• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Richard Dawkins - Unweaving the Rainbow - worth $5?

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
For some bizarre reason I have just bought a copy of Richard Dawkins' - 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.

A strange choice I must admit as he is one of my least favourite authors. Perhaps I was in a masochistic mood as I had originally intended to buy a book on Christianity - such is the choice when living in developing countries!

Anyway, it set me back $5 and I can easily get $2 back on it as a trade-in so I'm sure I will probably get my 3 dollars worth out of it.

Anybody read it - any good?

Do you think I will be able to make it past chapter 1?

anyway, I'll give out gems of wisdom as the masterpiece progresses.:cover:
 

Noaidi

slow walker
...anyway, I'll give out gems of wisdom as the masterpiece progresses.:cover:

Keep us posted. I have the book, but I've not read it yet. If you offer up things that you read in it, I'll try and find the time to read the book and respond.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
ok, not started it yet either.

Perhaps at the weekend.

anyway, I will try to give a balanced report on it.
 

Krok

Active Member
I haven't read the book, but from Unweaving the Rainbow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I get:
Wiki said:
Unweaving the Rainbow (subtitled "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder") is a 1998 book by Richard Dawkins, discussing the relationship between science and the arts from the perspective of a scientist.
Why did you buy a book on the relationship between science and the arts when if you wanted to buy a book on Christianity? That book has nothing to do with religion.

If you want to buy a Dawkins book on religion (all religions), buy The God Delusion. That's an excellent book. Before I read it, I didn't know I could!
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
Religion and science is linked in in a way as they are often on competing sides in debate.

Anyway, Dawkins loves to discredit religion by offering scientific proof about things, so I'll see what he comes up with this time.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Religion and science is linked in in a way as they are often on competing sides in debate.

Anyway, Dawkins loves to discredit religion by offering scientific proof about things, so I'll see what he comes up with this time.

You should also understand that Richard Dawkins is one of the worlds leading scientists too.
 

Krok

Active Member
Religion and science is linked in in a way as they are often on competing sides in debate.
I disagree. "Science" has no opinion about religion. It's creationists pretending that science and religion are on "competing sides". Considering that almost all religious scientists don't see a conflict at all, I think you have been mislead.

What science can do, however, is tell when some religious claim is crap. For example an earth created out of nothing less than 10 000 years ago. That's nonsense. The religious fundies don't like those findings, but almost all religious scientists accept it, and agree with it, too.

Anyway, Dawkins loves to discredit religion by offering scientific proof about things, so I'll see what he comes up with this time.
I don't know about that. He talks a lot about evidence, propabilities, etc. If he talked about "scientific proof", I must have missed it, or haven't seen that particular interview or have not read that perticular book, yet. Can you provide an example of where he offers "scientific proof" about religion?

I mean, I've seen him talking about mathematical proof for or against things (not religion). Never about "scientific proof" against religion.
 
Last edited:

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
But it is impossible to have proof against the existence of God or a religion and trying to do so is just one of those circular debates that can never be resolved.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
You should also understand that Richard Dawkins is one of the worlds leading scientists too.

maybe he is so I will give him his credit and try another one of his books.

I am a little biased against evolution so I was eager to dismiss his 'Blind Watchmaker'.

I will see how this other book goes - may be more interesting.

I shall read this book with an open mind.
 

Splarnst

Active Member
Let us know if you find anything about atheism or religion in the book. I don't think there is any.

But it is impossible to have proof against the existence of God or a religion and trying to do so is just one of those circular debates that can never be resolved.
I don't think it's impossible to have a proof against certain kinds of god, i.e., those that haven't been defined into the meaningless to avoid disproof.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
But it is impossible to have proof against the existence of God or a religion and trying to do so is just one of those circular debates that can never be resolved.

Depends somewhat on the nature of the claims made. If they're falsifiable, science can most certainly test them. However, you're generally correct in that belief in deity ultimately rests on non-falsifiable presuppositions that are beyond the scope of science.

It's been a while since I've read something by Dawkins. I probably should again, though I recall not being a huge fan of his writing style at times (this was when I read his books on evolution, which are the ones worth reading).
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
But it is impossible to have proof against the existence of God or a religion and trying to do so is just one of those circular debates that can never be resolved.

Luckily, the burden of proof never lies on the shoulders of those who don't believe the claim.
 

Krok

Active Member
But it is impossible to have proof against the existence of God or a religion and trying to do so is just one of those circular debates that can never be resolved.
Religion exists. We have plenty of empirical evidence that it does.People worship thousands of different gods. The existence of a god or gods or ghosts or fairies is another story.

It is impossible to have proof against fairies when people claim they have fairies living next to their fish ponds at the end of their gardens. It would be a circular debate trying to proof that there's no fairies living there.

Luckily sane people can use empirical evidence and propabilities to make a rational decision about the existence or not of those fairies. And also about the existence or not of the particular god or gods or virgin or whatever you chose to worship.
 
Last edited:

Krok

Active Member
Religion and science is linked in in a way as they are often on competing sides in debate.

Anyway, Dawkins loves to discredit religion by offering scientific proof about things, so I'll see what he comes up with this time.
Hi again

I was looking for where Dawkins tried to "discredit religion by offering scientific proof about things". I could not find any. He used the word "proof" in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, the Evidence for Evolution.
My copy is the 2009 version in soft-back.
On page 10, second paragraph, he writes:
Dawkins said:
As for the claim that evolution has never been 'proved', proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting. Influential philosophers tell us that we can't prove anything in science. Mathematicians can prove things-according to one strict view, they are the only people who can-but the best that scientists can do is to fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried.
Again, could you provide an example where Dawkins provided "scientific proof about things"?

I have got the inkling that you've never read one of his books, but you just repeat the lies about Dawkins you read on creationist websites.

By the way, I think Dawkins is one of the best writers that ever existed, he does explain very complex things in such a way that even I can understand it very easily, although I've had very little Biological training and English is not my first language; he was the guy that made me realise I could (Read The God Delusion to understand this). He's also never lied about anything. He doesn't need to, everything he says is backed up by empirical evidence. Unlike the way creationists operate.

You see, scientists do look at every word you write. Give me a reference. Or else I would know you don't tell the truth.

That's why creationists can't make it in science. They always lie. They get caught out immediately. Then they scream "persecution". It works in churches. Not with educated people.
 
Last edited:

Splarnst

Active Member
Religion exists. We have plenty of empirical evidence that it does.People worship thousands of different gods. The existence of a god or gods or ghosts or fairies is another story.
I think you parsed the sentence incorrectly. I believe NMartin meant proof against a religion, not proof against the existence of a religion. The sentence is ambiguous, but this interpretation just makes more sense.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
Hi again

I was looking for where Dawkins tried to "discredit religion by offering scientific proof about things".

Again, could you provide an example where Dawkins provided "scientific proof about things"?

Try reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' - the whole book is based on discrediting Creationism, religion and any opposition to Evolution.

I do not recall the specific pages as the book was used for cat litter some time ago.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
It's been a while since I've read something by Dawkins. I probably should again, though I recall not being a huge fan of his writing style at times

Well said - he has cornered the art of waffling into a science itself. He should write a thesis on that.

however, I will still give the book its dues and attempt to read it.

gnomon said:
Would it really make a difference if you did?

It won't make a difference to mankind but some people may want to hear a Creationist's viewpoint on one of his other books.
 
Last edited:
Top