So I've been reading this Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion. Kelly started reading it and recommended it to me. I really like the book so far. It's basically a book about why everybody should be atheists, or putting it another way, believing in a personal god is just downright silly. I don't consider it a detailed critique of religion...more like a common sense "when you really think about it" kind of book. For example, Dawkins talks about the idea of "Religion" and "Science" being separate but equal, and neither can ask or answer questions about the other. Dawkins points out that this is a line of reasoning to pacify or pander to religious people, and it doesn't work in practice. If there really was a way to scientifically prove that a diety exists, or that miracles happen, or that prayer works, you can be absolutely sure that religious people would jump on it. And if science shows that prayer doesn't work (a test study actually showed that people were worse off if they were prayed for!!!), then religious people claim that Science can't test Religion. In theory, it sounds like a great mantra for dealing with controversial Science vs. Religion questions, but in practice nobody follows it.

I could go on, but you get the picture. The book looks at some basic concepts about the idea of God from a practical viewpoint. I've said for a long time that religion always boiled down to pure faith. You either believe or don't believe and there will never be enough evidence to suggest one option over the other. I've always thought that this makes a person's religion more important and special, because it takes a conscious decision. I think that Dawkins tries to make the same case, but then takes it one step further by saying that if it really does boil down to faith, then why bother! He also mentions that you can't force faith. If you don't believe in something, then all the church in the world won't get you into heaven, so why bother.

Whether you agree with the book or not, it definitely makes you think. Several parts have resonated with ideas I've come up with on my own, but I've never really taken them seriously before. I'd strongly recommend it to anybody, religious or not.

The only problem I've found so far it Dawkins' claim that God must be a part of the universe. If he is, then he must be within the realm of scientific exploration. But I'm pretty sure that all Christians believe that God is external to the physical universe (or else how could He create it?)

I also recommend reading the introduction to Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. In that chapter he explains how he changed from a fundamentalist Christian into a full-fledged athiest because he became a Biblical exegesis scholar (studying and translating the original manuscripts, which are actually copies of copies of copies, etc.). The more he studied the original manuscripts the more he became convinced that the book we know of as the Bible is not really the "Word of God" as we are told . It's a fascinating read.