pooh bear Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Richard Dawkins is finally coming out with a book for children. It has already been released in the UK and will be released in the US on Oct 4th. The Magic of Reality Amazon page for The Magic of Reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satori Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Thanks for the heads up! Off to pre-order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo2 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercy_Me Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Thank you! Off to order a copy now! His writing style is brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I think I'll wait for the reviews. I've enjoyed his books about evolutionary biology, but find his tone in his atheism books to be hectoring and patronising. I'm an atheist. Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Richard Dawkins is finally coming out with a book for children. It has already been released in the UK and will be released in the US on Oct 4th. The Magic of Reality Amazon page for The Magic of Reality Already on my Amazon wish list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Sweet! And yes, I agree, Dawkins can be...aggressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I think I'll wait for the reviews. I've enjoyed his books about evolutionary biology, but find his tone in his atheism books to be hectoring and patronising. I'm an atheist. Laura I am cautiously optimistic, but the review here gave me pause. In particular, this paragraph: The other problem I have is with the final two chapters. Because there aren't 10 questions, there are 12. The remaining two are 'Why do bad things happen?' and 'What is a miracle.' The first of these isn't too bad as it handles chance, but both are primarily Dawkins returning to his bugbear of attacking religion. I don't think this has a place in a science book, and it certainly shouldn't be given two chapters. I think this will confuse and quite probably bore younger readers, as after all the other wonders, these two chapters are, frankly, lacking in scientific joy. There is also one very dubious part. Dawkins suggests that readers use a method of assessing miracles that boils down to 'How do they stand up to common sense?' The trouble with this approach is much of modern physics doesn't fit with what common sense predicts. For that matter, most probability runs counter to common sense. As Dawkins himself points out, common sense expects that after a row of throwing heads, a coin is more likely to throw tails - but common sense gets it wrong. It seems highly spurious to use common sense as a scientific tool, when you've just shown it fails magnificently. I am very interested in the content of his book, minus his disdain and mockery of religion. I am agnostic. I will likely purchase it, if at least for the benefit of the first chapters and the important discussions that will most likely emanate from the last two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I am cautiously optimistic, but the review here gave me pause. In particular, this paragraph: I am very interested in the content of his book, minus his disdain and mockery of religion. I am agnostic. I will likely purchase it, if at least for the benefit of the first chapters and the important discussions that will most likely emanate from the last two. I agree that Dawkins is a bit much on the mockery. But from my reading about the book, it seems that the whole point is that ancients resorted to supernatural explanations about natural phenomena. I posted the book on my Facebook page, and the little doodad next to it mentioned the Egyptians and Nut and the Vikings' explanation of a rainbow. So I think the review calling it a "science book" might be a little askew. I think it's a how science explains what religion had "all wrong" book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeannpal Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Richard Dawkins is not one of my favorite people. Making fun of others because of their beliefs is not a value I want my child to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Richard Dawkins is not one of my favorite people. Making fun of others because of their beliefs is not a value I want my child to have. :iagree::iagree::iagree: I would love for him to write a science book for kids that's just about evolution without any of his militant evangelizing for a materialist worldview. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean he has to resort to mean-spirited mockery and just generally being a flaming ***hole about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 :iagree::iagree::iagree:I would love for him to write a science book for kids that's just about evolution without any of his militant evangelizing for a materialist worldview. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean he has to resort to mean-spirited mockery and just generally being a flaming ***hole about it. There's a couple of pretty good evolution books for kids out there. We have Our Family Tree and Mammals Who Morph. Both describe evolution in a way that would be perfectly compatible with either an atheistic or theistic worldview. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 . What's this? The period is the new IBTL? :confused: I don't like his mocking tone, either, but after years of being reared around Ray Comfort-type people, I totally understand it. Years and years and years of hearing, "Well, God doesn't believe in ATHEISTS!!" and other smug lines......I get it. I don't particularly LIKE it, but.....I get it. