Rating:  -
The sine qua non of all true rationalism is a distrust of --'enthusiasm.' The good professor, however, is about as zealous a human being as any who has ever blazed across the pages of religious history. Can one possibly trust such a man's judgment about such important matters? You well know the answer.
Rating:  -
I have little doubt that when Professor Dawkins writes a book about biology, he researches his topic in great detail, finds out what preceding work has been done, and scrupulously gives the proper credit for preceding work.
Why, then, has Professor Dawkins written a book about religion without doing adequate research on the subject?--in particular, without reading any of the most significant previous critics of religion--without, even, being familiar with the best known of these critics, such as Spinoza and Nietzsche?
Because of his lack of research, Professor Dawkins often unwittingly duplicates the arguments of his predecessors, and gives no credit where it is due. It is unfathomable to me that a man could publish a book while remaining so complacently ignorant of the subject matter.
It is not that Professor Dawkins is wrong. The most intellectually sophisticated men have known for the entire history of Western culture that gods are fictions--literary creations, not entities that exist outside of the human imagination. (For an intelligent and thoughtful history of the long record of opposition between intellect and myth, see Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson.)
What is remarkable is that men cling to belief in God, both in its original form and in various modified and attenuated forms--in other words, that the fictions of religion are so much more influential than any other sort of fiction. To understand why these fictions persist despite their intellectual untenability, we need to understand the psychology of belief. The following classic works have excellent discussions on this subject and I would recommend reading them rather than The God Delusion:
The Essential Spinoza: Ethics And Related Writings
Basic Writings of Nietzsche (Modern Library Classics)
The Future of an Illusion
Rating:  -
This book has been reviewed to death, so I'm not going to add much. I will just say this book changed my life. I recommend it to anyone who dares to know the truth from a scientific point of view. When confronted with such fundamental questions, one should ask themselves whether they believe it because of the facts or because it comforts and provides security. The same should be asked about non-belief. Kant once declared "dare to know." This book is for readers who are brave enough to follow Kant's words.
Rating: -
Richard Dawkins explains his views in a very intelligent and thought provoking manner. He bravely delves into the myths of religion and why they are fiction and not facts. He explains that science is always asking questions, people who promote one religion or another ask us to just believe and not ask questions.
I recommend this well-written book to everyone who has an inquiring mind, especially regarding science and religion.
Rating: -
Now, I am a Danish native speaker and, albeit reading a lot in English, I have only read "The God Delusion" ("Illusionen om gud") in Danish translation. However, having read most of the books of Dawkins in English, I tend to believe that I have got the message right. Thus having covered my most used bodypart and further wish to disclaim any professionel knowledge on the subject (I only have an old Danish masters degree in Social Science), it is nevertheless with delight to comment on this book.
It is a book written with humor and charm, knowledge and reason. Four keywords to the writtings of Dawkins in general. But the special thing about this particular book is that it addresses the opposite of all four in one. The book presents a fierce and well documentet attack on religious dogma in an intimate-with-the-reader way (as Dawkins masters so well) and never falls into the trap of becoming dogmatic itself.
After all, the central postulate is that the existance of God has never been proven or even made likely, and that the Hypothesis should be dealt with as any other (failed) Hypothesis. It should at least be testable by reason (if not, "especially" problematic in this special case, by experiment!) and it has failed to do so. The God delusion as a real comfort may have an appeal ("faith in faith equals more comfort"), but it still remains pure faith, not an argument for the actual existance of God. Dawkins makes a solid case for challenging God as existant or as of comfort. In fact, I find the stance of Atheism so clearly spelled out that I wonder, why Dawkins makes no reference to Albert Camus ("The Myth of Sisyphos" etc.), because, in the existentialist Univers of Camus and others, I find grand overlaps to the Darwinian stance. That, in my humble oppinion, is a shortcoming. Dawkins makes a major case - rightly so - of the American "Creationism" as the religious opponent to scientific reason. I completely agree and I worry too. "Gods own country" has become too religious!
Here are my main concerns with the book. Although Dawkins here and there refers also to Islam as a dogmatic religion, his main target is "only" Creationism. It seems to me that he avoids - not ignores - the danger to the West posed by the rise of Islam during the recent decades. Religion is a cause of conflict. Overall, the book is predominantly opposing Christian Creationism, not Islam. I wish the critical voice on religion would have sharper teath against the fundamental problems of Islam (not Muslims) than the book presents. That is probably more than is realistically to be expected from Oxford, were the rich elite from muslim countries come with many money to study. I have another problem, which I guess everybody share. Dawkins claims that "replicators" only had to arise once. Logically true. But in a discussion of God, pro or Con, one cannot avoid discussing the existance of the Universe, which, given the value of "six Numbers" (Martin Rees) is extremely likely not to give rise to life. Dawkins comes up with astronomical likelyhood figures for life given the Universe, and I personally believe the Universe is full of life, but, it seems we run out of argument for or against God when reversing time to Big Bang. Dawkins has no answer to this. Ultimately he therefore cannot prove or disprove God. God may be a designer. Personally I think of no designer, just a Universe more complicated than physicists can explain. But ultimatly it is no argument concerning God (sorry, Mohammed, bleshed be his name, the Prophet).
Basically it is a very intelligent book and it is full of challenge to othodoxy, dogma and irrationality. This is where Christmas comes in! Dawkins is a civilised person and I guess he too, has a Christmas Party. But this is not religion. It is culture. Santa may be out of reach, but the Christmas Carrols and the Turkey is of this world, and they tune in so well and taste so well that they make heaven on Earth. Even a month before Christmas. Read Dawkins and become a little more clever. We do not believe in Santa, The Banana God , Allah or God as such. I do not.
|
|
|
Make Us Your Home Page
Bookmark This Site NOW
Go to Astrology Store