![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I had to buy this book, I started reading the chapter about Old Testament morals in the bookstore and it was hilarious. It did seem a little heavy handed in places but I can't really blame Dawkins for his honesty. It made for a refreshing change. I really enjoyed the style of his writing. I liked the fact that it was full of quotes from other people, particularly Carl Sagan my all-time-favourite scientist, as well as interesting examples and studies. I'm not sure his biological arguments are going to be able to convince any religious people to change their minds. Faith just doesn't work that way but hopefully it'll be interesting and insightful to people who are questioning the world around them and the place of religion in that world. The largest criticism of the book that I have is that rather than simply encourage critical thinking, as Carl Sagan would try and teach people, he took a much more authoritative view saying science says this, or the facts are this, so you should follow the truth. While seeking the truth is admirable I think you have to evaluate the truth for yourself rather than substituting one expert, the scientist instead of another, the priest. However on the whole I did greatly enjoy the book.
Several things stood out for me. The first was questioning the value that our society puts on "belief" and how it, above all things, needs to be respected even by people who don't agree with those beliefs. I have to say this is one of those things that drives me nuts so it was really good to hear someone else argue the point so eloquently.
The chapters on the scientific reasons why there is probably not a god were not so engaging, but still interesting. Things like the evolutionary explanation as to why people are likely to see ghosts or spirits was very interesting. I particularly liked his challenge against the idea that if you're an atheist you're immoral. His counter argument that morals don't come from the Bible was fun. As someone whose very familiar with the Bible there wasn't much surprising but it was still very enjoyable to read.
The chapter that had the biggest significance for me was his chapter on religious abuse of children. He looked not just at sexual abuse, but more focused on the teachings that religious organisations gave children. It was shocking to realise that only 1 in 12 of people raised in a religious family are able to turn against it and 90 percent of religious people are raised in that religion. Having been raised in a religious family this was a particularly personal chapter as I felt that much of my upbringing was very traumatic because of my parents' religious beliefs. This chapter inspired me to write up an essay on my past religious experiences and how my view have changed. I think the most important part of this chapter was how children should not be referred to as Christians or Muslims but rather as children with Muslim or Christian parents. He went on about how this was an important distinction and made sense. I think its an excellent point but one that the religious will always reject because where you go when you die doesn't depend on if you are an adult when you die so therefore you have to have child converts. This seemed to be one of the most important ideas within the book and one that I've not seen any reviewers or interviewers pick up on. Of course religious people will never go for it because the afterlife doesn't say only adults go to heaven or hell, but children as well, so they have to be saved too.
And then of course there is the silly reason why I liked this book which is that he's now married to Romana, and every once in awhile she'd pop up with little comments, such as imagining what plays Shakespeare would have written if he'd had to write for the church instead of a secular audience. So I thought that was quite fun. I think I will definitely try and track down some more books by Dawkins, particularly his biology books.
This book definitely seems to be one that is causing quite a bit of controversy. But I did enjoy it and think people should read it for themselves rather than judge from the debate that seems to be surrounding it.
Several things stood out for me. The first was questioning the value that our society puts on "belief" and how it, above all things, needs to be respected even by people who don't agree with those beliefs. I have to say this is one of those things that drives me nuts so it was really good to hear someone else argue the point so eloquently.
The chapters on the scientific reasons why there is probably not a god were not so engaging, but still interesting. Things like the evolutionary explanation as to why people are likely to see ghosts or spirits was very interesting. I particularly liked his challenge against the idea that if you're an atheist you're immoral. His counter argument that morals don't come from the Bible was fun. As someone whose very familiar with the Bible there wasn't much surprising but it was still very enjoyable to read.
The chapter that had the biggest significance for me was his chapter on religious abuse of children. He looked not just at sexual abuse, but more focused on the teachings that religious organisations gave children. It was shocking to realise that only 1 in 12 of people raised in a religious family are able to turn against it and 90 percent of religious people are raised in that religion. Having been raised in a religious family this was a particularly personal chapter as I felt that much of my upbringing was very traumatic because of my parents' religious beliefs. This chapter inspired me to write up an essay on my past religious experiences and how my view have changed. I think the most important part of this chapter was how children should not be referred to as Christians or Muslims but rather as children with Muslim or Christian parents. He went on about how this was an important distinction and made sense. I think its an excellent point but one that the religious will always reject because where you go when you die doesn't depend on if you are an adult when you die so therefore you have to have child converts. This seemed to be one of the most important ideas within the book and one that I've not seen any reviewers or interviewers pick up on. Of course religious people will never go for it because the afterlife doesn't say only adults go to heaven or hell, but children as well, so they have to be saved too.
And then of course there is the silly reason why I liked this book which is that he's now married to Romana, and every once in awhile she'd pop up with little comments, such as imagining what plays Shakespeare would have written if he'd had to write for the church instead of a secular audience. So I thought that was quite fun. I think I will definitely try and track down some more books by Dawkins, particularly his biology books.
This book definitely seems to be one that is causing quite a bit of controversy. But I did enjoy it and think people should read it for themselves rather than judge from the debate that seems to be surrounding it.