> It explains simply how the various fallacies of religions are explainable and unwrappable.
It might be a very good book, but that sort of comments is divisive and does not show as understanding and hence, doss not sell the book, to me at least.
The question of God from an anthropological perspective is fascinating, as it emerged all around the world in completely disconnected populations and societies, yet to answer the same set of questions: how did we happen to be? Why? Are we accountable for anything?
It does not suggest any existence of God, of course, but it does suggest something deep that is that somehow, sentient creatures require answers to what they deem beyond them and typically, Homo Sapiens did/does invoke variations around the idea of superior beings to answer these questions.
As such, I do not understand why some so-called atheists continue to throw stones at religious people instead of showing curiosity at the larger phenomenon.
Religious institutions, though, are a well-organized scam around the beautiful anthropological and philosophical question of God.
That you are saying I didn't understand the book when presumably you didn't even read the book is true irony. I merely explained that it dissects various religious fallacies, that is not throwing stones, as it would be the same as taking a book about mathematical logic and asking why it does not ponder why P ^ ¬P in a philosophical sense; it is not the purpose of this book. It may be the purpose of another one, but not this one.
Dawkins is a priest of atheism and his book is an apologetic tex, so don't expect a more nuanced study of religion from an anthropological point then you would expect from the pope.
Well, let me recommend another book that directly addresses your interest in the anthropology of religion: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Dan Dennett.
It might be a very good book, but that sort of comments is divisive and does not show as understanding and hence, doss not sell the book, to me at least.
The question of God from an anthropological perspective is fascinating, as it emerged all around the world in completely disconnected populations and societies, yet to answer the same set of questions: how did we happen to be? Why? Are we accountable for anything?
It does not suggest any existence of God, of course, but it does suggest something deep that is that somehow, sentient creatures require answers to what they deem beyond them and typically, Homo Sapiens did/does invoke variations around the idea of superior beings to answer these questions.
As such, I do not understand why some so-called atheists continue to throw stones at religious people instead of showing curiosity at the larger phenomenon.
Religious institutions, though, are a well-organized scam around the beautiful anthropological and philosophical question of God.