Rating: 
Summary: it never fails
Review: It seems there is a group of people always searching for books like this so they can immediately jump in and try to sway others to spirituality. What they don't realize is that those who read Dawkins, who are interested in what he has to say, really just don't wanna hear them any more. We are deluged from the time we are born with silly notions of "spirituality" and god propaganda. One of the later reviewers put it best when they said we are just another life form on just another planet... Why do people feel like there has to be meaning to life beyond the selfish gene? What good does it do us all to think that living our lives well is not necessary because we can look forward to something that MIGHT be out there, that MAY be waiting beyond death. It all comes down to whether or not we think trying hard is worth anything. There IS life beyond ourselves. It's not spirituality, it's the physical existence of others and their memories of history, memories of life. Dawkins, to me, though often not the top authority on the subject of evolution and existence; does a better job of laying it all out on the line than anyone else. He harbors no illusions, gives no false hope. We need more people like Dawkins.
Rating: 
Summary: A good book, w/ a hopeless message
Review: The depth and profundity of life and human spirituality are so clearly apparent, yet Richard Dawkins and his crew of materialists just don't want to hear it. Dawkins clings on to his tiny, impotent, narrow minded perspective of materialism and the laws of natural selection, and he refuses to acknowledge the sheer depth and awe-inspiring meaning of God, Creation and human spirituality. In this book, Dawkins writes: "We have an appetite for wonder, a poetic appetite, which real science ought to be feeding but which is being hijacked, often for monetary gain, by purveyors of superstition". 'Hijacked' is the apt word here. But the spiritual appetite for poetry and wonder is not being hijacked by purveyors of superstition. It is being hijacked by the purveyors of materialism. The dictionary definition of 'spiritual' is: "of the nature of, relating to, spirit; the higher faculties; the soul; naturally looking to things of the spirit." Un-surprisingly, these are most certainly not meaningless definitions, and one definition which stands out is "naturally looking to things of the spirit." Dawkins is well aware that since the dawn of man, an integral part of human nature has been to search, to BELIEVE in the unseen, and to express our spiritual creativity. But materialists do not want to be told that there is 'meaning' to our existence, so they hide behind a wall of elocution and prejudice, and they truly revel when their Chief guru writes a book called 'Unweaving the Rainbow', which aptly acknowledges the modality of human spirituality, yet strangely denies the very essence, source and heart of it. Spirituality clearly distinguishes the difference between human beings and other animal life: We humans can experience, understand and appreciate life, Creation, love and friendship. We have the capacity to ponder life, to search, to express our spiritual creativity through music, art and literature; we can free-willingly pray or meditate in order our fulfil our own spirituality. But 'Unweaving the Rainbow' sees Richard Dawkins highlighting the nature of sentient awareness and the existence of human creativity such as art and poetry - yet Dawkins not only fails to explain any of it, but the issue itself completely contradicts the nature of materialism. Dawkins cannot explain why the universe is coherently and intelligently structured with an overpowering trend toward the existence of sentient beings and intrinsic purpose. So what does the author do? He blatantly exclaims: "It's all purposeless!" To his crew, this can only mean that human beings are accidents and that we are free from God who knows our every move, who knows every thought in our heads, and who will meet us in our spiritual form when our time comes. Materialists are blinded into thinking that their guru's message is bursting with clarity, intelligence and truth. Yet the prejudice surrounding Dawkins' message prevents his lambs from seeing that Dawkins, as the ultimate materialist, is shooting himself in the foot. Some of Dawkins' 'scientific' assertions are so misled and biased, they can even be classed as "lies". But Mr Dawkins is not afraid of the spiritually enlightened beast - Theists - and that is what makes the religious even more robust against materialists' prejudice, chauvinism and narrow-mindedness. That is why Theists truly thank the Lord for the gift of faith.
