The God Delusion
Lisa grabbed me a copy from the airport for the flight home after being told it was a 'must read' by an old friend of mine. It interests me, but by god I'm having to fight through it, stiffling laughter as I go.
Anyone else seen/read it? I want to know if anyone else finds it this painful or if I'm just being too picky.
For those who haven't, case in point is in the opening chapters discussing some of the arguments against even having the discussion of 'does god exist', one of which being that 'Some people *need* to believe'. The author, Richard Dawkins, goes on to explain that this is the height of intellectual elitism and smugness, a vile egotistical and offensive stance that essnetially says that while you might be too good for such superstitious claptrap, that the idiotic masses need it to keep them happy and in line.
A reasonable argument to make, were the author not also making the claim that 'unhappy' believers in God are merely athiests who didn't know they could be athiests and that they'll be much happier, more objective and intelligent indiviuals once they convert, a process that is guarenteed to happen simply by making it to the end of the book.
Thankfully our author also includes the age old clause that there will be those who disagree with him, but that these minds are simply immune to logic and reason and will never sway from whatever offensive conclusion they've already drawn.
So it wouldn't be down to Dawkin's shitty reasoning and logic then? Oh no...
I just find it terribly bizarre that a best-selling book by a rather respected skeptic resorts to such crappy logic and a condescending tone that borders on offensive. Who knew the 'waaaaampyre' method of debate was becoming so popular.
Anyone else seen/read it? I want to know if anyone else finds it this painful or if I'm just being too picky.
For those who haven't, case in point is in the opening chapters discussing some of the arguments against even having the discussion of 'does god exist', one of which being that 'Some people *need* to believe'. The author, Richard Dawkins, goes on to explain that this is the height of intellectual elitism and smugness, a vile egotistical and offensive stance that essnetially says that while you might be too good for such superstitious claptrap, that the idiotic masses need it to keep them happy and in line.
A reasonable argument to make, were the author not also making the claim that 'unhappy' believers in God are merely athiests who didn't know they could be athiests and that they'll be much happier, more objective and intelligent indiviuals once they convert, a process that is guarenteed to happen simply by making it to the end of the book.
Thankfully our author also includes the age old clause that there will be those who disagree with him, but that these minds are simply immune to logic and reason and will never sway from whatever offensive conclusion they've already drawn.
So it wouldn't be down to Dawkin's shitty reasoning and logic then? Oh no...
I just find it terribly bizarre that a best-selling book by a rather respected skeptic resorts to such crappy logic and a condescending tone that borders on offensive. Who knew the 'waaaaampyre' method of debate was becoming so popular.