The author is known best for something that I can appreciate completely. He had the ``nerve`` to question the world around him. Dawkins´ criticisms of creationism and intelligent design are noted in several literary works.
A self-proclaimed atheist, secular humanist, skeptic, and rationalist, Discover magazine labelled Dawkins as `Darwin`s Rottweiler``
The God Delusion has sold over 2 million copies and has been translated into more than 30 languages.
I laughed at the fact of how when I went to purchase the book from Amazon for a friend of mine there was a suggested book called God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins
.
So for a good read check out The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and for an read based strictly on entertainment check out God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins and prepare to laugh your a$$ off.
Cheers,
I laughed at the fact of how when I went to purchase the book from Amazon for a friend of mine there was a suggested book called God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins
.So for a good read check out The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and for an read based strictly on entertainment check out God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins and prepare to laugh your a$$ off.
Cheers,
I don't find Crean's "God is No Delusion" laughable. He argues persuasively that it's impossible to prove that God, specifically the Christian God, does not exist. But he writes as though Dawkins in "The God Delusion" did nothing but try to prove that God does not exist, when in fact Dawkins went much deeper. Now I confess that I didn't read either book; I only looked at excerpts on the Amazon site. To be fair to both authors I would have to read the books, which I would rather not spend the time or money to do. Suffice it to say, on my own behalf, that were I to choose a religion I would have no logical basis for a choice, and that alone persuades me that there is no basis for any. By comparison, there is always a basis for a theory (for example) of the origin of a disease. The theory changes every few years, I admit, but at any instant the theory is based on known observable fact. Religion can make no such claim, and therefore I am skeptical of it.
ReplyDeleteHe does argue that it's impossible to prove that God does not exist and with that I do not disagree. But from a science perspective, if you cannot prove that God does not exist then all you are left with is a theory and a hypothesis which is just as good as God actually not existing - The idea of God is not an instinct that humans are born with it is a learned subject and as such a learned subject must be proven to get past being a theory, without any evidence there is no proof and with no proof there is no justification for believing strongly in something unless you use that "faith" thing.
ReplyDelete