The God Delusion

A great book, and I'm glad there's now a text like this that exasperated atheists can point to when an argument has sunk too deeply into the morass of gibberish that fervent believers favour. However, Dawkins does miss a number of strong philosophical arguments, and doesn't work through "The Problem of Evil" particularly well. He could also have added a great deal of weight to his arguments about...more

A great book, and I'm glad there's now a text like this that exasperated atheists can point to when an argument has sunk too deeply into the morass of gibberish that fervent believers favour. However, Dawkins does miss a number of strong philosophical arguments, and doesn't work through "The Problem of Evil" particularly well. He could also have added a great deal of weight to his arguments about the psychological roots of religion if he had taken account of some of Stephen Pinker's work on the evolved nature of certain beliefs about and ways of categorising the world. It seems unlikely the two are not related, and even more unlikely that Dawkins would not be familiar with this work. The main problem I had with it was that Dawkins takes too smug a tone. This is a serious business - eschatological Muslim fundamentalists and Christian right-wingers are quite capable of ripping the world apart. Feeling you've won the argument in your own head is all very nice, but it hasn't ended the real dangers of religious belief. Also, there are only so many references to having known Douglas Adams I can take. I notice the only person attacking the book on this series of reviews is also the only person who has seen the need to resort to upper case. (Re-added, as previous review included one incorrect word, that said the exact opposite of what I meant.)   hide

Despite my philosophical and religious beliefs, I never read this book until I had to for my philosophy seminar on Atheism. I think Dawkins does a very good job of dismissing arguments for the existence of God and showing how improbable it is that he exists. I also think he does a good job of covering other topics, including the abuse of children and all of the wrong that religion (generally...more

Despite my philosophical and religious beliefs, I never read this book until I had to for my philosophy seminar on Atheism. I think Dawkins does a very good job of dismissing arguments for the existence of God and showing how improbable it is that he exists. I also think he does a good job of covering other topics, including the abuse of children and all of the wrong that religion (generally Christianity) commits. However, one of the purposes of this book is to convince religious readers that it is (more than) okay to be Atheist, and yet he is quite hostile to religion at the end, and I'm not sure this is the best way to go about this. Still, it does force religious believers to reconsider their beliefs and at least put them under a microscope (something believers have a hard time doing, I've noticed). Overall, I think it is a good read for theists and atheists alike, and it has helped solidify my position as well as put into words what I have been feeling for quite some time now. It is nice to know that, in such a society as America's--which is SUPPOSED to be secularist but which we all know to be mostly Christian--that I am not alone. I found this book to be a great comfort and intellectually stimulating at the same time, as well as an eye-opener. Highly recommended to all.   hide

Lots of cheap shots, and an myopic idea of what rationality, erudition, and culture consist of. And here is a problem: Dawkins rightly criticizes religious intolerance, and repeatedly refers with historical accuracy to Christian anti-Semitism (for instance his peoration on the case of Pope Pius IX and Edgardo Morttara). But Dawkins' prescription - that children not be brought up as part of the...more

Lots of cheap shots, and an myopic idea of what rationality, erudition, and culture consist of. And here is a problem: Dawkins rightly criticizes religious intolerance, and repeatedly refers with historical accuracy to Christian anti-Semitism (for instance his peoration on the case of Pope Pius IX and Edgardo Morttara). But Dawkins' prescription - that children not be brought up as part of the the religious community in which they are born(*) - if applied to Jews would lead to the immediate destruction of all Jewish communities everywhere. If he wants a world without Jewish children, then he wants a world without Jews, Now, what do you call a person who wants a world with Jews? Of course, Dawkins is not "anti-Semitic," it's just his prescriptions would lead to a Jew-free world. (*) In an odd oversight, Dawkins neglects to mention that the one group he attacks most often - American evangelicals (a group that, in general, I have little truck with) - do NOT teach that their children are Christians simply because their parents are. Baptists and Pentecostals (e.g. Assembly of God, the Church of God in Christ) insist that all members must make a personal decision *at an age of sentience* to join their churches. The Amish, another group he attacks, specifically release their children into the world after high school and require them to make an adult decision. Dawkins on this issue has either not done his homework, or simply twists his facts to suit his agenda. Given the methodology of the rest of the book, it is likely he is doing both.   hide

This is the fourth of Dawkins’ books that I have read and I must say that unfortunately The God Delusion pales in comparison. The God Delusion does have humourous and thought provoking points but if you have watched the Root of all Evil and/or any of Dr. Dawkins recent lectures you have heard (practically verbatim) most of the book. One of the objectives of this book is to promote Atheism...more

