Scan barcode
marc129's review against another edition
2.0
I’m aware it is very difficult to discuss and judge this kind of book without offending anyone. On the public forum only the extremes - both fundamentalist believers and assertive atheists – seem to monopolize the debate, it is all black and white, you can only be for or against. This book, and the associated emergence of "New Atheism", just as its radical counterparts on the religious side, is an illustration of this.
Let me start by stressing that I admire the passion with which Richard Dawkins expresses his atheistic opinion. That passion clearly stems from personal anger: anger because people continue to believe in fictions that make no sense, anger because people do not see that those fictions have been punctured by science, and anger because these opinions nevertheless are maintained by institutions (churches) that abuse their power, monopolize public discourse, propagate a pernicious ethic and sometimes incite direct violence.
Though Dawkins' passion surely is negatively oriented (although there is also a positive pendant, as we will see further), he has a fundamental right to express it. I even admire the courage he has, knowing how much opposition and even threats he has to endure because of it. Now, you may say that he owes part of that polarisation to himself, because in turn he is not treading softly, nor does he shun some aggressiveness and even arrogance. But that's just it: he may be conducting a crusade against faith (pun NOT intended), but it is one with words, not with weapons.
Moreover, I can personally agree with quite a lot of Dawkins' criticism of religions. I too regularly shudder at the doings of institutionalized religions, I abhor fundamentalist interpretations and statements, and rigid morals. Dawkins' rants against this fundamentalism, against the sometimes very hypocritical moral positions, and especially against theocracies often are spot-on. And his extensive, Darwinian argumentation against creationism and intelligent design are completely justified.
And yet a few things fundamentally bother me about this book. First, Dawkins has a very reductionist view of religions: he restricts them to their extremes, their most radical expressions, and of course that are easy (though justified) targets. I feel he has far too little attention to the infinite diversity and multilayeredness of religions. For instance, this reductionism is obvious in his analysis of religious texts: he engages in an equally literal reading of these texts, just like the fundamentalists do, and then of course it is an easy task to unmask their contradictions and improbabilities.
The same reductionism can also be found in the way in which Dawkins presents science as the only sound alternative to religions. Here he shows himself to be a 19th century positivist for whom reality consists only of the empirically observable and the scientifically verified. This is reflected, for example, in the chapter in which he tries to demonstrate that moral progress of mankind was not brought about by religions, but by an unstoppable force in history, driven by rationality, science and technology, which he literally calls the “enlightened consensus of the moral Zeitgeist”, an unambiguously progressive trend that will continue. Here Dawkins shows himself to be an adept of naive scientism.
Time and time again it seems that much of Dawkins' criticism can be reduced to his exclusive focus on the issue of ‘truthfulness’ of religions. And by truth he obviously means what has been tested empirically or is plausible within a scientific framework. Don't get me wrong: these are valid and valuable criteria, but they cannot possibly count as the only sufficient criterion for statements about reality. Because if you just look at the history of science, you will see how often scientists have missed the point, how much science always gives a preliminary state of affairs, and finally how science cannot possibly serve as a sufficient explanation for what really is important in a human life (why am I here? What am I entitled to? What is expected of me?).
In the end, what I think Dawkins fundamentally lacks when looking at phenomena like religion is imagination. And by that I mean the lack of creativity to see that truthful statements can cover a wider range of reality than what can be proven scientifically. His greatest criticism against religions is that they are fictions. And of course, up to a point that is correct: religions absolutely are human constructions, there is no doubt about that. But that alone does not make them untrue or invalid. Because just about everything in our lives is a human construction, we cannot live without it, just think of art, or love, or even science. Imagined reality, with its fundamental linguistic shape, is a necessary way of dealing with the world, of giving meaning to life, and it is often based on deeper intuitions that are not necessarily provable (at least not scientically). And, of course, not all those fictions, imaginations and intuitions are equally valid or valuable, and a confrontation with scientific insights can be useful, but with that test the last word is not necessarily said.
So, it is not black or white, not "either-or", but often "and-and". And in that sense, religions certainly have their own place in the human universe, as attempts to come to terms with reality, within a very own linguistic, practical and spiritual framework. They may be a by-product of human evolution in a Darwinian sense, as Dawkins states, but so what? Isn't science too such a by-product?
So, I must conclude that in my opinion this book is faulty in its basic premise, the worthlessness of religion, because it contains a much too reductionist view on reality. But at the same time, it provides many valuable insights to critically look at phenomena like religions (and rightfully so). So, this is a book that should be taken seriously, and in that way I definitely recommend reading it (rating 2 1/2 stars). Of course, you have every right to disagree with me, as long as we remain respectful and reasonable
Let me start by stressing that I admire the passion with which Richard Dawkins expresses his atheistic opinion. That passion clearly stems from personal anger: anger because people continue to believe in fictions that make no sense, anger because people do not see that those fictions have been punctured by science, and anger because these opinions nevertheless are maintained by institutions (churches) that abuse their power, monopolize public discourse, propagate a pernicious ethic and sometimes incite direct violence.
