"If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed"*

[Purrybonker]

*Penn & Teller.

Well, that's an overstatement. But this is a very, interesting read for anyone who would like to gain an open-minded perspective on the rational and intellectual foundations of religion.

Be warned - it's written by the poster-child for atheism, a renowned Brit biologist, but it is a fascinating read.

The Lutheran pastor in my family even gives it a thumbs up!!

Number one on the best seller list in Canada. Number 10 in US on NY Times best seller list.

Don't be scared to test that indoctrination that was drilled into all of our heads as children.

[the]

Can you give a quick summary of it?

[on-ramp]

from Amazon

From Publishers Weekly
The antireligion wars started by Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris will heat up even more with this salvo from celebrated Oxford biologist Dawkins. For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. But Dawkins, who gave us the selfish gene, anticipates this criticism. He says it's the scientist and humanist in him that makes him hostile to religions—fundamentalist Christianity and Islam come in for the most opprobrium—that close people's minds to scientific truth, oppress women and abuse children psychologically with the notion of eternal damnation. While Dawkins can be witty, even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is "psychotic," Aquinas's proofs of God's existence are "fatuous" and religion generally is "nonsense." The most effective chapters are those in which Dawkins calms down, for instance, drawing on evolution to disprove the ideas behind intelligent design. In other chapters, he attempts to construct a scientific scaffolding for atheism, such as using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality. He insists that religion is a divisive and oppressive force, but he is less convincing in arguing that the world would be better and more peaceful without it. (Oct. 18)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Scientific American
Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, tells of his exasperation with colleagues who try to play both sides of the street: looking to science for justification of their religious convictions while evading the most difficult implications—the existence of a prime mover sophisticated enough to create and run the universe, "to say nothing of mind reading millions of humans simultaneously." Such an entity, he argues, would have to be extremely complex, raising the question of how it came into existence, how it communicates —through spiritons!—and where it resides. Dawkins is frequently dismissed as a bully, but he is only putting theological doctrines to the same kind of scrutiny that any scientific theory must withstand. No one who has witnessed the merciless dissection of a new paper in physics would describe the atmosphere as overly polite.
George Johnson is author of Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order and six other books. He resides on the Web at talaya.net

[SCWDP911]

If a person is going to bother reading anything that Dawkins has written, they should at least take the time to also review an equally educated point of view from the other side of the argument, such as Hugh Nibley or Francis Collins.

[Seahawk]

For a bunch of avowed atheists/agnostics you guys seem, well, embroiled.

Let's just be excellent to each other.

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by on-ramp
from Amazon

...The most effective chapters are those in which Dawkins calms down, for instance, drawing on evolution to disprove the ideas behind intelligent design.

I agree with that entirely. He comes out shooting from the hip in the first couple of chapters. But once he calms down (about 1/3 of the way in) he becomes a very interesting read.

I won't bore you with subjective commentary.

If the subject matter appeals to you - you won't be disappointed.

If the subject matter leaves you cold. Ignore it.

Originally posted by V8_ranch

If a person is going to bother reading anything that Dawkins has written, they should at least take the time to also review an equally educated point of view from the other side of the argument, such as Hugh Nibley or Francis Collins.

Can't argue with that, but Dawkins does do a reasonable job of referencing arguments from the "other side". The book is heavily annotated and referenced.

[Moses]

"The Selfish Gene" was a great read.

[Jeff Higgins]

Isn't it amazing how much more intelligent an author appears when he supports your beliefs?

[SCWDP911]

[Can't argue with that, but Dawkins does do a reasonable job of referencing arguments from the "other side". The book is heavily annotated and referenced. [/B][/QUOTE]

The only problem there is that an effective writer, or orator for that matter, can very often help make his/her point by selecting the points from the "other side" that they want to "rebut" or "rebuke" without interference from that other party. It still ends up a one sided opinion and argument... in my opinion.

[kang]

http://www.mrdeity.com/

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by Moses
"The Selfish Gene" was a great read.

Dawkins references/takes from that work quite a bit in building his Darwinian causal arguments. I found that premise amongst the most interesting. Must add that book to my list.

[jluetjen]

I have a hard time sitting through chapters of rants before someone makes a point. You'd do better checking out Francis Collins , the leader of the Human Genome Project and the head of a research project aimed at understanding human nature at a genetic level. I guess he's going to be interviewed in this Friday's National Geographic podcast as a follow-up to the interview he did in the February issue of National Geographic.

Richard Dawkins was interviewed on NPR about the God Delusion and also discussed Collins during the interview.

[Flatbutt1]

Well with all due respect to all interested parties. I just can't engage in this discussion anymore. Talk amongst yourselves

[sjf911]

Well he is only ranting because he just figured out what those of us in Quantum Physics have known for decades. The biologists are late to the game. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle rules!

[island911]

Funny .. athiests who insist so. They tend to be people who really have issues with religious zealots.

[kstar]

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823



And a great one from Orwell too:

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

-George Orwell

[kang]

"It has served us well, this myth of Christ."

Alledgly Pope Leo X

[island911]

which myth?

[pwd72s]

My prediction? This book will not change the world. So, if this disappoints you? Prepare for doom.

[sammyg2]

I am amazed at how effort you people put into trying to discredit religious faith. Why is that?
Are you so insecure, so afraid that you are wrong, so threatened that someone believes in something different that you have to attack it at every chance? The obvious answer is yes, you are.