- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Most Helpful Favorable Review
53 out of 64 people found this review helpful.
Reason over Faith
posted by Anonymous on February 28, 2007Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Most Helpful Critical Review
4 out of 20 people found this review helpful.
posted by Anonymous on March 6, 2008Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 6, 2008
It becomes increasingly amazing what people will pay to read...oops...that must mean me too. Belitteling a belief system using Darwinism is so much a stretch. Current evolutionist have given up on Darwin's theory and looked under every rock imaginable, and some that aren't, to find something - anything except intelligent design that they can't see the obvious. Or they just don't want to see the obvious. Rule out a god and you rule out accountability and any stable morality. Right and wrong then become a slidding scale, totally situational. I will agree that there is intolerance out there, in fact most everywhere. But it is not from religion, it is from individuals and cults that twist and misuse it, just as Dawkins has misused his gift of writing to minuplate the readers conscience. Makes one wonder what is he really afraid of? Two stars for effort expended
4 out of 20 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted July 23, 2007
Needs a paradigm shift
Richard Dawkins is one of the best I've ever seen at developing book titles such as The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion. However contrary to popular opinion, his imagination in life lacks depth. He is like the proverbial Chicken Little tapped in the head from above and assumes the sky is falling. There are differences between the Bible, religion, and God, but without sufficient pragmatism, people such as Mr. Dawkins and others see them as one and the same. The Bible is a book of wisdom to be read wisely. Religion is the result of people groping in the dark for what they know is there. God stands alone and is what He is. Were it not for being so encrusted in his own mental imagery, he would probably benefit from reading the book Biblical Paradigm Shift. Reading it would show him a logical and pragmatic view of the Bible. Atheism isn't avant-garde as he seems to think, it is simply one arm clapping.
2 out of 8 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 21, 2007
I don't like to bash anyone's beliefs but until you can tell me how a baby's heart starts and life begins I will never stop believing in God.
1 out of 10 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted May 5, 2007
This is a weak book in addressing the ultimate paradox of atheism: is there absolute truths? Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, 'We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything.' Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist. You're an agnostic.
0 out of 10 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 15, 2007
I would rate the book only a '2' for the writing style and '0' for the content.
Over two centuries ago, one of Dawkin's countrymen wrote, 'A little learning is a dang'rous thing'. A doctorate in Zoology does not make Dawkins an expert in every field, namely religion, philosophy, psychology, spirituality, ethics etc., not to mention on the controversial issue whether God exists or not. But what else could be a better subject to make money than such an issue including evolution vs. creationism and atheism vs. theism, or agnostism or pantheism? For, such topics catch readers' attention, stir their emotion and imagination, and create sensation. And sensation and sound-bites make money these days. To lay the groundwork of his book, Dawkins carefully and selectively quotes Einstein in the first fifteen pages. After all who can deny what the greatest scientist since Newton said? Surprisingly, missing is one of Einstein's most profound statements: 'My religion consists of a 'humble admiration' of the 'illimitable superior spirit' who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our 'frail and feeble minds'. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the 'incomprehensible' universe, forms my idea of God.' 'Licoln Barnett, 1948, p. 101, emphasis with 'quotes' are mine'. I have no problem whatsoever to wholeheartedly accept Einstein's this 'idea of God'. With our 'feeble minds' and limited intellect we cannot comprehend, let alone prove in a laboratory or on a white board with mathematical equations whether the 'illimitable God' exists or not. Reasoning and logic is the basis of science but faith is the prerequisite for religion and believing in God. St. Aquinas said: 'To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.' There is no reason for not applying reasoning and logic to pursue my science or technology oriented profession and at the same time rely on faith 'NOT blind faith' to follow my religious and spiritual interests. Blind faith and stupidity, no doubt, have caused all the atrocities, holocaust, 9/11, wars, and injustices around the world in the name of religion since time immemorial, which Dawkins also mentions. Nonetheless, between the two extremes represented by Dawkins at one end and the creationists at the other '+infinity and -infinity of Calculus, so to speak', there is also a middle ground followed by a large number of people around the world. Obviously there will always be Dawkins and his counterpart the creationists in the world. Statistically speaking, more the normal curve is flattened by the middle ground people, better the world would be. Is Dawkins truly an atheist? If yes, why does he make this statement on page 125: '... however little we know '?!' about God '?!', then one thing we can be sure that he would have to be very very complex and presumably irreducibly so!' Finally, Dawkins frequently, uses words, such as, 'life' and 'consciousness' in the book. Can Dawkins' expertise in Zoology create consciousness and life in his laboratory? I am not talking about an intelligent robot or a cloned human being. I am talking about a 'live and conscious' human being of average intelligence, from all the basic elements, such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, copper, carbon, calcium, etc.
