Overall, I really enjoyed Dawkins' latest book. While I felt some parts dragged a bit, it is a great read for any rational human being. I imagine it's a difficult read for the rest.
The book does have some empowering value, and Dawkins makes some very great points that I will take with me in all my dealings with the religious among us. My favorite point comes from the standard science fall back, "We can only explain how things happen, not why. For why, ask a theologian." Dawkins rightly points out that there is no reason to believe that a theologian would have a good answer to why, and that science is more likely to come up with the real answer eventually. So why point people to currently accepted nonsense? Why not instead ask them why no answer is worse than an unfounded (wrong) one, however convenient and satisfying having any answer may be? Why put any value in religious propositions when you could instead maintain that not knowing, and therefore investigating, is a much better path?
The take-home message is that religion, in any form, is delusional and dangerous. Why not accept reality and relish our ability to investigate it, rather than running scared from the unknown into the arms of nonexistent super-beings, subjecting you and others to all the ignorance, pain, and suffering faith in such phantoms cause.
Excellent. However, I think Dawkins' suggestion is a little too subtle for those with more concrete frames of mind. It's always easier to say that "Ahuramazda put the Moon in our sky" than really trying to use the old puzzler.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could give it a rating with squids as the indicator.