Scan barcode
lethaldose's review against another edition
5.0
There is a reason why Richard Dawkins is possibly the most admirer person in the world by atheists. In this book he deals with almost every issue that props up religion and keeps the fence sitters going to church and unwillingly to admit that they are atheists. If you read atheist literature each writer has there own method for condemning religion. Dawkins angle is science. He let's the bible condemn itself where it fits, but mostly he searchs for the answers in science. Does he find them all, certainly not, and he would be the first to admit it, but that is the deal with science. We don't all the answers, but we have theories and are always searching for the truth. Dawkins puts forth all his theories and all the evidence he has for backing them, he gives religion the credit it is due, which both he and i believe isn't much. If you are looking for a book that does more than just take offense at religion but try to understand it and condemn it by science this is the book for you. If you are already and atheist this book is great for helping you not feeling like you are not the crazy one, which is what happens when your are in the minority. And gives you some very logical ammunition for when your are attacked by theists. If you have any doubts about your religion this book is a must read, Dawkins presents alot of ideas that you probably haven't thought of or can't work out. For me it was always the beginning. I just couldn't work out how it all started without a supernatural superhero, and I don't know if Dawkins has it right, but his theory is at least as plausible as a magic man living in the clouds. Will this book convert anyone, i don't know, but it certainly will make an open-minded person think.
meedamian's review against another edition
1.0
Even though I agree with the author, the book is needlessly long, painfully repetitive, and IMO plain awful.
If you want something great by Dawkins, go for Selfish Gene instead.
If you want something great by Dawkins, go for Selfish Gene instead.
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
5.0
"Isn't enough to see that a garden is beautiful with out having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
“There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.”
“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.
Richard Dawkins starts his book with his eye opening argument against undeserved respect that we accord to religious institution. Any book taking a skeptical look on religion is often met with criticism on the basis of this undeserved respect He quotes a lot of examples to show why religious prophets and belief system should be put to question.
He refutes various arguments - not with his own original arguments, but with argument already in public knowledge - although not in popular knowledge, so it was a desirable thing to do. . Most of replies are very correct, except for argument of faith but then by its very meaning faith is to go blind to all reason.
His 'Ultimate Boeing 747 argument', the part he goes on to call the center of book, is to me the weakest section - a number of counter arguments can be and are made.
Hence the book fails at what author supposed to be its very most vital battle - but what it has rather has done is that it has put weapons of raised consciousness in hands of atheist and skeptics. It has given a platform for atheism to collect their arguments. There is so much push from various religions that someone had to speak for atheists, and Dawkins is arguably best man on job.
After dealing direct attacks on god argument, he diverges to scientific concepts of anthropic principles and Darwin imperatives - which raise one's consciousness into ways of nature. These consciousness raisers are to me best part of book; they are very much desired in common knowledge, for they work ever more powerfully than direct attacks ever do in promoting doubt.
The next few chapters go into anthropological studies of religion and morality - which are informative but inconclusive. The Good book is then criticized on well defined grounds.
The next important arguments (except for one about undeserved respect) are in last chapters:
a. In Defense of Children
“Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether they are ‘valid,’ let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so.”
b. Psychological Need of God
The above arguments are vital as they point out why atheism fails to gain popularity despite being favored by evidence. In the long term atheism or skepticism stand to gain ground against religions only by demanding - firstly, improvements in Psychological fields and secondly, by demanding the right to religious belief in true sense of word - which Dawkins nicely points out.
There is an age old argument of Russell's tea pot which has put burden of proof on believers rather than atheists. It is impossible to provide proof that something doesn't exist.
The believer, mostly a genuine believer, will on failing to reason, always take take shelter behind the ultimate shield of faith which is blind and deaf to reason - not unlike god. Reason - the very psychological need of god, Dawkins himself pointed out. Basically we need somebody to put blame of our mistakes upon, somebody who has made it duty his/her duty to take us to our happily-ever-afters - we all need our very own 'fairy god mothers'.
