|
|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review: ( 1780 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
685 of 764 found the following review helpful:
Disillusioned Catholic Nov 12, 2006
By Tom Katses
"Searching for Answers"
I read numerous reviews before I bought this book. Because of the controversial nature of the topic I was very interested in the perspective of the reviewer. Often this perspective was easy to guess but not always. So to make this review more valuable to the reader I would like to state my background first. I am a 50 year old active Catholic who has slowly become disillusioned by religion starting as a child when told my Protestant friend would not go to heaven. For years I existed on "faith" since I personally could find no evidence that God existed. As a Catholic there is also a good helping of "guilt" for good measure. I am also a very strong Constitutionalist and believe that the only way to get along is to have freedom of and freedom from religion. With the recent surge of religious fundamentalism and its effects on politics I have become increasingly concerned about what Dawkins calls the American Taliban and the push for a Christian Theocracy. This actually scares me more than Al-Qaida. The words "Faith" and "Belief" have been morphed into the word "Truth". This new "Truth" has caused me to do a lot of searching for answers for what really is true.
Richard Dawkins book was extremely helpful and was the first book I have read on the Atheist side of the fence. I found Chapters 1 through 4 and 7 through 9 easy to read. Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 10 were more scientific and a hard read for the average person. I actually needed a dictionary at my side to get through those chapters. I particularly liked the section in Chapter 3 on Pascal's Wager which I had mistakenly credited to Einstein in the past.
What I had found so interesting is that he expressed ideas that I had been developing in my brain for years, but did not feel free to discuss with others. (although he can state them more eloquently than I can). The result is that I have been pushed from a 5 to a 6 on his scale of belief.
The book is not only preaching to the Atheist choir, but to all those who a truly open minded enough to form there own opinions about God and religion. If you are in this category it is certainly worth purchasing.
Previous reviews stated that Dawkins was mean spirited and blamed religion for social evils. I did not find this to be the case, and I found that he was as fair minded as someone who believes as he does can be.
2064 of 2358 found the following review helpful:
 Read the Reviews! Oct 28, 2006
By Harvey Ardman
I've just finished reading the 141 reviews above mine, and I think they're utterly fascinating--almost as interesting as the book. And the scores--the numbers who find each review helpful--are equally remarkable.
Some reviewers, delighted to find their opinions supported by Dawkins, use the opportunity to bask in their superior intellects and display their generous contempt for those who disagree.
Other reviewers feel personally attacked by this book, fending it off as best they can so they can retain their illusions, which are obviously valuable and meaningful to them.
Actually, you don't even have to read the reviews to see which is which. Just look at the numbers. If you see very few finding the review useful, you'll know the review was written by someone opposing Dawkins' ideas. And if the majority find the review helpful, that means it agrees with Dawkins.
This tells me that most of the people who are bothering to read the reviews are already pro-Dawkins--and it bodes ill for his hopes that his book will convert the believers.
It won't convert many believers, not because it is wrong--it isn't--and not because it isn't well-written--it is--but because whatever else you can say about faith, it isn't easily extinguished. For those who have it, it is the only life raft on a limitless ocean. Those who don't have learned how to swim, or plan to.
The most annoying reviewers, from my point of view, are those whose remarks demonstrate they haven't read the book (such as the fellow who insists Einstein was a believer), or those who feel Dawkins doesn't have the Biblical knowledge to back up his conclusions.
He doesn't need any Biblical knowledge. None of us do, when it comes to the question of belief. Memorizing the Bible neither adds nor subtracts from our ability to feel faith.
And that's the bottom line for me. I am unable to accept an assertion of any kind supported by nothing more than faith. I need some kind of truth, some kind of evidence.
There are or might be moments when I am jealous of those capable of faith. I would love to believe, when a loved one dies, that he or she is going to a better place and that we'll meet again some day. What a lovely, comforting thought. Would that it were true, or that I could believe it. But I don't--and it makes this life and every moment in it more valuable to me.
I once asked myself how a person totally unfamiliar with religion, might choose among the world's offerings, might decide to adopt one of the world's thousands of religions. I could find no way. They all claim they're right and all the other religions are wrong. But are any of them right?
Now I'm thinking similar thoughts about God. I saw a website recently that compiled the names of all of the gods, worldwide and throughout history. They found 3800 different gods or supernatural beings. If I were inclined to believe, which one would I choose and why?
Dawkins points out that we're all atheists. We don't believe in Amon-re, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Odin, etc., etc., etc. He just goes one god further.
