blackpudd1n Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Same basic principal except dawkins does way less philisophy in the root of all evil. He sort of trys to let religious people bury themselves. I personally liked the Root of all evil way more then the god delusion. Really? I'm rather enjoying The God Delusion. I'm learning heaps! I rarely ever recommend reading a christian apologetic, but while dawkins makes his points badly and in a way that is hard to believe, alister mcgrath in the dawkins delusion rips him a new one. Another reason I don't like the god delusion, is antony flew. Dawkins wrote flew off as cenial, when discussing flews conversion to deism. According to flew, dawkins never even asked him why flew changed his mind. To me that is the epitome of being close minded. I'm not finding that Dawkins' is making bad points, personally. I'm up to page 308, and I have found his arguments consistent, well thought out, and widely referenced. I also like the way he acknowledges when he is outside his area of expertise, and defers to others whom are experts in that area. However, I'm reading a revised edition of the book, where he counters some arguments to the initial edition, and also acknowledges and corrects his mistakes in the first edition. I can't help but wonder if that has something to do with the divide between the people who like this book and those that don't. Because I keep hearing the same argument over and over: "He was wrong about..." but as yet, no one who has actually raised that argument has told me which edition of the book that they read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Same basic principal except dawkins does way less philisophy in the root of all evil. He sort of trys to let religious people bury themselves. I personally liked the Root of all evil way more then the god delusion. Really? I'm rather enjoying The God Delusion. I'm learning heaps! I rarely ever recommend reading a christian apologetic, but while dawkins makes his points badly and in a way that is hard to believe, alister mcgrath in the dawkins delusion rips him a new one. Another reason I don't like the god delusion, is antony flew. Dawkins wrote flew off as cenial, when discussing flews conversion to deism. According to flew, dawkins never even asked him why flew changed his mind. To me that is the epitome of being close minded. I'm not finding that Dawkins' is making bad points, personally. I'm up to page 308, and I have found his arguments consistent, well thought out, and widely referenced. I also like the way he acknowledges when he is outside his area of expertise, and defers to others whom are experts in that area. However, I'm reading a revised edition of the book, where he counters some arguments to the initial edition, and also acknowledges and corrects his mistakes in the first edition. I can't help but wonder if that has something to do with the divide between the people who like this book and those that don't. Because I keep hearing the same argument over and over: "He was wrong about..." but as yet, no one who has actually raised that argument has told me which edition of the book that they read. I read it in iirc, 2009. I didn't get far enough to see the bit about antony flew, I only found out about it, by watching a interview with flew. It was so horrid(dawkins book) that I had to stop reading it. But then again I probably should take another wack at it. I was a believer for the most part when I read it. So I may have just not been getting the point. So maybe it has had some really good rewrites. I should probably recheck it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 I read it in iirc, 2009. I didn't get far enough to see the bit about antony flew, I only found out about it, by watching a interview with flew. It was so horrid(dawkins book) that I had to stop reading it. But then again I probably should take another wack at it. I was a believer for the most part when I read it. So I may have just not been getting the point. So maybe it has had some really good rewrites. I should probably recheck it out. In all honesty, I don't think I could have read it even six months ago. I don't think I would have been ready for it. Not only that, but I have found some sections to be quite hard going, simply due to the scientific concepts that he uses to support some arguments which I am still getting my head around. I'll probably re-read it when I am done, to gain a better understanding of the bits that I have been struggling with. Overall, though, I've found it quite an enjoyable and educational exercise, and he has raised many points for me that i hadn't even thought of, that I will probably explore some more.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmot Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 http://www.csmonitor...th-s-atmosphere something fun. 82% I never took a physics class, so I was unaware of some of the terms for that (such as "mu"). I totally botched the question about the most abundant element in the earth's crust (oxygen), and I didn't know that "nimbus" meant "precipitating." Pretty good for a guy with an art degree, I'd say. I agree, nice job for a guy with an art degree! I am impressed with the degree to which you have educated yourself. I got a 92%, but then again I am a science teacher so I had better get over 90%. I had no idea on "nimbus", I forgot meiosis has a "phase 2" for every stage name. I incorrectly guessed that Venus would be the other planet with 38% of our gravity, and I (foolishly) incorrectly guessed that Betelguese had an absolute magnitude of -4.7. I learned a couple of new things for the quiz that I can incorporate into my class! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 http://www.csmonitor...th-s-atmosphere something fun. 82% I never took a physics class, so I was unaware of some of the terms for that (such as "mu"). I totally botched the question about the most abundant element in the earth's crust (oxygen), and I didn't know that "nimbus" meant "precipitating." Pretty good for a guy with an art degree, I'd say. I agree, nice job for a guy with an art degree! I am impressed with the degree to which you have educated yourself. I got a 92%, but then again I am a science teacher so I had better get over 90%. I had no idea on "nimbus", I forgot meiosis has a "phase 2" for every stage name. I incorrectly guessed that Venus would be the other planet with 38% of our gravity, and I (foolishly) incorrectly guessed that Betelguese had an absolute magnitude of -4.7. I learned a couple of new things for the quiz that I can incorporate into my class! I also got 92%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 http://www.csmonitor...th-s-atmosphere something fun. 82% I never took a physics class, so I was unaware of some of the terms for that (such as "mu"). I totally botched the question about the most abundant element in the earth's crust (oxygen), and I didn't know that "nimbus" meant "precipitating." Pretty good for a guy with an art degree, I'd say. I agree, nice job for a guy with an art degree! I am impressed with the degree to which you have educated yourself. I got a 92%, but then again I am a science teacher so I had better get over 90%. I had no idea on "nimbus", I forgot meiosis has a "phase 2" for every stage name. I incorrectly guessed that Venus would be the other planet with 38% of our gravity, and I (foolishly) incorrectly guessed that Betelguese had an absolute magnitude of -4.7. I learned a couple of new things for the quiz that I can incorporate into my class! I also got 92%. Smarty pants- all of yas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts