopefully be concluded). I enjoyed The God Delusion quite a lot, but like many of my fellow Uppity Atheists, I have my bones to pick with it, some simply due to my having been trained in physics instead of biology. When I realized how thoroughly bankrupt the replies from the theologians' corner were turning out to be, I figured I might as well provide the elaboration, critique and sequel myself.
I was going to do this during that whole "write a book during November" shindig, but earning a living had to come first.
Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey
35. Comment #100467 by Pilot22A on December 18, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Hey theologians, prove it.It is that simple, if you can show me your god, and he can do some parlor trick for me, like smiting me dead, then I will believe. Until then, I am not afraid of the invisible gods and geography included your religious nonsense.
Once again, lots of hot air with absolutely zilch proof. In fact, most of these flea's tend to substantiate exactly what Hitchens and Dawkins put to us.
Other Comments by Pilot22A
36. Comment #100468 by Ben Hope on December 18, 2007 at 4:56 pm
If anyone's interested, there's also an interview with Haught here:http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=haught&topic=complete
It's part of a series of interviews by Robert Wright that includes Dennett, Pinker, E. O. Wilson, Maynard Smith (as well as theists like Polkinghorne).
Other Comments by Ben Hope
37. Comment #100491 by BAEOZ on December 18, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Blake, if you right a serious book, challenging RD's arguments, the theists will claim it as thier own. Make sure you rip shit out of the flea books too.:)
Other Comments by BAEOZ
38. Comment #100505 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 18, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I don't see the problem with authors offering their responses to controversial popular literature. Think through it for a moment. The God Delusion is Dawkins' reply to religious literature. Without books such as the Bible and the Koran "The God Delusion" wouldn't exist. It's kind of funny to think about how many fleas the Bible has.Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
39. Comment #100507 by BAEOZ on December 18, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Biz, I think there's a difference between arguing your case, As I think RD does in the God Delusion. Which by the way doesn't just aim at the bible. And just stating assertions, such as god exists, or atheism is nihilism, like this flea does. Other Comments by BAEOZ
40. Comment #100510 by Goldy on December 18, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Thought religion happens despite the holy books...Long time no hear Bizz!
Other Comments by Goldy
41. Comment #100513 by the_blur on December 18, 2007 at 7:04 pm
What the hell is Dennett man, chopped liver? Just because he looks (and sounds) like Santa doesn't mean he's not a total Badass.Other Comments by the_blur
42. Comment #100515 by Spinoza on December 18, 2007 at 7:17 pm
the_blur, unfortunately Dennett's book, the best of the bunch, is also the most intellectually demanding, and has sold the least copies.Ergo, the fleas are incapable (intellectually speaking) of providing a response to him (it would require them to be able to understand the book).
Other Comments by Spinoza
43. Comment #100519 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 18, 2007 at 7:28 pm
"Thought religion happens despite the holy books..."Sure, but Dawkins' targets of choice are certainly the Bible and the Koran as the God that he attacks is most often the God of the Bible.
And yeah, I know I haven't been around for a while. Ecology class is tough! It's an unholy matrimony of statistics and biology. One or the other is fine, but a class involving both is just a time killer. I know the RD forum is important, but I need my degree so I can add my name to the Discovery Institute's list of Darwin dissenters!
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
44. Comment #100522 by Goldy on December 18, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Bizz, you make me question your sanity. One or the other is fine?? Statistics??? Biology I can understand, but stats???The RD forum is interesting, not important. It is just a forum.
Back to your ppoint about Dawkins' targets for now. Don't you think this is just...becasue the books you mention are the ones most common? I say this because on a theist blog, I read that RD attacks Christianity and appears to leave Muslims and Hindus in peace. This was, obviously, an American site and I wondered why the contributer just thought of Christianity. However, I thought the number of Muslims would be low there and the only Hindu she'd come across would be Apu Nahasapeemapetilon - hardly a target. Are you not thiniking RD attacks the books you mention because....they are the closest? If RD was Indian, do you think he'd be attacking these two books with the same intensity (OK, I'll give you the Koran in this scenario too).
Think your degree will be worth anything?
Other Comments by Goldy
45. Comment #100534 by Faith Collapsing on December 18, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I have to say, the color of the cover is nicer than that of the book it tries to resemble. It looks less like someone ate a lot of mustard and threw up on some alphabet soup. Other Comments by Faith Collapsing
46. Comment #100536 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 18, 2007 at 8:44 pm
"Don't you think this is just...becasue the books you mention are the ones most common?"Sure, but that's kind of irrelevant. He still targets a controversial piece of literature.
"I say this because on a theist blog, I read that RD attacks Christianity and appears to leave Muslims and Hindus in peace."
Dawkins does concentrate his straw men and overgeneralizations on Christianity for the most part, but he also attacks Islam (I can't say I'm a huge fan either).
As for my degree, I think I'll do just fine. Keep in mind that LU is a fully accredited school, and the biology department does some fine work. I can send you our final project for ecology if you want to see just how stupid us LU students are ;-)
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
47. Comment #100537 by entheogensmurf on December 18, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I wonder how much money they have made off of Richard Dawkins, Sammy Harris, Christopher Hitchens. Other Comments by entheogensmurf
48. Comment #100557 by eXcommunicate on December 18, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Sheesh, maybe I can write a book full of half-baked nonsense "critiquing" Dawkins, at. al., and I can make thousands of dollars!It's like that dude, D'Souza. I wish I could be as intellectually dishonest as some of these guys and rake in their kind of cash.
The fact these fleas get published at all is at the very least evidence against a benevolent deity.
Other Comments by eXcommunicate
49. Comment #100592 by GBile on December 19, 2007 at 12:44 am
I have no problem with all the 'flea books', they mostly show the shallowness of the theistic arguments. For example Haught sees the atheistic position in:And whatever happiness Camus thought we could attain comes from the sense of strength and courage that we feel in ourselves when we shake our fist at the gods
I do not waste my time 'shaking my fist' at ... nothing. I don't revel in some kind of 'rebellion'.
I find Haughts thoughts much clearer and detailed than other 'theologians', although in the end in defending his 'God', he still has to rely on word-sequences like
But the conviction of the Abrahamic religions is that if ultimate reality were not at least personal -- at least capable of everything that humans are capable of -- then we could not surrender ourselves fully to it. It would be an "it" rather than a "thou" and therefore would not reach us in the depth of our being
Meaning exactly WHAT?
I have filed Haught under A. Must have 'hope' ,B. Can't live without 'purpose'.
Next Flea, please ...
Other Comments by GBile
50. Comment #100594 by epeeist on December 19, 2007 at 12:51 am
Comment #100338 by paceetrate"a world expert on science and theology"
I think they are using the alternative definition of "expert", i.e. from "ex", meaning "has been" and "spurt", meaning "drip under pressure".
Other Comments by epeeist
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #100297 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Hitch finally gets his own, albeit a third of a flea."extremist claims of scientific fundamentalism"
what - that there's simply no evidence for God? Extremist? Fundamentalist?
Obviously publishers know that anything with God in the title is going to sell now. Expect these to keep coming out until the market reaches saturation, and all the fleas (and the fleas' fleas') will end up in the bargain basement bins at the fleamarket.
Other Comments by Rtambree