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 What's this? The period is the new IBTL? :confused: I don't like his mocking tone, either, but after years of being reared around Ray Comfort-type people, I totally understand it. Years and years and years of hearing, "Well, God doesn't believe in ATHEISTS!!" and other smug lines......I get it. I don't particularly LIKE it, but.....I get it. :001_huh: I try to remember this. But, while I think it explains why so many people like Dawkins' style so much, for me it doesn't explain Dawkins. He wasn't raised a fundamentalist. He wasn't even raised in a country where conservative Christianity has the kind of significant presence it has in the United States. I doubt Dawkins heard much of what you are talking about. (I grew up in the northeast, and I never heard that kind of thing. But, I was in my 20s before I knew anybody thought the earth was 6000 years old. The moderate Catholics and mainline Protestants who made up most of the people I grew up around didn't go in for that sort of thing, and wouldn't have taken any issue with somebody being an atheist or agnostic.) So I really think his hatred of religion stems more from a kind of bourgy disapproval--you really can't see Dawkins being, as Terry Eagleton pointed out, the world's biggest fan of postmodernism, Dadaism, radical feminism, anarchist socialism, or deconstruction, either--than from an understandable response to painful, negative personal experiences with Christianity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 But, while I think it explains why so many people like Dawkins' style so much, for me it doesn't explain Dawkins. He wasn't raised a fundamentalist. He wasn't even raised in a country where conservative Christianity has the kind of significant presence it has in the United States. I doubt Dawkins heard much of what you are talking about. Oh, I'm pretty sure he has. As a author and academic, he's had a lot of contact with the public in various settings (audiences, interviewers, students, personal correspondence, etc.). I think he's gotten more strident over time, and I have a feeling it may be a reaction to the way his ideas have been received by some. Not that I'm condoning his reaction - I do think there are better ways - but I think it may be his preferred alternative to banging his head on the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 What's this? The period is the new IBTL? :confused: I don't like his mocking tone, either, but after years of being reared around Ray Comfort-type people, I totally understand it. Years and years and years of hearing, "Well, God doesn't believe in ATHEISTS!!" and other smug lines......I get it. I don't particularly LIKE it, but.....I get it. :001_huh: Thanks for teaching me some new cyber-lingo. I made a comment about something I saw on the OP's link, namely, "his unrivaled explanatory powers." Sounds so Dawkinsish, but then I saw it was about the illustrator and not RD. I didn't have time to write that then, but now that it's lunch break I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom-ninja. Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Thanks for the heads up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 He wasn't raised a fundamentalist. He wasn't even raised in a country where conservative Christianity has the kind of significant presence it has in the United States. I doubt Dawkins heard much of what you are talking about. There just wasn't that atmosphere when he was growing up in the UK. Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Yeah, I know he is from the UK and did not grow up with the extreme fundamentalism that I did. I just mean that I 'get' that mindset. When I switched over I felt that strongly. In time (and a BIG part of it was being a member of the Hive!) I came to see the value of religion for other people. Before the Hive I was adamantly anti. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Oh, I'm pretty sure he has. As a author and academic, he's had a lot of contact with the public in various settings (audiences, interviewers, students, personal correspondence, etc.). I think he's gotten more strident over time, and I have a feeling it may be a reaction to the way his ideas have been received by some. Not that I'm condoning his reaction - I do think there are better ways - but I think it may be his preferred alternative to banging his head on the wall. I meant heard it growing up. I should have been clearer. I don't doubt he hears a lot of that now, but that wasn't his childhood experience, most likely. He didn't, for example, grow up in a really controlling, manipulative church or have a family that put a lot of pressure on him to conform, belief-wise. I'm, in general, a bit put off by anybody, Christian or atheist or whatever, who believes that their own worldview is synonymous with reality. So I think Dawkins actually offends me more as a postmodernist than he offends me as a Christian. There seems to be so little room for accepting that maybe the world is different or more complex than he thinks in his way of thinking. I know a lot of agnostics and atheists, but none take the absolutist scientific materialist view that he does, and I think it's a shame that he seems to want to make that viewpoint synonymous with atheism. Edited September 20, 2011 by twoforjoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I try to remember this. But, while I think it explains why so many people like Dawkins' style so much, for me it doesn't explain Dawkins. He wasn't raised a fundamentalist. He wasn't even raised in a country where conservative Christianity has the kind of significant presence it has in the United States. I doubt Dawkins heard much of what you are talking about. (I grew up in the northeast, and I never heard that kind of thing. But, I was in my 20s before I knew anybody thought the earth was 6000 