Customer Reviews: Read 765 more reviews...
 The Dawkins Delusion - no science from a woolly-thinking fundamentalist January 8, 2009
Book and technology user (S E England)
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Dawkins is, if little else, at least consistent. This book follows his previous efforts at popular(ist) 'science', in books, television and face-to-face talks. There is no doubt he has attracted a big audience (so does Big Brother) but the content of his argument and, even more importantly, his efforts at reasoning are an embarrassment to anyone who has followed hard science, mathematics, philosophy or any subject demanding rigorous analysis. Once this weakness is recognised it is hard to trust much that he says without first confirming it from less red-faced sources.
In this book he selectively regurgitates the thoughts of others to his own ends, sometimes in a superficially impressive-sounding sentences. However, concentrate on what he actually says and his lines of reasoning turn out to be as flimsy as gossamer, taking unquestioning leaps of faith when it suits him more readily than the targets of his stream of barbs. No reason can penetrate the pre-hardened bastion of this died-in-the-wool fundamentalist. Add to this the relentlessly strident tone and what remains for the thinking person is little more than tabloid pap, albeit spoken in a Oxford accent.
On the positive side, this book has doubtless made Dawkins a nice little nest egg for his retirement. Now if only he can manage a resurgence of interest in 'selfish genes' and 'memes' he'll be laughing all the way to the bank. On second thoughts, he'll probably be seething at all who don't unquestioningly follow his rants. At least Oxford has mitigated the embarrassment he must have caused them by appointing a capable thinker as his successor.
For an introduction to rigorous thinking, the reader could do worse than start with one of the short introductions to philosophy by Bertrand Russell, who says more about the assumptions, methods and limitatations underlying science in one chapter that Dawkins even now appears to appreciate in spite of having churned out several thousand pages in what he presumably believes to be the 'scientific mode'. For example, The Problems of Philosophy shows much about what thinking, including scientific thinking, really is and what it is not. If Dawkins had spent more time with books such as this it is doubtful that selfish genes, memes and his fundamentalism posturing as atheism (and bring the latter into disrepute) would have seen the light of day.
 The God Delusion January 6, 2009
martinblank (UK)
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
'The God Delusion' - perhaps the clue is in the title. Opening this book and finding the author happily concluding that religious belief is reasonable would come as something of a surprise. 'You are all quite right to believe as you do' would be a dull book.
We should as adults be able to differentiate between the question of ultimate causes (which is marvellously contradictory) and the origins, influences, aims and claims of Abrahamic prophets and sects now and throughout a couple of thousand years of recent history. Dawkins supposes that we can make such a distinction. In doing so he also supposes that readers are open to combative rationalist discourse (or at least interested in what this might consist of). The book really has nothing to offer anyone not wanting combat, reason or atheism.
Any number of books on geology, physics, dinosaurs, the universe, or the history of peoples, science and the planet can be had for beans in an open society. You would think - sometimes - that Dawkins made up atheism yesterday simply to rile the religious. But this is not so. On the other hand, atheists might find Dawkins a little annoying too. 'Just set out the facts plainly, Richard, and do it a bit more quickly.'
We should regardless be able to distinguish between the fate of millions of our fellow beings and the pomp, comfort and status enjoyed by corporate religious leaders within their various establishments. Dawkins is not asking a great deal here. Do the major religions enjoy state protections and convenient media obfuscations that kick in when the various factions start killing one another? Well, yes, they do. Is theology a genuine discipline? Only if Star Trek is as well. Dawkins ranges far and wide in his quest to take down arguments for religion. He is constantly and highly erudite but sometimes a tad discursive while doing so. I fear some readers will simply lose the Dawkins thread.
No amount of sophisticated argument and learning is relevant when the appeal and immediate cause of coercive child indoctrinating religion is simplicity allied with whereabouts of birth and to whom we are born. In this Dawkins can be of little help, pulling in moths, candles, natural selection and memes, which is all very interesting but not likely to play to a packed house every night. There is a lot in and to 'The God Delusion' - none of which is likely to thrill a committed non-thinker.
