Sep-19-2011, 04:29 PM (UTC)
(Sep-19-2011, 03:57 PM (UTC))Albertosaurus Rex Wrote: [quote='Apricots' pid='7279' dateline='1316439718']
one thing that kept nagging me was Dawkins' tone throughout the book. One wonders if the book wouldn't have been better with slightly less vitriol. And I have to say that his refutation of the classical arguments for God's existence in chapter three was rather weak. There's so much more to say about those arguments, yet he rushes through them.
Oh interesting! I actually think that Hitchens has much more vitriol than Dawkins - I couldn't get very far through God Is Not Great simply because (I peronally thought) that Hitchens' voice was so bitter, and it was poisoining all his reasoned arguments.
Agreed about your second point. I was frustrated that he went into such depth about the universe and scientific reasoning later on in Delusion too - it was the part I struggled with the most, simply because it got SO in depth without any relief, and I am just not a science and maths person. Oh well. Perhaps it will make more sense the second time round.