years old. The moderate Catholics and mainline Protestants who made up most of the people I grew up around didn't go in for that sort of thing, and wouldn't have taken any issue with somebody being an atheist or agnostic.) So I really think his hatred of religion stems more from a kind of bourgy disapproval--you really can't see Dawkins being, as Terry Eagleton pointed out, the world's biggest fan of postmodernism, Dadaism, radical feminism, anarchist socialism, or deconstruction, either--than from an understandable response to painful, negative personal experiences with Christianity. My take on Dawkins' atheism is it stems from pure intellectual arrogance. He thinks he's so much smarter than religious believers. :glare: He is a brilliant scientist and I loved reading The Selfish Gene for one of my college biology classes. But science and logic is only one way of knowledge and faith is a complementary one. It's like a 2-dimensional object lying within the X-Y plane arguing that another 2-dimensional object lying on the Y-Z plane doesn't exist. The object on the Y-Z plane is every bit as real as the one on the X-Y plane even if the two will never encounter each other. It's Dawkins' prerogative to hold a materialist worldview. He's got free will, just like everyone else does. I just wish he accorded the same sort of civility to me as a religious believer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcconnellboys Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I'm afraid I find his tone in general to be hectoring and patronising. I'm sure I'll look at this at some point, but I'm not expecting to like it any better than any other thing he has written unless he has suddenly experienced a loss of ego.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 My take on Dawkins' atheism is it stems from pure intellectual arrogance. He thinks he's so much smarter than religious believers. :glare: . He is exactly like the religious zealots who are so arrogant as to espouse that theirs is the only true way to believe. It is the same attitude, but from different sides of the fence. They are both pretty repugnant means to express an idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 He is exactly like the religious zealots who are so arrogant as to espouse that theirs is the only true way to believe. It is the same attitude, but from different sides of the fence. They are both pretty repugnant means to express an idea. This. He's got his own brand of fundamentalism. And, he seems to think he represent atheism, when the kind of strict scientific materialism he espouses is not something all or even most atheists hold to. The funny thing is, just like I'm pretty loathe much of the time to identify as a Christian because of all of the awful Christians out there who seem to think they can represent the whole religion, my husband is very hesitant to identify as an atheist because he doesn't want to be associated with the kind of strict materialism and intolerance of religious believers that Dawkins and his ilk represent. He'll say he's an agnostic or an atheist-leaning-agnostic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I have less of a problem with Dawkins then I do Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins at least has that love of science he's so good at communicating. Plus, he's rather good looking. :D But Hitchens, intelligent as he is, is a blowhard. Both though are bad for commenting on the Bible when they don't have anything but a third-hand literalist POV of it. It's not an atheist thing because some of the best Biblical scholars I know of are theists. They also tend to condemn all religion and faith through a Judeo-Christians lens. Hitchens will make some point about Islam or Christianity and then go on to use that as an explanation as to why all religion is bad. Bad logic and talking about things they haven't bothered to educate themselves on is a hallmark of both men. But Dawkins is still cute.:) For atheist authors with a passion for science, skepticism and clear thinking my favourite is Micheal Shermer.:001_wub: He also has a kids book out, Teach Your Child Science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paisley Hedgehog Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 nm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Richard Dawkins is finally coming out with a book for children. 272 pages. What age child, I wonder. I guess I don't think of 15 year olds as children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 He'll say he's an agnostic or an atheist-leaning-agnostic. I'll invite him on my boat: I'm an apathist. I don't care if there is a deity or not. I act as if there is none, but I think it unprovable, and therefore only interest in it is as a social phenomenon. As for Dawkins, he sells. Reward someone for behavior, and it will continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I'll invite him on my boat: I'm an apathist. I don't care if there is a deity or not. I act as if there is none, but I think it unprovable, and therefore only interest in it is as a social phenomenon. As for Dawkins, he sells. Reward someone for behavior, and it will continue. I have to tell my husband that. He's called himself an atheist and agnostic but I think that label is MUCH closer to the truth. On a side note, the point when his church going ended (except for the occasional Christmas services now when we go as a family - he's a good sport) was when he was four. His father stood up to sing a hymn and my husband bit him in the arse. His father screamed and was so embarrassed he never went back. Lucky for me my husband has since lost that early de-conversion zeal. