Typically, it would be humorous to propose scientific evidence from a work of science fiction. In the same way, quoting Wikipedia in an academic paper produces a comedic effect, and to encounter a complicated philosophical issue with a piece of armchair philosophy is silly. However, this sort of thing is sometimes submitted with grave sincerity, and then it becomes something worse than an innocent jest. It turns into something of an insult to the intelligent men and women who do serious work in the field.
Richard Dawkins is undoubtedly an intelligent man, and like most intelligent people, it is equally clear that he holds his opinions on whatever subject to which he devotes his attentions to be rather important and insightful. He's a man who doesn't idly waste his own time. Unfortunately, professional philosophers have seen his work and some of them have even tried to correct him, saying with a unanimous conviction that "Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course." It really is quite bad. For instance, he makes strident declarations (twice, I believe) that lead to epistemological skepticism, but perhaps we've misunderstood his intentions.
It is questionable how seriously he expected anyone to treat this work. It is not written in his usual style, the first-person frame of reference gives away the fact that he is not speaking as a professional, but simply as someone with an opinion, like any of his readers. The book is not organized into an obvious progression but addresses a variety of topics of broadly varying quality and importance. He skips over rather controversial material without a word, neglects to define his terms, doesn't seem overly interested in engaging the arguments of those who intelligently disagree (I'm not even sure he believes they exist), and generally writes as though he is addressing those who already share his position. It seems that Dawkins intended the book simply to provide an outlet for expressing a collection of thoughts that he felt his more avid readers would enjoy perusing. In that case, unfortunately it acts merely as an artifact of belief perseverance for both sides.
The book confirms ideas I had growing up about god and religion: which is just a thick soup full of superstion!
I find courage to break out from my deeply religious background. IF indeed there is life after death, I will seek out Jesus and this god and DEMAND for explanations; they've got a lot of explaining to do!!!!
By the way Mr. Dawkins, I know how the magic trick of catching live bullets with one's mouth is done :)
An extremely informative and real look at all aspects and arguments for religion. As well as a very intelligent writing on why they are not to be believed.
this book is a perfect example on comparing Apple to onion to prove that orange is not like tomato. don't get me wrong, the author is pretty talented and he puts his finger on a very critical and sensitive questions, but I don't trust his approach in convincing me. another thing I don't like about is how he quotes famous scientists when they make "somewhat" atheist statement, then he move on on putting words into their mouths. so you will hear things like " what Einstein really meant is.." or "perhaps what X wanted to say is.." . if that looked familiar to you then you guessed it right; that what most religions leaders do in order to convince their follower about the meaning behind saint's X action (s).
being a follower of Islamic religion, I can assure that the author knows little about Islam, and most of his knowledge based on what others wrote about it.
at the end; read the book, its amazing to see how people think.
Don't you just love a great story well told?
They don't call Dawkins "Darwin's Rottweiler" for nothing, he truly destroys "Design Theory". His tone is fervent nearly the point of hostility. Agnostics don't start religious wars, so why the call them "Namby Pamby Fence Sitters?" The good: The voice and timing of the narrators are excellent. He notes how we "pick and choose" selected passages(cited chapter & verse) and ignore the evil ones (allowing you to kill your children for talking back). His argument that our morals have developed independent of The Bible is powerful. He has a point that inculcating children into abstract religion is nonsensical. The bad: He never acknowledges the simple truth, pointed out by others: 'You can't prove a negative'. His 'meme' theory was a tad confusing. Oddly this scholar resorts to quoting a comedian's book to help make two of his points. Finally, I would like to hear far more Bible absurdities than the four or so that both Sweeny and Dawkins chose as the most egregious examples of evil documented and apparently condoned by The Bible. (Such as the avid consent of Lot for his daughters to be raped.)Surely there must be many more, in such a long book, to quote to the radically religious that it is NOT quite the "Good Book" they claim. If you don't want to delve so technically in non-belief get Julia Sweeny's "Letting Go of God" instead. It is probably more persuasive in its brevity and humor and covers nearly all the main topics than 100 pages of Dawkins undoing the logic of those who have "proven God's existence". Lastly, he fails to address the issue that IF there IS a God he/she/it would NEVER let us PROVE God's existence because that knowledge would destroy our free will. A certain threat of a Hell held over our head would change anyone's behavior. If humans create good everywhere with no threat we achieve God's aim, Heaven on Earth.
Even though Dawkins denies it, this is a fundamentalist advocacy of atheism and "religion" of Darwinism (natural selection) as to a worldview. Although this is observable within species it breaks down transitionally as well as to the creation of the cosmos. Dawkins denies any possibility of the supernatural to explain the unexplainable but yet relies on it to allow natural selection as the first cause of creation...
Additionally this includes a "gross" misreading of the Bible, taking scripture out of context, not acknowledging the redemption of Jesus Christ and abrogation of the old testament theocracy laws - which demonstrate the fallen, sinful nature of man and the gift of grace - forgiveness of sin (no condemnation/unmerited favor) and the imparting of righteousness through accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
To balance these assertions I would recommend reading "Has God Spoken? Proof of God's Divine Inspiration" by Hank Hanegraaf, and other resources online
False religions have long been around and have been warned about throughout the Bible. The solution is not "religion" but "relationship" and knowledge of the Bible and Jesus Christ. This age of scientific enlightenment continues to support the inspired word of God.
This book addresses and answers nearly every argument the true believers of our world make to convince us that imaginary beings are in charge. Great ammunition when confronted with aggressive proselytizers.
I have been married to the same wonderful wife for over 27 years and have two adult children, out of the house, that are married, working, and doing well.
This book was all I need to listen to from Richard Dawkins.
I might listen to more of Richard Dawkins' books.
Yes, I would be willing to listen to more of Richard Dawhins and Lalla Ward's readings, they did a nice job.
The God Delusion did not have characters.
I would focus on what to believe in and not so much what not to believe in.
Richard Dawkins attempts to systematically dispel any and all rationalizations for believing in a supreme being. I believe it is a valiant attempt, but the pure act of trying to convince others that there is no god is, to me, part of a religion in and of itself.
I do not believe in a god for two main reasons: 1) It makes me feel better than believing that there is a god, and 2) The idea allows people to avoid thinking on their own and simply assign anything they do not understand to something no one can explain. But if I tried to convince others they should bend to my way of "thinking" (believing), I feel that is the same as any other commonly accepted religion in existence.
The story itself was good, although not compelling.
The performance itself was very good....however, just illustrated my point further.
Yes - I enjoy hearing arguments for unprovable assumptions.