The GOD Delusion

After a grueling three month long endeavor, I finished reading The GOD Delusion. It is a logical and scientific dissection of religion by Richard Dawkins. An evolutionary biologist and Oxford professor, Dawkins is a champion of Darwinian theory.

The book was both interesting and exhausting to read. I found that I could only read 3 to 5 pages at a time. After just a few pages, my head was swimming with words, scientific facts, and historical events that I was eager to learn more about.

Here are a few things I learned:

• Albert Einstein was an atheist. I never would have guessed that with quotes like "God doesn't roll dice," and "God is subtle but he is not malicious."


• The Bible has tons of hilarious stories. How anyone can take it seriously is beyond my comprehension.


• Moses was one mean genocidal jackass.


• My relationship with my father is paradise compared to what Abraham and Isaac had.


• In 1969, the city of Montréal completely fell apart when the police went on strike.


• Pascal's Wager is great...as long as you pray to the correct god. If you get it wrong, a modern-day Moses might kill you, your wife, your farm animals, and your pets.


• The amazing history of Cargo Cults.


• A Letter To A Christian Nation seems like a much more entertaining book.


• If you're British, the word percent can be written as "per cent" and it's not a typo.

Dawkins has a very wordy writing style. Maybe it's a British thing. For example, on page 170 he writes:

A partisan in the controversy, I must beware of riding off on my pet steed Tangent, far from the main track of this book.

I think he means, "I don't want to talk about this right now."

Update (2007.04.17):
A friend of mine was unsure if I was recommending this book or not. Sorry about that. It's a qualified "yes". Although it was a difficult read, I still feel like it was worth it. The knowledge I gained was more valuable than the effort I exerted reading it.

State of Fear

I just finished State of Fear, by Michael Crichton. I loved it. In typical Crichton style, the book is a fun page-turner. Also in typical Crichton style, the ending is just so so. But that's OK, because the nonfiction component of this book makes up for its other weaknesses.

Nonfiction? But it's fiction, isn't it? This book is different than Crichton's other works because he includes many footnotes that backup statements made by the characters. What a fantastic concept.

Throughout the book, Crichton delivers blow after punishing blow against the global warming political movement. Each of his attacks is supported by references to real scientific studies. For me the coup de grace occurred in the first appendix, where he compares the popularity of global warming to the popularity of eugenics in the first half of the 1900s. I had no idea eugenics was so popular. I guess Hitler ruined it for everyone.

The character, Ted Bradley, was maddening and hilarious at the same time. Crichton was obviously mocking Martin Sheen. Ted Bradley¹ is a charismatic actor/activist most recognized for playing the president of the United States in a now canceled TV drama. Funny.

Not in the mood to read a 600+ page book? You might enjoy this 30 minute video from Penn & Teller. But trust me, this book is a must read. You'll feel much better about the state of the world when you're finished...or half way through.

I have to thank Tommy for recommending this book. Maybe I should listen to him more often. What were those other books he wanted me to read? The Joy of Sex? The Devil Wears Prada? The Bridges of Madison County?

- - - spoiler alert - - -

¹Mr. Bradley also plays a starring role in one of best death scenes I've ever experienced. It had me laughing out loud. That can't be healthy...I need help.

The Da Vinci Code

Executive Summary: I didn't like it.

Note: For the six or seven people who haven't yet read this book, this post may spoil it for you.

I just finished reading The Da Vinci Code. Usually I like verisimilar¹ books, as long as I can easily distinguish the facts from the fiction. My lack of knowledge of religious history made this difficult for me. I eventually gave up. Once I assumed it was all fiction, the book was much easier to read.

I didn't care for the characters. OK, that's not true. I did care about Sophie. Probably because whenever I was imagining Sophie, I was really thinking of Audrey Tautou...hubba hubba. She can seek my Holy Grail anytime.

I feel like Dan Brown overly manipulates the reader. A good plot doesn't need repeated use of cliff-hangers to keep the reader engaged. Every chapter in his book ends with a cliff-hanger. I found myself rolling my eyes as I read the last three sentences of a chapter.

Near the end of the book I wasn't feeling excitement. I really wanted the story to end. Why did I keep reading? I wanted to be able to answer "yes" to the picnic/party conversation starter: "Did you read The Da Vinci Code?"

The upside is I've saved myself from spending $7.50 and two hours of my time by not going to see the movie.

I know that I'm not in a position to say this...but I'll say it anyway. I don't see why the Catholic church and Opus Dei are upset. Dan Brown exonerates both groups (page 428, 2nd paragraph) by saying that the villains were acting as individuals and that neither organization would condone such activities. I wouldn't be surprised if the protesters at the movie premiere were hired by the Sony Corporation.

¹Sherry here's your spoon-fed definition:

veri-sim-i-lar
adjective
Etymology: Latin verisimilis
1 : having the appearance of truth : PROBABLE
2 : depicting realism (as in art or literature)
- veri-sim-i-lar-ly adverb

Freakonomics

I just finished reading Freakonomics. I really enjoyed it. It was easy to read and difficult to put down. I imagine the average reader, which I am not, could read this book over the course of two weekends.

The authors of Freakonomics meander from topic to topic like ADD kids in a toy store. It's annoying at first, but by the third chapter, I was OK with it.

Why did I like it? I'm for any book that challenges "conventional wisdom," and this book does so in every chapter.

Here's one example concerning safety. Most people focus on normal things:

Guns -- If your child wants to play at a friend's house, you may want to know if the friend's parents have guns.
Car seats -- Buy the most expensive car seat for your child. Never buy a used car seat. Make sure the car seat is installed correctly.
Flying -- Flying is safer than driving. That's what I tell myself when the plane prepares for a landing. It makes me feel better.

The conventional wisdom is usually fed to us by the media, and the media loves/needs shock-value. This books ignores shock-value and analyzes data.

Guns -- A child accidentally shot by his best friend makes for a better headline than a child drowning a pool. When the data is analyzed, it's revealed that it's about 100 times more dangerous to send your child to a house with a swimming pool than it is to send your child to a house where both the parents have guns.

Car seats -- "The data show that car seats are, at best, nominally helpful", the author writes. Again, sighting that basic backyard pool safety is a much wiser investment.

Flying -- When you account for the number of hours the average person spends in plane vs. a car ..."The per-hour death rate of driving versus flying, however, is about equal. The two contraptions are equally likely (or, in truth, unlikely) to lead to death."

If you looking for a book that contains mathematic and economic rigor, this is not the book to read. Instead I would recommend The Music of the Primes. If you looking for a book that explores a singular theme, you might want to pick up a copy of The History of Salt.