Joined: April 2005
There was a review by Jim Holt of Dawkins's book in Sunday's NY Times book review.
I guess I find Holt's review somewhat "unsatisfying", because I really can't see how this logic (even if it is logical, which I don't quite get) gets us any closer to the entity known as "God" by anyone who actually uses that word in public discourse (you know, the entity that carved the commandments in Moses's stone tablets, the entity that got Mary pregnant, the entity that tells Dubya what to do on a regular basis...)
|The least satisfying part of this book is Dawkins’s treatment of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. The “ontological argument” says that God must exist by his very nature, since he possesses all perfections, and it is more perfect to exist than not to exist. ... [Dawkins] dismisses the ontological argument as “infantile” and “dialectical prestidigitation” without quite identifying the defect in its logic, and he is baffled that a philosopher like Russell — “no fool” — could take it seriously.|
This is just an example, of course. But it seems to me typical of these condescending critiques of Dawkins's thoughts on the subject. It always seems as if the critic is saying that if Dawkins's theology were more sophisticated, he would understand that the more primitive and atavistic statements of religion are much more profound than his doubts.
Well, I have my doubts. But I haven't read the book. Maybe I'll find it dumb. But I see nothing in Holt's review to make me think so.
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.