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veggiegal Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Thanks for the head's up on this. I hope it is as good as his letter to his daughter Juliet, which I look forward to sharing with my son next year when he is 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Wouldn't he ridicule a religious person who included a chapter on suffering in a science book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 He is exactly like the religious zealots who are so arrogant as to espouse that theirs is the only true way to believe. It is the same attitude, but from different sides of the fence. They are both pretty repugnant means to express an idea. :iagree: My first thought when I tried to read one of his atheism books was "How immature." :ack2: His science books are not so obnoxious? Rosie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veggiegal Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Woot! Our rocking library system already has it on order. Hold placed; I'm 26th in the queue. My boys are going to love this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I think I'll wait for the reviews. I've enjoyed his books about evolutionary biology, but find his tone in his atheism books to be hectoring and patronising. I'm an atheist.:iagree: And I'm still miffed over Elevatorgate. ETA: But I'll judge the book on its merits... no pre-ordering here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 :iagree: My first thought when I tried to read one of his atheism books was "How immature." :ack2: His science books are not so obnoxious? Rosie His science books are excellent. When speaking of things scientific he is passionate and incredibly knowledgeable. He loses me when he veers into religious territory. FWIW, I do not think that religion and science need to be opposing forces, but I do think that one should not use religion to explain (or disclaim) science, nor use science to explain (or disclaim) religion. That is like trying to use teakettles to explain (or disclaim) shrubbery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter's Moon Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 His science books are excellent. When speaking of things scientific he is passionate and incredibly knowledgeable. He loses me when he veers into religious territory. FWIW, I do not think that religion and science need to be opposing forces, but I do think that one should not use religion to explain (or disclaim) science, nor use science to explain (or disclaim) religion. That is like trying to use teakettles to explain (or disclaim) shrubbery. :iagree: I watched one of his science-based lectures (the name escapes me) but I remember being a bit wary through the whole thing because I've read his books. When speaking of science, he is very excited to share the concepts and observations. I didn't notice anything religious mentioned at all. I cannot remember if I finished watching the lecture or not, though, so there may have been something cringe worthy later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 FWIW, I do not think that religion and science need to be opposing forces, but I do think that one should not use religion to explain (or disclaim) science, nor use science to explain (or disclaim) religion. That is like trying to use teakettles to explain (or disclaim) shrubbery. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangermom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 :iagree: And I'm still miffed over Elevatorgate. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna in Texas Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 :iagree: And I'm still miffed over Elevatorgate. ETA: But I'll judge the book on its merits... no pre-ordering here. :iagree: I pre-ordered before Elevatorgate, but only because of Dave McKean. I'm still a bit torn. I really wish I could see inside it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funschooler5 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 In time (and a BIG part of it was being a member of the Hive!) I came to see the value of religion for other people. Before the Hive I was adamantly anti. :001_smile: :iagree: Reading posts here on the WTM boards over the years has really turned around my way of thinking. Growing up in a very small, very religious town as a non-believer made me bitter and suspicious of religious people. Seeing other viewpoints from The Hive, and also my LDS friends has really changed my opinion about religion. I've come to appreciate people with strong faith. When it comes to Richard Dawkins...I've only read bits and pieces of his books (I kept falling asleep reading The God Delusion) so I guess I haven't come across anything too disturbing. I've watched several of his talks on YouTube (again, bits and pieces) but nothing that jumped out at me as "out there" for an atheist to say. The way he speaks comes across as very mild-mannered to me. He seems to be matter-of-fact about what he believes. But I suppose it could be that he's "preaching to the converted" so I'm missing some of his offensive comments. Either way, when you're in the minority (which I am, in my town) it's somewhat comforting to hear somebody publicly go against the grain, stating your beliefs as if it's fact. I'm not going to go on record as saying I agree with everything he says (I had to google the elevatorgate thing), but I will say that I'm glad he's out there saying what he says. I don't know very many atheists or agnostics, so he makes me feel like I'm not alone...like I felt when I discovered Bertrand Russell's writings as a teen.