The God Delusion

Nov 30, 2007

Chris rated it

Shelves: religion, 2007

The first time I tried to read this book, I gave it up within about three pages, convinced that it was far too narrowly focused and inadequately researched to be a worthwhile criticism of religion. I had also recently seen the author give an interview in which he showed himself to be an unbearable, egocentric jerk, and the book rather quickly solidified that impression. Recently, in conversation with someone who loved the book, I agreed to go back and read the thing, all of it, just out of fairn...moreThe first time I tried to read this book, I gave it up within about three pages, convinced that it was far too narrowly focused and inadequately researched to be a worthwhile criticism of religion. I had also recently seen the author give an interview in which he showed himself to be an unbearable, egocentric jerk, and the book rather quickly solidified that impression. Recently, in conversation with someone who loved the book, I agreed to go back and read the thing, all of it, just out of fairness to this person's enthusiasm for it.

I was not wrong in any of my kneejerk impressions. The book is indeed too narrow and shallow to be considered anything like a true criticism of religion, in any reasonably sophisticated sense of the word. Dawkins makes clear at the beginning that he is not writing about "Einsteinian" religion, by which he means a sort of vague awe in the face of the vast wonder of the universe, but there are more strictly religious notions that he plainly fails to consider as well. And yes, Dawkins is indeed a self-centered jerk, or at least frequently comes across that way. That was certainly very distracting, but I don't suppose it should count one way or another in considering the merit of his efforts.

For my second go at the book, rather than take umbrage at its narrow focus, I simply accepted that focus from the beginning, so as to evaluate it on the appropriate scale. It is an attack on religion, but on the sorts of religion espoused mainly by the least thoughtful and, often, most vocal believers. A blurb on the back of my copy refers to the target of the book as "religious bigotry," and it is against this opponent that the work is most successful. Indeed, there are only two ways I can imagine this book achieving any of the goals Dawkins seems to have in mind for it:

1. Near the beginning of the book, Dawkins says something to the effect that he hopes some people will start the book religious and put it down as atheists. I suppose I can see this happening, but only for those people who are looking not so much for a reason to stop believing, but merely for permission. They have already made their decision, and Dawkins is saying, "It's okay."

2. More positively, I can easily see the book stirring up surprisingly latent sentiment against an increasingly mainstream religious fundamentalism. If anyone wants to know why they should be outraged at the current general acceptance of ludicrously, and often harmfully, extreme religious conviction, especially in America, they need only read Chapter 8.

In fact, I don't see much point in anyone reading more than the last three chapters of the book. These are where Dawkins makes his strongest points, speaks most to what he truly knows most about, and writes in some of his most convincing and elegant prose. The preceding two-thirds of the book suffers from a lack of focus, a too-present sense of self-importance, and a general tone of scorn and derision toward anyone with any religious inclinations (whatever lip service he might occasionally try to pay to some of them). It is only in the final 90 pages that he says anything truly constructive.

For whatever it's worth, I am not a religious person. I simply think that "the religious" deserves a lot more serious attention than it tends to get from anyone who doesn't have personal religious convictions (I am not talking about the blind "respect" for all things religious that Dawkins rightfully derides, which is indeed just intellectual timidity). To grant this attention, one must take the time to investigate religious thought at its best, to read religious works as charitably as possible, and to openly and honestly confront those religious thinkers who have thought the most, and the most intelligently, about what religion can be. If one does not wish to do these things, that is fine, but one ought not then expect to be taken seriously in turn by those one has so thoroughly disregarded.(less)

like 169 likes

· see review

Dec 20, 2007

Anica rated it

Recommends it for: everyone, but particularly Christians and Muslims

Shelves: changedmylife

Well, this settles it once and for all. There is no God. Which turns out to be a good thing, considering the God most Americans believe in is a crazy, vengeful, ego-maniacal monster. Dawkins’ insights are so cunning and profound you can’t help feeling embarrassed for the believer.

Some of the main arguments:
Believer #1: The diversity of life is too complex to be random, so it must have been designed by someone even more complex.
Dawkins: If the designer is so complex, t...more

like 126 likes

· see review

view all 23 comments

Vianey Raya I'm amused by some of the believers comments. I don't believe in Jesus or Jehovah or any of these fictitious characters. I came to this conclusion on ...more
Nov 08, 2011 07:46pm

Becky I strongly dislike when people pull random parts out of the Bible to prove why people shouldn't "follow" it. The Bible is not like any other...more
Jan 15, 2012 09:14am

Sep 16, 2010

Alex Telander rated it

Shelves: books-read-in-2006

THE GOD DELUSION BY RICHARD DAWKINS: Dawkins latest book is as brutal and honest as its title. For those who aren’t looking to have their faith and beliefs gravely challenged, you may want to skip this book. Though Dawkins is looking for everyone to read this book with an open mind, whether you’re devoutly religious, agnostic or atheist. Having an open mind is actually one of the New Ten Commandments Dawkins cites.

The book begins in a calm and orderly manner, with an opening chap...moreTHE GOD DELUSION BY RICHARD DAWKINS: Dawkins latest book is as brutal and honest as its title. For those who aren’t looking to have their faith and beliefs gravely challenged, you may want to skip this book. Though Dawkins is looking for everyone to read this book with an open mind, whether you’re devoutly religious, agnostic or atheist. Having an open mind is actually one of the New Ten Commandments Dawkins cites.

The book begins in a calm and orderly manner, with an opening chapter on the “god hypothesis,” where Dawkins talks about the idea of a god through history and how we are now in a time where medicine and science have come such a long way from the days of thinking the world is flat, balancing the humors, and believing there was a demon or god causing a every catastrophe. And yet religion – especially Christianity – remains stagnated in the ideas of men from thousands of years ago. As the book progresses, Dawkins seems to grow more impatient with religion and its whole-hearted certainty in a book and a god.

