The God Delusion

Det er en lekse vi alltid gjenmer å lære, og det er at man ikke skal kritisere folk før en har hørt hva de har å si. Nå har jeg endelig hørt Richard Dawkins , og tiden for Å idiotforklare ham er over. Enig i alt, nei! Men fyren har langt mer greie på hva han snakker om enn de fleste av de som kritiserer ham - inkludert meg!

I didn't need to be convinced that God is a delusion, but it was interesting to follow scientific logic to analyze religion and its inconsistencies. Dawkins builds up the God Hypothesis and my favourite part of the book is then he presents the spectrum of probabilities about the existence of God, ranging from 1 to 7, including for example “Strong Theist”, “Impartial Agnostic” all the way to “Strong Atheist”.
I considered myself an agnostic but after reading this book I realized I am “De facto Atheist “ according to the Dawkins spectrum

“I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

???Our society, including the non-religious sector, has accepted the preposterous idea that it is normal and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and to slap religious labels on them - ‘Catholic child', ‘Protestant child', ‘Jewish child', ‘Muslim child', etc. - although no other comparable labels: no conservative children, no liberal children, no Republican children, no Democrat children. Please, please raise your consciousness about this, and raise the roof whenever you hear it happening. A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This later nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent pieces of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A Child who it told she is a ‘child of Muslim parents' will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose - or reject - when she becomes old enough to do so.???

This quote struck me to the soul.
Religious indoctrination is one of the worst things we could do to a child - inhibiting their inquisitive nature and asking them to abide by some specific “rules” written down years ago and in turn reject / ridicule every other such rules.

A very chilling hint of this is shown in Aldous Huxley's dystopia A Brave New World.

Although my mom and grandmother are both religious, they never forced their faith on me. As a family we often have debates from time to time, questioning everything and it helped in broadening my mindset.

I never understood the argument that atheists cannot appreciate life because they don't understand that God created them and everything for them because God loves them.

But rather its the EXACT opposite.
Atheists appreciate life even more because they know the sheer improbability of it.
The fact that you are alive now and not a billion years from now or a thousand years before.
The fact that among the millions of galaxys, you were a result of a genetic accident that resulted in your birth. Isn't the complexity of this very fact enough to be thankful JUST to be able to witness this complex spec we call earth - for even a second, let alone years.

Its too ambitious for this book to be included in school curriculum, isn't it?

Really well-written, extremely clever and at times bitingly funny and sarcastic. This book has pretty strong arguments and looks at the theistic world view through the practical, the historical and the scripture bases. Well drawn out arguments and rebuttals make this one of the defining statements for atheism.

Not in the least because Richard Dawkins, that man knows his shit. It's great to watch him blaze through theist arguments and rip them apart. You know with what? THAT'S RIGHT, WITH SCIENCE. Awwyeah.

Way too long but talks some real solid sense. Would perhaps be more effective if it was less bitter. I left not entirely convinced by all his points and I didn't make it all the way to the end before getting too bored to continue, but on the whole it was worth reading. Powerful when it brings a magnifying glass straight up to many taboo topics and says many things that our society has tacitly learned to leave unsaid.

Although not as eloquent and gripping as Christopher Hitchen's similar-themed book, God Is Not Great, this book is nonetheless pretty fascinating in its own right. Author and Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins puts religion, notably fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, to the same rigorous scrutiny that a scientific theory would be subject to and he gleefully tears them apart, relegating religion to the realm of “nonsense.” Like Hitchens, he lays waste to the absurd ideas behind intelligent design, and points a damning finger at various ridiculous people who have made outlandish statements inspired by their religion.

I found much of interest in this book and found it to be 90% captivating.

A childhood friend prompted me to pick up the book. He's a devout Christian, new-order Mennonite strong in his belief. His was a self-assured faith that felt no need to justify itself in proselytization or broad overtures. Nor was it narrow or exclusionary. There was never a whiff of smug self righteousness or pitying condescension.

Valedictorian, musically inclined, all round athlete he would go on after high school to seminary. That complete he moved on to psychology then medicine. His faith unshaken.

I'm told he read this book and become an atheist.

I don't know if was a creeping doubt and that the God Delusion simply gave him permission to question his faith or a blinding epiphany. Hell, it could simply be untrue, nuance lost with each retelling.

I guess reviewing this is no more beneficial than opining about Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey. Not that I didn't love this book, but it seems that many opinions are formed well prior to the actual reading.

It's a brisk read, with easily digested chapters that break down traditional Christian arguments one by one. I don't find it overly smug or even mean spirited - charges often laid at it's feet by scandalized Christian defendants. It is egocentric, concerned for the individual's sense of religion. “Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own.” I like the sentiment but I still think there's power in the rituals of faith, especially in the face of grief, the loss of a loved one. But even then Dawkins is careful to make the distinction between “belief in God and belief in belief: the belief that it is desirable to believe, even if the belief itself is false.”

It is an entirely approachable read regardless of your faith going in. I'm sure there's no shortage of “cafeteria Christians” that pick and choose their beliefs that befit their lifestyle; or “Not like those” Christians that distance themselves from Creationist extremists or fundamental nut jobs. I think a book like this helps them take a critical look at the nature of their belief. I'm sure in many it will only deepen their faith but there's value in stepping outside and examining it in a new and honest light. A highly recommended read.

I need to gather my notes before I can write a proper review, however, below are some of my off-the-shelf takeaways/critics of the book:
* Dawkins is too intimidating in his opinions - he hammers on and hammers on until either you have changed your opinion or you get exhausted. Neither sounds good for someone having a constructive argument.

* The crux of the argument is - and this is something that I've wondered for quite some time - keeping aside the hard religious conservatism, why even the so-called liberal values teach us that we should question everything, except when it comes to religion. Religion is somehow the holy grail of the argument (pardon my pun) - you can't just question it, no matter what. That's bewildering, to say the least.

* The problem of “Unquestioned faith is a virtue” and the power of religion to “console” us through the bad times. Believing in God and believing in belief are not the same thing.

লোকটা অনেক গালাগালি খায় কেননা মানুষ বিশ্বাসের সাথে বাস্তবতা মেলাতে না পারলে বাস্তবতাকে গালাগালি করে। তা বাদে, আমার চোখে খুব ধৈর্যশীল এবং সিমপ্যাথেটিক মানুষ বলে মনে হয়েছে ডকিন্সকে। বইটা চমৎকার, অনেককিছু জানতাম, অনেককিছুই জানতাম না। হয়ত লেখার গাঁথুনিতে একটু দুর্বল ডকিন্স, অন্ততঃ সেগানের মত শক্তিশালী নন। কিন্তু বৈজ্ঞানিক সত্য তো সত্যই। এর কাব্যিক না হলেও চলে। কাব্যিকতা উপরি পাওনা।