Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

by Richard Dawkins

Keats accused Newton of destroying the poetry of the rainbow by explaining the origin of its colours. In this illuminating and provocative book, Richard Dawkins argues that Keats could not have been more mistaken, and shows how an understanding of science enhances our wonder of the world. He argues that mysteries do not lose their poetry because they are solved: the solution is often more beautiful than the puzzle, uncovering even deeper mysteries. Dawkins takes up the most important and compelling topics in modern science, from astronomy and genetics to language and virtual reality, combining them in a landmark statement on the human appetite for wonder.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Biology, Evolution, Atheism, Popular Science

352 pages, Paperback

First published April 5, 2000

Reviews

[pausetowonder · Rating 2 out of 5]

The actual science bits in here are great. Learned heaps about the workings of light and colour, sound and hearing... was even reminded that the idea of "superstitious behavior" in animals is attributed to Skinner (and not, sadly, my own idea). Much geeky excitement experienced all round by yours truly. Dawkins does a fine job of explaining complex ideas clearly and well.

That's what was good about Unweaving the Rainbow.

Sadly, what feels like way more than half of the book was spent painstakingly trying to argue people out of believing in astrology, ghosts, remote viewing, etc. using logic and scientific fact. Its starts about one third the way in. My problem with this is threefold:

1) Dawkins is assuming that logic and scientific fact would have persuasive power for anyone believing in what he calls "superstition" or "ad hoc magic". (And really, why would it? I think believers would be the first to point out that this sort of thing is beyond the purview of science.)

2) Dawkins assumes that these "deluded" people are reading his book. I can't say for sure, but personally, I would be surprised if a diehard believer in ESP or astrology would be interested in reading Dawkins' explanation of Fraunhofer lines, the electromagnetic spectrum and other fairly hardcore sciencey topics that fill the first third of this book. Seems like a different sort of audience. So he ends up "preaching to the choir" -- and there is something rather uncomfortably self-righteous about this. Not to mention dull.

3) Dawkins (I don't mean to be unkind, but I can't think of any other to state the fact) embarrasses himself when he wanders out of the world of science and into literature and the humanities. Critiques of the scientific accuracy of Wordsworth poems or a fantasy story by Mark Twain are cringe-making.

What Dawkins doesn't understand about human psychology is a lot. I think his whole crusade against religion has been a waste of a good scientific mind and has done a lot of damage to the discussion. His aggressive, dismissive and disrespectful approach has only put people on the defensive and set an unfortunate example.

I was hoping for a lot more "wonder of science". Instead, I felt like I was getting lectured at length for something I didn't even do. What do I care about astrology??

Anyhow, I was hoping for more wonders-of-science and less railing. Disappointing.

Better books on science and wonder that I'd recommend:

[Krista · Rating 2 out of 5]

One of the Goodreads reviews on this book relates, simply, that the writer of the review had been on a cruise ship with the author prior to reading the book. When she DID read the book, she regretted that she didn't "do some kind of small violence to his person" while on the cruise with him.

In many ways, that sums up my take beautifully. This was the most interesting book I've ever despised. Certainly, I have a brain not suited to the exigencies of science. But when he wasn't losing me in a web of convoluted explanation, he was was looking down his nose at me like a curmudgeonly professor who is inordinately piqued that an average undergraduate had the audacity to drop by during office hours and ask a stupid question.

That said, I learned a lot and, while I did not become a convert to his thesis that science can be as beautiful as poetry, I will admit that, were my brain more suited to the beauty of, say, probability, I would have been in ecstasy while perusing the pages of this tome. In discussing how we discover our world; "... we arrived by being born, and we didn't burst conscious into the world but accumulated awareness gradually through babyhood. The fact that we slowly apprehend our world, rather than suddenly discover it, should not subtract from its wonder." And maybe that's where he lost me. I haven't accumulated enough awareness to see what he sees. And to believe what he believes. But condescension does not encourage me to become more aware. It encourages me to shrug and go back to my music, or my poetry, or my philosophy.

All of that said, there were several "aha" moments; some "I-never-knew-that-before!" aha, some "I-never-thought-about-it-that-way-before!" aha and some "I-had-totally-forgotten-about-that!" aha.

