Undone by an Angel - Rated 
This was an enjoyable book because it addressed specific aspects of the God Delusion succinctly and without unecessary embellishment. One can only wonder how Dawkins would respond to these points. There again, someone (Dawkins) who gets his wife to read out loud his own book - twice - is hardly likely to take kindly to criticism of it. Dawkins's myopic views seem mirrored by the reviews of some of his supporters. Dr V Stewart [Real Name, apparently] finds Cornwell's 'patronising tone repellent'. You couldn't make it up! Has Dr Stewart ever read anything Dawkins has written? If he had he'd easily recognize patronising words. S Page [Real name, apparently] accuses Cornwell as "deliberately misrepresenting Dawkins' argument". Anyone who had actually read the book could hardly make this claim with any objectivity. If anyone wants a precis of the book they could do worse than read Chapter 2 'Your Sources' to evaluate the background to Dawkins' views and Chapter 9 'Theories of Everything' for a robust and, arguably, unanswerable challenge to Dawkins' firmly held belief that science will one day provide an answer to everything.
I hoped for better; I was disappointed. Another critic bites the dust. - Rated 
I thought John Cornwell would do so much better than this. Often sly and rarely convincing. He is playing out of his league in taking on Dawkins although this is much better than most of the boring, extended Christian tracts which, delivered ex cathedra, merely repeat, "I know best and Richard Dawkins is ignorant."
To any Dawkins haters reading this all I would say is, "Keep on practising but success in undermining Dawkins with any fair minded readers is a long way off. I suppose you could try prayer except that it is Dawkins who seems to be on the side of the angels."
well crafted, but no answers - Rated 
Cornwell's style is disarming, and he succeeds in taking the moral high ground, if only in tone. He rightly pokes fun at Dawkins's self-referencing, and takes him to task effectively over some of his more hysterical or baseless claims. But be careful what you wish for... I read this on an atheists quest to find faith - even reasonable doubt. And here this book is crushingly disappointing; indeed, towards the end it appeared to me to dismantle and trivialise religion as effectively as Dawkins himself. This book would frustrate Dawkins I imagine, as Cornwell often misses the point; it may even embarrass him a little with its deliberate style and composure. That said, I still see Dawkins closing the book with a wry smile... And I remain an atheist with little more food for thought.
How very boring - Rated 
Yet again another critic attacks Dawkins for his apparent lack of theological scolarship. Not only is this book aggressive in its direction, it is dishonest in its interpretation of Dawkins' arguments (particularly those relating to Dostoyevsky) and most importantly shows absolute zero reason for me to believe in any kind of supernatural entity that offers even a half - decent explanation of the universe. One of Dawkins' main arguments is that until you can show atheists reasonable evidence for the existence of a supreme being then you have no case. Dawkins destroys any recognisable evidence for Abrahamic deities in his book The God Delusion. Not surprisingly he cannot address every philosophocal and theological argument in one book, which has lead to a number of critics criticising him for being apparently unlearned in these fields. You can postulate all you like about Dawkins' methods but his reputation and works are based on empirical science and not woolly superstition and as such he will remain one of the most respected scientists and thinkers of his generation. As Christopher Hitchens points out, religion has poisoned this world long enough - why don't you let those of us who believe in facts have a go?
Sometimes, it's best to keep quiet. - Rated 
There is a need for ripostes to people like Dawkins, who in my opinion is simply insulting to those who want, choose, or simply do believe.
It's not a bad book, and is amusing in parts. But it's not really a thought-provoker, and tends to read too literally like "you said this; our reply is:" Fair enough, but it doesn't make for a readable book.
Final assessment: it might make you feel better if you dislike Dawkins and his views, but it won't actually make you better informed, just a few quid worse-off!
|