Though Dawkins' passion surely is negatively oriented (although there is also a positive pendant, as we will see further), he has a fundamental right to express it. I even admire the courage he has, knowing how much opposition and even threats he has to endure because of it. Now, you may say that he owes part of that polarisation to himself, because in turn he is not treading softly, nor does he shun some aggressiveness and even arrogance. But that's just it: he may be conducting a crusade against faith (pun NOT intended), but it is one with words, not with weapons.
Moreover, I can personally agree with quite a lot of Dawkins' criticism of religions. I too regularly shudder at the doings of institutionalized religions, I abhor fundamentalist interpretations and statements, and rigid morals. Dawkins' rants against this fundamentalism, against the sometimes very hypocritical moral positions, and especially against theocracies often are spot-on. And his extensive, Darwinian argumentation against creationism and intelligent design are completely justified.
And yet a few things fundamentally bother me about this book. First, Dawkins has a very reductionist view of religions: he restricts them to their extremes, their most radical expressions, and of course that are easy (though justified) targets. I feel he has far too little attention to the infinite diversity and multilayeredness of religions. For instance, this reductionism is obvious in his analysis of religious texts: he engages in an equally literal reading of these texts, just like the fundamentalists do, and then of course it is an easy task to unmask their contradictions and improbabilities.
The same reductionism can also be found in the way in which Dawkins presents science as the only sound alternative to religions. Here he shows himself to be a 19th century positivist for whom reality consists only of the empirically observable and the scientifically verified. This is reflected, for example, in the chapter in which he tries to demonstrate that moral progress of mankind was not brought about by religions, but by an unstoppable force in history, driven by rationality, science and technology, which he literally calls the “enlightened consensus of the moral Zeitgeist”, an unambiguously progressive trend that will continue. Here Dawkins shows himself to be an adept of naive scientism.
Time and time again it seems that much of Dawkins' criticism can be reduced to his exclusive focus on the issue of ‘truthfulness’ of religions. And by truth he obviously means what has been tested empirically or is plausible within a scientific framework. Don't get me wrong: these are valid and valuable criteria, but they cannot possibly count as the only sufficient criterion for statements about reality. Because if you just look at the history of science, you will see how often scientists have missed the point, how much science always gives a preliminary state of affairs, and finally how science cannot possibly serve as a sufficient explanation for what really is important in a human life (why am I here? What am I entitled to? What is expected of me?).
In the end, what I think Dawkins fundamentally lacks when looking at phenomena like religion is imagination. And by that I mean the lack of creativity to see that truthful statements can cover a wider range of reality than what can be proven scientifically. His greatest criticism against religions is that they are fictions. And of course, up to a point that is correct: religions absolutely are human constructions, there is no doubt about that. But that alone does not make them untrue or invalid. Because just about everything in our lives is a human construction, we cannot live without it, just think of art, or love, or even science. Imagined reality, with its fundamental linguistic shape, is a necessary way of dealing with the world, of giving meaning to life, and it is often based on deeper intuitions that are not necessarily provable (at least not scientically). And, of course, not all those fictions, imaginations and intuitions are equally valid or valuable, and a confrontation with scientific insights can be useful, but with that test the last word is not necessarily said.
So, it is not black or white, not "either-or", but often "and-and". And in that sense, religions certainly have their own place in the human universe, as attempts to come to terms with reality, within a very own linguistic, practical and spiritual framework. They may be a by-product of human evolution in a Darwinian sense, as Dawkins states, but so what? Isn't science too such a by-product?
So, I must conclude that in my opinion this book is faulty in its basic premise, the worthlessness of religion, because it contains a much too reductionist view on reality. But at the same time, it provides many valuable insights to critically look at phenomena like religions (and rightfully so). So, this is a book that should be taken seriously, and in that way I definitely recommend reading it (rating 2 1/2 stars). Of course, you have every right to disagree with me, as long as we remain respectful and reasonable
melbauce's review against another edition
3.0
Started strong but...I have one big qualm with this book. It is deeply problematic to say one type of child abuse is more damaging than another in the context of religious upbringing.
mzliu's review against another edition
adventurous
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
sams84's review against another edition
4.0
This was a very informative and thought provoking read that sets out to answer why the concept of religion (any religion) can be and is an incredibly dangerous thing that leads to conflict, violence, exclusion, shame, and many other negative things despite the best intentions of those that created, follow, and believe. As an atheist, I have often wondered about the impacts of belief and it turns out they are far more damaging that I had ever considered, even moderate views are deeply problematic when not treated as an opinion just like any other. Something that we are all guilty of doing. Many believers may be offended by this work, but should still read it and think why do you believe, how does it change your attitude and approach to life, is it really as positive a thing as it should be or are you causing harm without realising it. And of course, as an atheist, read it and assess the same. Simply put, think people, think.
bethany27's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
ulalu's review against another edition
Insufferable hostility and smugness, this coming from an avowed and lifelong agnostic. When listening to the audiobook, like being stuck in a room with a stem guy explain how he's so rational about everything and everyone else are just reactive apes and trying to get you to agree about how right he is. Try Hitchens instead, but don't bother with either if you're comfortable about your lack of religiosity, these books only add new things for people who were raised with obligatory religion.
donalwryan's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0