109 of 123 found the following review helpful:
Reaches its intended audience Dec 21, 2006
By Colin C. Mckenna
Many have criticized this book for not speaking in a voice that could influence religious fundamentalists away from their delusion. There is no way the topic can be discussed that would have any hope of doing this. It would be akin to writing a book that through gentle persuasion would reason a paranoid out of his delusions. Ain't going to happen.
I believe the intended audience is those who already have grave doubts, and are looking for a well reasoned examination of the issue. I was impressed by the simple and straightforward approach to resolving a basic question: "since we can't know for sure if God exists, shouldn't we all be agnositics?"
I also enjoyed his definition of a pantheist (I'll leave that for the reader to discover).
The opening sections on Einstein and his "religious" beliefs, and a general discussion of pantheism and deism are worth the price of the book just by themselves.
As an aside -- those reviewers who cite Einstein's religious conversion away from atheism have clearly not read even this much of the book.
Written with great humor and wonderful quotations -- I am sure there is something here to offend just about everyone -- but also with great courage and forthrightfullness.
689 of 821 found the following review helpful:
 Not the best work on atheism Jan 04, 2007
By J. A Magill
Before considering Professor Dawkins's bestseller, a mention must be made of the over 300 reviews here posted as well as the assorted blogs, debates, and article the book has provoked. Reading through these, whether pro or con, one can not help but notice a clear and unnerving trend, not unlike one sees in reviews regarding works on the Middle East conflict; those who agree with his thesis from the outset almost always offer resounding and unadulterated praise without considering even the possibility of flaws in his methodology or logic. Of course, at the same time, those who hold his position as heresy rarely respond in any logical method to his position and rarely even seem willing to acknowledge the professor's obvious strength's as a writer. Such failure of reasoning on both sides points to a disheartening decline in the state of the western intellectual tradition that should give every person pause.
As a great fan of Professor Dawkins's previous work, "The Selfish Gene," a book that provided me with considerable food for thought several years back and profoundly altered my thinking, I looked forward with some excitement to "The God Delusion." Reading the new book on recognizes quickly that this is in fact one book, with three goals. Professor Dawkins imagines these goals as not only compatible, but structural to the argument he seeks to build. As for me I am less certain.
The first part restates much of what might be found in "The Selfish Gene," albeit more briefly and with some editions based on more recent scholarship. There is no need to review the whole of thesis, his obvious purpose will suffice; defending Darwinian evolution from the current relentless and often absurd assault it now suffers at the hands of certain individuals who prefer to shout at the storm rather than consider an umbrella. Now "The Selfish Gene," was nothing short of brilliant, and Dawkins here again demonstrates much of what makes him a gifted writer of science, explaining the strengths of Darwin's theory, and devastating many of the positions of those who argue against it. Other works of course cover this same ground, but there can be no doubt Dawkins here shines.
Of course, these points are not the goal of Dawkins's work, but only the foundation of a broader argument. From there he moves into an evolutionary thesis for the origin of belief and religion. Here he remains on firm ground, though many may find it disquieting, even as he moves to the next logical position that evolution and the cosmos requires no deity to explain itself. And it is from there that the Professor moves onto shakier ground as he seeks not to simply discount the evidence often cited for a supreme being, but rather argue against the possibility of its existence. Of course, the logical difficulty of proving an absolute negative - for example, "there are no blue dogs," are legion -- yet this of course does not deter the professor who approaches the subject with a zealot's fervor. Yet, many of the arguments here stand as both pugnacious and flawed, moreover revealing that while well versed in science, professor Dawkins might consider a few classes in philosophy, not to mention religion so that he might recognize that the Anglicanism in which he was raised is not the totality of all Christianity and, moreover, Christianity is by no means the totality of religion.
One might take his arguments one at a time, but I will focus on one, it having received great attention. Dawkins posits "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." Of course this ignores the prevalent notion of both the Jewish and Islamic tradition that God exists both inside and outside his creation, and thus cannot be fully known. Moreover, he likely would not like this argument applied to cosmology; the fact that it grows increasingly complex as our understanding grows does not make the next more complex factor less likely, but merely outside of our current grasp. The effort to understand this with probability as a method of rendering a supreme being unlikely comes across as self serving and holding to a standard the professor would surely not wish to apply to science.