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsabelC Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 It looks like a great book (judging by the cover!), but then I haven't been that impressed by what I've read from Dawkins so far... Have submitted a request for my library to purchase it so I can have a look without buying it myself ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funschooler5 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 For atheist authors with a passion for science, skepticism and clear thinking my favourite is Micheal Shermer.:001_wub: He also has a kids book out, Teach Your Child Science. Thanks for posting this...it looks great! My library doesn't have it, so I "had" to order it from Amazon.:tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 :iagree: And I'm still miffed over Elevatorgate. ETA: But I'll judge the book on its merits... no pre-ordering here. I missed that! Huh. I'm always surprised how men who can be leaders in some areas of activism can turn into boneheads in another. Hitchens again for instance with his insistence that women just can't be funny. It makes me suspect that they're their motivations are more often related to a macho need to be right then a deep and thoughtful concern with the issues. Ah well, I still have Shermer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeneralMom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 His science books are excellent. When speaking of things scientific he is passionate and incredibly knowledgeable. He loses me when he veers into religious territory. I totally agree, and I am an atheist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I have less of a problem with Dawkins then I do Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins at least has that love of science he's so good at communicating. Plus, he's rather good looking. :D But Hitchens, intelligent as he is, is a blowhard. See, that's why I like Hitchens: he's a pompous blowhard, but he knows it. (FWIW, I recently read his brother's anti-atheism book, and it turns out that being a pompous, arrogant blowhard runs in the family. I got about halfway through and had to put it down, because I could not take any more.) He recently had an essay in Slate about the horrors of having the waitstaff refill your wine glasses during a dinner out. His agenda: #1 Rid the world of religion; #2 Stop waitstaff from automatically refilling wine glasses. He's such an arrogant, elitist neocon, and so completely and totally unapologetic about it, that I can't help but kind of like him. I feel like Dawkins doesn't recognize his own biases, the way that I think Hitchens does. Dawkins just seems like he cannot fathom how any person who wasn't completely deluded or ignorant could even toy with the idea of transcendence. He seems incapable of inhabiting another worldview, even for a moment. So he frustrates me in the way that religious fundamentalists (who also often seem incapable of inhabiting another worldview) frustrate me, whereas Hitchens just amuses me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Gosh, this made me laugh! You should write a book of essays. (Edited until I think of a better title. lol) See, that's why I like Hitchens: he's a pompous blowhard, but he knows it. (FWIW, I recently read his brother's anti-atheism book, and it turns out that being a pompous, arrogant blowhard runs in the family. I got about halfway through and had to put it down, because I could not take any more.) He recently had an essay in Slate about the horrors of having the waitstaff refill your wine glasses during a dinner out. His agenda: #1 Rid the world of religion; #2 Stop waitstaff from automatically refilling wine glasses. He's such an arrogant, elitist neocon, and so completely and totally unapologetic about it, that I can't help but kind of like him. I feel like Dawkins doesn't recognize his own biases, the way that I think Hitchens does. Dawkins just seems like he cannot fathom how any person who wasn't completely deluded or ignorant could even toy with the idea of transcendence. He seems incapable of inhabiting another worldview, even for a moment. So he frustrates me in the way that religious fundamentalists (who also often seem incapable of inhabiting another worldview) frustrate me, whereas Hitchens just amuses me. Edited September 21, 2011 by LibraryLover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Here's The Guardian review: http://gu.com/p/322zh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 See, that's why I like Hitchens: he's a pompous blowhard, but he knows it. (FWIW, I recently read his brother's anti-atheism book, and it turns out that being a pompous, arrogant blowhard runs in the family. I got about halfway through and had to put it down, because I could not take any more.) He recently had an essay in Slate about the horrors of having the waitstaff refill your wine glasses during a dinner out. His agenda: #1 Rid the world of religion; #2 Stop waitstaff from automatically refilling wine glasses. He's such an arrogant, elitist neocon, and so completely and totally unapologetic about it, that I can't help but kind of like him. I feel like Dawkins doesn't recognize his own biases, the way that I think Hitchens does. Dawkins just seems like he cannot fathom how any person who wasn't completely deluded or ignorant could even toy with the idea of transcendence. He seems incapable of inhabiting another worldview, even for a moment. So he frustrates me in the way that religious fundamentalists (who also often seem incapable of inhabiting another worldview) frustrate me, whereas Hitchens just amuses me. I might have to re-evaluate Hitchens with that in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Here's an excerpt. It's gorgeous. I feel dirty, but I've pre-ordered. http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/interactive/2011/sep/22/extract-richard-dawkins-magic-reality?INTCMP=SRCH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.