He does an impressive job of going from chapter to chapter in defending different stances on science, always providing the evidence – a facet, he says, religion is lacking. One point Dawkins makes that I really found fascinating was his evolutionary reason for the existence of religion, in that it was a component of our very early societies in helping to unite communities and keep them together as a whole. As human beings, we strive for companionship and the evidence speaks for itself when we look back to the time when there was a shift from the nomadic hunting and gathering societies to settling down in groups and communities, which started farming, large scale food production, and ultimately leading to technology, writing, law, art and so on.

After this, Dawkins tackles the question of morality and makes it a very big deal that everyone understand we keep this separate from religion and not think them one and the same. The Bible is full of murder, rape, fratricide, torture – for a book on teaching us how to lead supposedly “good” lives, this book has a very strange way of trying to do that, says Dawkins. So he goes back into our ancestry to the days of Cro-Magnon, in the time when all humanity cared about was trying to survive. He posits that this was when we began to develop a sense of morality, because in being good to others, families and groups were formed, which helped improve survival. If we’d stuck to stealing and killing, we wouldn’t have lasted past that first winter.

Another big issue with Dawkins is the labeling of children as belonging to the religion of the parents without any consent from them: they’re Protestant children, or Muslim children, or Jewish children; even though in all likelihood they are far too young to comprehend what this applied label means. These children of heavily religious and fundamental families don’t have a choice. One of the most horrific groups I learned about in The God Delusion are the so-called “Hell Houses,” where children – ideally twelve year olds, because this is the perfect age for indoctrination – are taken through a labyrinth of horror revealing the terrible sins of sex before marriage, homosexuality, and abortion, and what happens in hell if one were to commit any of them. A cast of actors rehearse these scenes to create the greatest sense of terror in the children – yes, there’s even a tall and scary looking man playing the part of Satan.

If you liked this review, and would like to read more, go to BookBanter.(less)

like 47 likes

· see review

Nov 03, 2007

Aeisele rated it

Recommends it for: Rabid squirrels

This is perhaps the worst polemic against religion I have ever read. Really, if Dawkins actually knew anything about religion, he wouldn't have written the book. Instead, he knows nothing about the subject, and so if you know nothing about something, you don't even KNOW when you say stupid things.
For instance, Dawkins brings up John Hartung's article about "love thy neighbor"(Hartung is not, in case you were wondering, a biblical scholar. He's a Professor of Anesthesiology). Th...moreThis is perhaps the worst polemic against religion I have ever read. Really, if Dawkins actually knew anything about religion, he wouldn't have written the book. Instead, he knows nothing about the subject, and so if you know nothing about something, you don't even KNOW when you say stupid things.
For instance, Dawkins brings up John Hartung's article about "love thy neighbor"(Hartung is not, in case you were wondering, a biblical scholar. He's a Professor of Anesthesiology). The argument is that both the Old Testament's (or Torah) and the New Testament's idea of "neighbor" is an in-group conception - in other words, other Jews. Now, let's not get into the issue that Dawkins and Hartung seem to be more fundamentalist about the bible than most Christians (I mean, Hartung says that "Moses" wrote the law - guess what? Most Christian scholars don't think this!). Hartung points out many verses that seem to argue this. Yet in bringing up Leviticus 19:18 (love your neighbor as yourself), and then arguing this means only other "Jews" (even though there was no such thing as "Judaism" when this book was written), he seems to forget Leviticus 19:32-33. There, aliens are to be considered as "citizens", or "natives." In addition, please tell me what example Jesus uses to illustrate what "neighbor" means? The good Samaritan! (who were of course considered inferior by the Jews).
This is just a smattering of his ignorance. Would you think that Dawkins MIGHT have consulted someone scholar in religious studies for this work? Ehrman is about the only one. He quotes Douglas Adams more than any specialists in the field. There are other annoying things about the book. Like the fact that he basically treats the most violent and fanatical of the religious as the standard. Of course, does he treat Nazi Eugenics as "standard" science? Of course not (and for anyone who thinks "science" is self-correcting - well, that's just naive).
Another thing: he gives T.H. Huxley a free pass on his eugenic racism (his statements that blacks in the south might not be evolved enough to have democratic rights- which by the way, he made at the same time Christian abolishionists were establishing universities and cities in the mid-west that were race-inclusive), because it was a part of the "Zeitgeist", yet using the violence of the Old Testament against religion.
Another thing (are you sick of this yet?): in arguing that there most likely was no religious conviction in anyone who did anything good he said that Martin Luther King Jr. basically just got his ideas from Ghandi, who of course everyone knows wasn't "really" religious. Well, if you read Dr. King, and believe him (which Dawkins, by the way, doesn't like doing - he'd rather foist his own "intelligent" interpretation of what they were doing on them), King actually got much of his social justice vision from the theologian Walter Rauschenbauch. He got his notion of non-violent resistance from Ghandi, which is much different.

Anyway, if anyone out there is really looking for atheistic resources, do NOT read Dawkins. He'll just make you look like a fool in any educated person's view. Instead, read an intelligent atheist, who understands religion, like Nietzsche. Start with Beyond Good and Evil, go to the Genealogy of Morals, and then finish with Twilight of the Idols and the Antichrist. They will give you a better perspective. (less)

like 64 likes

· see review

Dec 28, 2007

Xysea rated it

Recommends it for: people interested propping up their own arguments in support of atheism

Shelves: non-fiction, philosophy

I am not an atheist, but neither am I a 'true believer'. I border more on 'agnostic', that is to say I believe there is some force beyond this Earth and that I don't know what it is, but I don't subscribe to any particular set of beliefs, per se.

Until I come across books like this one. Then, I get an irrational urge to defend spiritual beliefs (but not religion, and that's another discussion).

