Clica una miniatura per anar a Google Books.
S'està carregant… The Dog Allusion: Gods, Pets and How to Be Human (edició 2008)de Martin Rowson (Autor)
Informació de l'obraThe Dog Allusion: Gods, Pets and How to be Human de Martin Rowson
Cap S'està carregant…
Apunta't a LibraryThing per saber si aquest llibre et pot agradar. No hi ha cap discussió a Converses sobre aquesta obra. Sense ressenyes | afegeix-hi una ressenya
A funny and insightful book about what our attitudes to dogs and deities can tell us about ourselves, by rapier wit and celebrated cartoonist, Martin Rowson. 'As with dogs, so with gods - by and large, you should blame the owners.'A particular trait, common to all human civilisations, is the worship of non-human entities with followings of devotees who claim that their reverence can transport them to transcendental heights of complete and unfettered love.Do we mean God? No - we mean Dog. Dogs and other pets we've been keeping and loving since we began walking on two feet. But why do we love God - and pets - so much when their capriciousness sometimes suggests that they don't love us back?In this wise, witty and highly topical book, celebrated cartoonist and novelist Martin Rowson argues that rationally, the whole enterprise of religion is a monumental and faintly ridiculous waste of time and money. But then again, so is pet-keeping. No s'han trobat descripcions de biblioteca. |
Debats actualsCap
Google Books — S'està carregant… GèneresClassificació Decimal de Dewey (DDC)220.207Religions Bible Bible Concordances; MiscellaniesLCC (Clas. Bibl. Congrés EUA)ValoracióMitjana:
Ets tu?Fes-te Autor del LibraryThing. |
Actually I did know better but I picked it up anyway, just curious to know what another religion bashing book would say. I mean, you have to admit that this genre is becoming a bit crowded now with everyone wants to join in the god-killing sect. So what more can Martin Rowson add?
I'm not totally sure actually, because I have to admit this isn't the easiest book to read. Despite its slimness (143 pages only, compared to Dawkins' staggering 406 serious pages) it took me not much less time reading this book than reading Dawkins' as I had to get back and forth everytime and re-read and re-read every paragraph just to try and make sense of it. And after all that effort I'm still not sure I got it right.
Well, it seems that Rowson wants to say that believing in something supernatural (gods, or God) and having religion is not too different from keeping pets. It's in human nature to "worship non-human entities with followings of devotees who claim that their reverence can transport them to transcendental heights of complete and unfettered love" and Rowson says the non-human entities can be gods or dogs. And this human feature developed from having empathy, which evolve from being social animal, hunting in packs and so on. By having empathy human sees mirrors of themselves everywhere, and feel reciprocated love, from our pets and, according to Rowson, from the gods. I agree when scientist say religion evolved to help humans cope, but I still can't get Rowson's idea that humans invent gods for the same reason as they keep pets. But who am I to say anything on it? Rowson is a zoologist and a political cartoonist, he has definitely thought about this a lot longer that I do.
And as the book shows, Rowson is an atheist though his atheism is different from Dawkins' (apparently like Christianity atheism has many different churches as well). He dislikes Dawkins' for putting the religiousness of an old lady arranging flowers in a church and the religiousness of an extreme fundamentalist who blows himself up in the name of religion into the same group of dangerous deluded people. He is also more understanding about the humanness of wanting to have religion. He thinks that religion is not dangerous in itself, but becomes dangerous because it's difficult to separate it from politics.
Anyway, I'm not sure if this is what he really wants to say, at least this is what I think he wanted to say. If you want to know for sure read the book yourself. But a word of warning, if you're too sensitive and defensive about religion and God discussion, don't. Rowson is very irreverent and disrespectful, so he will just hurt your feeling. And if you don't like heavy reading, this isn't a book for you. Don't get me wrong, it is not boring, he is witty and the book is satirical, so you do get a laugh now and then. But it is quite philosophical, so it's not for the faint of heart.
I almost forgave Rowson for using dogs as an excuse to rant and whine about religion, because what he wrote about is quite interesting, but in the closing chapter he admits that he is more a cat person and that he dislikes dogs even though he owns one, and that's it, I decided I dislike him. ( )