Re: Got God Delusion

[maestroanth]

Just wanted to know what you all thought.

[Tanker]

Fantastic book, a little dry in places but over all very enjoyable.

[MariaEvri]

agreed. I find it very enjoyable, and in my opinion, an easier read than the failed hypothesis.

[Hitsumei]

It wasn't bad, though I did find some of it rather silly.

[curiosityandthecat]

I thought it was more enjoyable as an audiobook with Dawkins reading. That wonderful British humor comes out better verbally than on paper. Loved it.

[jcm]

i cheated and got it on itunes. since i do a lot of driving, i thought it was a good idea...plus dawkins reads it and that is a plus!

if you are new to dawkins then you should enjoy it. I felt like i've already heard much of the things he says in the book.

yeah and some of it is rather silly.

[seasonsofmadness]

I'm about half way done reading it. I think it's really good; very informative.

What are all these silly parts everyone is talking about?

[Whitney]

I thought it was good but I only read it because my husband had bought it and a lot of theists were complaining about Dawkins being too harsh in it.  I did not think he was harsh or rude and it seemed like he was going out of his way to be non-offensive.  I kinda got tired of reading towards the end since it was meant to be read by theists and not people who were already convinced.  I like The Blind Watchmaker a lot better.

[Hitsumei]

I'm about half way done reading it. I think it's really good; very informative.

What are all these silly parts everyone is talking about?

Particularly his turning around of the booing 747 argument springs to mind. I find it silly particularly because he rightfully claims it to be a straw-man of evolution, but then turns it around on god.

I'm not aware of any theists that think that god popped into exist one day, or is composed of a multitude of intricate parts, so that is no less a straw-man.

Also how he clearly rails against the evils of religion, but when challenged about it says that he is merely interested in whether it is true or not, and not whether or not it is bad. His intuition is that the world would be better off without it, and thinks that it is a question for anthropology. Which is a good answer, but I really don't think that his book implies that at all.

Mostly I don't like how he doesn't really engage with any substantial philosophy or theology. If you want a book that really presents excellent arguments for and against god, then I would suggest reading "The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God" by J.L. Mackie. Despite what the name of his book may imply, he is an atheist.

[Kodanshi]

I like The Blind Watchmaker a lot better.

WUV!

[PipeBox]

I'm about half way done reading it. I think it's really good; very informative.

What are all these silly parts everyone is talking about?

Particularly his turning around of the booing 747 argument springs to mind. I find it silly particularly because he rightfully claims it to be a straw-man of evolution, but then turns it around on god.

I'm not aware of any theists that think that god popped into exist one day, or is composed of a multitude of intricate parts, so that is no less a straw-man.

Also how he clearly rails against the evils of religion, but when challenged about it says that he is merely interested in whether it is true or not, and not whether or not it is bad. His intuition is that the world would be better off without it, and thinks that it is a question for anthropology. Which is a good answer, but I really don't think that his book implies that at all.

Mostly I don't like how he doesn't really engage with any substantial philosophy or theology. If you want a book that really presents excellent arguments for and against god, then I would suggest reading "The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God" by J.L. Mackie. Despite what the name of his book may imply, he is an atheist.

Haven't read it, but the 747 things sounds silly.  Still, it's not so bad.

It's kind of like a bunch of creationists roll up to the Academy of Sciences attempting to blow it up with a confetti cannon.  RD walks out, and remarks on how ridiculous the thing is and how it has no chance of bringing down the building, then proceeds to wheel it over to the nearest church and fire it at it half a dozen times in some mix of spite, contentment at proving through demonstration that it indeed doesn't work, and the joy of firing the ridiculous weapon at the people that made it even if it isn't doing anything.  "Do you like that?  Well do you?  I was under the impression that this was exactly the sort of thing you would like!"  

[Kylyssa]

I liked "The Selfish Gene" better because I love Dawkins little forays into the animal world.  It's got more coffee table science in it, I guess.  I also liked "The Blind Watchmaker" better.

[Hitsumei]

I liked "The Selfish Gene" better because I love Dawkins little forays into the animal world.  It's got more coffee table science in it, I guess.  I also liked "The Blind Watchmaker" better.

I also liked those books, but I think that my favorite of his books was "The Ancestor's Tale".

[Kodanshi]

Yes and yes! Blind Watchmaker and Ancestor’s Tale both do it for me

[Whitney]

Topic split:  viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2946

Go there ^ if you want to discuss God and morality.