What I mean is, I am generally docile and private about my spirituality and my...more

like 46 likes

· see review

Mar 24, 2007

Nick rated it

Recommends it for: People with a critical mind

Ok, we get it. Religion is bad. Christianity is evil, Islam is maniacal, and all other religious zealots are out of their mind. I guess Dawkins is right...public hospitals, orphanages (both Christian inventions in the West), as well as communal values all have destroyed Occidental culture. I wish we still practiced 'exposing' infants (i.e. literally throwing out unwanted babies, as made popular by the ancients). Although there seems to be correlation between violence, homocide, and arrogance wit...more

like 29 likes

· see review

Dec 27, 2011

Paul marked it as to-read-nonfiction · review of another edition

TWO RANTS FOR THE PRICE OF ONE

Now, here's the thing about this author :

With friends like Richard Dawkins, who needs enemies?

Okay, i said it. Whew, I feel better. He's just so annoying, even when you agree with him. Grr.

Okay, well, so, some time ago I watched Richard's two documentaries "The Enemies of Reason" and "The Root of all Evil" so I should get round to this book at some point, but really, it's so hard to make any...more

like 28 likes

· see review

May 14, 2007

Richard rated it

Recommends it for: Everyone, but especially anyone religious.

I'm going to get the criticism out of the way before I move on to why I *love* this book.

Richard Dawkins is not an easy read. He never pulls a punch, and if any of the beliefs he is attacking in his book are yours then this is going to get your back up. Not for nothing was he passed over as a witness in the intelligent design trials in America. His appearance on the witness stand would probably have worked for the ID advocates as he pointed at every 'believer' in the room and bera...moreI'm going to get the criticism out of the way before I move on to why I *love* this book.

Richard Dawkins is not an easy read. He never pulls a punch, and if any of the beliefs he is attacking in his book are yours then this is going to get your back up. Not for nothing was he passed over as a witness in the intelligent design trials in America. His appearance on the witness stand would probably have worked for the ID advocates as he pointed at every 'believer' in the room and berated them for their gullibility and simple mindedness. The book tends to read at times like a diatribe which pummels you, and leaves you wanting to put the book down for ten minutes to get your breathe back.

However, having said that, I think this book is just fantastic. At times its a comedy masterpiece as he quotes various religious bodies, allowing them to shoot themselves in the foot by highlighting their own inconsistencies or the avoiding of debate. For instance, The Catholic Encyclopedia dismissing Atheism:

'Formal dogmatic atheism is self-refuting, and has never /de facto/ won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men. Nor can polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of the philosopher'

Why not? That isn't reasoning, beyond the simple 'I say it ain't so, so it ain't so'.

At other times the book is a very clear explanation of the evolutionary pathway which may have led to humans becoming susceptible to such simple fairy stories.

The second half of the book then concentrates on the downsides of religion and argues for all sensible, intelligent non-believers to make their voices heard, to help the scales fall from the eyes of those infected with faith.

What I particularly loved about this book is that I have been atheistic for many years (more than half my life, and I'm almost forty now), but this is the first time I've read a really coherent, well argued text on what is wrong with religion (all of them). The scientific approach to ripping down the pillars of faith probably won't achieve all that it should, faith being what it is. But it was an excellent read anyway.

(less)

like 39 likes

· see review

Dec 31, 2011

Carlo rated it

Shelves: evolution, non-fiction, religion, philosophy, favorites

Regardless of your religious beliefs, I urge you to read this book, if not for anything, only because it helps thinking critically in matters of religion, where many peoples are gullible to deception. Dawkins’ choice of the title – though I may not support it – shows how passionate he is for people. It is sad that most people don’t know much about their religions today, and although some may call that faith, I can’t help but call it ignorance. Many devout Christians, whom I personally know, hav...more

like 15 likes

· see review

view all 9 comments

Carlo Hi Tatiana. Thanks for the comment.

You may be aware that I used to be a believer. In fact, I was a believer in the same sense as you are.
...more
Feb 07, 2012 06:47am

Tatiana Oh, yes! And I totally respect your view as well. I believe that everyone thinks about these things in the way that makes most sense to them and all...more
17 hours, 46 min ago

May 30, 2008

Julian rated it

Reading The God Delusion took a while, but not because it’s long or somehow difficult. It is a jaunty text, in fact, and I found myself often stopping to ponder and/or revel in Richard Dawkins’ happy heathen insights. Also, I do much of my reading on the bus, and you never know when some surly Christian’s going to appear in the seat next to you.

Dawkins’ arguments for not believing in God or the “perfection” of the Bible (or the Koran or whatever basic religious text you please) a...more

like 24 likes

· see review

Feb 05, 2009

Manny rated it

Shelves: linguistics-and-philosophy, life-is-dante

I thought the very best point this book made came right at the beginning. Dawkins reports on surveys carried out in the US, where subjects received a description of an otherwise sympathetic political candidate, and were asked whether they would still vote for them if one extra feature were added. Would it still be OK if they were a woman? 90% or so say yes. Black? Yes. (Well, we have hard evidence on that now!) Gay? Most people still say yes. Atheist? Half the population says no! Considering tha...moreI thought the very best point this book made came right at the beginning. Dawkins reports on surveys carried out in the US, where subjects received a description of an otherwise sympathetic political candidate, and were asked whether they would still vote for them if one extra feature were added. Would it still be OK if they were a woman? 90% or so say yes. Black? Yes. (Well, we have hard evidence on that now!) Gay? Most people still say yes. Atheist? Half the population says no! Considering that many of the Founding Fathers had deep reservations about religion, this should sound warning bells. If we going to claim we believe in religious tolerance, surely that should include tolerance for people who don't belong to any religion and think it's all nonsense? Everyone bends over backwards to show understanding towards Christians, Muslims, Jews and what have you. Why not atheists? Dawkins just says what he honestly thinks, and doesn't see why he needs to be ashamed of it. Why should he?