Like his analogy about how expansive the earth's past is; "Fling your arms wide in an expansive gesture to span all of evolution from its origin at your left fingertip to today at your right fingertip. All the way across your midline to well past your right shoulder, life consists of nothing but bacteria. Many-celled, invertebrate life flowers somewhere around your right elbow. The dinosaurs originate in the middle of your right palm, and go extinct around your last finger joint. The whole story of Homo sapiens and our predecessor Homo erectus is contained in the thickness of one nail-clipping. As for recorded history; as for the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Jewish patriarchs, the dynasties of Pharohs, the legions of Rome, the Christian Fathers, the Laws of the Medes and Persians which never change; as for Troy and the Greeks, Helen and Achilles and Agamemnon dead; as for Napolean and Hitler, the Beatles and Bill Clinton, they and everyone that knew them are blown away in the dust from one light stroke of a nail file."

In my opinion, that qualifies as scientific poetry. But that's because it takes an idea and sketches it with metaphor and examples that are accessible and understandable to my way of thinking. And Dawkins, too often, refuses to "stoop" to "that level."

For example, consider this quote from astrophysicist Chandrasekhar; "... beauty is that to which the human mind responds at its deepest and most profound." Indeed. Of course, I left out the beginning of the quote which talks about math and how it relates to nature. That's not beautiful to me. I understand why it's beautiful to those whose brains process math differently. But my brain does not work that way. My mind responds to a different beauty. Does that make my idea of beauty any less valid? Dawkins would undoubtedly say, "Yes." Then he'd kick me out of his office and grumble discontentedly as he adjusted his suspenders and wandered back to his desk.

But when Dawkins DOES lower himself to my level and speak my language, he pulls me right in; his discussion on coincidence and how, in our multi-media age, we are more likely to see a pattern where there is none, was eye-opening. And his fascinating riff on the fact that science is an affront to common sense made me smile in satisfaction; "For example, every time you drink a glass of water you are imbibing at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell ... there are many more molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the sea ... solid matter, even a hard diamond, consists almost entirely of empty space."

Another riff that gave me pause was Dawkins' take on God's covenant with Abraham; "He didn't promise Abraham eternal life as an individual ... But he did promise something else. 'And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly ... and thou shalt be a father of many nations ... And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.' Abraham was left in no doubt that the future lay with his seed, not his individuality. God knew his Darwinism."

That is what I was looking for in this book. Someone with the title " Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" should really like average, thoughtful humans a bit more than Dawkins seems to. And if one is going to celebrate the diversity of life, one should also celebrate the diversity of ways of looking at life. We can't all think like Dawkins. It is hubris of Dawkins to expect all of us to try. And to belittle us when we fail.

Rather, he could have made his case for why his way of thinking is a valid and valuable addition to the layers of awareness that allow us to continually find beauty in our universe. But to discount and belittle the other ways of finding beauty was a mistake. He should have calculated that in some sort of equation before he published.

[Amanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first half or so was amazing, and the rest was still really interesting (especially the end), if not quite as exhilarating. At the same time, you have to remember that even that powerhouse of scientific poetry, Carl Sagan, had some dry chapters every now and then. Some dryness definitely doesn't make it any less worth the read, and its mild anyway. Overall, this book was extremely enjoyable, and a breeze to get through. 4.5 stars, will probably be 5 on the reread.

[Gabrielam13 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cred că aceasta a devenit cartea mea preferată de la Dawkins. Spre deosebire de toate celalte pe care le-am citit, deși mi s-au părut la fel de interesante din punct de vedere al informațiilor prezentate, "Destrămarea curcubeului" este cea mai filosofică și lirică. Ceea ce, de fapt, este și ceea ce urmărește Dawkins: să prezinte argumente în favoarea poeticiății științei.

Contrar a ceea ce mulți cred, știința nu distruge magia lumii sau, cum ar spune Blaga, ea nu distruge ”corola de minuni a lumii”. Dimpotrivă. Ea revelă universul din care facem parte în toată măreția lui și expune misterele care ne vin în întâmpinare când încercăm să-l descifrăm. Dar chiar și când aflăm modul cum funcționează fenomenele din jurul nostru, chiar și cele care ne inspiră frumusețe și venerație precum curcubeul și stelele sau mintea umană, răspunsurile științei nu distrug lirismul, ci ele inspiră la fel de multă mirare și sublim ca în fața oricărei opere de artă.

