The God Delusion
6 journalers for this copy...
Oh why oh why do they all come at once?? I''m finishing one, have one ahead of this one, but will be quick -I promise!
This is really a difficult book to comment on. I have to say I really did not enjoy the first half, but I found the second half much more palatable. My question with Dawkins basically is who is his target audience with this book? If it was written for atheists, then he's preaching to the choir. If it was written for fundamentalist Christians, well then I don't think they'd read past page one. If it was written for someone like me who was brought up with a faith but heavily questions all faiths, well then he fell short and I feel he was particularly condescending. It seems to me that Dawkins bases all his rhetoric on fundamentalist Christians, while completely ignoring all Eastern faiths, barely mentioning Judaism, and also ignoring Islam and cults or cultish-type faiths. In doing so, he lost credibility with me.
It was still a very worthwhile read with a lot of food for thought, however, it's not a quick read - many times I had to go look up one of his sources, or seek out the Bible to confirm one of his passages; I had sticky notes all through the book to be able to reference something he wrote with my husband and a friend. Thought provoking to say the least. I think I'll read some John Shelby Spong now to complement this.
Thanks jms for getting this started!
It's off to ealasaidmae next week (Monday is a holiday here)!
It was still a very worthwhile read with a lot of food for thought, however, it's not a quick read - many times I had to go look up one of his sources, or seek out the Bible to confirm one of his passages; I had sticky notes all through the book to be able to reference something he wrote with my husband and a friend. Thought provoking to say the least. I think I'll read some John Shelby Spong now to complement this.
Thanks jms for getting this started!
It's off to ealasaidmae next week (Monday is a holiday here)!
Sorry this took so long - but mailed it out today.
It's here! I'm about halfway through a book now, then this one.
Overall, I'm not impressed. Dawkins does make some excellent observations. The evidence of God's improbability (of any deity's improbability) is extremely strong, though Dawkins doesn't present it very well. His assertion that we treat religion with kid gloves when there's no reason to do so, that it can even be dangerous to do so, is spot on. I was very glad to see him point out the ridiculousness of labeling children as "belonging" to a particular religion before they're even old enough to know what it means. That's a pet peeve of mine! And of course, he's absolutely right in his statement that moderate and extreme religion are closely linked - any time we teach people not to think or reason, to simply accept unquestioningly, we are laying the groundwork for extremism and fundamentalism. I just wish we could find a better spokesman!
Dawkins's arguments mostly seem weak to me. If I didn't already believe that much of what he's saying is true, I wouldn't be convinced by him. His chaotic writing style and irritating smugness and self-promotion don't help, either. They were constantly distracting me from the substance of what he was trying to say. Especially weak is his theory that we would remove much of the hatred and violence in the world simply by removing religion. I don't believe that's true. One thing I do have absolute faith in is our ability to find other ways in which "they" are different from "us," and to despise them and blow them up with gusto.
Dawkins's arguments mostly seem weak to me. If I didn't already believe that much of what he's saying is true, I wouldn't be convinced by him. His chaotic writing style and irritating smugness and self-promotion don't help, either. They were constantly distracting me from the substance of what he was trying to say. Especially weak is his theory that we would remove much of the hatred and violence in the world simply by removing religion. I don't believe that's true. One thing I do have absolute faith in is our ability to find other ways in which "they" are different from "us," and to despise them and blow them up with gusto.
Mailed to mellion108 today, delivery conf# 0307 1790 0001 7252 5779
I share istop4books' pain—it seems that all the rings and rays somehow travel in herds. I got THREE in the mail today (and I have another one sitting here to be read)! LOL
Anyway, thanks for sharing. I will read this as quickly as possible and have it winging its way to Canada as soon as I can.
Anyway, thanks for sharing. I will read this as quickly as possible and have it winging its way to Canada as soon as I can.
Ugh...I apologize for being the one to stall this ring. I never thought I would have it this long. I contacted jms1970us a while back to say I'd be sending the book as soon as I finished, and now I've let even more time pass. The funny thing is that I have finally managed to start reading the book, and I think I can finish it relatively soon. I'll give this until Jan. 7. If I haven't finished it by then, I'll go ahead and mail it to Bibliovore (already have the address). I'm so sorry - I always hate it when someone stalls a ring or a ray, and now I've done it myself. This book will be moving along within the next couple of weeks, I promise!
Finished! I feel like I just climbed a mountain or something after finally finishing this book. It took me forever to read 75 pages of this book, but after that, I was quite engrossed and didn't want to put it aside. Like istop4books, I ended up with colorful Post-it Note flags throughout the book! LOL
Read on, but be warned: I include possible spoilers here!