I didn't like this book as much as The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor's Tale, but that's more because they are positive books celebrating the amazing beauty of the new universe that science, and in particular evolutionary theory, have opened up to us; this is a negative one, attacking the ugly and constricted world that many self-described "religious" people still choose to live in. Sometimes you need to be negative, though, and many deeply respected figures in the history of religion were negative about the prevailing orthodoxy. If Martin Luther had been a nicer guy, he'd probably never have offended so many good Catholics with all those unpleasant theses, and I bet the money-changers weren't particularly thrilled when Jesus threw them out of the Temple. As far as I'm concerned, Dawkins is in pretty good company.

*******************************************************

There has been so much discussion on this page that I am getting slightly lost. I'd love to think that I'd started it, but of course Dawkins gets all the credit. Still, I would like to expand on my initial review, and clarify my own position.

I admire this book, and Dawkins's stand in general, because I think he is being decisive about pointing out a very serious problem in the world today. Religion is in a state of crisis. Once upon a time, its job was both to explain to people how the world is, and also to tell them how to live in it. The first part of that mission has now been taken over by science. Dawkins is a scientist, and if you have scientific training it is impossible to take creationism and similar ideas seriously. It's very tiring even to discuss them. If someone told you the Moon was made of cheese, you wouldn't want to endlessly go back and forth over whether or not you'd thought about the fact that it could be Mozzarella, or possibly Vacherin, and that maybe that would solve the technical problems. The Moon obviously isn't made of any kind of cheese. Similar arguments apply to creationism. Religion has to get its act together and acknowledge that, on this particular ground, it has been supplanted by science.

If this were the only problem religion was facing, it wouldn't be so bad. Mainstream religion is, however, also being hijacked by some very unpleasant characters. I've been brought up in the Christian tradition, so it's easiest for me to talk about Christianity. I'm no theologian, but it is impossible for me to believe that most of the things you regularly hear from spokespeople of the Christian Right follow from the teachings of Jesus. For example, I once spent 30 unpleasant minutes leafing though Ann Coulter's Godless at a bookstore. This hysterical, bigoted stream of hatred has nothing to do with Christianity as it was conceived by its founder. Indeed, in most respects it is diametrically opposed to it. The scary thing is that the book was a major bestseller. I don't know Islam at all, but every now and then I chat with a moderate Muslim. It sounds like they are even more concerned with what's being done in the name of Mohammed.

So, it would be easy to conclude that religion is obsolete, and we should only rely on the teachings of science. I don't think that's correct. Science is only designed to tell us objective truths about the world; it doesn't have a conceptual apparatus for determining what we ought to do, as opposed to what is. I've been working in science for over 25 years, and most years I write at least a couple of grant proposals. If I were asked to write a grant proposal for a project that would use scientific techniques to compare the value of moral frameworks, I don't see how I could even get started. One of the key questions the funding authorities always ask is what objective metrics you will use. Where would these metrics come from? It's no use waving your hands and saying "philosophy". Which philosophy? For example, given that the Nazis were rather fond of him, I'm guessing that most people would prefer not to get Nietzche involved. But what objective reasons do we have for excluding Nietzche, rather than other philosophers?

I think most people who've read him would agree that Dawkins is a very moral person, and he isn't averse to moral principles that derive from traditional religion. He doesn't think this conflicts with being an atheist. (As he says, "Atheists for Jesus!"). My interpretation of all this is that it adds up to arguing for a massive reform in the way mainstream religion is organized; that's why I'm comparing him with other religious reformers like Martin Luther and Jesus. He'd probably find this annoying. But, if I may criticize him for just a moment, what goes around comes around :)

(less)

like 31 likes

· see review

May 03, 2007

Susan rated it

I just finished the book this weekend.
Although I don't like his derisive approach, and feel that he should have put the last chapters first (and done away with some of the opening pages), I have to say that I agree with his basic points. Where does this put me? In an interesting place to tell you the truth.

At the same time, I have to admit, following through with atheistic thought is much more comforting than I would have imagined. It gives responsibility back to me in a ...moreI just finished the book this weekend.
Although I don't like his derisive approach, and feel that he should have put the last chapters first (and done away with some of the opening pages), I have to say that I agree with his basic points. Where does this put me? In an interesting place to tell you the truth.

At the same time, I have to admit, following through with atheistic thought is much more comforting than I would have imagined. It gives responsibility back to me in a strange way, although Dawkins biologic determinism bothers me just like Calvinist determinism bothers me. Strange that it should be there on both sides.

Nevertheless, atheistic thought makes the every day even more precious. "Is this all there is? Becomes THIS is all there is, therefore make the most of it." It makes each person I love more precious, because time is short and I want every moment to be full of significance for NOW because all we have is now.

I did away with Christian soteriology a long time ago. As a result, the whole scaffolding for Christianity fell away and there was not much left except some moral teaching.

The only things I will hold on to (and don't we all hold on to some magical thinking) are those things that I cannot explain: my dreams (which, to my mind, have some significance beyond the brain cleaning itself out); my intuition (that has never seemed unusual to me but startles most people when they come in contact with it); my imagination (that startles me all the time!); my love for the fanciful and fantastic.

*******

I'm not finished yet. In the first 100 pages, Dawkins began with such derision and "straw man" arguments, that I was frustrated. I laughed out loud that he had to limit the definition of God to "supernatural." What if God isn't supernatural? And of course, he admits that a "pantheistic" God is acceptable yet still undefinable except as a metaphor.

I was amused, too, that he hates the "metaphorical god" vocabulary that Hawking and Einstein used. (Except for the fundamentalists, most people's concept of God is quite pantheistic. That is where religion is going and has been since the Transcendentalists. Karen Anderson would probably argue that it goes back further than that.The Feminist Spirituality movement would claim that that it goes all the way back to the "pre-patriarchal" time,and that the "patriarchal religion blip," though it has caused much chaos and suffering, is going away. Of course the Feminists are all over the "political" background of monotheistic religions.

I am of the opinion that it wouldn't take science to persuade "fundamentalists" of their delusion. I think it has to do more with the political/historical/anthropological/psychological aspects to persuade them. It also has to do with using their vocabulary. Perhaps he gets to this later in the book.