Dawkins argumentează că Keats și toți ceilalți poeți care gândesc asemenea lui greșesc când îl acuză pe Newton că a distrus magia curcubeului atunci când l-a explicat. Și că daca ei și-ar folosi talentul poetic pentru a transpune în versuri explicația acestor fenomene, tangoul între știință și poezie ar fi cu mult mai frumos decât orice altă explicație inventată …

Nu pot decât să fiu de acord în totalitate cu această perspectivă a lui Dawkins. Și mie mi se pare că lumea pe care ne-o prezintă știința este una fascinantă și cuceritoare și am fost prinsă de farmecul ei încă de când am descoperit astronomia. Însă dincolo de teza principală a cărții, așa cum ne-a obișnuit mereu autorul, avem șansa și să descoperim și multe idei interesante din universul biologiei, dar și al informaticii și fizicii.

Închei cu câteva citate care mi se par că sunt cele mai grăitoare pentru mesajul cărții:
”Creierul este o masă de materie de circa 1300g, pe care o puteți ține în mână și care poate concepe un univers de o sută de miliarde de ani-lumină în diametru.” Marian C. Diamond

"Isaac Asimov ofera o ilustrare dramatica: este ca si cum toata materia din univers ar fi un bob de nisip, asezat in mijlocul unei camere goale cu lungimea, inaltimea si latimea de 32 km. Si totusi, in acelasi timp, este ca si cum acel bob unic de nisip a fost pulverizat intr-o mie de milioane de milioane de milioane de fragmente, pentru ca acesta e numarul aproximativ de stele din univers. Acestea sunt unele dintre faptele astronomiei si puteti vedea cat sunt de frumoase."

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written a few years prior to The God Delusion, this book serves as a useful bridge for anyone familiar with Dawkins's atheist output but unfamiliar with his more scientific titles. His critics often like to portray him as arrogant, hectoring (or that other old chestnut: 'shrill') and overly absorbed with the cold clinical application of the scientific method. Well he may not be cuddly, and I may not agree with his approach to everything, but for the most part I find him genial, honorable and good-natured, and this book - essentially a non-religious celebration of life and the scientific method - displays his warmth and humanity in bucketloads as it reveals how a greater understanding of science enlarges - rather than diminishes - our sense of wonder. This was enlightening, beautifully written and highly recommended. I know I will read it again.

[denudatio_pulpae · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cuda i dziwy.

Świat pełen jest zjawisk, które budzą w nas zachwyt. Zdarzają się również takie sytuacje, które wydają się mieć jakieś nadprzyrodzone przyczyny. Gdy przydarzy się nam coś niesamowitego, na co nie mamy przygotowanego gotowego wyjaśnienia, szukamy odpowiedzi nie zawsze tam, gdzie powinniśmy. Richard Dawkins w swojej książce "Rozplatanie tęczy" zajmuje się odczarowywaniem właśnie takich wypadków. Oraz takich mniej spektakularnych, jak szeroko pojęta ezoteryka czy horoskopy. Demaskuje również sztuczki telewizyjnych szarlatanów, którzy czerpią z naiwności ludzkiej, a także wyjaśnia, jak bardzo przeceniamy zwykłe zbiegi okoliczności.

Oprócz tego znajdziemy w książce informacje na temat fizyki kolorów i fizjologii widzenia, przydatności metod badania DNA w sądach oraz, ponownie, trochę o samolubnych genach.

Tematyka ciekawa, szczególnie ta część poświęcona walce z zabobonem.
7/10

[Gary · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it but not one of Dawkins best, in my opinion. It had a lot of really good topics, physics, evolution, philosophy, etc. Dawkins gives psychology more credit then it’s due, in my opinion, lol.

He dedicated a few chapters to bunk beliefs such as astrology, psychics etc. and talked about probabilities, very interesting stuff even though a bit out of my powerhouse.

I will add more opinions when I have time if I remember.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dawkins begins by bemoaning the fact that "poets, too many of them and for too long, have overlooked the goldmine of inspiration offered by science." I recently judged a poetry contest based on a science theme. The poems were a pleasure to read because I rarely see such a theme.

Some lawyers prefer jurors who are clueless about DNA. Defense lawyers want to get their clients off, and prosecutors want to convict someone. Such a shame. Especially when you consider how flawed human visual identification is.

Children are not only gullible to what their parents tell them, but this "extreme early gullibility is followed by equally obstinate subsequent unshakability." What a "devastating combination" this is. Like the Jesuits used to say, "Give me the child for his first seven years, and I'll give you the man."

A psychic game to play: Take a large group. Flip a coin. Those who guess heads or tails right keep standing. Keep doing that until you are left with a "psychic."

William James once said in 1910: "There are more worms unattached to hooks than impaled upon them; therefore, on the whole, says Nature to her fishy children, bite at every worm and take your chances."

