Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Really? Like ustwo, Dawkins is preaching to the choir where I'm concerned. However, I didn't find the book to be compelling at all. There are lots of head-nodding moments if you already agreed with him, but not so many parts that would be convincing to a person of different beliefs. In that way it really reminded me of Mere Christianity. And then there's the part about Dawkins coming off as pushy and shrill. I'm not at all convinced that Dawkins is an effective standard-bearer.
|
You know I don't think it was written to convince anyone who was religious to become an atheist. The, tone, the examples, the condescending nature would rise the already often hair trigger hackles of the religious mind and close any avenue of persuasion.
I think it was targeted more at the agnostic leading toward atheist. Someone who wouldn't take offense at the scathing criticisms and was just looking for a way to articulate what they already felt.
Like I said much of what he said was preaching to the choir (and an ironic metaphor that is) and I found myself skimming early on, plus he had a unfortunate habit of interjecting his political views where they really added nothing to the topic, I don't think Dawkins knows what a libertarian is for one thing. While he didn't change my opinion on anything he did give me a bit more resolve in questioning the status quo.
Why do we accept faith and religious beliefs as untouchable? Why must we turn off our brains when the subject comes up? Why is the question of religion one that just must never be discussed? Prior to my exposure to Dawkins I'd be a lot more passive in the debate, but I think he has a very good point that its time to be willing to look at the whole thing with a cold hard analytical eye.