Update

G'day.

Haven't finished Dawkins' TGD yet, but I'm working on it. I'm starting to see a real argument develop. I just got through his refutation of arguments for the existence of God; this interested me only in the rhetorical devices Dawkins used and the places where he betrayed his ignorance of religion. I generally don't stand much by the proofs of God, myself, and so don't care much whether or not he disproves them--he'd hardly be the first. Ever since I've been dissuaded from thinking that Pascal's wager is convincing, I've generally taken to shooting down proofs of God when I see them, too. Proof, really, is not the point, and most religious people will tell you that with no qualms at all. But I'll get to this later when I refute the book for real.

I'm just getting into his evolution bit, concerning "Why there is almost certainly no God." We'll see how that goes.

The problem is that I generally have much more fun reading Freakonomics, which is terribly clever and witty. I don't know whether it's good economics, but it's certainly thought-provoking. I don't want to get all jittery before I try to go to bed, and that's usually what an intellectual argument--even with a book--does to me. Freakonomics doesn't do that to me.

Well, I ought to go to bed soon. I wish I could relate some cool anecdote here, but, alas, I ought to go.

In that case, adieu.