As much as I love Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins's critique is right on the money and worth reading for lovers of science. Same goes for his critique of Franz De Waal and Margaret Mead.

Miriam Rothschild speaks of a "worm which lives exclusively under the eyelids of the hippopotamus and feeds upon its tears."

Marian C. Diamond: "The brain is a three pound mass you can hold in your hand that can conceive of a universe a hundred billion light-years across."

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a person unlearned--well, okay, let's be honest, frankly ignorant--in science, I enjoyed this wide-ranging book. Dawkins largely achieves his aim: to show that an understanding of the science of phenomena can create a sense of wonder equal to mythic or poetic metaphor, with a concomitant gain in understanding and an increased desire to know still more and to look askance at delusions that are unsupportable in light of what we know and continue to learn. Not every chapter is strong. The part on bad science metaphors is not as interesting as the rest and serves simply as an attack on a view of evolution on which he disagrees. Those well-versed in science might find passages to carp at. For the interested non-scientist, this book is engaging and a useful primer on many topics. Keats, no mean explorer of knowledge, in spite of his dismissal of Newton's optics as an unpoetic unweaving of the rainbow, would, I would bet, enjoy this book mightily once he became current with the growth of scientific understanding since his time.

[Animesh · Rating 3 out of 5]

You know Dawkins is a staunch atheist. He will climb on you if you say you believe in God.. or so I have heard. He is also an accomplished evolutionary scientist as is visible from his other works.

Can this book change someone who does not find joy in science? I would say no because in the first place this will be picked up by someone who likes if not loves science.

Can this book change someone who wants to know if he can find joy in science? Assuming that he knows SOME bits of science already.. I would say maybe. The book is particularly enjoyable in the first half and the last chapter where you do get a sense of wonder and amazement but the middle is too technical and frankly difficult to read. The concept of "self-feeding co-evolution" is a must read.

People believe in superstitions and other mystical abstractions particularly because they find solace in it. People also find solace in music, arts. I know a friend who found solace in reading stories at his lowest points. Science can give you existential crisis. Can I enjoy science like I enjoy music?
Are there specific things which I should do to enjoy science just like I enjoy listening to music without knowing anything about musical theory? Dawkins does not answer that.

I wonder what Dawkins thinks about the boom in scientific educational content on the Internet today. On one side there is a lot of pop-sci content that one should stay away from, but there are a lot of other beautiful collaborations between journalists, scientists and mathematicians ( Shout out to Brady and his channels- SixtySymbols, Numberphile, Computerphile, PeriodicVideos, etc.). Man, I wish there existed some book which was coauthored by both Dawkins and Betrand Russell...

[Kevin]

Enjoyed this book a lot especially the chapters on how humans delude themselves or allow others to delude them, including newspapers that include astrology columns. That seems very fitting for todays world where politicians yell fake news if they don't like the story about themselves. The final chapter is really great as well about memes and language.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dawkins makes a strong case for those of us who believe that scientific literacy not only does not have to come at the price of aesthetic appreciation, but can actually enhance it. Put another way, good science inspires good poetry. The sense of wonder we feel when watching the sun set should if anything be enhanced if we are aware of the physics of light reaching our retina, the 93 million miles the light had to travel to reach us, the ability of the light to at times be refracted into a rainbow, etc. Science can also correct bad poetry or metaphors; he does a good job of showing why an understanding of the arbitrary position of stars' light as it reaches us should argue against astrology, and is as unrelenting against numerology, postmodernism, and religious fundamentalism. Anyone who appreciates Bill Bryson will enjoy this book. The author gives one of the most cogent explanations I have read for our propensity to overweight anecdotal, statistically insignificant events.
My only gripes about the book were his tendency to assume the reader has as much knowledge of and fondness for Keats and Byron as he seems to have, and his apparent impatience for those who lose themselves in their metaphors, looking for meaning in random physical events. I believe only a minority of people can tolerate the anxiety that comes from confronting their smallness in the universe, a universe that if it is ruled by a deity does not apparently need to be (as Stephen Hawkings so aptly illustrated in a Brief History of Time).

