The God Delusion or "The Root of All Evil?"

OK, finally got around to reading this book and I was not that far into it before I started to get annoyed with the preachiness of the whole thing. Dawkins is trying to do two things here--to persuade people to atheism through rhetoric, and to convince people of atheism through science.

But his rhetoric is too fraught with vitriol and contempt and is more reminiscent of a Wahabbi imam than an Oxford professor. He also has an annoying tendency to ascribe motivations and meanings onto others. Einstein made several statements about religion ("Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind", "God does not play dice with the universe"). But Dawkins bases his argument on what Einstein "really meant." He does this often with others too.

Frankly it was mean and nasty and therefore a chore to read.

Clearly the strongest part of the book was Dawkins discussion of evolution, which would be expected as he is an evolutionary biologist. He pretty much destroys many of the arguments theists use against evolution. However, there's more to the universe than evolution. For instance, I subscribe to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics. In that interpretation, a number of parallel universes are created every time a subatomic event starts to happen--that would be quadrillions of parallel universes created every second just for the known universe. The Many Worlds Interpretation is, scientifically, completely valid.

I also believe--and not without evidence--that our universe may just be a bubble among a myriad of others. Or we may be living in four dimensions on the surface of a five dimensional sphere. Or the universe may be infinite, in which case everything is. The argument for a higher intelligence in the universe goes beyond the evolution of humans on Earth. Dawkins doesn't address this.

And indeed, you can use science to support the improbability of a "god." To show that the very idea is an illusion. But you can use science to show that the idea of free will is an illusion. The idea of self is an illusion. The idea of mass is an illusion. The idea of emptiness vs form is an illusion, the idea of existence vs non-existence is an illusion. The whole damn thing is an illusion. And then, when you finally get there, and you think you've found something new, you realize that this is exactly what Buddha realized some 26 centuries ago.

Many, including myself, hold that science is concerned with the natural world, and the supernatural is simply not within the realm of science (the Agnostics, among others). Dawkins saves a particular venom for this group. Our tolerance of religion is simply "craven." Here's the imam coming out, saying that it is not enough to believe in science; you must also war with those of different faiths.

Dawkins suffers from the same scientific arrogance that plagued Galileo. Indeed their premises are similar: where is there room for God in clockwork of the universe. His arrogance is perhaps best summed up by his statement of "when we finally reach the long-hoped for Theory of Everything..."

Really? Isn't that like waiting for the Rapture? We're never going to have a Theory of Everything--indeed I could write a book like Dawkins illustrating exactly this point.

At one time I would have happily debated this with you, but now let me just do the zen thing:

It certainly had an impact on me. I was into working on cars at the time, and the idea of expressing your relation to the universe by doing so appealed to me. Sort of the idea of dying into your work. But I don't see it as very Zen, at least not in a 'official' way. As a guide for morals I don't think you can go wrong with the heart of Buddhism - the 5 precepts, 4 noble truths, understanding of karma, emptiness, etc.

shit, you sucked me in - I was just going to do the zen thing.