Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Alice Cooper Shop now Fitbit



There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 8 May 2009
This is a great little book - though you do have to have your brain in gear when reading it! Keith Ward is one of the country's leading philosophers and he exposes the philosophical holes in Dawkins' arguments that evolution must, by its very nature, rule out the existence of a God. By steady argument and careful reference to Dawkins' text, and always with great respect, Ward shows why Dawkins'argument is not as strong as Dawkins claims. This is not a ranting denunciation of evolution (Ward accepts the biological facts) but an exposé of the arrogance that claims evolution must require the absnece of a creator. ward turns the argument on its head arguing that, if anyhting, evolution probably proves there IS a creator. Definitely worth a read, especially if you have foudn Dawkins arguments either compelling or threatening.
11 Comment| 13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 2 September 2012
I'd certainly recommend this book to anyone. Extremely clear and concise with a very humble tone throughout. It was good to read this after the God delusion because it lacks the snobbish, self congratulatory tone of the inept books of Dawkins et al. I particularly like the fact that the book explains the concept of God rather then try to corner the reader into having no choice but to 'admit' that God exists, unlike some other religious apologia. A very worthwhile book.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 14 April 2011
This is a well written book but is quite difficult to read because it is too philospohical for the average reader. It is full of 'suppositions' and counter arguments which are very convoluted. They may have point, but the point is often lost in the very long expalanations as to why the author thinks this or that in refuting Dawkins - who himself is of the same ilk!

So, all in all, a book that is thought-provoking if your thought processes are in the mood for being provoked.
11 Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 18 November 2012
Several books have been written which challenge Richard Dawkins views. The writers are also eminent people in their own field.
People who read Dawkins books should also look for explanations elsewhere. Science does not explain everything and even today, scientists differ in intepretation of the knowledge we have

.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 December 2009
Like Richard Dawkins, I read Zoology at Oxford, and I have been tempted to try my hand as a philosopher from time to time. However, my two philosopher sons have warned me not to go too far, as they say that I am "just not trained to think as a philosopher would". Dawkins has not received (or, if he has, has not heeded) such good advice, as is made clear by Keith Ward, a philosopher and theologian, in his point-by-point destruction of Dawkins' mistaken stroll into the philosophical minefield in "The God Delusion". Professor Ward uses Dawkins' own arguments to show that faith in God as the source of the origin of the universe is more logical and more Dawkins Should have Stuck to Sciencecredible than are the feeble attempts of the "new atheists" to find some certainty on which to pin their kind of faith, in the face of increasing uncertainty. This is not an easy read. It demands word-by-word concentration, but the effort is well worthwhile.
77 Comments| 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 20 June 2014
I only bought this to see what sort of nonsense he would come up with.

If you want to see some wonderful examples of completely foolish and illogical arguments, buy this.
11 Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 27 May 2009
Keith Ward is highly intelligent and witty philosopher and this shines through in this book. He takes on the idea that God is a scientific question head on and dismisses it. He does so by pointing out far from Evolution and God being competing explainations they are part of a complimenting layers of explaination. For Ward this enriches and gives a better explaination of existance than Dawkins dogmatic Science or God stance.
44 Comments| 13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 March 2009
This is a pointless little book. It falls into the shallow puddle where `believers' of a theistic/philosophical persuasion bandy words with absolutely clueless impunity to solid, rational argument. Just look at its meagre premise: I would like to tackle chapter...It's more akin to a schoolteacher, red pen poised in hand because life embitters him to judge pedantically, mistakenly; his cause to save himself is all that matters - such is belief in a fantasy.
At each turn of the page I grappled with what, I imagine, Mr. Ward wanted from me the reader. To be on his side? To poo-poo old Dawkie the Devil; sorry, I'm with the Devil all the way. And I'll tell you for why without going into all that ontological, cosmological, or whatever else...What good reason would I have to believe in theistic God? Firstly, Ward seems strung out on the idea why `Spirit' is synonymous with God and Reality? Beg pardon? Would he like to explain this, philosophically (as this is his particular field, he points out early on so that we are bound take him seriously. Dawkie needs to start selling himself more!) No he wouldn't, and doesn't, Ward I mean. Secondly, the cavalcade of rebuttals to Dawkins, Hitchens (most are frightened to get in the ring with this bruiser, however) Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, and all others who've decided that with equanimity that earthly life is sufficient for them, is most often laced with a desperate poison like a fool trying to convince himself that he's not wasted his life by sticking with the same old tried and tested formula (see A. McGrath). Maybe it's me. Maybe I find a theistic God who advocates evil (unless he can vanquish it, in which case he has some explaining to do) a bit of a poor role model. Hide and seek has never really appealed to me. Nor living as Hitchen's says, `In a celestial North Korea' where the sun always shines and the folks are perfect.
Yes, yes, it's all our fault anyway and we can't possibly be in on the hush-hush because we're better off being ignorant, knowing that the Father is there just in the background dishing out the rewards, and not forgetting the punishments. Thus we arrive at monotheism's Grand Central Station: next stop, self-interest (reward), next, self-preservation (punishment). If only life was so...I could impregnate as many women as I wanted, and tell them, `Don't worry, I'm there with you in Spirit. I'm acting from the Top.' Our education system might as well get in on the act. If God's decided to keep us in ignorance then let's put a stop right now! to all this knowledge nonsense. The kids will learn a heap more by being ignorant - won't they? Why not set fire to civilization's bedrock, founded on, erm, knowledge. But of course, if He were to show his face to us then there would not be such a thing as `faith' in the Divine. We'd all believe in God. God, apparently, likes to give us our freedom to choose - as long as we choose Him, His Path, His Truth. A kind of Hobson's choice. I smell a rat, as I did and do with Mr. Ward's book. To his credit his book is something that I can hold in my hand to form part of the thing he likes to speak of called, reality. It's the contents of his invisible arguments I find impossible to hold, and the reason why I need not get all academic and start debating the various slipperiness of words dressed as academic. Who was it that said, `It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need to exist in order for us to believe in him.' I suppose Spinoza had it about right: `They fight for their servitude as if it were their salvation.' Some even write books on the wonders of their servitude.
What is especially disappointing is when Ward makes generalizations and yet takes the intellectual high ground over someone of Dawkins stature! (`Most common sense philosophers assume that belief in God is a common sense belief.') Really. I've never heard something so ridiculous in all my life. If this is his territory, that he valiantly pitches the gauntlet down at Dawkins feet, then I would not lose much sleep over it. This was the point where I checked to see if there anything on the tele (Me: `Most common sense people agree that television is good for the mind.')
I'm glad this was only a little book. Life is short, and that's it. I can accept that; am happy with that in the non-Schopenhauer sense of being able to marvel at length at life without relinquishing that it is a `sorry business'. Man's selfish conceit to believe that he worthy of immortality, that he is part of grand design is highly flawed whichever way you look at it, and so is this gnat of a book on the enormous hide of atheism's standard bearers. `Only those who hope for nothing can be fearless,' wrote Andrç Compte-Sponville recently. Yes, nothingness as a nice ring to it; a clean slate on which to artfully appreciate life's richness and beauty.
1212 Comments| 41 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 July 2016
OK
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 November 2014
What I wanted
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)