[Gustavo Krieger · Rating 1 out of 5]

A weak book from Dawkins. Regardless of his ideas being right or wrong, he is a bad writer, and here he is worse than ever. He stumbles from the banal to the sublime, to the complex to the simple, to the popular to the academic without even noticing that. One page you are reading a very important theory and in the next paragraph he goes on telling you about a trivial thing that has happened to him the day before. Sometimes pages and pages are spent trying to explain something not important, and then when the important thing comes, Dawkins treats it as "already explained" and leave it as that.
Other thing he loves to do, and it's just plain bad writing, is comparing things one with another. As a first step to understand the problem, it's ok, but he dwells too long on metaphors. I.e., comparing the human brain to a computer. He goes on and on and on until there's no more use using the metaphor; it becomes harder and harder to believe in him, and things become ridiculous. The worst part is a link he makes between the evolution of the human brain, memes, and a tango he cannot forget. There's a lot of guessing in this book, too. And some theories are not that credible.
His criticism of astrology and other spiritual stuff are more or less correct, and it's something important that must be adressed, but he can't write a coherent chapter to express his ideas. He criticises a bit, then talk about other thing, then comes a very complex but short paragraph, then it's a trivial thing again, etc.
There are some good moments, very few, but in short: very badly written.

[Vanesa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dawkins no perdona a nadie , me encanta !!

[Jo Berry ☀️ · Rating 2 out of 5]

I gave up. I read the first 25%, then read a few sections further on to see if it got better. It didn’t. The book doesn’t really seem to have much content, it’s mostly fluff. Richard Dawkins gives us his well-known opinions on religion, superstition, and astrology, but everything feels very vague. It just rambles on. The concept of the book is to refute the claim that scientific discovery killed the poetry of the universe. Well, this book killed them both. The science was scant and the poetry was dull. Maybe this would have worked better as a short book with short sections, but I think it still would have been boring.

[FusionEight · Rating 3 out of 5]

My first Dawkins book, and it's pretty decent.

Dawkins doesn't agree with the relatively common view that science reduces the universe to its mere components, and so sets to talk about superstitions and about how the world really works, without diminishing its beauty and wonder. It's a satisfying science-popularizing book that doesn't stoop low in its explanation.

[Alissa Thorne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would love to praise Unweaving the Rainbow Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder as a layman's introduction to the wonders of science. The premise of the book is that the scientific view is not the bleak and cold perspective that it has a reputation for. In support of this, the book is chock full of little tidbits that demonstrate the beauty, the elegance, the chaos and the awe-inspiring complexity of the world around us. Dawkins endeavors to make science real to us, to seduce us with its simplicity, to floor us by making the massive tangible, and to tantalize us with the beautiful intricacy that can be seen if you just have the understanding.

Sadly I can also describe this book as a long and rambling rant about the bountiful and varied thorns in Richard Dawkins' side. Sure, I share the pain of many of those thorns. But even to me, his litany of complaints eventually started to feel like the mean-spirited nit-picking of a cantankerous old man.

It is tricky to strike a balance between providing harsh criticism of bad ideas while still being respectful to the people who believe them. And yet this is a challenge that skeptics should be uniquely well suited for. I never cease to be amazed when a skeptic work explains the natural human fallacies that tend to lead to a particular faulty conclusion and the mechanism in our brains that make the belief appealing and intuitive... then in the next paragraph, have the audacity to call people who have made these entirely reasonable mistakes idiots or charlatans!

Excepting perhaps the small choir of skeptics that Dawkins is preaching to, we all know someone who holds a scientifically unsound belief. Even most generally pro-science people hold one or two personal superstitions. Nobody appreciates their friends and family members mocked or accused of malicious intent, and they take it even less kindly when the name-calling is pointed their way. It is a tragic irony that this is what leaves people with a bad taste in their mouth, leading to the very anti-science sentiments that Dawkins is trying to prevent.

I wish I could recommend this book to friends. I would love to be able to say, "Read this, and maybe you will begin to see why being an atheist is not depressing as you are imagining, but in fact wondrous and hopeful." But I would be ashamed for a friend to read this book, and be subjected to witnessing the cruel ridicule dished out by Dawkins.

