Anyone read THE GOD DELUSION by Dawkins? [Archive]

Mrs. Darth Vader

06-01-2009, 07:20

Darth Indif

You can get the God Delusion in Barns and Nobel book stores. They have an on Line site. I think if you Google Barns and Nobel it will readily come up.

I finished The God Delusion. There were some parts that I liked and agreed with and some parts that I did not like and disagreed with. I may have understood Dawkins differently than others since I live in America. I live in Florida which may be different than someone reading it from England. I defiantly disagree with Dawkins view that evolution and the natural selection processes always makes the organism better or higher evolved. My reasoning is based on Darwin himself. Dawkins said on page 169 "Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one-way street to improvement.". But Darwin said on page 337 "We have also seen that as the specialization of parts is an advantage to each being, so natural selection will tend to render the organism of each being more specialised and perfect, and in this sense higher; not but it may leave many creatures with simple and unimproved structures fitted for simple conditions of life, and in some cases will even degrade or simplify the organization, yet leaving such degraded beings better fitted for their new walks of life.". Here Darwin is stating that a being can DEVOLVE as well as evolve. A life form can become lower from a higher position if the environment forces the natural selection process downward.

I also disagree with Dawkins view of the earth in some way being special, that life arising here is some how rare. Sagan on "Cosmos" proved that the building blocks of life are spread throughout the cosmos. Sagan with the aid of a Cornell University college(Bishun Khare) showed a remake of a 1950's experiment that showed that the notes to the building blocks of life are readily made. He zapped methane gasses of the early earth showing how you can get globs of this primordial soup. The "Cosmos" series shows how the earth is one of many planets and the possibility for life, even if only microbes is everywhere. The long run is we are small and insignificant in a vast universe. This according to Sagan is Not belittling but humbling. The universe so vast at interstellar distances is why it is hard to find other life forms again even if only microbes.

My last basic criticism is that Dawkins seemed Republican to me( I know that England does not have the Republican party. I used that label to say how right wing he sounded.) I did not like his false memory thing which is right wing over here. I did not like Dawkins calling childishness if someone is unhappy with life. If you are poor and find it hard to get your next meal you might find life empty as an atheist. If on the other hand you are rich you might find life a picnic as an atheist. I found this attitude too hard on the less fortunate of the world. Sagan died a happy atheist and loved and lived life to the fullest but he also was a strong advocate of the poor.

Now for the praise of Dawkins book. I thought I would put the positive last because it is best to leave on a high note. Dawkins really hit target and nuked the cruelty of the church. He was excellent on the child abuse section. Shot score 50 points!! here Dawkins! Your pro-women stance is really good. Dawkins had several theories on the imaginary friend which was a good read. I love his closing statement about trying to intuit both the world of the very large and the very small to lift the burka of middle world. Here he sounds like Dawkins is on the same page as Brian Greene which is cool since Brian Greene is in search for the theory of everything. I also was VERY moved by the sad story of Kurt Wise that scientist who ran back to the church and quit a possible good career. In this case rather than loose a good scientist if I knew this Kurt I would have given him "Morals and Dogma" by Albert Pike. This way he could still have his belief in Darwin and the Bible at the same time and not quit. I was sorry he had to cut up his Bible and run back to the church. Masonry would have helped him since Pike was a theistic evolutionist who believed that God never operated outside the natural and never against the Laws of physics. I am sorry I could not have helped Dawkins here. It is a GREAT tragedy to loose a great mind.

The God Delusion is a long book. As you can see I had a mixed review. I really liked some parts while other parts I did not like or agree with. My favorite Atheist is Carl Sagan. I like his works the best. I know Sagan is dead but his books "live" after him. This short review does give you an idea what is in the God Delusion. Read it for your self. Only you can tell if you like it or not.

I tried the Dawkins message board. If you like to swing your debate lightsaber than you will enjoy this site. The Atheists on the site are more debatesome and grouchy. The Christians are tough as well. It is like a visit to the "Cantina" to say it in Star Wars. This bar is a little rough.

Mrs. Darth Vader

01-18-2010, 07:29

After reading "Shadows Of Forgotten Ancestors" By Carl Sagan and "Dragons Of Eden" also by Carl Sagan I find the "God Delusion lacking. The two books by Carl Sagan answer far more questions than the Dawkins book. If you need to debate the existence of God and win in a debate than "This Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan really nukes all religions. Dawkins claims to be the atheist that is swinging the light saber but when Sagan did he cleared the room with this explosive book. In most of Sagan's works except, "This Demon Haunted World", he does allow for a very distant form of deism where the only thing a god does is help push the randomizer of the evolution process. This is like if you have a computer program that has a random mode and you could make it go in a general direction landing in a certian zone of the probability curve. This very small indirect thing Sagan has allowed for since this minor thing has not been disproven. It also explains some events that other wise has no answer.

Charles Darwin still stands as the most controversial atheist because only Darwin openly admits to the fact that an organism can become a "Degraded" version of it's former self another-wards Devolve. Here Darwin stands alone. This took guts especially way back then when he first wrote it.