Customer Reviews

The God Delusion

5 star:		(41)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary theorist and holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is also a best seller author of science books, and quite easy to read.

In this book, Dawkins tackles the problem of religion -- and he does see it as a problem. Dawkins begins by pointing out that there is no evidence whatsoever of god. True, he cannot prove that god does not exist, but the same is true of all possible gods, including Zeus and Wotan. The fact that something cannot be proven false is no evidence whatsoever that is true.

Dawkins further points out how religion (or, more precisely, faith) is so damaging. Faith is, quite simply, the enemy of reason. If one believes something on faith then, by definition, it does not matter what the evidence shows, one will still believe. It is a matter of faith. No matter how strong the evidence of evolution, for example, many faithful simply refuse to believe. With faith, there is no argument, no evidence good enough. With reason, one will still make mistakes, but at least one is trying to get it right.

Dawkins believes very strongly in what he says, but that does not make him just another fundamentalist. Dawkins came to his beliefs by looking at evidence, considering all arguments and applying reason. If, tomorrow, one presented him with evidence that he was wrong, he would change his mind.

This book will offend many readers, but that is not what Dawkins intends and it only proves his point: readers who are offended have been so blinded by religion that they are unable to consider that they might be wrong without suffering pain.

For an explanation of how evolution works, read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. For a small sample of the evidence behind the theory (and a brief history of life on earth), read The Ancestor's Tale. These books are written in a less strident manner, and would only offend the those who take the Bible completely literally, and cannot tolerate the thought that they are mistaken.

I won't waste your time telling you what a good book this is ... get it and read it! Notice that all the bad reviews will quote scripture or otherwise reveal their not-so-hidden agendas for criticizing it.

I'm not sure I read too much that I didn't already know, but this is a great book for recommending to others who need a good overview/primer of the atheist position.

Richard Dawkins does an excellent job of building a strong case for atheism by using logic and science in "The God Delusion". He shows the logical fallacies of the so-called proofs of Gods existence. He debunks the myth about religion being the source of morality and ethics, debunks other myths about the immorality of non-believers. He exposes some of the logical inconstancies and errors within the religions themselves. All in all, he does an outstanding job of explaining why atheism is on much firmer ground than any of the major religions.

There are some problems with the book as well, but before I go into those it is important to note that this is definitely a good book for religious people as well as atheists and agnostics to read. It gives a good explanation of why atheists don't believe in a god or gods, and probably deserves an overall rating of around 3.75 stars. So while I will go into some more detail about what I thought was not so good about the book that is merely because it is necessary to be more detailed about the problems than it is to be about the parts which are well done.

The weaknesses of the book all stem from one source, and that is that Dawkins, like everyone, is too close to the subject. It is probably impossible for anyone to take a completely dispassionate look at this subject, as we all have had to deal with various religions throughout our lives. On several occasions, Dawkins ventures out from his base of logic and science to make assumptions which are based only on his thoughts and not facts. For example, in Chapter 10, "A Much Needed Gap" he implies that religious people should be happy when a loved one is about to die, and goes on to imply that because they aren't it is somehow significant in the argument. However, people grieve for a variety of reasons, and not necessarily because they don't truly believe in heaven. As an atheist, I grieve for the absence in my life of a loved one, and there is no reason to believe that religious people don't feel the same sense of loss, regardless of whether they believe that person is going to heaven.

Another example is in Chapter 5 on "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God" where he correctly states that "since we are alive, eukaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps", or in short that it doesn't matter how improbable our existence is, because we exist we must have beaten those odds. What he fails to do though, is accept that same argument for the improbability of the existence of God. One could just as easily say that if God exists, that it doesn't matter how improbable its existence is. Of course, we don't have proof of God's existence, but the point is that if we are here because of the existence of a God, then its probability becomes irrelevant. The argument works in both cases, and while it is fair to say that the case for evolution is more probable, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Probably the worst chapter is Chapter 9 on "Childhood, Abuse and Religion". In this chapter, Dawkins argues that bringing up a child in a specific religion is a form of abuse. However, he really offers no way of solving this supposed problem. Would he have the State take children away and raise them? Would he require that people be at least 18 before they are allowed to attend services? And if so, how would he monitor what the parents tell the children at home? He ignores the fact that everything that parents do in raising their children can be for good or ill. They might spoil them with gifts or be too strict. They might teach them bad eating habits which will lead to health problems. The entire argument is based on emotionalism and is irrational, and it offers no answers. The vast majority of parents do a very good job of raising their children, whether they raise them in a specific faith or not.

Now that I have beat up on the book a little, let me finish by saying once again that despite its flaws, this is a very good book and enjoyable to read. The vast majority of the material is presented in a rational way. Dawkins really grabs the reader's attention, and I am sure that religious people would enjoy debating in their minds the points Dawkins makes just as much as I did. This book is a much better look at atheism and the problems with religion than Harris' "The End of Faith". It is not perfect, but I have no problem rounding "The God Delusion" up to four stars.

As a fellow scientist I have great respect for Dawkins ability to popularize complex ideas. Who can forget "THE SELFISH GENE"?! His ideas used to come across crystal clear and redolent with logical symmetry. And I think that he is long overdue for the Nobel Prize for his introduction of the notion of memes. I am afraid though that he bit the forbidden fruit for a scientist: Star System.

The huge success and popularity he enjoyed for his previous books obviously addicted him to public recognition and with every new book he tries to titillate the media into turning him into an even bigger Star. His ideas get more and more provocative - sadly, mostly to provoke. From the air-time he gets, I would say he has the moves down pat.