[Nancy Mills · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmph. This one has me all over the place in terms of how much I was liking it at any particular juncture. The final chapter is a solid 5 star essay on its own, an ode to the depth of the human brain, the (probably uniquely human) use of language, metaphor and representational graphics to advance our species' knowledge and create durable memes. My wording, not Dawkins'.
At times I forgot myself and thought I was reading Stephen Pinker. If you start reading this book and find yourself bored or irritated, at least read the last chapter. It redeems itself.
As far as the rest of the book, some of it is the usual pompous argument for atheism that I've come to associate with Richard Dawkins. He bogs this reader down with blather regarding "good scientific poetry" vs. "bad scientific poetry " and then proceeds to inflict upon us his own brand of the latter. And not surprisingly (if you've read much Dawkins) he snipes at Stephen Jay Gould ("bad poetry in his hands is all the more damaging because Gould is a graceful writer")
Nevertheless, between Dawkins' preachy drivel this book contains rich veins of mesmerizing science writing, spanning topics ranging from characteristics of light (hence the name of the book ) to audio perception to DNA evidence. A treat for those of us who love reading about science. Then back he goes to verbally pummeling astrology and other such superstitious nonsense. Really, Richard, you're preaching to the choir here. Chances of the avid consumers of headlines such as "Marilyn Monroe Comes Back as a Lettuce" and "Statue of Elvis Found on Mars" are not lining up to buy your books.
Dawkins shines when he abandons attacking idiots and picking on colleagues and focuses on actual science:
Evolutionary biology, symbiosis, the strategy of cuckoos who duck parental duties by manipulating other kinds of birds into raising their kids, our minds' perceptual tricks and so on. Dawkins manages to pack a bunch of intriguing science into this book, which makes it well worth reading. No one writes more lucidly or entertainingly than Richard Dawkins when he is not on his high horse. As noted before, the last chapter alone is worth reading the book for.

[Sauerkirsche · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5 Sterne

Dawkins ist genial wenn es darum geht, wissenschaftliche Themen der Allgemeinheit nahe zu bringen und was vielleicht noch wichtiger ist, naturwissenschaftliche Denkweise und Wertschätzung. Er beschreibt hervorragend den Konflikt zwischen Geistes-, Sozialwissenschaften und Naturwissenschaft. Auch dass die Meinung von Geistes- oder Sozialwissenschaftlern in öffentlichen Diskussionen eher anerkannt und wertgeschätzt wird als die von Naturwissenschaftlern und das sogar bei naturwissenschaftlichen Themen (Stichwort Grüne Gentechnik, Landwirtschaft etc.).
Er erwähnt auch sehr treffend, dass Naturwissenschaften von manchen Pseudo-Feministinnen als "männlich" und "kalt" bezeichnet werden und Intuition und Glaube als weiblich, was der Selbstbestimmung von Frauen eher schadet als hilft.

Was mich gestört hat, waren die ständigen Seitenhiebe in Richtung Religion, Mythologie oder auch Phantastik. Es ist absolut in Ordnung wenn er Religionen aus wissenschaftlicher, logischer Sicht als fragwürdig darstellt. Ich persönlich bin Atheistin, lebe jedoch nach der Philosophie jeder wie er glücklich ist, solange er mich nicht bekehren möchte und anderen nicht damit schadet. Mythologie und Phantastik werden von Dawkins ebenfalls diffamiert, was ich etwas übertrieben finde. Mythen haben ihre Bedeutung und maßgeblich zur Entwicklung von verschiedenen Kulturen beigetragen. Ich finde Mythologie faszinierend, auch aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht und bin ein großer Fantasy-Fan, trotz (oder vielleicht auch gerade wegen) naturwissenschaftlichem Studium.

[Abi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmmm, I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand I agree with him wholeheartedly that science and a scientific understanding of natural phenomena is a source of wonder. BUT, I think Dawkins throws the baby out with the bath water to a certain extent. To think of the rainbow in terms of water drops and light waves evokes one sort of beauty. But to think of the rainbow in terms of mythology, as something mysteriously wonderful, evokes quite another, one that is infinitely more suited to literature. Because all literature is, in one way or another, about human beings. Dawkins argues that literature would be much greater if it approached the rainbow in terms of its literal truth. Well, I certainly don't agree with that. Perhaps Keats was foolish to criticise Newton's 'unweaving of the rainbow', but he would have been equally foolish to write a poem devoid of humanity. A myth about a rainbow isn't about the rainbow at all, it's about the people that created the myth. It is perfectly possible to know what a rainbow really is and wonder at its complexity, whilst still being able to switch focus and approach it from a poetic angle, in which the rainbow will mean whatever the author wants it to mean. And that absolutely doesn't mean believing a myth to be TRUE in a real sense.

[Ericka Clou]

Admittedly, I didn't finish this book- which is why I didn't rate it. But the thesis that science doesn't diminish the beauty of the world is so obvious to me that it no longer felt valuable to read the second half of a book mostly of Dawkins congratulating himself for how smart he is. I did enjoy the actual description of how the rainbow works though. It's pretty rare for me to quit a book this far through though, so that's not a great sign.

