Delusions of Delusions
Whenever I read about religion, I am apt to read about its historical development because the present situation seems stagnant in all faiths, evangelicals included. I do delve into the present tense on occasion, often interested in the feminist perspectives offered by authors such as Karen Armstrong and Fatema Mernissi. However, all the hype on the two major Atheist authors, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, has bombarded me enough so that I read The God Delusion by Dawkins.
Well, I read one hundred pages. I fell asleep two nights straight reading the pompous sermon by the scientific preacher. He seemed more interested in attacking his critics than presenting why scientific logic should undermine religious ideas; the persuasive arguments for science de-evolving religious books into history and legend did not materialize as I expected. This thing was all about like why Darwin should be the Jesus of Atheists, Agnostics are wishy-washy ignoramuses, and any iota of spirituality makes you no better than primordial soup. I do not understand how this book climbed high on the New York Times List of Lists unless Creationists buy it to laugh at his pettiness and Ayn Rand fanatics buy it to highlight the Objectivism.
Dawkins is being added to my list of unreadable authors. Umberto Eco nonfiction writings hurt my brain, but he did not bore and condescend me to keep me from the interesting idea of religious instruction to the young being paramount to child abuse. Even if The Selfish Gene interested me, I shall not crack its binding any day soon.
Well, I read one hundred pages. I fell asleep two nights straight reading the pompous sermon by the scientific preacher. He seemed more interested in attacking his critics than presenting why scientific logic should undermine religious ideas; the persuasive arguments for science de-evolving religious books into history and legend did not materialize as I expected. This thing was all about like why Darwin should be the Jesus of Atheists, Agnostics are wishy-washy ignoramuses, and any iota of spirituality makes you no better than primordial soup. I do not understand how this book climbed high on the New York Times List of Lists unless Creationists buy it to laugh at his pettiness and Ayn Rand fanatics buy it to highlight the Objectivism.
Dawkins is being added to my list of unreadable authors. Umberto Eco nonfiction writings hurt my brain, but he did not bore and condescend me to keep me from the interesting idea of religious instruction to the young being paramount to child abuse. Even if The Selfish Gene interested me, I shall not crack its binding any day soon.