Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
36 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Entertaining, interesting and slightly bizarre, May 1, 2008
Despite approaching this from the perspective of a (weak) atheist who has admired Dawkins greatly over the years I enjoyed this book. Anyone who doesn't want to slip into the comfy zone of only ever debating and discussing with people who concur might disagree but, personally, I think that knowing your opponent is preferable. And, when your opponent manages to strike some good blows AND entertain you into the bargain it has to be a good outcome.
Vox Day has, in general, steered clear of cant and, instead, directly addressed the facts and assertions employed by Harris, Dawkins and Dennett and it is here that, for me at least, the book had the most value. Vox has done his research and lucidly sets out his facts. I think that there are clearly flaws in some of the argumentation, as has been pointed out in other reviews, with a-priori assumption of that to be proved being the most common complaint. However, it's entertaining if you like the mental exercise.
Having said that, I would love to have a book from Vox that addresses the fundamentals; my view is that the impact of a fact, for good or ill, has no bearing whatsoever on its veracity. One can argue that atheism or theism leads to better or worse outcomes but it is fundamentally irrelevant to the argument. Ultimately, there is or there is not a God - period.
Therefore it is entirely pointless for either side to argue for or against the existence of God on the basis of whether that means people behave better, do or do not persecute other races or any other consequence; benign or malign. The consequences are our problem.
In fact, I would love to have books from both sides that directly address the fundamentals rather than long treatises on who behaves better, produces better laws etc etc.
However, given that this book does exactly what it sets out to do (attack Dawkins, Dennett and Harris and try to rebut some of their assertions), does it humerously and does it intelligently I would recommend it wholeheartedly to anyone interested in the debate.
|
|
|
46 of 65 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Confident Irrationality, January 16, 2009
I was given this book by a relative who thought I just had to read it, but before I started, I looked it up on Amazon to get an idea of what to expect, and was surprised to see so many reviews saying things like "irrefutable", "incredibly well argued", "logical" etc. I was surprised because I have been an Atheist for a very long time, and have heard most everything one could throw at me, so I was intrigued. What arguments for the existence of God, and for religion could cause one to say something as uncompromising as "irrefutable".
Well lets just say the intrigue didn't last long. First I read that there will be no argument to support the existence of God at all, and I thought well then what's the point? The only thing left is to argue fantasy is good for humanity, and so we should all pick something and then fight hard to fool ourselves into believing it's true and this will somehow make us happier, and this is basically what the rest of the book proves to be about, but of course, Christianity is always the preferred something to believe in.
It is argued with confidence, and it takes a tact from Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris by insulting them and Atheism quite frequently. The difference is however, that in the first case the insults are incidental to the material. I mean It's pretty hard to tell someone their beliefs are silly without insulting them, but in the case of this book the insults are often personal and gratuitous in nature, such as calling Hitchens a drunk, and also completely mis-representative of reality such as calling calling New Atheism "militantly fundamentalist" and a "godless jihad". Wow.
I understand that many Christians who might have read any of the current popular Atheist books, might feel a bit of frustration at being openly attacked for the first time in many years, and having absolutely nothing of substance to say in return, and that is what this book feels like. An angry rant, demeaning and insulting those it claims to be doing this same thing to religion, but unfortunately there is nothing behind the anger in this case.
The book is filled wall to wall with flimsy argument, but presented in a confident and antagonistic manner, and I suppose this is enough for many to think a valid logical point has been made. As I got further into the book though, it really became clear why the high ratings. I could begin to feel the frustration of those religious people who perhaps have read or heard of one of the more popular Atheism books available now, and desperately want something on their side with the same confidence and condemnation in these books, but against Atheism instead of for it. They got the confidence and condemnation, but without any of the substance of the Atheist books.
Just one quick example I found just by opening my book to a random page is this quote.
"..nearly all of the great religious scientists were not merely religious, but Christians, and that there were far fewer scientists than there are today.
The frst fact is significant because it indicates that there is likely a
difference between the Christian worldview that supported a search
for scientifc truth and the various non-Christian worldviews that
did not. The second fact is even more interesting, as it suggests that
the non-Christian worldview of today's science may in fact be hin-
dering the pace of scientifc development rather than helping it"
I mean Wow! A little history would have done wonders for this book. Most of these early scientists lived during the renaissance, a time when everyone in Europe was still a Christian under punishment of imprisonment or death. Also during this time writings from Ancient Greece and Rome started to be reread and European saw there used to be great civilizations which had relied mostly on reason to guide them in the world rather than a Christian God, and it made people think that perhaps they were spending a bit too much time debating scripture, and not enough time using their reason, and then a magical thing happened. European civilization started to move forward again and science was born. So how could one say with a straight face, that the early science was due to Christianity when it had done nothing for 1000 years. And if this were not bad enough, he then suggests that current scientific research is slowing down, perhaps because there are not enough Christian scientists, and he says this in the face science starting it's vertical ascent on an exponential curve, when over 93% of the top tier scientists are strong Atheists. It's not only blatantly false, but I think deliberately so, and filled with desperation, as is the entire book.
|
|
|
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good resource for the informed, February 21, 2009
This book is refreshing in many ways. For one who has read the works of the New Atheists, including "The God Delusion" and "Letter to a Christian Nation," Vox Day's militant style is an interesting response. This, however, is not a book that's going to convert anyone. It doesn't present arguments to believe in Christianity. Rather, Vox Day has committed himself to tearing down the arguments that the New Atheists present against theism.
Vox Day's success varies largely throughout the book. His historical knowledge is admittedly quite broad, and he is very successful when he confronts the New Atheists on these fronts. It is his knowledge of theology that is very questionable. His view of God and spirits definitely leaves much to be desired. Indeed, the entire chapter titled "Master of Puppets or Game Designer" is worthless and worthy of being ripped out of the book. Chapters like that are balanced by others like "Occam's Chainsaw," in which Day presents fairly valid arguments against a number of atheistic arguments. Day also presents sociological arguments against atheism that are interesting, if not fully formulated.
The back cover features the phrase "Atheism delenda est" [Atheism must be destroyed], and that is the overall tone of the book.
Overall, this is a book that will be a good resource for those talking to atheists 'educated' by the New Atheists, but it is a book that is too militant to be wholly useful in conversion (while the militancy can be greatly entertaining in some ways). Add it to your library for the arguments from history and sociology, but be aware of the theological/doctrinal errors, and don't let the angry tone seep into your own witness.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Mark R. Levin
by John Lennox
See all Editorial Reviews