I wish Dawkins were in further conversation with psychologists about some of his assertions. I feel conversations with some of the more recent developments/ideas in psychology as it has to do with what some call "spiritual emergency" and others merely call "psychotic break" would help his cause and give him a more sophisticated vocabulary with which to work.

But after 100 pages, Dawkins seems to finally gotten down to business with less vitriol and embarrassing comments (such as his comment about "if we are gullible, we don't recognize hallucinations or lucid dreaming for what it is, . . . . especially if we are young, female, and Catholic.") and more substance and intelligence. He finally brings into his the work of theologians that is scholarly. He is acknowledging the roles of anthropology, sociology, and psychology. (less)

like 13 likes

· see review

Mar 08, 2010

Keely rated it

Shelves: non-fiction, religion, science, reviewed

The senior Bush once said, during his presidency, that atheists should not be considered citizens of the United States. He expressed that he thought it was not only allowable but desirable to exclude people from the rights and protections of their country, not because they posed a danger or had committed any crime, but because of how they saw the world.

Athiests have been ranked as one of the least trusted groups, and the oft-repeated notion that atheism is the same as amorality is al...more

like 11 likes

· see review

Jul 11, 2011

notgettingenough added it

Shelves: haven-t-read-but

I don't particularly understand why scientists like Dawkins lost their civility and with it, for me, their credibility, but I am relieved to see that it is possible for a non-abusive discussion on these matters to take place:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmic...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/religion/...

In contrast we have one of those hilarious Guardian headlines:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/s...

'Stephen Hawking says unive...more

like 11 likes

· see review

Jan 30, 2012

Christian rated it

Recommends it for: Everyone and their mother

Shelves: philosophy, non-fiction

One of the best non-fiction book I've ever read. Actually, one of the best book I've ever read period. Dawkins is well-researched and has a good prose. He has a thorough analysis that is to the point, and although he is on a few occasions slightly speculative, he sets his argumentative boundaries very well and explains what he argues and what he supposes or tentatively explores for the sake of expanding the discussion to get a broader picture.

The point of the book is spelled out pre...moreOne of the best non-fiction book I've ever read. Actually, one of the best book I've ever read period. Dawkins is well-researched and has a good prose. He has a thorough analysis that is to the point, and although he is on a few occasions slightly speculative, he sets his argumentative boundaries very well and explains what he argues and what he supposes or tentatively explores for the sake of expanding the discussion to get a broader picture.

The point of the book is spelled out pretty early and is to give people who believe in God (or in the need of the supernatural / suprahuman to set their morals or give themselves purpose or hope) the tools to do away with this myth that was perpetuated through millennia for the wrong reasons.

His chapters, sub-divisions and thoughts are very well-structured and he starts by pointing out the undue respect people offer religion. This protective aura that anything remotely religious gets from people, the media, to the government and legislation. Why should religion get automatic respect?

He later makes an argument for the high probability that God does not actually exists, by first rebuking the classical 'proofs' of God and advancing the more robust hypothesis that there almost certainly is no God. He also reveals a few truths about the writing of the Bible and other religious books and picks apart the Bible in particular as Christians' supposed ultimate truth when it comes to advancing moral values and setting an example for the way to lead one's life. He argues that even devout religious people do not take their morals from the Holy book, because firstly, most of them have not actually read it, and that the ones that have or know more about its content pick and choice what is relevant to their lives with their own set of right and wrong morals. Why then pretend that the Bible or Word of God is the be-all end-all or should even be the basis of any moral system?

I was raised catholic, turned agnostic as a teenager and was heavily leaning towards atheist. I went to explore other religions, traveled, read and had many discussions to find answers. This book opened my eyes to things I had never before came across in the extend in which religion has been controlling many aspects of our private and common lives for centuries. It also puts light on what the real questions should be to have real answers to such treacherous territory and many people being misinformed while others have vested self-interest. His argument for the unlikelihood of God, if you can properly follow it without a clouded, pre-convinced judgment is very convincing. He does not only convince you, but he makes you ask yourself the right questions.

Even more reaching than this pretty crucial element of the book is his later analysis on what religious upbringing brings to our children as a society, namely that they are not allowed to think for themselves when it come to the 'word of God.' That they should lead their lives without ever questioning this aspect of their 'heritage.' He makes a case that children are not able to make such decisions early on in their lives and that it is actually a form of mental child abuse to indoctrinate them an early age an label them as Jewish kid, Catholic girls or Muslim boy if they were never given the openness and opportunity to make up their own mind with the right unbiased information in the first place.

This book is not perfect in any way, yet if you had to judge it by the task it set itself out to do and the result he was able to raise, he far than exceeded what was intend. Hopefully this book will also make you see the hidden and not so hidden problems and dangers religion and faith has and continue to affect our human society in a subversive and supremacist way. One hopes that more people, like Dawkins will openly stand up against this chokehold of religion and liberate us from this calamity for the better good of all like we progressively did slavery centuries ago and are still working on discrimination against sex, sexual orientation, culture, physical traits or attributes and child abuse!
(less)

like 7 likes

· see review

Aug 17, 2008

Darrell rated it

Shelves: reviewed

Dawkins starts out by citing a recent statistic that shows atheists are the most discriminated against group today. Declaring yourself an atheist in America is political suicide. George Bush the elder once said atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens. People have lost their jobs, lost their spouses, and one man even lost his life simply for being an atheist. Afraid of losing their friends and having family members turn against them, there are many atheists who are afraid to "come out...moreDawkins starts out by citing a recent statistic that shows atheists are the most discriminated against group today. Declaring yourself an atheist in America is political suicide. George Bush the elder once said atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens. People have lost their jobs, lost their spouses, and one man even lost his life simply for being an atheist. Afraid of losing their friends and having family members turn against them, there are many atheists who are afraid to "come out of the closet" about their atheism and continue going to church in fear of being found out. Other atheists keep their lack of believe under wraps so they won't be considered arrogant.