We exist in a hard to fathom circumstance, what does this mean? Need it have any meaning? Dawkins guides us through the arguments for and against. Some of these are rather old arguments. But this is also atheist polemic. Dawkins is stating a case, at times majestically. The Bible does the same thing without the majesty. The other difference is Dawkins leaves you free to decide without supernatural penalties attached.
Still, a book is a book, the world progresses when questions are put and answered, to oppose Dawkins without refuting him is an unwitting confirmation of his central theses, and you still know what you're getting when you buy a book by a famous atheist entitled 'The God Delusion'.
Post-speciesist Piffle January 5, 2009
S. CREAM (los angeles)
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation." Well, that's Dawkins' contention as he opens chapter 8 at least. Later on in the same section of the book, the author claims that the phrase "American Taliban" was begging to be coined. Begged by whom? The frothing at the mouth reactionaries who toss schoolyard insults at those they do not agree with?
Peter Singer, high priest of the deeply lunatic fringe of the animal liberation movement who argues amongst other perverse ideas that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, is claimed by Dawkins to be "...the most eloquent advocate of the view that we should move to a post-speciesist condition in which humane treatment is meted out to all species that have the brain power to appreciate it." It would be interesting to engage this ethic with the good professor using a hypothetical plague epidemic carried by rats.
Pondering the issue of abortion, the author compares the suffering of a cow in a slaughterhouse to a developing human fetus that has been terminated. Apparently the value human life is comparative to cattle. When they took Bessie to market they may very well have killed the next Marie Curie?
I share Richard Dawkins' atheism as devotedly as he no doubt does, but I cannot countenance his moral equivalency. I am far more afraid of Islamofascism (which to his credit he attacks but does not venture to call by that title) than American Christians who wish to take Harry Potter out of the library.
My values are Humanist, but I am an unabashed 'speciesist.' The philosophical world, the sciences, and the 'Zeitgeist' that indicates we are capable of becoming more compassionate, kind and humane, come from the human condition not from the activities of say a herd of reindeer.
Not Dawkins' best work by a long shot, this book is a haphazard invective of muddy moral musings and unbalanced argument against religious faith.
Aggressively atheist and more than a little smug. December 29, 2008
T. West (England)
10 out of 15 found this review helpful
I am an Agnostic who leans towards atheism, and was recommended this book by a friend over a year ago, so I made sure it was on my Christmas list (oh, the irony).
I only read about two chapters but found the hectoring tone very off-putting, and there was a degree of smug hubris not present in the books of other science writers. Much of what I read was anecdotal and delighted in sharing oh-so-clever and bullish ripostes to religious people who took issue with his strong stance. This didn't convince me of anything other than that Dawkins is an insufferable git.
A passage that made me abandon the book completely was an infantile and sarcastic commentary on Freeman Dyson's acceptance speech for the Templteton prize, in which he refers to the possibility of a higher conciousness. I had heard of Dyson long before Dawkins and he is credited as being one of the 20th century's finest minds, so to hear Dawkins sneer at the great man was a little galling.
This book is delibrately confrontational and downright rude to a lot of people, implying that they are ignorant buffoons. I have no love for the church and place my trust in science, but have known deeply caring Christians who live by the teachings of Jesus to better themselves, and are still open-minded and speak intelligently on a wide number of subjects, although the screaming-mad hate-mongers of all religions do get a well-deserved pasting, so it's not all bad.
That would be fine, but Dawkins himself seems to have spawned an unforgiving and cold look at faith, which could be labelled as fundamentalist Atheism.
This book makes for quite unpleasant reading, although I now know from seeing him on TV and the internet that he can be more tactfull in conveying his views when he wants to.
 Get a life December 29, 2008
A Reader (UK)
0 out of 14 found this review helpful
What kind of a retard would write a book like this?
Get a life Dawkins.
|