Rating:
Summary: A good book, w/ a hopelessly unpopular message
Review: Richard Dawkins reminds me of the protagonist in Plato's Cave analogy: one of those rare individuals who staggers out of the stygian depths of human ignorance and catches a brief but blinding glimpse of the way things actually are. However, on his joyous return to the cave to tell people about the marvel and wonder of what he has just witnessed, he is attacked and killed for ruining our blissfull stupidity. In other words, Dawkins is attempting to spread his (and science's) message about the external reality that we reside in, but the masses just don't want to hear it. They want their "spirituality" and "mysticism", whatever those things are supposed mean (looked 'em up in the dictionary and all i got were a few vague, circular, and ultimately meaningless definitions-not that i was surprised, however). Dawkins thinks that as long as people have an open mind and a decent ability to comprehend english, they will see the beauty of what he is saying-that the universe is bigger, better, more beautiful, amazing, awe-inspiring, and just completely more mind-blowing than anything that any religion or cult purported it to be. Judging from the many of the reviews, this is simply not the case. They would rather have their tiny, impotent god, their narrow-minded ideology that is responsible for much of the hatred and bigotry that we find lurking around us. People do not want to be told that they are just another animal, on just another planet, orbiting just another star, found in just another galaxy, which in turn, is perhaps in just another universe. We shout out against this clear voice of reason that we are the center of the universe, because our collective ego knows no bounds. We are not just animals we say desparately, trying to convince ourselves more than anyone else. Poor Mr. Dawkins; his intelligence, wit, clarity, and excellent prose style is wasted on these philistines, these "christians" and other self-righteous types, who would like nothing more than to see Mr. Dawkins "sin" of thinking rationally and not assuming that we, that hateful, murdering, genocidal portion of the animal kingdom that calls itself humanity, are the reason for the existence of everything, although our existence is necessary for nothing. Give us back our purpose, we shout at Mr. Dawkins, so that we won't have to realize how empty and shallow our lives actually are. Do not tell us that we are not immortal, we howl, so that we won't realize how much of our lives have been wasted in the pointless rat-race of capitalist America, home of the free and land of the depraved. We retort "your science cannot explain art, music, or literature", ignoring the fact that our god cannot even explain our existence-the same god who told us that the earth is flat and slavery is a-ok, as long as you give money to the church. However, Mr.Dawkins is not afraid of us, the great anti-intellectual american beast, and that is what makes us hate him even more.
Rating:
Summary: Not good science. Not good poetry.
Review: I find it strange why people get so upset about books like this. I know poets are renowned to be sensitive, but it really doesn't make any sense for anyone to be genuinely offended by Dawkins' attempts at marrying science and poetry. We all know that Dawkins is the "Mister Dogma" of the science world, and I think it is very true that Dawkins "cannot see the wood for the trees", as was noted by a previous reviewer - (I like the observations about the rainbow); yet people should not get so cut up about these things. I feel the thing that makes Dawkins' attempts so pitiful, is that he spends all his time explicitly denying the existence of human spirituality or any kind of "spiritual gifts" that may have come from a Spiritual Creator, and then in this book he attempts to embrace exactly these things and tries to hail it being compatible with his narrow-minded views of natural selection. Art, music and poetry obviously have nothing to do with "survival of the fittest", and if Dawkins wishes to carry on along these lines, then he must not shy away from attempting to explaining the production of Mozarts' symphonies by appealing to laws of survival of the fittest. I found Dawkins very amusing when he claimed that the notion of 'God' was merely the result of 'memes', which spread throughout generations "because they are good at spreading". Of course Dawkins would not admit that his belief that we are here by accident is also the result of 'memes'. (For those not in the know: Dawkins' definition of a 'meme' is a kind of replicator, which arose in the soup of human culture, as opposed to a physical replicator which arose in a primordial soup of the early earth). For Dawkins to acknowledge that humans can appreciate music, poetry and art, shows that Dawkins acknowledges a reality which transcends inanimate atoms. But at the same time Dawkins explicitly denies the existence of a reality which transcends inert matter, (which theists know as 'God') - because, according to Dawkins, there is nothing more to the Universe than atoms and materialism. This book doesn't make good sense; it also doesn't make good poetry. I'm not sure what it makes, really. Certainly not good science.
