|
The God Delusion: Library Edition | 
 agrandir | Auteur: Richard Dawkins
Créateurs: Richard Dawkins, Richard Ward Dawkins
Éditeur: Playaway
Prix de liste: EUR 43,85
Acheter Neuf: EUR 39,48
Vous épargnez: EUR 4,37 (10%)
Neuf (2) D'occasion (1) de EUR 39,48
Évaluation moyenne des clients:  3 commentaires
Média: Reliure inconnue
Édition: Unabridged
Poids (kg): 0.4
Dimension (cm): 7.8 x 4.8 x 1.1
ISBN: 1602526095
Code Décimal Dewey: 211
EAN: 9781602526099
ASIN: 1602526095
Date de publication: Juillet 2007
Disponibilité: Expedition sous 1 a 2 jours ouvres
Expédition: Livraison internationale disponible
Condition: Livre neuf, expedie par avion de Grande Bretagne, livre en 5 a 8 jours ouvres.
| |
| Découvrez des articles similaires:
|
| Commentaires des clients:
 Impossibly naive Septembre 3, 2007
Midasin (London, England)
3 sur 34 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Dawkins certainly has a knack for drawing attention to the bizarre, particularly in the religious arena. But as for the arguments themselves? Christianity must be defined by Jesus Christ, not by anyone who chooses to adopt the name "Christian".
Anyone who reads the New Testament can see that its teaching in no way supports the bizarre examples adduced by Dawkins, such as the Crusades, bombing abortion clinics, or persecuting people with homosexual tendencies. And the idea that atheistic morality is superior to New Testament morality is obviously false. Even in my extreme antiChristian days, I could see that. Where do the ideals of liberal humanism come from? Apart from sexual ethics, from the New Testament itself.
It is ironic that the key chapter of the entire book, "Why there almost certainly is no God", is probably the weakest of all; this is chapter 4, of which Dawkins himself wrote: "This chapter has contained the central argument of my book" (Dawkins' p.187). If you doubt the weakness of Dawkins' arguments here, just try copying out all the key paragraphs of this chapter by hand word-for-word, as I did, and you will see what I mean!
Dawkins explores the issues of God's existence via the idea of the Ultimate Boeing 747. The idea is that a Being as complex as God can have come about only at the end of a long process of evolutionary development. The punch line is: "Who designed God?" However, this argument assumes a number of things. It already assumes the truth of "evolution" by natural selection. It assumes that "evolution" must necessarily result in increasing complexity as it goes on. It assumes that it must necessarily produce improved or "optimized" entities. It assumes that nothing can exist in and of itself without origin, which is an argument by analogy from what we see around us. But, clearly, a person who accepts the existence of a single Creator God would not believe in God if He were not conceived as unique to start with. The concept of God assumes certain things about God: that He is infinite, eternal, omnipresent, and so on. People may wish to dispute these, but the fact remains that God is assumed to be Creator. If He is not, then He is not worthy of worship - not really even worth bothering with. So the conclusion of Dawkins' logic is already built into its premise. Because he has already programmed his assumptions into the point from which the argument proceeds, it is inevitable that the conclusion reached will be one that he favours. As Dawkins himself would say: "Garbage in, Garbage out" (p.133). Obviously Dawkins is perfectly entitled not to believe in God's existence - that's up to him. But it is less than honest to pretend that he has succeeded in arguing logically for the extreme improbability of God's existence.
Dawkins has tried to equate the ID (Irreducible Complexity) argument with `the God of the gaps'. But how could there be a gradual transition between walking on all fours and walking upright? The instability of the socket in transitional forms would make this impossible. But here, Dawkins has virtually admitted that his "consciousness" has been "raised" to such an extent that he is willing to put his faith in the process: "There's got to be a series of advantages all the way ... . If you can't think of one, then that's your problem, not natural selection's problem. Natural selection - well, I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful." (Dawkins interviewed by Jonathan Miller, in: *The Final Hour* (BBC2, 14/11/2005).)
