quote:
This book is based in its entirety on a simple mistake. It is not often that one can find exactly the point where an author goes off the track, but here one can. It is in the fifth sentence of the preface of the book, which begins, "Similar accusations of barren desolation, of promoting an arid and joyless message, are frequently flung at science in general." However, what people object to in Dawkins is not the science but the atheism.
It seems ironic that the author of that article, while claiming Dawkins makes a fundamental mistake in his books conception, makes a fundamental mistake in his reading of the book.
Mr. Hambre articulated it best. The books isn't about which world view, atheistic or theistic, is correct. It is simply a reply to those who think that science somehow sucks the beauty and wonder out of life and look upon the scientific endeavor with disdain. I think specifically, it is against the English intellectual community who seem so rooted in liberal arts and don't appreciate the value of science.
The thesis of the book is clearly written on the back, where it says:
quote:
Mysteries don't lose their poetry because they are solved: the solution often is more beautiful than the puzzle, uncovering deeper mysteries.
I realize this topic isn't just about the book, and the review was mainly introduced as a segue your main points. But I just wanted to clear this up. Don't bother replying to this is you want to debate about what the book was about since it will probably just lead this thread off into a tangent.