This is the fourth of Dawkins’ books that I have read and I must say that unfortunately The God Delusion pales in comparison. The God Delusion does have humourous and thought provoking points but if you have watched the Root of all Evil and/or any of Dr. Dawkins recent lectures you have heard (practically verbatim) most of the book. One of the objectives of this book is to promote Atheism but I have found myself swayed more by his more in depth works as they demonstrated a naturalistic view as a positive rather than simply focusing on the negatives of a supernatural world like The God Delusion does. There are several points that I agree with Dawkins in The God Delusion and some where I cannot commit as he does. For example when he argues against the standard religious claim that atheist can have no morality because they are relativist and use value judgements to base their morality by proving that Christians also use value judgements to pick and choose the morality they draw from the Bible. I cannot, however, follow Dawkins into the extreme that religious teaching equates child abuse, I agree that it can be heavy handed but it is not nearly as traumatic as physical, mental or sexual abuse. The book will no doubt satisfy those already committed to atheism and strengthen their resolve but I cannot see how the razor wit and acid tongue that Dr. Dawkins uses will win him any allies. That is not to say that I did not find it entertaining, I did, but I did not find it as informative or enlightening as hsi other works. I would not discourage anyone from reading The God Delusion but I would certainly recommend that they read The Selfish Gene, Unweaving the Rainbow or Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell first   hide

I found this review by Publishers Weekly expressing most of my opinion about the book: "... For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. But Dawkins, who gave us the selfish gene, anticipates this criticism. He says it's the scientist and humanist in him that makes him hostile to...more

I found this review by Publishers Weekly expressing most of my opinion about the book: "... For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. But Dawkins, who gave us the selfish gene, anticipates this criticism. He says it's the scientist and humanist in him that makes him hostile to religions—fundamentalist Christianity and Islam come in for the most opprobrium—that close people's minds to scientific truth, oppress women and abuse children psychologically with the notion of eternal damnation. While Dawkins can be witty, even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is "psychotic," Aquinas's proofs of God's existence are "fatuous" and religion generally is "nonsense." The most effective chapters are those in which Dawkins calms down, for instance, drawing on evolution to disprove the ideas behind intelligent design. In other chapters, he attempts to construct a scientific scaffolding for atheism, such as using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality. He insists that religion is a divisive and oppressive force, but he is less convincing in arguing that the world would be better and more peaceful without it." I can add to that that i benefited from his information about Einstein being an atheist, it challenged a long understanding of mine that he was a believer of some sort. Also he exposed me to evolutional biology and made me shift the point where God might have possibly interfere in the universe back to the big bang. His grouping of the three Abrahamic religions is a point of weakness. There is almost no addressing of Islam and he only sights one person for most of his material on that "Ibn warraq, a divert from Islam". A Muslim reader will be immune from most of Dawkins points against Christianity and Judaism. Dr. Dawkins complains about the amount of respect religion receives when people debate moral issues. He particularly states that it is customary to include members of various religious groups while non-believers are systematically under represented. He , therefore, asks on what basis do we credit those people? I think that this practice has corrupted intellectual societies for a while not in the narrow view presented in this context, but rather in terms of giving "experts" a much larger weight in addressing topics that doesn't need any special training to be addressed. This has been witnessed in all sorts of issues under public concern such as the was on Vietnam. See Noam Chomsky's article (The Responsibility of Intellectuals, The New York Review of Books (1967), www.nybooks.com/articles/12172). I believe that this is orchestrated as a method to manipulate the main stream and control it by few that can be , in their turn, controlled by the people in power. His last chapter lacks character and leaves no impression whatsoever in comparison to the strong openings of his monograph. I enjoyed many of his phrases but i am not sure how long will it be before reading any other books by him.   hide

Dawkins at his best! The religious crowd let out a loud yell at this one's publishing, but they don't have the same powers of censorship that they have had in the past. Much to their disdain, The God Delusion is almost as easy to put into the hands of students as the Bible is... and with the shiny book jacket, the kids may like it even better! Professor Dawkins lays out one of the most...more