He might be an Oxford Biologist, and an excellent one at that, yet the territories he endeavors here are not Biology. For, any Biologist never forgets that we humans, are nothing more than metazoans, groups of cooperating animal cells. So are birds, butterflies and dogs. Birds can appreciate music, butterflies color patterns, whereas dogs can learn tricks. Yet they cannot comprehend simple algebra. We humans can do all of the above (and much more), nevertheless, there is no reason whatsoever our abilities to be unlimited. Actually, the opposite has been proven to be true.

Case in point: we fail to comprehend the illusion of time. Our brain separates our consciousness into memories (past), present (lasting about 3sec) and imagination (future). The arrow of time is but a human shortcoming. Even its most modern definition (as the increase of entropy) only replaces the einsteinian "observer" or the classic "clock" with a humanly measurable change. We do incorporate time into our physical laws - only because that is how we perceive and are able to measure the phenomena they describe. Modern physics acknowledges, however, that time is but a human-brain artifact.
So, Plato had nailed it 2,500 years ago: we can only perceive the shadows of the true universe as it is reflected in the cave of our finite, animal intellect.

Surprisingly, for a scientist he confines himself within...religious arguments. What he claims demand the reader's FAITH: abandon the beliefs you were brought up with only to have them replaced by his own ideas. As with Hitchens (who, contrary to mild-mannered Dawkins, is vitriolic) PRIDE has gotten the better of his objectivity.

So, does God exist? I am afraid that's for each of us to decide for himself. The answer does not fall within the realm of human science.
The nature and actions of God, as described in most major religions and accepted by most faithful, fall well out of our scientific range. Such an existence cannot either be proven or disproven.

Richard Dawkin's book has rightly generated much controversy, since the topic of religion and science has become a headline item for a variety of reasons (Bush administration, 'terrorism', our shrinking world in the face of narrow world views, etc.). He is a fabulous writer, even if some of the material may take a couple of times. It deserves to be read, particularly by those who are religious but have a open or inquisitive mind about how things work and why. I would hope that being religious, intelligent, and open minded are not as rare---or as mutually exclusive--as Dawkins would have us believe.

I was most impressed by his 'atheism' arguments, and the way he brought Darwinian principles to bear as an explanation for the evidence. His later applications of Darwinism, to the rise of religion for instance, struck me as less compelling. There are 'better' theories dealing with some of the later topics (i.e., morality, religion, and society), such as those by Nietzsche and Freud (and others). In short, his explanations could delve into the psychological realm more thoroughly; rather, we are offered a Darwin monolith of sorts, one that proposes to explain all those things people rely on religion for. Delete "religion" insert "Darwinism"--an oversimplification for sure, but one not altogether unwarranted.

Tricky thing about Darwinian theory: while it definitely offers powerful explanations, you're never completely sure you have exactly the right one. Yes, having or doing "X" would have had some evolutionary advantage; but back-filling in that space from the standpoint of the present with just the right explanation and set of circumstances is far from assured. Changes in our models of dinosaurs, for instance, proves that.

If you're an atheist, or close to it, then he's going to be "preaching to the choir" (if I may use such an ironic metaphor) much of the time. If you're part of the other 90+ percentage of the population, then I would very much recommend reading Dawkins and seriously considering his arguments. You don't have to buy the *exact* explanations he offers---the real question is whether *some kind* of Darwinian/naturalistic explanation is ultimately at the root of our "miraculous" existence (something both sides must agree on).

Therein lies the real value of his book, and read in those terms this is an outstanding (5 star) text. I feel the first (and maybe most important) point should focus not so much on what you believe, just that you think.

Richard Dawkins does an amazing job at presenting arguments against religion and God. He presents many of the age old arguments for God's existence and neatly argues against them. Intellegent and open minded people will definately pick up this book and for those "hard core god believers", please pick up this book and read it with an open mind. Doing so will not kill you. Challenge what you believe in. Try to put your "faith" aside for a moment and read some arguments that Atheism presents (it's only fair to know both sides of the argument before you pick one side and hold on to it),perhaps you will be enlightened. This book addressed a lot of the questions that I had and the issues that I myself have fought with. Also, do not read this book in a rush, go over some of the passages and read them critically and carefully. It's not the easiest read but its very well written. Thank you Richard Dawkins for keeping a great discussion going!

I used to be monotheistic once upon a time. I then became an agnostic. This book has moved me on further. I already knew that the God of Judism, Christianity, and Islam was quite unstable and was a bit of an extremist. One day this God would drown babies in the "Great Flood" (as if floods are great), followed by turning the other cheek, followed by letting Jesus/Himself getting nailed to a cross (two for one.) I always thought from the age of 20 years & up that this God needed therapy. What I never thought was whether there was a God or was God necessary to explain my typing these words. Mr. Dawkins helps me understand the other side.... the side with no God and you know what? It is not so scary not having a God.

I highly recommend this book. I gave it 4 stars because it is written in a style that makes it difficult to read....

An impressive work that sets out to achieve one major purpose: to debunk the supposed "stumper" arguments that zealots of various faiths bring up, usually as soon as they meet someone who declares themselves agnostic or atheist.

Dawkins attempts to present compelling, rational arguments for each of several major categories of these arguments, and succeeds, doing an excellent job without sounding like he's foaming at the mouth. His examples from main-stream religions are chilling, and very, very compelling.

I suspect this book will make an atheist of many an agnostic, and possibly even of some who have blindly followed the dominant faith of their culture without actually thinking too hard about the actual tenets of their religion.

As another reviewer said: get this book, read it. At the very least, it will make you think.

The book got here quite fast and in good condition. The book is interesting and well written. I would recommend it for anyone who has an interest for the subject.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dawkins' perspective here. The book is well-written and makes, for the most part, sound arguments against God's existence. It's worth a read.