My Conclusion
I think people like Dawkins are too religiously atheist - they want to prove there is no god. At the end of the day, reason like faith, doesn't create truth. Baring a Newton-like scientific theory, we will never 'know' whether or not there is a god. The fact remains even if a side wins the argument in this great debate -you can never be sure the winning side is right.
From view point of reason alone, being a skeptic on such matters is most wise. the cat may be be dead or the cat may be alive!
What I think is an ideal stand is to wish for a world where people in general are 'indifferent' towards god, that is, they just don't care about it in much the same way they don't care Kant's philosophical systems or Justin Biber songs or whatever-happened-to-Bella-in-third-twilight-book.
“There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.”
“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.
Richard Dawkins starts his book with his eye opening argument against undeserved respect that we accord to religious institution. Any book taking a skeptical look on religion is often met with criticism on the basis of this undeserved respect He quotes a lot of examples to show why religious prophets and belief system should be put to question.
He refutes various arguments - not with his own original arguments, but with argument already in public knowledge - although not in popular knowledge, so it was a desirable thing to do. . Most of replies are very correct, except for argument of faith but then by its very meaning faith is to go blind to all reason.
His 'Ultimate Boeing 747 argument', the part he goes on to call the center of book, is to me the weakest section - a number of counter arguments can be and are made.
Hence the book fails at what author supposed to be its very most vital battle - but what it has rather has done is that it has put weapons of raised consciousness in hands of atheist and skeptics. It has given a platform for atheism to collect their arguments. There is so much push from various religions that someone had to speak for atheists, and Dawkins is arguably best man on job.
After dealing direct attacks on god argument, he diverges to scientific concepts of anthropic principles and Darwin imperatives - which raise one's consciousness into ways of nature. These consciousness raisers are to me best part of book; they are very much desired in common knowledge, for they work ever more powerfully than direct attacks ever do in promoting doubt.
The next few chapters go into anthropological studies of religion and morality - which are informative but inconclusive. The Good book is then criticized on well defined grounds.
The next important arguments (except for one about undeserved respect) are in last chapters:
a. In Defense of Children
“Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether they are ‘valid,’ let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so.”
b. Psychological Need of God
The above arguments are vital as they point out why atheism fails to gain popularity despite being favored by evidence. In the long term atheism or skepticism stand to gain ground against religions only by demanding - firstly, improvements in Psychological fields and secondly, by demanding the right to religious belief in true sense of word - which Dawkins nicely points out.
There is an age old argument of Russell's tea pot which has put burden of proof on believers rather than atheists. It is impossible to provide proof that something doesn't exist.
The believer, mostly a genuine believer, will on failing to reason, always take take shelter behind the ultimate shield of faith which is blind and deaf to reason - not unlike god. Reason - the very psychological need of god, Dawkins himself pointed out. Basically we need somebody to put blame of our mistakes upon, somebody who has made it duty his/her duty to take us to our happily-ever-afters - we all need our very own 'fairy god mothers'.
My Conclusion
I think people like Dawkins are too religiously atheist - they want to prove there is no god. At the end of the day, reason like faith, doesn't create truth. Baring a Newton-like scientific theory, we will never 'know' whether or not there is a god. The fact remains even if a side wins the argument in this great debate -you can never be sure the winning side is right.
From view point of reason alone, being a skeptic on such matters is most wise. the cat may be be dead or the cat may be alive!
What I think is an ideal stand is to wish for a world where people in general are 'indifferent' towards god, that is, they just don't care about it in much the same way they don't care Kant's philosophical systems or Justin Biber songs or whatever-happened-to-Bella-in-third-twilight-book.
inesjp_'s review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
Interesting book, with a great message. But it could have been more concise.
radiantdaydreams's review against another edition
1.0
As a (delusional?) Christian theist, I would be lying if I said I didn't find this a (slightly) offensive read.
miles_books45's review against another edition
Will pick up another time , A-Levels