Richard Dawkins

[herme3]

I just noticed that "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins is currently the #3 best selling book on Amazon.com.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/all/ref=sv_b_2/102-6972547-7015328

 

It is currently #8 on the New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/002-2663731-6688824?ie=UTF8&docId=239332

[Martin]

I just noticed that "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins is currently the #3 best selling book on Amazon.com.

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/all/ref=sv_b_2/102-6972547-7015328

 

It is currently #8 on the New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/002-2663731-6688824?ie=UTF8&docId=239332

 

Hi herme3, I am glad someone else here is interested in seeing what the US reading public is buying and watches the Amazon bestseller list. Pleased to meet you.

 

At best it gives a rough idea. I don't know how they come up with the numbers (over what time-period are they averaging etc.) but it is about the only window we have.

 

In the case of Dawkins, I noticed that book at the TOP of the UK amazon bestseller list a month or so ago. It has done fantastically well in the UK.

 

I guess it is only reasonable to expect it would also eventually go pretty high on the US list. I also noticed that a similar-type book by Sam Harris was also doing well. "Letter to a Christian Nation"

 

I mostly am following the Amazon PHYSICS bestseller list these days, to see if there are any significant shifts and slides in progress-----watching the public mind is a bit like watching geology. It's slow.

 

But I will be interested in occasionally checking your links out too.

 

thanks

 

PS: Dawkins is still #1 on the UK amazon bestseller list

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=sv_b_3/026-5867805-1741224

I just looked. It seems like a month or so now. Pretty long time to be #1. Must have sold a helluva lotta copies.

[blackhole123]

I read a little bit of that book in a bookstore the other day and it was pretty good so I ordered it from my library. The only problem is they are still aquireing the book since it is still new so it might take a while.

[5614]

I saw a friend with that book so asked him if I could borrow it, to which he replied "yes, but you're 101st on the list"! So I'll get it eventually.

 

In the meantime I saw an extract from it earlier. Dealing with what Dawkins would call "mass visions".

 

Extract from The Times review on the book

It's not easy to explain how 70,000 pilgrims at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 saw the sun "tear itsef from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude".

He then goes on to talk about how unlikely it is that 70,000 people all had the same vision, yet he says, it is even less likely that the sun crashed into the Earth and none of the rest of the world noticed. Portugal is not that isolated.

 

I thought this was a bit of a weak argument. He's saying that whilst it's unlikely that 70,000 would all have the same vision, he says it's even less likely that what they "saw" really happened (because none of the rest of the world noticed). With this, he shrugs off the mass visions.

 

He doesn't actually deal with why 70,000 might have seen this. Don't get me wrong, I believe it didn't happen, and I know there is no answer as to what was going through 70,000 people's heads, but I don't like his "well it's even less likely to have happened therefore it didn't". Having said that I can't think of any possible explanation, so I think it's unfair to expect it... but it was just my thought on that one extract.

 

Otherwise what I've seen of the book looks alright.

[mike90]

Someone on here put a link in a thread to a website with some excerpts from Sam Harrises book. The guy sounds pretty much like an egotistical jerk. He starts right off by implying that anyone that beileves in God in the modern age is basically a drooling unrealistic moron. I was pretty underwhelmed.

[bascule]

I like anything that shows trends... the Amazon Bestseller list is a nice peek into the collective consciousness

[herme3]

I read a little bit of that book in a bookstore the other day and it was pretty good so I ordered it from my library.

 

This makes me wonder how well the bestseller list really shows how many people are reading a specific book. The main audience of Richard Dawkin's book is probably academic and scientific people. These people are more likely to make frequent visits to a library than the general public. Perhaps a large number of people reading this book are not actually buying it. While the book is selling quite well, do you think more people are reading it than the list says?

 

He then goes on to talk about how unlikely it is that 70' date='000 people all had the same vision, yet he says, it is even less likely that the sun crashed into the Earth and none of the rest of the world noticed. Portugal is not that isolated.

 

I thought this was a bit of a weak argument.[/quote']

 

How much of an argument does he need to convince people that the Sun didn't actually crash into the Earth?

 

Someone on here put a link in a thread to a website with some excerpts from Sam Harrises book. The guy sounds pretty much like an egotistical jerk. He starts right off by implying that anyone that beileves in God in the modern age is basically a drooling unrealistic moron. I was pretty underwhelmed.

 

I think Sam Harris makes some good points in his books. I know what link you are talking about, and I agree that the article by itself is too harsh towards Christians. However, that article just picked out the most extreme statements of the book, without providing the sections that explain his reasons behind making those statements. I suggest that people read Sam Harris's entire book "Letter to a Christian Nation" instead of just that article.

[mike90]

Well I may give it a chance sometime just to be open minded, but its hard to imagine the clear ( and overly emotional) bias in that article not pervading the rest of the book. His comments in the article made it pretty clear he considers religious people to be irrational and of subpar intelligence, hardly the opening to a great debate.

[5614]

He starts right off by implying that anyone that beileves in God in the modern age is basically a drooling unrealistic moron

Well that's kinda why I want to read it. I grew up (until say 10yrs old) unreligious, then my family became religious, and so did I. But a year back I started becoming less religious. I didn't believe it, didn't believe in god, it was good socially, meeting new friends etc. but I guess in my mind in any science/religion debate science always win.

 

I do agree with what you said in your quote, and that's why I want to read it. Just to rempasise the point in my own mind.

 

How much of an argument does he need to convince people that the Sun didn't actually crash into the Earth?

That's not my point. I specifically said I believe it didn't happen. I just said that I thought the argument was a bit weak. You can't say "its more likely you're wrong therefore you are wrong".