Dawkins tells us that, like homosexuals, atheists should have pride in themselves instead of being ashamed. Dawkins also notes that there are more atheists in America than Jews, and yet Jews have tremendous political clout while atheists have none. (If you doubt this consider the amount of money the US sends to Israel.)

Dawkins makes the case for atheism by systematically tearing apart all arguments against it. He demonstrates that all the so-called proofs of God's existence don't really prove anything and counters with his own proof that God almost certainly doesn't exist (he stops short of saying God definitely doesn't exist). He also points out that everybody is an atheist in some sense. Even the most religious people in the world don't believe in Zeus or Thor. Any argument that can be used to convince someone to believe in God can be equally applied to Greek or Egyptian gods, yet this doesn't convince any Christian to convert to the worship of Osiris.

He covers a lot of the same ground Sam Harris did in Letter To A Christian Nation, and in fact quotes from Harris quite a bit. However, since Richard Dawkins is a biologist, he goes on to explain how religion is a by-product of Darwinian natural selection and explains it using evolutionary psychology.

To those who say atheists have no sense of right and wrong, he brings up examples from nature showing that evolution instills a sense of altruism into animals. If animals can be kind to each other without religion, why should humans require it? Besides, the morals taught in the Bible (such as putting a child to death if he disobeys his parents, or putting a man to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath) are not the morals we live by today. Christians don't believe in Biblical morality any more than atheists do. Our own internal sense of right and wrong derived from evolution is what really guides us, not an allegedly "good book" which encourages genocide (Joshua 6:21 among others).

Dawkins destroys the current myth that the founding fathers of America were Christian with several quotes from our founding fathers in which they warn us of the dangers of Christianity and insist that America is not a Christian nation. He also destroys the myth of Hitler being an atheist with quotes from Hitler showing rather definitively he considered himself a Catholic and crusaded against the Jews because he blamed them for Jesus’ death. It's interesting to note that the Pope at the time repeatedly refused to denounce Nazism.

The wonders of science are so fascinating that we don't need religion to instill a sense of wonder or awe into our lives. In fact, as hardly needs pointing out, religion can be a danger from people who kill doctors for performing abortions to suicide bombers. George Bush the younger said he invaded Iraq because God told him to. Taking God away won't automatically make everybody good, but it certainly won't make everybody turn evil either, and in fact, it will likely improve the stability and overall morality of society.

This book will make atheists proud to be atheist and maybe even convince some to "come out of the closet."(less)

like 19 likes

· see review

Dec 02, 2008

Natalie rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: favorites, she-blinded-me-with-science, god-is-dead

I'm a part of the atheist choir to which Dawkins is preaching; but I honestly believe that this book might change a religious person's mind, if they bothered to pick it up (I've been hearing a lot about how many religious congregations are condemning Dawkins's work as a tool of Satan). It's full of scientific goodness, and refutations of common defenses of religion and attacks upon atheism. Suddenly, I don't feel so alone.

It's well known how many horrors are perpetrated in the na...more

like 20 likes

· see review

Jun 28, 2008

Natali rated it

I am so thankful for this book. When reading Dawkins' deconstruction of religion, I felt as though he was articulating thoughts I had thought in some form or fashion throughout my entire oppressively religious upbringing. I had notions of these things but never was able to present them to myself quite as logically.

The God Delusion addresses just about every religious argument I've ever heard in a convincing and organized manner. Each chapter builds on the same argument fluidly and c...more

like 14 likes

· see review

Aug 02, 2008

James rated it

Shelves: important, social-critique

This book was a dramatic disappointment that did not live up to the "finally someone has proven religion is poppycock" hype it received. Dawkins fails utterly to tear down any meaningful experience of religion, instead he merely reinforces the petty grudges that some atheists have against religion, grudges that betray one's own lack of spiritual maturity and suggest a deeper ailment at work.

It's a shame. I saved up my energy to read the radical atheism espoused in Richard ...moreThis book was a dramatic disappointment that did not live up to the "finally someone has proven religion is poppycock" hype it received. Dawkins fails utterly to tear down any meaningful experience of religion, instead he merely reinforces the petty grudges that some atheists have against religion, grudges that betray one's own lack of spiritual maturity and suggest a deeper ailment at work.

It's a shame. I saved up my energy to read the radical atheism espoused in Richard Dawkins' The GOD Delusion. As a man of faith with a passionate interest in science, I understand -- and personally experience -- both sides of the God vs. science debate. Dawkins' book was such a smash hit that I anticipated it would contain some powerful new arguments that would lead me to days or even weeks worth of pondering. Sadly, it did not. The bulk of his attack centers on disproving the arguments that religious apologists have offered to justify God's existence. But those arguments were never very satisfying to believers, much less nonbelievers, so seeing them dismantled triggers a yawn instead of thoughtful introspection.

His arguments lack imagination and often fall into cheap mockery rather than intelligent reasoning. (Note: it's amusing to see how a man who triumphs rationality would resort to so many tawdry taunts to make his point. If God can be disproven rationally, why must he fall to such ad hominem rhetorical tactics? Methinks he doth mock too much.)

Most disappointing, Dawkins attempts to discredit the subjective experience of God by asserting that there are lots of crazy people out there, and the religious must simply be afflicted with a form of mental illness. He does this in a single paragraph, even tossing in a sentence linking personal religious experience to epilepsy. This is not just lack of imagination, it's intellectual dishonesty. Either he is simply not smart enough to parse the difference between real spiritual experience and mental illness, or, more likely, he has chosen to lump all subjective experience of the divine in with insantiy as a cheap way to escape grappling with the amazing variety of spiritual experience average believers have on a regular basis.

Admittedly, there is a third alternative. Maybe religious experience is simply outside of his capability to perceive it. Like a person born without the ability to taste, Dawkins is unable to relate to religious experiences because he can't savor them himself. As a result, he can't understand why so many around him are enraptured by the delights of the present feast because sample as he might, he cannot taste a thing. That's why it's so easy for him to dismiss subjective experience -- because he doesn't have any.