Rating:
Summary: Spiritually backward
Review: Here, in his latest offering, Dawkins urges us to see that "the desire for what is beautiful should not lead us away from the search for what is true". In light of Dawkins' conclusions as to what science reveals, it becomes clear that Dawkins and other material scientists of that ilk, simply cannot see the wood for the trees. Focusing on the issue of the book's title, the arc of a rainbow happens to exhibit unadulterated geometrical mathematics. The inherent nature of mathematics, to any rational mind, would demonstrate intelligence and meaning. Science has revealed that the nature of the cosmos is paved with mathematics and geometry, (see for instance, the inherent shape of sea-shells, spiral galaxies, rainbows, flowers and so on). The overwhelming probability (to a rational mind) would hold that the cosmos, especially life, therefore exhibits purpose and meaning. But Richard Dawkins continues to promulgate his view that human consciousness and spirituality (which in itself, defies and transcends any doctrine of materialism or mathematics), arose "accidentally" in a blind, purposeless cosmos. What kind of nonsense are we expected to believe here? Dawkins has the cheek to reveal the wonders of the Universe and of life - via the exquisite means of poetry. A previous reviewer highlighted that both poetry and human spirituality are completely incompatible with Dawkins' narrow-minded views of a purposeless, purely-material Universe. The likes of Dawkins obviously cannot see the wood for the trees, but that does not mean the rest of us should keep our eyes shut, or should carry on thinking that Dawkins' subjective sentiments and conclusions are scientific fact. Books about poetry and the wonders of the Universe can be truly fantastic and can prove to be awe-inspiring and uplifting. But when they are written within the restrictions of dogma and blind-materialism, the work results in a mish-mash of prejudice and spiritual bankruptcy. The entire grounding of this book really is awful.
Rating: 
Summary: Good read which rapidly gets side-tracked.
Review: This books begins well, arguing about the sense of wonder and awe a life in science brings. When I read the blurb, I wondered if it was possible to write a whole non-fiction book on such a subject. Dawkins exhausts himself by the first 3 or so chapters and then spends the rest of his time ranting and raving about his own personal hang-ups, which have nothing to do with the title. The individual chapters make good reads, but stand better as separate essays rather than several stages in an argument. I would recommend this book only to those who are very interested in the psyche of the ulta-Darwinist that is Dawkins.
Rating:
Summary: Theme goes beyond poetry
Review: While the reviews are all either glowingly positive or else critical of Dawkin's project as a whole, I appreciate his descriptions of poetic science as not just meaning science that we find beautiful or inspiring, but also of how we can have "bad poetry", where we seek to find parallels and analogies along the most tenuous links. However, this argument can go two ways: to bombastically criticise the easy targets, or to explore those who are deluded and believe that they are adhering to the scientific method, whatever their particular slant on that one is. Dawkins achieves an excellent balance in this task. His initial project is to show how much more beautiful and inspiring science can make the world: not just to see something, but to understand it and hence fire the imagination and see far beyond what the naked eye sees. His continuation of this topic beyond breathless and wondrous examples of rainbows and stars is handled superbly, a good mix of the dangers and delights of getting carried away with this approach.
