July 15, 2009

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins is a pompous ass, and the title of his new book is so unabashedly combative that I consistently found myself hiding it. I began reading it not long after I finished The Pillars of the Earth (or perhaps before, come to think of it), but was too embarrassed to add the title to the "currently reading" section of my blog (hence the very long delay in updating the book blog at all!).

I finally finished it, with some relief, last week. Although it's not terribly esoteric (which should probably be credited to Dawkins as a triumph, given his background), it is rather dense, in addition to being witheringly dismissive of those he seems to perceive as being unintelligent enough to disagree with his own arguments--and thus rather tiring.

It is quite brilliantly written; I think I discovered only one typographical error in the entire book, and pictured the professor himself perusing the proofs.

As far as content, I remain undecided. He presents compelling arguments for his point of view, yet his attempt to disprove the existence of God from the point of science seems somewhat misguided. He seems to believe that science should, and will, be able to understand or prove everything at some point, even if it can't right now, and I'm not sure a scientific approach is really the best way to go about discussing something like God.

When I went to Amazon for the image at the top of this post, I saw at least eight books directly confronting Dawkins' text on the first page of search results alone, so it's clear that he and his aggressively-entitled tome have stirred up some strong feelings. I am interested, and somewhat heartened, to see that there is at least a debate going on. Ignoring texts that conflict with one's worldview may be the quickest way to a quiet and unencumbered existence, but I don't believe it makes the world a better place.

3 comments:

nmrboy said...

i saw a bumper sticker today: 'intelligent design is the dumbest idea i've ever heard'.

i like that dawkins is almost a characature of himself, because he's breaking the ground for more moderate discussions of the topic. you can dismiss dawkins, but not his arguments.

and as stewart lee says: 'when i look at something as complex and intricate and beautiful as professor richard dawkins, i don't think that could've evolved by chance...'

n.

strovska said...

i've been thinking i should read this ["should" in the heavy-sigh-of-obligation sense] but have been putting it off because of the aforementioned reputation as a pompous ass. i tried to read one of those dawkins-et-al refutation books and found that i didn't like it much either. i don't remember which one it was, and i didn't even finish it because i disliked both the tone and the sloppiness of some of the reasoning. the psychology/sociology of the whole subject is so interesting, but it's hard to get around the--let me just use your term once again--pompous ass-ness of so many of the parties concerned.

Leah said...

This is kind of late, but I read this two years ago and I agree that he's a pompous ass. In fact, though I agree with him on lots of points, I can't stand reading his work. Grrrr.