The God Delusion | Richard Dawkins

The God Delusion | Richard Dawkins | I miss Carl Sagan

books:

The God Delusion

	The God Delusion Richard Dawkins Mariner Books, 2008 - 464 pages average customer review:based on 1266 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

I disagree, but...

...this is a very good book.

I'll start my saying that I put myself in the ranks of evangelical Christians, so I agree with relatively little that Prof Dawkins says in this book.

That said, his book was insightful, and very well-written. It really did make me think about the issues that Prof Dawkins discusses.

If you're looking for a well-written, thought-provoking book defending atheism with real arguments (rather than just antireligious whining), this is definitely worth the read, regardless which side of the issue you come from.

for more information click here

I miss Carl Sagan

if you love Carl Sagan, like I love Carl Sagan,..,..then this book will bring it all back in multitudinous moments of grandeur and ecstasy. NASA needs to name it's next Mars Station after Richard Dawkins. This book is a masterpiece of ohhhs and ahhhs. I still can't seem to get too worked up about the "danger" of religion,..I mean, Darwin kneecapped the Church to the point where even the Pope is now standard fare for ridicule on Comedy Central. I don't think the remaining dopes are to be feared,...ok, some wackos will burn an abortion clinic every now an then,.but they're a vestige, dying out, we all recognize them as insane.

for more information click here

Street cred for atheists

This book seems to me an attempt to provide street cred for atheists. Dawkins already has that for me, because he was a friend of Doug Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide). So why three stars? Because readers may (wrongly) assume the reviewer agrees with a book if he gives it five stars. I don't agree with this book, but I yet enjoy Dawson's writing (and that of Christopher Hitchens) which, to my mind, is far clearer and more readable than that of say, Daniel Dennett.

That said, I don't see any new ground here. It's as if, as Chesterton said, any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with. But Chesterton said that about a century ago. Wasn't this already in Why I'm Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell? Does anyone think that debating St. Thomas Aquinas proves something? Has anyone even read Aquinas? Most of the arguments in this book were stated by H. G. Wells in The Outline of History, and answered by Chesterton in The Everlasting Man. I am not so naive to think that any self-proclaimed atheist (sic) would actually go read Chesterton or other authors to see the other side of the debate, if you can call it that, but I also find it difficult to believe they think there is no other side.

Dawkins sets himself an impossible task, but he goes about it with style and wit. That is to say, the topic is either too big or too slippery to deal with in this way. What Dawkins does instead is what Aquinas does: he considers an objection, then answers it. (Anyone with the slightest interest in Aquinas is referred to The Shorter Summa by Peter Kreeft, which summarizes Aquinas' seminal points in about an hour of reading.)

Dawkins makes the convincing observation that we are all atheists as regards the pantheon of gods throughout history; why not drop one more? My question would be what one are we dropping? More than that, what do we mean by religion? Usually, in this book, this means Christianity, whatever than means, except when that religion doesn't furnish any handy examples. Then the examples are drawn from Islam or some other religion (only the more radical versions) and generalized backwards to include Christianity. Never mind that this wouldn't fly in a debate. It's not a debate, Dawkins would insist, except of course, when he's debating Aquinas.

C.S. Lewis, who seems to be the only British non-atheist that Brits can name, Dawkins doesn't debate. Instead, he accuses Lewis of not playing the game when he says he used to be an atheist. Of course, it's all good if someone says they used to be a believer, and are now enlightened as an atheist. St. Thomas, incidentally, begins the Summa with something like: "Is there a God? Apparently not," and his definition for God is "that which no greater than can be imagined." "Belief" doesn't refer to belief in just anything, and faith isn't faith in faith.

My problem isn't so much with this book, as with the way the whole debate is cast. "Believing in God" has almost nothing to do with the Bible, which begins in a different place. The Bible begins with historical events and people's reactions to them. The New Testament begins with a figure who, as Lewis says, we may shut up as a madman, cast out as a devil, or fall at the feet of, but whom one cannot consider simply a "good man," since he claimed to be God. Christianity is entirely about coming to grips with and considering the events of history, not a philosophical argument for the existence of God. That said, we may be grateful for Dawkins' critiques of the human side of religion. Let us welcome his thoughtful pondering as a voice for reform, and take his remarks in the generous way he intends.

Finally, Dawkins' book is the best argument against itself. He writes with passion about life and a universe which, if he's right, has no meaning. A believer would say that Dawkins' nimble mind and passionate soul are themselves the best argument against macro-evolution, and that his creativity and concern reflect the passion of the Creator.

for more information click here

A brief explanation of Dawkins' flawed logic

Dawkins is highly skilled master of terminological inexactitude whereby he briskfully overlooks the employment of primary sources in his documentation outside of the science arena.

A master revisionist historian/scientist with a finely tuned sense for highly biased selective observations. The problem is, he knows next to nothing about history, theology, or approaching life as an entity other than a robot. Naturally, this catapults him into the revisionist category.

I could easily write a book in response to Dawkins. FTR, I believe in a Creator and I am a scientist. Go figure, I am a scientist with emotions and a sense of existence persisting of more than just logical, robotic thought-processes. I am the exception, not the rule.

Dawkins is clearly not a historian. I heard a debate at Oxford University, where one of the scientists claimed Stephen Jay Gould knows next to nothing about a plethora of scientific subjects in discrediting his "popular science" theories. Upon further investigation it is undeniable that Dawkins chooses, I hope it is purposeful, to understand next to nothing about history, and his use of secular quotations are disturbingly out of historical context. A difficult question is posed in regards to where I should begin in shredding his interpretation of history.

My recommendation to Dawkins is stick to science. Remain the example of what a person should not be outside of the laboratory.

I heard him speak in a public forum. His understanding of the biblical claims are so rudimentary, it would be like a Rabbi or Pope debating an astrophysicist, whereby the Rabbi or Pope starts his argument against science, "I do not know much about astrophysics, but..."

I am not making any claims about the biblical texts, because I am not yet qualified to assess their validity. One thing is unequivocally true, Dawkins is surely not qualified to provide an evaluation regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible.

I would like to see Dawkins debate Gerald Schroeder. Dawkins is wise enough not to box the heavyweights. Schroeder not only knows more about science, he knows more about the Hebrew Bible than Dawkins.

for more information click here