Yet it is in the final piece of his work that Professor Dawkins becomes the most vitriolic and, in fact, a bit sophomoric as he attacks religion by pointing to all the evil in history rendered in its name. The effort appears like the work of a rather polemic inclined undergrad, especially as the Professor fails to consider the good brought by religion, nor seriously consider the degree to which concepts arising from religion have influenced or even founded much of the secular humanist philosophy he holds so dear. Moreover, Professor Dawkins shows no taste for considering the considerable evil done in the name of atheism. Regarding these, however, he has no stomach for discussion, writing curtly ""We are not in the business of counting evils heads, compiling two rival roll calls of iniquity." Yet that is exactly what he does when it comes to those of faith, ignoring the torture and murder of many, often due to their particular commitment to religion done in the name of "reason" by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk. Instead, Dawkins contrasts theoretical atheist utopia with the religions practical and often horrific evils. Sadly, such an effort generates much heat and little light. Had he been willing to engage the more interesting and complex issue, he might well have concluded that humanity is capable of much horror and violence, for many motivations. But then, such a conclusion would hardly serve his narrow polemic goals.
Nothing in the world should be held as not subject to reason. Unfortunately, Professor Dawkins could well have used more of it in engaging in his efforts. While one can certainly render cogent arguments for atheism, indeed many have, the effort here seems more designed to score easy points by burning straw men at the stake. No doubt, this review will receive votes for and many more against, not based on its reasoning, but simply based on people's particular faith on which side of these issues the reside. But then again, most seem inclined to simply march along side their ideological kin, rather than engage in serious consideration of such weighty matters.
54 of 61 found the following review helpful:
Interesting dissection but isn't there something more important to discuss Mar 17, 2007
By cassdog
"cassdog"
I quite enjoyed this book as a discussion of the large improbability of a god, a dissection of current arguments, an analysis of the dangers that religion poses and a scant discussion of a new area of research on the evolutionary origins of religion. This last part seemed sort of underanalyzed, especially since Dawkins' previous cogent discussions of evolution have been so enlightening. Perhaps the research in this area is not that complete but Dawkins wanted to mention it nonetheless. Unfortunately I read this book shortly after reading 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' both by Richard Dawkins. These books were pretty amazing and awe-inspiring discussions of important topics. Reading the god delusion I couldn't help but get bored at times, not because of the writing but simply because I felt that I was wasting my time on something that I had realized when I was 13.
See all 1780 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
The
Importance Of Lighting In Interior Design
by Jessica Ackerman
Everyone knows how important
paint color, furniture choices and artwork are to
interior design. One aspect of design that is often
overlooked, however, is lighting. Lighting not only
affects the brightness of the room, but it can also
change the way a paint color looks, cast shadows in ways
that make the room seem smaller and have an impact on
the presentation of art work.
There is no light like
natural light. If you are buying, building or
remodeling, opt for as much natural light as possible.
Oversized windows and skylights are two ways to get the
most natural light. Of course, not everyone is in the
position to be able to do that, so you'll have to work
with what you have.
How much natural light do
you get in your room? If the room in question faces
north, you won't get as much natural sunlight as you
would in a southern facing room. Rooms that face south
get bright, natural light throughout the day. Rooms that
face east will only have good natural light in the
morning hours and western facing rooms will have the
most light during the afternoon.
Once you are familiar
with how much natural light is in each room, you'll be
able to make informed choices about what additional
lighting may be necessary. Keep in mind that rooms with
little or no natural light will need artificial lighting
- even during the day - in order to look their best.
Here are some types of lighting to consider.
1. Accent Lighting
Accent lighting is
perfect when you want to showcase a piece of art or a
special piece of furniture or other item. Since light
draws the eye, it will bring attention to the features
in your room that you wish to highlight.
2. Hanging Light Features
Chandeliers and smaller
hanging lamps can be beautiful as well as functional. A
trip to the local home improvement store will quickly
show you how overwhelming the choices can be. You'll
want to select lighting that blends in with your
existing dÃÂécor. For example, a crystal chandelier in a
country themed dining room probably isn't the best
option. If you don't choose carefully, your lighting may
stick out like a sore thumb and become more of an
eyesore than a lovely accent.
3. Recessed Lighting
Recessed lighting is a
good choice for a room that needs extra light throughout
the day. Because the lighting won't interfere with the
existing decor, it can work in almost any room. It
provides abundant light without taking up a lot of space
or interfering with other aspects of the room.
4. Lamps
Using lamps are a way to
add not only additional lighting, but also punches of
color. If possible, see how much light the lamp gives
off before leaving the store. Many lamps serve as
decoration more than as a light source and give off very
little light. If you love the lamp, but it doesn't give
off quite enough light, consider changing the shade
which will usually solve the problem.
When decorating your
home, remember how important lighting is, and give it
the same thought and attention you give to the other
details of decorating your home.
About the Author
Jessica Ackerman is the
featured author at Wall DÃÂécor and Home Accents. Shop today
for great deals on
metal wall sculpture ,
home
accents and more unique wall dÃÂécor products.
|
|
| | |
|
|