[V.A. Menon · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book

[Tim Webber · Rating 2 out of 5]

Did Not Finish (decided I have too many potentially better books waiting to be read and life's too short)

[E.T. · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5 "The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that makes life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living it is finite."
Sometime ago, I liked a book by Dawkins wrote for children - The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True. In each chapter Dawkins beautifully explains one phenomena in a very lucid and loving way. This book is "The Magic of Reality" for adults.
Dawkins is acerbic and elitist and nihilist, until you finally pick up and read one of his books. His passion and love for science make it such a joy to read. And as for the "elitist" tag, his language is lucid and he comes across as honest. But this book was actually about answering the "nihilist" tag and celebrating science as something that makes life worth living.
Some of the chapters are spent debunking astrology and other pseudo-science in a very logical way. The chapters explaining DNA, light and sound were superb. I have read a few of his famous books on evolution before, and so the content of some of the chapters were very familiar. Perhaps I would have rated this book higher if it were my first book by him.

[Nick Davies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Initially this was slightly infuriating. Though Dawkins does make a lot of sense, though I agree with a lot of his views and respect his scientific expertise, though this book does address a very interesting subject (the criticism of science by non-scientists that the detailed logical breakdown of how/why everything works is robbing the world and life of the mystery and magic), at times I felt that the author himself fell in to the trap he was criticising.

So I had no problem with what Dawkins was saying (some parts - using Fourier equations to estimate the penis size of elephants on musth based on the sine wave of piss stains left on the ground, and the role and evolution of Mixotricha inside termite guts, intracellular parasites of parasites within an insect that operates with a hive mind - particularly interesting) but more with how he was saying it. At times he came over confrontational and like he was ramming his point home (unnecessary for me as a reader who already understood and agreed with his conjecture), and at times he seemed to be throwing in italicised quotes of little relevance (and in doing so appeared more like the flawed misinterpretators of science he was seeking to separate his and most other scientists from).

Nevertheless, certainly a thought-provoking read - for all that I couldn't stomach reading Dawkins exclusively.

[Aracne Mileto · Rating 5 out of 5]

Siempre es un placer leer a Dawkins, es un escritor que puede simplificar los conceptos más complejos y hacerte disfrutar de temas que a muchos les aburría de jóvenes: biología, química, física, etc (particularmente, yo aún no supero mis problemas con los vectores…).

Muchos piensan que la ciencia le quita el color a la vida con sus explicaciones complicadas y extensas, intentando arrebatarnos lo brillante y emocionante de lo desconocido. Pues este libro nos demuestra que la ciencia hace de todo menos eso.

En nuestro pasado, en nuestros genes, y en nuestra mente se esconden las respuestas a preguntas tan básicas como: ¿De dónde venimos?, ¿Cómo evolucionamos? ¿Cómo surgió la vida (no… no fue en 7 días) Y Dawkins explica punto por punto aquella información que no siempre es fácil encontrar, demostrando lo maravilloso que es estar informado, y te anima a seguir buscando más; por qué la ciencia nunca se detiene, siempre hay nuevos misterios que resolver.

¿Nunca han leído libros de divulgación científica? ¿alguna vez viste a una paloma supersticiosa? ¿Siempre comentas que el gen gay no existe pero no sabes que rayos es un gen?
Pues este libro puede ayudarte… y mucho.

[Chuck A · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first 6 chapters of this book were great. Classic Dawkins in that he knows how to write to keep a reader engaged and motivated to learn.
Chapters 7-11 however were a bit of a slog for me. He delved a bit deeper into biology and evolution, which is great, but I had a hard time staying engaged.
Chapter 12 was the last chapter, and brought it all back together, and ended it off with some great poetry by John Keats.

Overall, not a terrible book. He talks about the symbiotic relationship that should (but many times doesn’t) exist between poetry and science. The last half is what gives it three stars for me. Not bad, but not my favorite Dawkins book.

[Renata Rîmbu · Rating 3 out of 5]

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. [...] In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."

Dawkins confirms once more that his writing has both scientific and literary value. The second half of this book, particularly the chapters on the selfish gene, stand out - it becomes clear that this is his area of expertise. While I appreciate his exploration of the connection between poetry and science, "Unweaving the rainbow" also suffers at times from a certain lack of organization. However, it's still a poetic view of the wonders of science which we are in much need of.