The book is worth the read just so you know what all the hubub is about and so you can understand that modern atheism as represented by Dawkins is a bland meal. Perhaps a little "salt of the earth" would help?(less)

like 24 likes

· see review

Dec 07, 2007

Trevor rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: evolution, philosophy, religion, social-theory

I've had a love / hate relationship with Dawkins over the years. I didn't really like his The Selfish Gene, mostly because I think it tries to explain things on the wrong scale. I quite like his meme metaphor, but think people like Dennett take it too far by forgetting it is a metaphor. The Blind Watchmaker has that long (and dull) bit at the end about computer program insects that is just too painful to read. And then there is the ongoing fight between him and Stephen J Gould. I always lov...moreI've had a love / hate relationship with Dawkins over the years. I didn't really like his The Selfish Gene, mostly because I think it tries to explain things on the wrong scale. I quite like his meme metaphor, but think people like Dennett take it too far by forgetting it is a metaphor. The Blind Watchmaker has that long (and dull) bit at the end about computer program insects that is just too painful to read. And then there is the ongoing fight between him and Stephen J Gould. I always loved Gould's writing and (as shallow as this sounds) would have picked him over Dawkins for that alone. But Gould's last book in which he claimed science and religion are complementary was a sad and unforgivable mistake by a truly great man. Dawkins is never likely to make that same mistake.

I was brought up an atheist and so am fascinated that people can actually believe in religion. It literally shocks me when people say they believe in God or that they are religious. Not so much if I think the people are basically stupid, but much more so if I think they seem relatively intelligent. For a long time I used to believe that when people said they believed I thought they were being disingenuous. It was only after reading the Bible and talking to 'Christians' that I realised that many people don't believe in religion at all - well, not in Australia at least. People who consider themselves Christian often know virtually nothing of the New Testiment and nothing at all of the Old. People just assume that the Bible is a book of moral instruction. That is what I thought it was going to be when I started reading it. I was shocked to find that it was anything but.

Dawkins's book is a good introduction to some of the less well known and much less morally instructional stories in the Bible - and for this alone it serves a worthy purpose.

I was talking to a friend yesterday about an article in the paper about global warming and what needs to happen if we are to save the planet. He said, "Let's just hope the climate sceptics are right, because the US believes Jesus is coming back to fix things up - so they won't do anything about climate change." This might be overstating the problem, but unfortunately, not overstating it enough. Religion is a danger to our existence we can no longer afford.

There is part of me that understands that religion offers lots of comfort to lots of people in the world and I never feel quite right taking that comfort away from people - particularly when I've nothing to offer in return. It feels almost like telling a five year old there is no Santa. But at other times I feel much as Dawkins does - that there is simply too much at stake to leave the fate of the world in the hands of people who believe in sky gods who are coming to fix things. God is Not Great is probably a better book - but since this one explains evolutionary biology too and in terms, surely, even a creationist can understand, I would have to recommend it.

The more frightened I become about the future we will be leaving our children, the more opposed to religion I become.(less)

like 17 likes

· see review

Jan 19, 2008

Nathan Greenwood rated it

I wish I could give the same high praise for Dawkins' "The God Delusion" that I gave "The Selfish Gene". The only fault I found with Selfish Gene was that he jumped to the conclusion that because natural selection is true....there is no God. He failed to go into detail as to why he thought so in that book and strives (rather poorly) to do so in "The God Delusion".
If you're like me, you would read this expecting something like "A=B and B=C, therefore A...moreI wish I could give the same high praise for Dawkins' "The God Delusion" that I gave "The Selfish Gene". The only fault I found with Selfish Gene was that he jumped to the conclusion that because natural selection is true....there is no God. He failed to go into detail as to why he thought so in that book and strives (rather poorly) to do so in "The God Delusion".
If you're like me, you would read this expecting something like "A=B and B=C, therefore A=C". You won't find anything like that in this book. Instead, you'll find "A=B.....therefore B=C". Dawkins simply fails to link modern scientific discovery/truths with atheism.
Dawkins also targets Christianity specifically. In so doing he uses the absolute worst examples he could in order to help make Christianity/religion look all the more ridiculous. He uses the Ontological Argument and the Bayesian Argument (in addition to several other arguments I've never heard and found embarrassing). It didn't surprise me at all that he swept Pascal's Wager under the rug in just a few short paragraphs (it is perhaps the best rational argument in Christianity's defense). His cowardice in dealing with it head-on is unimpressive (though to have done so would have put an end to his bitching). He also uses examples such as Jerry Falwell against Christianity. If extra-terrestrials, when deciding to exterminate human life from Earth or share their technology with us, used Adolf Hitler as their mascot for humanity (the way Dawkins focuses on the worst examples of Christianity) we'd all be dead.
The bottom line is that science will never prove that God does not exist (nor will it ever prove that He does exist). What science can do (and has done) is prove that silly and ancient imaginings like creationism, the Earth being only 5000 yrs old, Lucifer planting fake dinosaur bones in the earth to deceive the masses, that are solely rooted in ignorant human attempts to explain what was then unexplainable) false! While some might take the creation of Adam and Eve literally, I do not. Nor do I think any Christian should. For those who do, a reading of Chapter 4 in Genesis should be eye-opening (let alone uncomfortable). Jews, in real life and in the Old-Testament, are very....up-tight when it comes to lineages. We read in that chapter that Cain kills Abel. As a result, Cain is banished. Cain pleads with God saying, "all who see me will try to kill me!" (All!?!?! Who would that be?!?!? Adam and Eve?) God confirms saying that seven times Cain's punishment would go to anyone who tried to do so and put a mark on Cain's head to warn all others. In verse 17 we read that Cain's wife gave birth to a son! (Wife!?!?! Did he whip out the wand he got from Hogwart's Academy and cast himself one?) Then, just when you think that perhaps Adam and Eve did have other kids but they weren't worth mentioning Chapter 4 leaves us with the birth of Adam and Eve's third child, Seth. What is more, the Bible describes the creation of Adam as God dipping his finger into the dust of the earth, forming his body, and then breathing life into it. If you ask me, there was no better way to explain evolution to a bunch of Hebrew slaves 3,500 years ago who knew nothing more than how to make bricks out of mud and straw!
The only way to approach religion/Christianity rationally is by way of Pascal's Wager (which is why so called "(pseudo)intellectuals" stay away from dealing with it. I'm running short on characters, so I'll stick to Atheism. If there is no God/no after-life, then the atheist and the Christian both amount to maggot food. If the Christian God is true then the Christian goes to heaven and the atheist to hell. That's what we call a "no-brainer" in the land of common-sense. If I were an atheist, I'd strive for enough humility to fall to my knees and pray for genuine faith in whatever is true. Jesus says, "I stand at the door and knock..." (less)