0 out of 8 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 22, 2007
So What's New?
As my headline states....so what's new? My Dawkins writes like he's heralding in a new way of thinking but just restates the same old stuff. The first three chapters are very disappointing as Dawkins falls off his biology throne and waxes theological. He declares a stronger affinity for Darwinism ( his religion). He uses the Ultimate 747 as an example and dismisses God out of hand because he can't see His likelyhood. Mr Dawkins then wants us to buy into the fact that matter was always there just waiting to explode into creativity up the gradual slope of his evoloutionary mouintain slope. Dawkins can't concieve of God always existing but never explains where matter comes from...hmmmm...must be faith that fuels his optimism. He always refers to the slow progressiveness of natural selection but fails to give one example where genetic information was added to evolve new species. Those who study natural selection know that it drops unfavorable traits in favor of already existing better ones. We have yet to see new genome information added to our gene pool, natural selection deletes information but never adds it. Again I say what's new?....same stuff more expensive cover. Welcome to the age of repeated misinformation
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 26, 2006
What solutions does this rant offer???
I don't like such a rabid approach to anti-religion. It's not religion itself that's harmful, it's how people and governments use it to evoke emotions which they then employ to gain their own ends (which ALWAYS stem from greed for wealth and/or power). If we all lived by the Ten Commandments and practiced the seven virtues (chastity [purity of soul], diligence, temperance, charity, patience, kindness, and humility), there would be no abuse, crime, or war. And if we added to that respect for all living things as taught by Buddha and Native American religions, we'd even stop destroying the environment. The teachings of all the great religions have these same basic principles. It's because these principles are NOT taught or practiced that societies are in such trouble. I don't see that this rant against belief in God (or gods) in favor of belief in science gives us better ways to deal with each other or save the planet...Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 13, 2006
More science, less religion!
Dawkins made a name for himself over 30 years ago in 'The Selfish Gene' with the interesting speculation that bits of cultural information spread from one mind to another and evolved in a fashion similar to genes. The idea was not entirely original, but he was the first to express the idea in a clear manner easily understood by the general public in his excellent book about genetic replication, 'The Selfish Gene'. Unfortunately, in the three decades since, he has chosen to focus less each year on science, and more on his role as Fundamentalist Atheist, transforming memes from units of information into 'evil' entities that possess the minds of his detractors, rendering them unable to accept his version of the truth. His beliefs are apparently not memes, but those he disagrees with are. If he provided evidence for his position, I would still find it interesting, but he fails to do so, instead constantly falling into naive generalizations and anecdotes about the historical and current roots of violence in our society. Only fundamentalists of one camp or another would believe that 9/11, suicide bombing, or Iraq are about religious values instead of nationalism and economics, and I find it odd to see Dawkins sharing a bed with George Bush . The IRA is a religious entity? Please. He might as well be a religious fundamentalist blaming Darwin for Nazi Germany or Einstein for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I buy each Dawkins book with the hope that he will have something new to say, but he seems to have no intention of following up his speculation with real research. As he has said himself, memes are still waiting for their Crick and Watson, and he seems more interested in spearheading his own new religious movement, the 'Brights' (a term, that as an agnostic, I hate), and attacking other religious beliefs while denying any of his own, than in refining meme theory. If you are an Atheist looking for a pat on the back, buy this book. Unfortunately, there is little else here. Buy 'The Selfish Gene', if you haven't read it instead, or wait for his next one.
0 out of 2 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted November 24, 2006
Every reader has an agenda
We all take different conclusions away from reading a book because for the most part, even though we will not admit it, we are reading something to support our position. We can scratch our chins and ponificate all our lives, but we only come to conculsions that are based on our infinite wisdom or the sad intellect of an author like this one. The interesting aspect of this book is reading between the lines and seeing desparation on the author's part to bang his drum so loudly that we must take notice. I'll not check my brain at the door, but I will acknowledge my mind is smaller than the One who gave me this life.
0 out of 3 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 26, 2014
No text was provided for this review.