Çocuk Resimleri Analizi ve Psikolojik Resim Testleri - Sultanberk Halmatov kitap serbest oDF biçim

Rita Colucci rita1 — First real book I ever read. I think it was about 3rd or 4th grad and I cried.

Maiken Ingvordsen maikeningvordsen — Great Book.

Schmidt Réka schmdtrk — I almost didn't read this book. The edition I picked up starts with Dawkins's rebuttals to common reactions to The God Delusion. Dawkins's harsh rhetoric in those responses put me off, like being shoved into an ice-cold lake. It makes a bad first impression, but on the advice of a friend I kept reading. I'm glad I did. By and large, the overly harsh rhetoric (my chief criticism of the book) seems at its worst in the preface. Why it was chosen to place the author's rebuttals at the beginning of the book instead of an appendix (at which point the reader would have the context and rhetorical warm-up of the rest of the book) baffles me. In any case, the worst is over quickly, and the rest of the book provides engaging, accessible, and entertaining discussion on the nature of religion from an evolutionary biologist's point of view. I was particularly interested in Dawkins's own speculations on the evolutionary basis of religion. Even if we assume God doesn't exist, how do we explain God's popularity as a trait that has been naturally selected for? Dawkins provides a few of his own fascinating hypotheses, all of which I found absolutely credible—particularly those that describe religion as a byproduct of some other trait that enhanced survivability in our ancestors. "Credible" is perhaps the most complementary and thematic label I can give this book. As someone with a long history of religious belief, as well as personal interest in world religions, I had expected to find myself futilely yelling back at the book, answering Dawkins's bitter accusations and feeble critiques with rancor of my own. Instead—and this truly shocked me—not even once did I find myself objecting to Dawkins's reasoning. I found it wholly credible. I could not find a single rational flaw in Dawkins's comparisons, hypotheses, or conclusions. Dawkins appeals to the mind, and on that basis succeeds resoundingly. What this book is not is "beautiful", "inspiring", or "uplifting". While those virtues are to be found in scientific thinking, they are not to be found in Dawkins's writing. Dawkins's style is exacting, relentless, and at times mocking. When criticized for his mocking tone, his rebuttal (paraphrased) is "nothing I say is any worse than prominent religious critiques of me and mine." He certainly won't win any honor in my eyes with thinking like that. In fact much of the tone of The God Delusion reminds me of that iconic scene from the Big Lebowski: "Am I right? Am I right!?" John Goodman's character demands. "Yes, Walter," answers Jeff Bridges, "but you're still an asshole." While I find Dawkins's premise and reasoning wholly defensible, I can't say the same for his mocking attitude. His argument's honor is only as strong as its weakest link, and at its worst the book descends into the same petty name-calling Dawkins reviles in the religious camp. Returning to the subject of beauty, inspiration, and uplifting, one will have a much easier time finding those things in the writings of Carl Sagan. In fact Dawkins directly quotes Sagan in The God Delusion's last chapter, during his own rather feeble attempt at rhetorical inspiration. Progressive believers will be quick to point out that the side of religion Dawkins attacks is no longer seriously espoused by intellectually honest believers. But, as with Sam Harris, Dawkins points out that such progressive belief is absolutely not the kind of belief that carries the greatest political power, particularly in the United States. Dawkins attacks the kind of belief held by the "American Taliban" because that is the kind of belief that has the most power to affect all our lives. While Dawkins has no problem with you or I deluding ourselves (in his eyes) with belief in a deity in our private lives, he takes issue with the harm caused by that belief at large, particularly to children. I would characterize Dawkins as the opposite of C.S. Lewis—both authors using rational tools to talk about faith: where Lewis moves the spirit and creates beauty, Dawkins forges unlovely, iron pragmatism. Where Lewis utterly fails to forge the simplest chain of valid reasoning, Dawkins expounds his to great lengths not easily broken. If you haven't read Dawkins, go in prepared for a fair amount of bile. While his attitude is secondary to the thoroughly reasonable positions he holds and explains in satisfying detail, it is there nonetheless. If your beliefs are such that your image of a personal God is so precious that you cannot possibly let go of it long enough to read this book, then don't. Dawkins's rationality cannot possibly appeal to the brute, violent force of fundamentalist belief, and you will only come away angry.