Dawkins at his best! The religious crowd let out a loud yell at this one's publishing, but they don't have the same powers of censorship that they have had in the past. Much to their disdain, The God Delusion is almost as easy to put into the hands of students as the Bible is... and with the shiny book jacket, the kids may like it even better! Professor Dawkins lays out one of the most comprehensive arguments against god ever written, borrowing heavily from scientists and philosophers with Dawkins' own twists thrown in. His dry, British humour keeps the book interesting and moves the book along smoothly and painlessly. The beginning of Chapter two is my favourite Dawkins quote: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." His intentional over-use of descriptive adjectives effectively sets his tone and gets a light-hearted giggle out of his more open-minded of readers.   hide

A very good read, overall. I can see why many lump in at "fundamental atheism" or evangelizing. Dawkins is very unforgiving, and I don't see why he doesn't have a right to be. I don't agree with his hardliner stance, I think most Christians or religious folk won't see their religion being attacked in this book. Rather the more intrusive, radical varieties or the brunt of his reasoned...more

A very good read, overall. I can see why many lump in at "fundamental atheism" or evangelizing. Dawkins is very unforgiving, and I don't see why he doesn't have a right to be. I don't agree with his hardliner stance, I think most Christians or religious folk won't see their religion being attacked in this book. Rather the more intrusive, radical varieties or the brunt of his reasoned onslaught. Dawkins want's to make it absolutely clear why religion has no place in the sciences, and has no claim to reason or logic. The bulk of his attack relies, obviously, on his background of biology, evolution, and meme theory, and those parts of the books were I think the most peruasive and intelligent. He does his best to show that there simply isn't any room for religion anymore. Though I do not have a copy infront of me (I loaned it soon after finishing it), I do not think he was charitable enough to call belief in the divine an option. But I'm sure he had no trouble admitting that people can believe whatever they want in private, as long as they don't have the indecency to indoctrinate their kids. I'll have to go over it again to make sure I understood it all. On the whole it didn't bring anything new to the table of the philosophy of religion (except for what he said about religion being likea viral meme and religious label of children tantamount to child abuse), but it reinstated some things we would do well (especially in America) to remember. I look forward to reading "The Dawkins Delusion" in the near future.   hide

I only read this book on the suggestion of a friend who thought I should reconsider my stance as a Christian. I was skeptical when I started reading it, and while it has not changed my stance on the existence of God it has confirmed what I have deeply felt (although tried to ignore) about religion. I was, however, a little disappointed on the Chapter 'The Roots of Religion'. I was hoping he...more

I only read this book on the suggestion of a friend who thought I should reconsider my stance as a Christian. I was skeptical when I started reading it, and while it has not changed my stance on the existence of God it has confirmed what I have deeply felt (although tried to ignore) about religion. I was, however, a little disappointed on the Chapter 'The Roots of Religion'. I was hoping he would go into more detail about the History of Religion and how they came to be and have changed over the years. But, this has just motivated me to find a book that does, maybe from a neutral standpoint as well. I quite enjoyed the chapter on 'Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion.' As someone who grew up in a home where we went to church every Sunday it is definately hard to break away from that as it's all you know. I know that when I have Children I will not be telling them that any one religion is right, but expose them to a variety, as well as the option of believing in nothing, and they can make their own choice. I would recommend this book to anyone, believe, non-beleiver or 'fence sitters'. It was an enjoyable read and gives you something to think about. I got alot out of this book. While it didn't answer alot of my questions, I did learn alot. Dawkins did not convince me there was no God, but he did clarify doubts I've had about religion.   hide

While I admire Dawkins' keen intellect, and the passion with which he slices and dices the cabal of faith that keeps our world so close to the medieval origins of power that chains humanity to barbarism, regardless of the PR spin put on to official behaviours, I fear that his tone doesn't aid the cause. It would be very, very hard to have been the brunt of so much invective, as Dawkins reports...more

While I admire Dawkins' keen intellect, and the passion with which he slices and dices the cabal of faith that keeps our world so close to the medieval origins of power that chains humanity to barbarism, regardless of the PR spin put on to official behaviours, I fear that his tone doesn't aid the cause. It would be very, very hard to have been the brunt of so much invective, as Dawkins reports in the preface, to NOT come across as snarky, and I'm sure he doesn't mean to. Also, from a North American audience perspective, the Oxford Don manner can deliver unintended interpretations of character and behaviours. All of this makes for minor quibbles as to the import of this book. Those who are open to questioning the dogmatic policies and manifestos of self-serving institutions will hopefully not be put off; those who already question the plausibility of faith-based institutions will find much to buttress their enquiries. I think this is a necessary book for our times, and encourage everyone to read it.   hide