Rating: 
Summary: Mad as a Hornet, or a Hatter?
Review: I agree with Richard Dawkins that people should find in science that sense of wonder which they too often seek in new-age nonsense. And I agree with an earlier reviewer that in the first fifth of this book, he states his case well and with great sincerity. But soon after that, his bitterness takes over, and except for a few lapses into excited (and sometimes exciting) discussions of natural history, the book becomes little more than scripture for the faithful.I can't join earlier reviewers in finding Dawkins' prose beautiful or poetic, but it is competent and admirably straightforward. Most of his humor is deployed destructively, which gets wearying; the remainder of his wit I would class as an affected sort of whimsy. The passages in which he gets carried away by the beauty of the world--and the principles that govern it, where sufficiently known--are often charming, but many of his angrier passages are at best coarse and at worst slightly subliterate. Anyone who admires Dawkins is unlikely to be put off by these flaws (or even to see them as flaws). Still, if Dawkins' intention was to coax new sheep into the fold, he may find that the noise of axes being ground frightens them off. As a passably intelligent rationalist who doesn't take everything Dawkins says as Holy Writ, I must say that I wish he would occasionally allow people to disagree with him without calling them ignorant, stupid, crazy, or evil. There is nothing more eloquent than scientific fact--nothing more corrective of error--so I'm not sure why Dawkins feels the need to add this shrill enumeration of personal grievances to the far more impressive testimony of science. Since he does, I'm not surprised that people who remain unconvinced by his ideas are suspicious of his methods and motives. After all, there are many like-minded popularizers of science who don't allow themselves such venomous outbursts...Sagan and Pinker spring to mind. And although Daniel Dennett can be just as infuriating in his prejudices, I think he's a slightly more levelheaded and engaging prose writer than Dawkins. Apropos of prejudices, it seems to me that when Dawkins hears words like "religion" or "mysticism," he reflexively conjures up a cabal of inbred fundamentalists, young-earthers, newspaper astrologers, and glassy-eyed new-age chatterboxes. As people interested in scientific truth, most of us do not admire such people any more than Dawkins does. But when Dawkins pits himself against metaphysical ideas per se, he also pits himself against such deeply religious scientists as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Descartes, and Faraday. All of these men discovered mathematical equations that form the basis of modern empirical science. These equations are unexcelled in their predictive and descriptive power, and are objectively incontrovertible to a degree that a theorist like Dawkins might well envy. Did religious notions in any way inspire these men to seek and discover these equations? If so, I suggest that to a certain extent, such equations must be classed among humanity's religious productions. If they devised their equations despite being afflicted with false religious notions, then it surely proves that a) religious belief is not necessarily a barrier to excellence in scientific endeavor; and b) the most brilliant scientists can be mistaken about the nature of existence (which would ideally be a lesson in humility for Dawkins and his most cocksure adherents). Even in the enlightened twentieth century, some of our greatest scientists were outright mystics. While Dawkins might despise the religious notions so poetically expressed by the physicist Erwin Schrodinger in "My View of the World" or "What is Life?", there is no doubt that Schrodinger finds poetry precisely where Dawkins instructs us to look for it: in evolutionary processes. And notwithstanding his flights of fancy, Schrodinger managed to discover the most fundamental equation of quantum mechanics. Kurt Godel and Albert Einstein were not without their religious notions either, and although Dawkins is well regarded in his field, I submit that the productions of his intellect thusfar are not able to stand with those of Godel, Einstein, or any of the other scientists I've listed here. (And though it's a little unfair, I can't help saying that I would not put even his most enchanting works in the same qualitative class as those of religious artists like Tolstoy, Bach, Raphael, Blake, Flannery O'Connor, or T.S. Eliot.) Science cleans its own slate, thank heavens, though not as quickly as some of us might wish. My guess is that in one hundred years, Richard Dawkins will be thought of much as Herbert Spencer is today. In Spencer's day, some people called him the most profound philosopher of all time. Today, he's remembered more for his errors and excesses than for any truths he expressed. (As a postscript, I should note that there are a number of atheist/materialist artists who have made science the focus of their work. Dawkins would do well to consider the Italian Futurists, who praised science and machinery above all else, and were staunch Darwinists to boot. (They were also fascists, and their ranks were considerably thinned by their eagerness to go to war, which they saw as a biological imperative.) And for a look at religion-bashing, science-deifying artwork at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, try the book "Chinese Propaganda Posters" or the Russian film "Salt for Svanetia," both of which are available through Amazon. Atheism may make for better science, but I remain unconvinced that it makes for better art. And if artists often misunderstand science, it's no more unfortunate than that scientists often misunderstand art.)
