This is an important book. I won’t say it changed my world, but it did change some thoughts. You need to read it.
This is my first introduction to Richard Dawkins, so I didn’t know what to expect. And, at the beginning, I was a bit confounded: I got the sense this would be a religion-bashing tract, and I wasn’t sure I wanted to continue. That, and it was incredibly dense. I almost stopped.
Maybe it’s my stubbornness, or my need to finish every book I start (the only one I can remember not finishing was The Theory of the Leisure Class, by Thorstein Veblen. That was undergrad, and voluntary reading, so cut me some slack). And I’m glad I did.
Dawkins’ ideas are fresh and refreshing. He has a way of discussing thing, “big” things, in a rational way. I found many of my confusions about religions tackled in this book. (Confusions as to how so many people accept on “blind faith” being one of them – have you seen Jesus Camp yet? – this power-in-numbers, God-elected-me president, if-you’re-not-like-us-you-should-die, “new” American ideal is horrifying.)
In the end, I would say that Dawkins does not condone belief in God. He is an avowed atheist, but I do not think he would try to “un-convert” someone from his/her chosen faith. I do believe he would ask him/her to question his/her belief.
Of course, questionning and looking for evidence goes against Faith, by definition. Oh well. Read it.
As a side note, I found an interesting piece in the NY Times recently about Dawkins and a colleague having trouble getting into a theater showing a creationist documentary they were being quoted in. What is Ben Stein thinking?
Finished: 3/30/08
Pages: 374 (not including notes and appendices)
Running Page Count: 5,455
March 30, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I thought it was good, but he focused too much on the creation vs. evolution debate instead of God’s existence.
April 7, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I loved this book. It was tough reading at times, but it helped me to recognize my own thoughts and feelings. I have been a closet Athiest for a long time and didn’t even know it.
When I first started doubting, and questioning my beliefs, I would say I was Agnostic. After reading the book, I realized I am Atheist, not Agnostic, and it is not a negative thing. I feel at peace with my realization, and don’t have to add the, “I believe ( ). accept for this part.”
If someone asks about my belief, or lack thereof, I let them know, and tell them also that I am fine with everyone believing what they want. This is just how I have chosen to live my life.
April 8, 2008 at 9:58 am
I think the debate needed to focus more on Darwin vs. Intelligent Design mainly because we can’t prove God’s existence. That being said, we can’t scientifically disprove it either. We can amass two hundred years of facts (evolution), but until we find that definitive “NO!”, faith will remain in the faithful. That’s part of the problem with faith – it requires no facts.
To the second point, I too considered myself an Agnostic (seemed the “safe” choice to make). Now, I see the folly of that label. I do believe in “something else” that is out there (as a practioner of the martial arts and yoga, chi is a mysterious lesson), but I do not believe in a jealous overlord who creates (and destroys) at will. I think Dawkins’ book helped me see the folly of my own labels.
That being said, I do not feel the need to take up the Atheist flag and protest all the “fooled believers.” (Yet.) They have a right to their own beliefs. My problem is when those beliefs interfere with my beliefs – freedom of speech, for instance. I see a day coming when our lack of separation between church and state will have a splintering effect on this country. Pleasant thoughts before morning coffee, eh?