> Babelio : https://www.babelio.com/livres/Dawkins-Pour-en-finir-avec-Dieu/81141

> Pour en finir avec Dieu, où Richard Dawkins, champion des darwiniens athées durs de dur, s’emporte avec rage contre la “barbarie religieuse” qui, propageant “l’illusion de Dieu”, réussit, exploit monstrueux, à entraîner même de grands scientifiques dans son délire meurtrier, éd. Robert Laffont.
—Nouvelles Clés

A surprisingly difficult read; Dawkins is happy to go down various byways that his argument opens up. A lot of readers have criticised his style or authorial voice, finding it "condescending" or "arrogant" (even if they were in agreement with his thesis); at times, I got a sense of what they were reacting to, although it didn't trouble me particularly.

I have slightly non-mainstream theist views (more a suspicion than anything I'd call a belief) and I was surprised to find Dawkins describing something I could agree with and reinforcing my position. There was much else I agreed with, a few things I disagreed with and a lot that, for a book published in 2006 (and revised a year later) was worryingly prescient. (Mainly about American politics.) ( )

Should be required reading. ( )

Good, it's not great (my apologies, Hitch). ( )

(40) This was fascinating. I am late to the party as it was written in 2006, but it certainly has not lost its relevance. Perhaps my favorite quote is from Seneca the Younger who I think lived in antiquity. “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.’ Umm, yeah - that about sums it up.

I think that given Dawkins premise that religion is dangerous and abusive especially to children, he necessarily has to be disrespectful. In fact, his whole first chapter is dedicated to showing us that the special respect we give to religious beliefs is a huge problem. And that is where he probably loses some people. As a Catholic (atheist) who send my children to Catholic school, I should have been horrified. But instead, I feel almost validated. I don’t need to bother with cognitive dissonance. I teach my children to think for themselves, have discussions about comparative religion and science and allegory and culture. It is all not mutually exclusive. I don, t need to reject my cultural heritage, to hold scientific, rational, yet humanistic beliefs. Right. Right? (Though not sure what the priests would say - probably nothing as I write them big checks)

Obviously, this book made me think. This book is well-reasoned, eminently readable, and quite powerful. One complaint is that he constantly referenced his past work and others work, making it sometimes seem like there was no original thought or purpose to this one. Made me think at times, why don’t I just put this down and read this other handful of books which are so heavily quoted? And at times a bit repetitive. This is a 5 star in terms of subject matter and powerful rhetoric, but is pulled down by that pop science feel of recycled repetitiveness to get the points across to the masses.

I will check out his bibliography and someday soon I really want to tackle ‘The Origin of Species, myself. If I had more conviction and energy, I would find a way to emigrate to a more enlightened country as I feel us slipping into a Christian theocracy due to broken electoral politics. Sigh.

A late Bravo from me. ( )