Rating: 
Summary: Religiously Incorrect Reality
Review: Mr. Dawkins again shows that he is the best placed and qualified individual to replace Sagan as a spokesman for science and how the scientific explanation is sufficient to explain the universe and all that dwells in it. One thing continues to puzzle me about some of the reviews that is a problem for people in understanding the materialist philosophy. Materialism does not claim that emotions, beauty, love, spirituality, etc. are not "realities" or not important. It simply points out the material origin of these phenomena. There is no longer any question in mainstream neuroscience that the mind is an "emergent property" of brain (material) function. Consequently, these properties, such as spirituality have a reality. The fact is, however, they do not point to or give us information about, anything outside of the individual brain/mind. This for some reason is so difficult for the religionist to understand or accept. For my part, the physical basis of the mind does not in any way lessen the magnificance and beauty of human emotions.
Rating: 
Summary: brilliant writing, but too much anger
Review: Dawkins lives by the beauty and wonder of science and wants his readers to share his enthusiasm. He was more convincing when he wrote brilliantly about science than when he wrote bitterly about people. He often seemed to be trying to group huge and disparate people (from xfile fans to all of Christianity) in one broad brushstroke, and that did bother me. Still, a clear and lucid thinker, and a pleasure to read.
Rating:
Summary: Does not take real phenomenon into account
Review: Before I begin, I have a comment to make to the reader from Ohio who tried to compare Dawkins to an enlightened man in Plato's Cave Allegory. You don't seem to have any idea what the Cave Allegory is about. If you reread the Apology, you'll see that it is about manking becoming spiritually enlightened and freed of the illusions of the material world. That's what Socrates and Plato believed. They weren't scientific materialists and atheists! lol Get real. They believed in higher truths, just like we spiritualists do. This is just another treatise on scientific materialism and atheism. While appearing to sound logical, it really isn't when you look at the big picture. Books like this don't take into account lots of real phenomenon (not hoaxes) such as miracles, the impossible happening, the laws of nature bending, psychic phenomenon, paranormal experiences, incredible synchronicities, etc. These are real things and have lots of evidence behind them. But people like Dawkins and Stenger ignore them because they don't fit into their paradigm. And this is where the big flaw is. Something is real, but they don't take it into account so in effect they are ignoring reality. Let me give an example. I have two friends who can do remote viewing using out of body experiences, or astral projection, whichever term you prefer. Both of them can consistently view targets and people they know and accurately describe what they are wearing and later it turns out to be true. These are honest people, NOT charlatans and hoaxers as Dawkins' type would tell you. One of my friends even used remote viewing to get a phone number in Germany on a military base to call her husband and when she called it turned out to be correct. This is real, but people like Dawkins would ignore it even though it is true. That's definitely narrowmindedness. No question about it. Winston WWu777@aol.com
Rating: 
Summary: Intellectual Whack-a-Mole
Review: OK, the first fifty pages or so are not bad. As a working scientist, I agree that the world would be a better place if more people understood the sense of wonder that lies at the core of the scientific endeavor. Alas, the book is much longer than fifty pages. Much of what Dawkins writes about is interesting, but the way in which he writes it left me with the feeling that a small buzzing insect had blundered into my ear. Specifically, he seems to have fallen into the ego trap that is such a hazard to highly-successful scientists: because he has been so successful in his own specialty, everything he says must be interesting and everyone who disagrees must be either a knave or a fool. Therein lies the core of my grumpiness about the book, for "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" were brilliant expositions on a subject of which he is a master. I wish that he would stick with what he knows, and not dive into areas where he is at best an intelligent amateur and at worst an irritating boor.