Rating:
Summary: Oh dear
Review: I personally find 'Unweaving the Rainbow' the most mis-guided, grotesque science book I have ever read. It is Prof. Dawkins' attempt at excercising his spirituality (through poetry) within the realms of science. The underlying message throughout Dawkins' entire series of books assert that we are nothing but atoms and that spiritual purpose and meaning does not exist in the Universe. ("Beauty is not an absolute virtue in itself" - 'River Out of Eden'). But here, Prof. Dawkins describes the beauty and wonder of Creation via the means of poetry. In this book, the author attempts to reveal the elements of reality which complement the theistic world-view, and then tries to persuade the reader that the neo-Darwinist world-view complements it and makes sense of it. But where does the existence of intrinsic value fit in with Mister Dawkins' view of the world? How can bundles of physical particles appreciate poetry? How can physical particles be 'consciously aware' of their own existence or of their own environment? How can atoms understand anything, or experience friendship, intrinsic value or poetry? Conveniently, the author doesn't even approach such significant questions. Dawkins asserts in his million copy best-seller 'the Selfish Gene', that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." ... "The true purpose of DNA is to survive, no more and no less"; and that "beauty is not an absolute virtue in itself" (River Out of Eden). So if I were to ask Mister Dawkins 'What was your purpose, or end, in appreciating the wonder of Creation via the means of poetry?' what would his reply be? The rational person would reply, 'My end was to appreciate its beauty, for its intrinsic value.' But if Dawkins is to adhere to the message made throughout his entire series of books, then he cannot speak this way. He would have to reply somewhat in the manner of "Existence and survival are the only means to an end. Therefore the end was reproduction." If Prof. Dawkins' were then to defend himself by saying, "Intrinsic good is not an objective reality - only subjective", then he must also assert that if you think torturing babies is good, then that is a matter of taste; and that it is not objectively wrong to torture babies. Mister Dawkins need only search a little deeper to realise the crassness and absurdity of such a view. Is 'conscience' not a moral sense based on value and understanding? The deeper a person digs and reflects, the more in touch with their conscience they will be. The basics of ethics is simple. It is the specification of those basic intrinsic values that all rational beings would desire. (Love?) But 'conscience' and human free will are not compatible with Dawkins' view of the world, primarily because it transcends the doctrine of physical mechanical cogs. But consider an 'itch' on your arm: Are you not in a position to resist that itch? Does this not imply that you are in a position to freely choose what to do? An itch on the arm may be a trivial issue - but the principle is by no means trivial. Can a person not base a free decision upon the grounds of his or her conscience, or upon intrinsic value? According to Prof. Dawkins' perspective, the answer is no. In 'The Blind Watchmaker', Dawkins makes a revelationary assertion - that the theistic view is "wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong". But are we not living in an intelligible, mathematically ordered Universe? Has science not revealed there was an instant of Creation? Do we not have the existence of self-awareness, intrinsic good and sentient beings who have the capacity to enjoy life, to understand, and to appreciate the whole of Creation? Is there really "no room for a designer" as Mister Dawkins likes to believe? I find it interesting that the word 'Delusion' is contained in the sub-title of this book. If Dawkins wishes his conclusions to be based upon reason, logic and rational grounds, then the least he could conclude is that the existence of God is "possible". But no. Prof. Dawkins concludes that theists are "wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong". I would personally describe Mister Dawkins' views by using words such as "dogma"; "narrow-minded"; "fanatical"; "idee fixe"; "tommy-rotter". It's good to be open minded. It's good to be free from dogmatic chains. It's good to know there is something else to search for. I personally find 'Unweaving the Rainbow' to be somewhat mis-guided. I read an earlier reviewer describe Mister Dawkins as his "hero". What on earth is the world coming to? But still, all to their own, I suppose.
Rating: 
Summary: Dawkins is a modern hero
Review: Dawkins vs. Gouls? Give me Dawkins any day of the week. This book is heavily laced with poetry, which is a sort of proof of concept, that a book about science need not be dry or without feeling. while certainly not as important as the selfish gene, it is a nice escape. and it is utterly refreshing to read a man who really understands science elevate it with such beautiful language.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful introduction to the wonders of science
Review: While some of the criticisms that Dawkins is just retreading old ground are accurate, this book (his first as Professor of the Public Understanding of Science) is clearly intended for a different readership to his other books; he is trying to show people not used to (and perhaps suspicious of) science how fasinating and awe-inspiring it can be, while still having a formidable power to explain the universe. That's his job, and he does it superbly. Those familiar with popular science may not get much new out of it, and neither will those determined to hold onto religion and superstition (as the reviews here demonstrate...), but for those uncertain about science, those who want to find out more about the world we live in, and for those concerned that explanations remove the poetry from life, it is as beautifully-written and as clear an account as could be wished for. (Oh, and it's a shame that the feud with Gould still goes on, but... the points needed to be made! )
|