Dawkins, methinks thou dost protest too much. I get the impression that Dawkins wrote this particular book while in a high state of anger. This comes through loud and clear in the tone and attitude he takes toward anyone practicing any faith, especially Fundamentalist Christians (and while I share some of that anger at this point in my own country's history, I found his attitude off-putting).
An aside: If any of you are South Park fans, I dare you to read this book without frequently picturing Dawkins as he was presented in the SP spoof featuring him and a certain beloved/hated Mrs. Garrison.
Loved this:
"A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts—the non-religious included—is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other."
This was the statement toward the beginning of the book that intrigued me, and I was a bit disappointed to read on and find that Dawkins, rather than sticking with his committment to not go out of his way to deliberately offend, does just that throughout the book. Let the facts speak for themselves!
Dawkins presents some brilliant chapters regarding cosmology, physics, etc. How can you not hear of these things and not be awed by the beauty and power on our own planet, let alone within the universe? I'm amazed by the human ability to question and seek answers to those questions through science. But then Dawkins ruins it by constantly pitting science against religion. He turns his book into a sermon. Shame on you, Mr. Dawkins.
And I think I'm most flabbergasted by his shrugging off of childhood sexual abuse. Although he sympathizes with some specific cases of people who have been sexually abused by clergymen, he dismisses not only his own abuse but that of thousands of people by saying he would feel obliged to come to the defense of some of these clergy "even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience." Perhaps I'm reading more into this than what is there or taking his words out of context, but this struck me as particularly insensitive. (Although I do agree that this behavior is present in pretty much any religion, not just within the Catholic Church. Force human beings to repress natural biological urges, and people will resort to other, often dysfunctional, ways of satisfying those urges.) I know this was only a blip in a chapter of this entire book, but it just really stuck with me.
All in all, I liked reading the last 200 pages or so of the book. I think Dawkins shines best when he sticks to what he knows best—science, biology, and facts. The overwhelming condescending attitude he takes toward religious people is tiresome. He does exactly the same thing as the ultra-religious that I hate—he plows forward, claiming his view to be superior to that of anyone else and belittling and insulting anyone who doesn't follow that view. I find this attitude just as bad as that of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or George W. Bush or Fred Phelps or Pat Buchanan—I apologize for the U.S.-centric list here, but I can unfortunately continue listing names. I don't particularly care what religion other people choose to follow—just please keep it to yourself and don't force it on me or anyone else. I kept feeling like this is what Dawkins himself was trying to accomplish in this book, and it left me feeling lukewarm at best about the book. I doubt that I would pick up another of Dawkins' books based on this one, but I did come away with quite a few books out of his bibliography to add to my own wishlist. :) Perhaps the most moving sentence I read in this book is: Value the future on a timescale longer than your own. Oh, what a better world this would be if we could practice that, eh?
Another aside: Out of all the religious/non-religious discussion, what did I find most amazing? That women in Switzerland didn't get the vote until 1971. I was astounded to read this and immediately ran to my computer to check (it's true - February 7, 1971).
Thanks for the opportunity to read this book! I plan to mail it off to Bibliovore today.
UPDATED: Mailed to Bibliovore on Sat. Jan. 5, 2008
Read on, but be warned: I include possible spoilers here!
Dawkins, methinks thou dost protest too much. I get the impression that Dawkins wrote this particular book while in a high state of anger. This comes through loud and clear in the tone and attitude he takes toward anyone practicing any faith, especially Fundamentalist Christians (and while I share some of that anger at this point in my own country's history, I found his attitude off-putting).
An aside: If any of you are South Park fans, I dare you to read this book without frequently picturing Dawkins as he was presented in the SP spoof featuring him and a certain beloved/hated Mrs. Garrison.
Loved this:
"A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts—the non-religious included—is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other."
This was the statement toward the beginning of the book that intrigued me, and I was a bit disappointed to read on and find that Dawkins, rather than sticking with his committment to not go out of his way to deliberately offend, does just that throughout the book. Let the facts speak for themselves!
Dawkins presents some brilliant chapters regarding cosmology, physics, etc. How can you not hear of these things and not be awed by the beauty and power on our own planet, let alone within the universe? I'm amazed by the human ability to question and seek answers to those questions through science. But then Dawkins ruins it by constantly pitting science against religion. He turns his book into a sermon. Shame on you, Mr. Dawkins.
