andredomok

I feel like giving it anything more than a 3 would be wrong (I mean, come on - I gave The Corrections and One Hundred Years of Solitude a 4), but he does what he set out to do quite well, in utilitarian prose that's quite easy to read. I've been an atheist for a long time, but religion is still a topic I spend a decent amount of time thinking about (partly because of the debates I get into online, partly because the previous generation in my family is still quite religious), and this book was a mixture of good review of what I've already discovered, plus a dose of background and scientific research for support. One new idea to me that I kind of liked: his point that it's wrong to refer to young children by their parents' religion (e.g., a young Muslim boy, a newly-baptized Catholic baby, etc.), because it treats indoctrination as assumed, and it creates separations where they don't exist. Religious belief is a choice, and a young child isn't mentally equipped to make such a choice. No one would refer to a Keynesian child, or a Marxist child, based on their parents' belief in an economic system. Or a better example: would you ever speak of an atheist child? Dawkins is interesting as well, because so many atheists maintain that religion, even if based on false beliefs, are still generally beneficial -- Dawkins doesn't buy it. His arguments here aren't as solid as the rest of the book, though. I actually agree with him in principle (though we'd need a better replacement than science books and TV), but his arguments here aren't as solidly founded as the rest of the book (for one, the "mainstream" religious family is bad because they validate the extremists). Fortunately, it's not a primary focus, and doesn't harm the function of the thing as a whole. Anyway, particularly if you're a puzzled agnostic (and I think that covers a lot of people...), it's worth a quick read.

2022-11-14 17:07