Unfortunately, I absolutely loathe Dawkins as I think he's an arrogant, bombastic twat with a very limited understanding of inclinations he doesn't share, so it would probably make me angry too, but perhaps not in the same way. Good to hear you enjoyed it, though, so I'd certainly think about reading it - don't want to judge too harshly without prior knowledge.
he's an arrogant, bombastic twat with a very limited understanding of inclinations he doesn't share
He certainly is. However, for those of us on his side of the argument it makes for a very refreshing change to have the bombastic invective flying in the other direction for once. ;)
(To put it another way: it's easier to forgive someone for being arrogant when they're right.)
See, that's *exactly* what I don't like, the way that he always seems to make it such a polarised debate, as if there's a 'right' and a 'wrong' side! And even if I thought there was, the fact that he's so unlikeable about the way he presents his arguments does seriously undermine them. After all, plenty of people who have turned out to be 'right' have frequently alienated their supporters be being twats.
I agree with damarell that it's a difficult and also an interesting question, and one worth discussing, but I've never seen why it should require an absolute answer. I'm much more inclined towards a spectrum of possible answers. Presumably, Dawkins presents one and no doubt it is in many ways a good and well-reasoned one, but it's certainly not going to be the only good one.
But there absolutely is a right and a wrong side, because for most of his career Dawkins has primarily been opposing creationists. They are fundamentally wrong; and it's hard to argue with Dawkins's debating techniques when the creationists' fundamental technique is to lie.
Dawkins does not present his answers to "why religion" as definitively correct but merely as possible explanations. The only explanation he dismisses is "God exists", but frankly that explanation strikes me as fatuous nonsense too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
He certainly is. However, for those of us on his side of the argument it makes for a very refreshing change to have the bombastic invective flying in the other direction for once. ;)
(To put it another way: it's easier to forgive someone for being arrogant when they're right.)
(no subject)
I agree with
(no subject)
Dawkins does not present his answers to "why religion" as definitively correct but merely as possible explanations. The only explanation he dismisses is "God exists", but frankly that explanation strikes me as fatuous nonsense too.
(no subject)