And I think I'm most flabbergasted by his shrugging off of childhood sexual abuse. Although he sympathizes with some specific cases of people who have been sexually abused by clergymen, he dismisses not only his own abuse but that of thousands of people by saying he would feel obliged to come to the defense of some of these clergy "even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience." Perhaps I'm reading more into this than what is there or taking his words out of context, but this struck me as particularly insensitive. (Although I do agree that this behavior is present in pretty much any religion, not just within the Catholic Church. Force human beings to repress natural biological urges, and people will resort to other, often dysfunctional, ways of satisfying those urges.) I know this was only a blip in a chapter of this entire book, but it just really stuck with me.
All in all, I liked reading the last 200 pages or so of the book. I think Dawkins shines best when he sticks to what he knows best—science, biology, and facts. The overwhelming condescending attitude he takes toward religious people is tiresome. He does exactly the same thing as the ultra-religious that I hate—he plows forward, claiming his view to be superior to that of anyone else and belittling and insulting anyone who doesn't follow that view. I find this attitude just as bad as that of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or George W. Bush or Fred Phelps or Pat Buchanan—I apologize for the U.S.-centric list here, but I can unfortunately continue listing names. I don't particularly care what religion other people choose to follow—just please keep it to yourself and don't force it on me or anyone else. I kept feeling like this is what Dawkins himself was trying to accomplish in this book, and it left me feeling lukewarm at best about the book. I doubt that I would pick up another of Dawkins' books based on this one, but I did come away with quite a few books out of his bibliography to add to my own wishlist. :) Perhaps the most moving sentence I read in this book is: Value the future on a timescale longer than your own. Oh, what a better world this would be if we could practice that, eh?
Another aside: Out of all the religious/non-religious discussion, what did I find most amazing? That women in Switzerland didn't get the vote until 1971. I was astounded to read this and immediately ran to my computer to check (it's true - February 7, 1971).
Thanks for the opportunity to read this book! I plan to mail it off to Bibliovore today.
UPDATED: Mailed to Bibliovore on Sat. Jan. 5, 2008
Great! My first experience with one of Dawkins books, and surely not the last. I’m not part of the target audience (apparently the book is destined to those people who are religious out of habit or loyalty to their family or social group, but who feel like thinking it over), but following the author’s line of reasoning is very rewarding in itself. There are a few ideas that did come to me before, but that I was too lazy to develop. I found them well explained, and there were many new and interesting arguments. Funny, he doesn’t make much of the existence of all these One True Gods around the world, yet it would seem to be the number one indication that religion is a human creation, a kind of collective work of art built over the centuries.
Is he motivated by anger; is he angry against religion? I’d say he writes more out of outrage. We have a lot to lose in the hands of fundamentalists who deny facts established by science in order to impose their own world views.
I recommend it highly, no matter whether you believe or not.
Both Taniazed and Hinerangi desisted, and I haven’t received any news from Sudokugirl. I suppose I should return the book to jms1970us. I’ll PM her shortly.
Is he motivated by anger; is he angry against religion? I’d say he writes more out of outrage. We have a lot to lose in the hands of fundamentalists who deny facts established by science in order to impose their own world views.
I recommend it highly, no matter whether you believe or not.
Both Taniazed and Hinerangi desisted, and I haven’t received any news from Sudokugirl. I suppose I should return the book to jms1970us. I’ll PM her shortly.
Great! My first experience with one of Dawkins books, and surely not the last. I’m not part of the target audience (apparently the book is destined to those people who are religious out of habit or loyalty to their family or social group, but who feel like thinking it over), but following the author’s line of reasoning is very rewarding in itself. There are a few ideas that did come to me before, but that I was too lazy to develop. I found them well explained, and there were many new and interesting arguments. Funny, he doesn’t make much of the existence of all these One True Gods around the world, yet it would seem to be the number one indication that religion is a human creation, a kind of collective work of art built over the centuries.
Is he motivated by anger; is he angry against religion? I’d say he writes more out of outrage. We have a lot to lose in the hands of fundamentalists who deny facts established by science in order to impose their own world views.
I recommend it highly, no matter whether you believe or not.
Both Taniazed and Hinerangi desisted, and I haven’t received any news from Sudokugirl. I suppose I should return the book to jms1970us. I’ll PM her shortly.
Is he motivated by anger; is he angry against religion? I’d say he writes more out of outrage. We have a lot to lose in the hands of fundamentalists who deny facts established by science in order to impose their own world views.
I recommend it highly, no matter whether you believe or not.
Both Taniazed and Hinerangi desisted, and I haven’t received any news from Sudokugirl. I suppose I should return the book to jms1970us. I’ll PM her shortly.
I got this back from my book ring. I hope everyone enjoyed reading it. If anyone id really interested in reading it, let me know and maybe we could do a trade.