Again Dawkins wants to argue that the "anthropic principle" [AP] makes the need for a Creator redundant. One can almost imagine his foot stamping as he argues that design and AP are incompatible: "They are *alternatives*" (p.164)! It is as if Dawkins were saying: You better believe it because I am a scientist and I'm telling you! So, wishing to remain Darwin-sounding, he opts for the controversial "multiverse theory" - and if you don't believe him, it's because you haven't had your "consciousness raised" by Darwin. In the light of Dawkins' support for the strong anthropic principle, it is interesting to read Roger Penrose's comment (from 1989): "the strong anthropic principle has a somewhat dubious character, and it tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts" (The Emperor's New Mind, p.561)
Dawkins also seems to assume that Natural Selection is identical with Evolution. Natural Selection is something which can be tested scientifically as it is a process. Evolution, on the other hand, is merely an accepted paradigm, which requires, for example, that human beings and apes must have shared a common ancestor. Natural Selection occurs through the same mechanisms found when people interbreed different types of dogs or cats. This is how Darwin discovered the idea, even without a knowledge of genetics. The information has to be there in the DNA for Natural Selection to work. Natural Selection does not generate the kind of new genetic material which Evolution requires.
In reality, Dawkins assumes something as a fact, and then tries to use as a proof the very point that he is trying to establish. We all know that theists do this, but at least they are honest about what they are doing. But Dawkins claims that he holds the logical high ground.
In my view, the best critique of Dawkins' book is David Robertson's "The Dawkins Letters" which consists of the author's own letters posted on the Dawkins website. The author replies to Dawkins' chapter-by-chapter and has a knack of getting to the nub of the issue each time. This seems to me easily the most thorough critique of "The God Delusion" currently available in book-form.
 The God Delusion Décembre 18, 2006
Michael Brown (Greensboro, NC, USA)
16 sur 20 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Whatever our faith or belief in something, this book dispels and strengthens the convictions we held before. It is a book meant for the open-minded who appreciate varying views of what man holds as the most mysterious of all things (God). The views of different peoples, cultures and religions should be taken into consideration in whatever judgements we make on this.This is so because I had this fascinating insight into this subject from a story with the title The Verdict of Hades, found in the book "The Usurper and Other Stories. The God Delusion is a book to read.
Dawkins Lays Out the Case for Atheism Novembre 17, 2006
J. Osborn (Los Angeles California)
23 sur 24 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary theorist and holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is also a best seller author of science books, and quite easy to read.
In this book, Dawkins tackles the problem of religion -- and he does see it as a problem. Dawkins begins by pointing out that there is no evidence whatsoever of god. True, he cannot prove that god does not exist, but the same is true of all possible gods, including Zeus and Wotan. The fact that something cannot be proven false is no evidence whatsoever that is true.
Dawkins further points out how religion (or, more precisely, faith) is so damaging. Faith is, quite simply, the enemy of reason. If one believes something on faith then, be definition, it does not matter what the evidence shows, one will still believe. It is a matter of faith. No matter how strong the evidence of evolution, for example, many faithful simply refuse to believe. With faith, there is no argument, no evidence good enough. With reason, one will still make mistakes, but at least one is trying to get it right.
Dawkins believes very strongly in what he says, but that does not make him just another fundamentalist. Dawkins came to his beliefs by looking at evidence, considering all arguments and applying reason. If, tomorrow, one presented him with evidence that he was wrong, he would change his mind.
This book will offend many readers, but that is not what Dawkins intends and it only proves his point: readers who are offended have been so blinded by religion that they are unable to consider that they might be wrong without suffering pain.
For an explanation of how evolution works, read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. For a small sample of the evidence behind the theory (and a brief history of life on earth), read The Ancestor's Tale. These books are written in a less strident manner, and would only offend the those who take the Bible completely literally, and cannot tolerate the thought that they are mistaken.
|
|
|
|
Merlin's Cave | |