Rating:
Summary: Mind-expanding
Review: Not many people have the gift of taking some common event and deconstructing it to the nth degree, while making it all seem quite normal. As in his other books (Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, etc.) Mr. Dawkins makes your mind boggle at the way nature use very simple (?) building blocks to fashion something extraordinary ... like us. You are set back on your heels when you realise that your body is largely composed of modified bacteria, without which we could not exist. He goes on to expound on how we see and from there how our brain interprets the world, comparing it to Virtual Reality (no comparison!) - anyone who has experienced any form of VR will understand the immense computing power it takes to present even a half-decent rendition, but the brain does this continuously AND has time to dream, imagine, remember past events and places all in real-time - I doubt if enough teraflops of computer power exist in the world even now to do that. The main thrust of the book is the poetry of science; how, by understanding more about the way the universe works, we can appreciate the wonder of it all the better - open our minds to something more beautiful than just the outward appearance of a beautiful object - even make us see the beauty in some not-so- pleasant sights! In this book he uses well thought-out, easy-to-grasp concepts to explode myths, de-bunk charlatans, and de-mystify magic (a little TOO vitriolic at times, I fear!) - all with the intention of opening our minds to the concept of evolution (specifically Darwinism). He takes us from rainbows to barcodes to DNA in easy stages, explaining in graphic (but never tedious) detail just how nature can (and will) evolve all its wonders. Sometimes I had to put the book on one side just to let the enormity of it all sink in. I still find it hard to grasp the vastness of time it required for nature to accomplish all that it has - yes, I can imagine a thousand years; a million? ... I'm struggling now; a billion? ... overload! But that's what you need to do to come to grips with the evolutionary process. I suspect it's this lack of comprehension / imagination that is behind the beliefs of many Creationists, or maybe a refusal to accept that evolution can happen without some 'intervention'. Having laid myself open to attack, I can only recommend that you read what Mr. Dawkins has to say and make up your own mind who has the right of it.
Rating:
Summary: A Fantastic Read
Review: It is so refreshing to read a science book by a decent writer. A hugely important aspect of science has to be communication - letting others know what you're on about! Dawkins is a gifted writer who manages to convey fairly complicated concepts to the lay reader. Life is about learning, and a writer such as Dawkins makes it a joy.
Rating:
Summary: Dawkinsesque (and Saganesque) science as religion
Review: Sometimes, I just don't know what to think of Dawkins. In this book he suggests astrologers should be prosecuted as frauds. What is he, a Torquemada for Science? Or just an Eric Hoffer True Believer? Dawkins, like Sagan, tries to portray science as a substitute for religion. (Good luck, Richard: it'll never work.) He also attacks Stephen Jay Gould at length, for what he believes is Gould's lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Is he denigrating Gould and imitating Sagan because he wishes to take Sagan's place as the best-known popularizer of science? Hmmm...could it be his ulterior motives are showing? Notwithstanding these facts, the book is pretty good--for Dawkins. I wish he knew more about philosophy, though. He justs _assumes_ his premises are true: that matter is the ultimate reality; that life, consciousness and self-consciousness are just epiphenomena; that there is no meaning or purpose to anything; and that all religion is essentially untrue. His beliefs are unproven axioms, and as such are based on faith. Much like the religion he so avidly denigrates. In spite of all this, the book is worth reading for his skill in portraying the sense of wonder involved in scientific endeavor.
Rating:
Summary: Dawkins is somewhere over the rainbow
Review: What's Dawkins talking about here? In this book Dawkins ironically shows that we are mind machines - not blind machines. Mind machines are created in the image of the Mindful creator. Makes sense really. We created the idea of blind machines and blind Watchmakers and projected that deterministic image onto nature. A statistically harmonious, lawful universe would be a dead Universe; but the Universe is not dead because we are not dead - as Dawkins ironically shows in this book. Bundles of atoms writing poetry about mathematical arcs? Well Dawkins might be right in a certain sense - Dawkins himself is totally blind.
Rating: 
Summary: A commentary not on this book, but on its "reviewers"....
Review: This needn't be printed here, as it is only a reflection of my thoughts on the reviewers and not a commentary on the book itself. But then, that, I think, is the very point. I find it most interesting as I browse through the reviews and examine the "helpful" tallies, that this review session seems to have served more as a forum for a discussion of God vs. science than a real dialog on the merits of the book. (In fact, I find it telling that I was tempted to vote on the reviews based not on their helpfulness, but on how I felt about the viewpoint which they expressed.) I wonder then, if a book that has managed to provoke this much thought isn't somehow valuable regardless of whether or not one agrees with it? For isn't literature nothing if not an ongoing discussion? Just food for thought....
|
