Hey, Goggs and Tyder. Seeing as we three are such intellectuals (!), our posts will probably cross in the mail!
You know, you two, and I mean this from the heart and not condescendingly, really impress me with your reading and thinking, that is, you actually get in there and dig and think and listen, give and take, agree here, disagree there, you know what I mean. That really impresses me, and I mean that genuinely.
Oh, yes, indeedy, Goggs, I HAVE read Dawkins's book, and other stuff he's written earlier. Wow, and wow again, some heavy brains have weighed in on this topic, and I don't mean just in response to Dawkins, but an ongoing debate. Now, the following is just off the top of my head, and I may have names spelled wrong, just going on memory and impressions:
Yes, I read his TGD, Goggs, and (ha, ha) I can only abbreviate the title, because you made me laugh when you asked if I'd read the other side, so to speak. Yes, I had to force myself, Goggs, and you can really poke a guy in the ribs! But I did it, and actually walked out of the bookstore feeling a bit blasphemous (kidding), but I can't type the whole title!
Exaggerating of course, but yes, I do read all the stuff I think that addresses this whole subject. The thing with me is that I don't feel really threatened by the other side (to use that phrase) because my social values are so liberal that I take issue with many, many of the fundamentalists on their thinking about what constitutes sin, and how they presume to think, for instance, that God hates this and he hates that. I think God created us through the wondrous thing of evolution, and I still think he is actively involved, more than a mere watchmaker who wound the clock and just watches, but I don't want to get too deeply into that. Now, THEOLOGICALLY, I agree with the tenets of Christianity, I will say that.
As for Dawkins, I generally felt, and yes, indeed, he is a true scholar and has impressive credentials as a scientist, that he was too simplistic in focusing of the role of the single gene, and then the meme stuff was too simplistic for me. Now, he's the evolutionary biologist, and I don't presume to know the details of that field, not educated formally there, but that was how he struck me. On the other hand, I agreed with some of what he said, and his specific DEFENSE OF EVOLUTION is commendable to me, because I think that evolution is a wonderful thing, to think we are one of the products of that process is amazing to me.
I do remember that Dawkins alienated a lot of people, even fellow atheists, as Tyder said. Even to the point of some bitterness, and he and Stephen Jay Gould I remember went at it, but he and Gould were friends as I recall. There was some television show I recall that garnered a lot of controversy among scientists.
I remember being drawn to another U.K. scientist and theologian, apart from John Polkinghorne I've mentioned, and I don't remember his first name, McGrath was his last. He was, like Polkinghorne, an Anglican priest, but like Polkinghorne, too, and Dawkins, with impressive credentials, in McGrath's case in biophysics and/or biochemistry. I read his books, too, in refutation of Dawkins's atheism as it impacted science. He wrote The Dawkins' Delusion and another one with Dawkins's name in the title. I got them here someplace, and enjoyed reading them.
As for Tipler, yes, as I said in my post, he IS out there, no doubt, but he too has impressive scientific credentials, and Tyder's right in that the book will probably either grab you, as it did me so I couldn't put it down, or you'll throw up your hands!
Now, the thing about Tipler when I read his The Physics of Immortality when it first came out, was that I was a little put off (ha, ha) by how he kept stressing in it that he was purposely AVOIDING religion, and was focusing on the science. I do think you would like finding the book in a bookstore, Goggs, and perusing it to see if you would enjoy reading the whole thing. Two things that I most enjoyed about this book and his premise were the CENTRALITY of 1. computers and computational/memory space, especially as he postulates them in the far future, and 2. his discussion of the nature of reality and the senses, specifically of EMULATION, and I won't say anymore, but you might enjoy checking it out. Some of his premises and conclusions are certainly thought provoking, and the physics of it would appeal to you, I think.
I do agree if you can slog through the physics it's quite a lot to consider.
I don't find Dawkins all that sharp on matters of the heart and soul. But, I'm sure he's a dynamite "perfesser."
I've also heard other prominent scientist who actually agree with him and yet find his thoughts on religion and faith to be simplistic. Anyway, ya like him and good for you. You are welcome to him.