[Ellison Rhea · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this mindblowing science-based philosophical text, Dawkins invites the reader to see wonder in a world which, though often counter-intuitive and surprising, invites deep understanding.

Though Dawkins is a skilled scientist, this text shows that he is equally impressive as a philosopher. In his case, science and philosophy are closely linked-- before beginning this text, I described my anticipation at reading "this Athiestic firecracker of a mind", and my hopes were not disappointed. Dawkins skillfully navigates several areas of science, probability, and new knowledge of human perception to show that we should be in constant awe-- not because of mystery, which may soon be dispelled, but because so much is knowable and percievable. As a person of religion myself (Christian, mostly Protestant), I found that this read closed the gaps to which I'd relegated my God--and caused me to question whether I'd built a faith paradigm that was dependent on and argued from a point of ignorance (how-else-do-you-explain...).* Over all, this was a superbly written text, and I'm thankful for every bit of it.

A few notes on reading Dawkins: He is a great philsopher, but arguably an even better rhetorician. As a fan of rhetoric myself I was impressed with the deliacy with which he `wooed' a possibly religious audience-- not just with logos, but with ethos and pathos too-- positively quoting C.S. Lewis and sharing a deep concern for his fellow man (languge was usually male, unfortunately). Though to his credit, he seeks to free mankind from the confines of magial religious thought, some of his jabs at religion were neither scientific, fair, or mature. Implicitly equating Elvis sightings with Christian claims of Christ's resurrection; listing off Santa and Baby Jesus in the same category of quaint childhood belief; implying that religious education systems have been intentionally, nefariously designed to exploit the credulity of children-- all of this seems a little beneath someone of his apparent intellectual/philosophical capabilities. I generally avoid Christian literature because of these not-so-subtle jabs at those with opposing worldviews; it is good to know that committed Athiests can be just as underhanded and preachy! However, this was not excessive (Don't want to make your target audience throw the book!) and if you are aware of it and have a good sense of humor, you won't find it too hard to read through.

Dawkins also had some problematic moral conclusions whenever he ventured outside of his scientific field. For example, he seemed to imply that races had evolved seperately enough to make intermarriage a less-than-ideal situation and didn't clarify oherwise, and declined to address the white-male dominance within science when it would have been only natural to do so (he was lambasting those who completely reject science for that reason, dismissing their concerns almost entirely.) He's great, but keep in mind that this text should not replace readings in ethics or sociology.

A few quotes:

(On the Usefulness of Science) "If everything is judged by how `useful' it is-- useful for staying alive, that is-- we are left facing a futile circularity. There must be some added value. At lesst a part of life should be devoted to living that life, not just working to stop it ending." (5)

"We can't actually fly to another planet. But we can recapture that sense of having just tumbled out to life on a new world by looking at our own world in unfamiliar ways." (7)

"There are, of course, genuine philosophical difficulties. Is a truth just a so-far-unfalsified hypothesis?... Is anything ultimately true? On the other hand, no philosopher has any trouble using the language of truth when falsely accused of a crime, or when suspecting his wife of adultery." (21)

"Good science fiction has no dealings with fairy tales, but is premised on the world as an orderly place. There is mystery, but the universe is not frivolous or light-fingered in its changeability.... Science fiction may tinker with the laws of nature, arguably and preferably one law at a time, but it cannot abolish lawfulness itself and remain good science fiction." (29)

(On Astrological Signs): "...isn't this a form of discriminatory labeling rather like the cultural stereotypes which many of us nowadays find objectionable? I can imagine a Monty Python sketch in which a newspaper publishes a column something like this: `Germans: it is in your nature to be hard-working and methodical.... Spaniards: Your Latin blood may get the better of you...." (119)

"Skill in weilding metaphors and symbols is oneof the hallmarks of scientific genius." (186)

"We are alone among the animals in forseeing our end. We are also alone among the animals in being able to say before we die: Yes, this is why it was worth coming into life in the first place." (313)

*The curious reader may want to know that the answer was yes--this was, in part, the nature of my faith, and to that extent, it has been shaken-- not stirred-- but I also find God to be dynamically present in the elegance of the natural, in the known, and I found my paradigm of God and God's engagement with the world truer for having read Dawkins. I also think my God rather enjoys Dawkin's mind too-- and might even thank him for knocking over a few of the He-shaped dummy-idols we have created over time.

[Alexandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

O privire fascinată asupra minunilor lumii, însoțită de analizele științifice aferente, amănunțite. Pentru cei care preferă nu doar să admire, ci și să disece.