like 6 likes

· see review

Jan 19, 2008

Julia rated it

Shelves: apologetics

Witty and well-written, Dawkins is obviously well-read and an intelligent force in the atheist movement.

Even so, his book did not sway me towards the atheist worldview, at all. Which surprised me. I expected at least a bit of a philosophical struggle to work through. Instead I found cherry-picked examples of the horrors produced by "religion", plenty of witty insults lacking real substance, a few astonishing and unsupported claims ("[Religion] teaches us that it is ...moreWitty and well-written, Dawkins is obviously well-read and an intelligent force in the atheist movement.

Even so, his book did not sway me towards the atheist worldview, at all. Which surprised me. I expected at least a bit of a philosophical struggle to work through. Instead I found cherry-picked examples of the horrors produced by "religion", plenty of witty insults lacking real substance, a few astonishing and unsupported claims ("[Religion] teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.") and lots of personal hypotheses.

About halfway through the book I realized that part of my problem is that Dawkins holds such a completely separate worldview than me. I do feel that many of his points against specific religions and religious sects are valid and of course his points against people that do unspeakable acts in the name of their religion (like abortion doctor murderers) are also valid. But for me personally, the fact that humans can think and do weird/bad things in the name of religion does not negate the possibility that at least one religious worldview has got it right. If you are ambivalent about religion to start with (agnostic) you may find Dawkins making more sense to you. But if, like me, you already hold to one specific belief system, you will not find much meat to chew on.

In the last few chapters, Dawkins seems to ease up on the bullying and his compassionate side really shines through. Here we see just why he is so militant against religion (people emotionally scarred by excessive fears of hell, the hideous antics of "Christian" demonstrators, quotes by "Christian" leaders like Pat Robertson). I definitely found myself relating to this indignation and wanting to do something about it!

What Dawkins fails to realize, though, is that atheism/secular humanism/naturalism is just another religious worldview and one, in my opinion and experience, that is as wrong and incompatible with the actual world as so many others. Throughout my entire reading of the book one phrase kept coming to mind: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!(less)

like 17 likes

· see review

Oct 01, 2007

-uht! rated it

Shelves: religion

Okay, so it starts off very dismissive, pedantic, and dickish, but in the last half, this book totally grew on me. There is some really decent information in here that could've only been written by Dawkins. I really had to get through about 150 or 200 pages to anything that spoke to me, but I really dug the section "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God" and especially loved the section on religious memes, comparing them to the selfish gene. Also very fascinating was the section on "...more

like 7 likes

· see review

Dec 20, 2011

Natalie rated it

· review of another edition

I found the book disappointing.

Its not controversial, its a polemizing blow to the author's own trumpet. Richard Dawkins is a sophisticated man. Who likes to show it. Through every line of the book.

I also agree with Chris Curtis's review. Chapter 8 is as brilliant as the NY-Times reviewers think the whole book is.

The idea of Religions being the only thing able to turn a good man into doing evil things, is not new. Richard Dawkins just put his new words on an old ...more

like 4 likes

· see review

Jan 14, 2008

Jasper rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Nobody

Shelves: non-fiction

As an agnostic I can wholeheartedly promise you that this book is so tedious it will reduce you to tears. He debunks God as a concept and in the process completely misses the point of God. He then just carries on repeating himself through chapter after chapter after boring chapter. If there really was a god, he wouldn't allow people like this idiot to write mind numbing drivel and then market it with tacky gimmicks like the "Come all ye faithless" Christmas Card I got with mine....I sh...more

like 19 likes

· see review

Feb 01, 2011

Erik Graff rated it

Recommends it for: biblical inerrancists

Recommended to Erik by: A.M.

Shelves: religion

When others throw such words as "god" or "spiritual" or "soul" into their conversation I must ask them what they're talking about unless the context is clear. Unchurched, when I was a kid I thought they all meant something, something obscure to me, but still significant. Feeling ignorant and ashamed of this, I generally would let such remarks pass, but they haunted me.

The study of Latin in high school was a start in unpacking such nebulous words via et...moreWhen others throw such words as "god" or "spiritual" or "soul" into their conversation I must ask them what they're talking about unless the context is clear. Unchurched, when I was a kid I thought they all meant something, something obscure to me, but still significant. Feeling ignorant and ashamed of this, I generally would let such remarks pass, but they haunted me.

The study of Latin in high school was a start in unpacking such nebulous words via etymology. I was lousy at Latin, good at effortlessly retaining word roots. In college this interest expanded into Greek and German. "Spirit", I learned, was a wind or breath word which came in its various forms to be associated with life and its principles. That made sense. "God" was more obscure, becoming even more nebulous upon my first reading of the bible. There the concept seemed more a whole host of concepts bearing what Wittgenstein called "a family resemblance" to one another, concepts ranging from war host(s) to clan leader to monarch within contexts ranging from polytheism and henotheism to monotheism and even to the neo-Platonic theory of forms. "God", in its biblical reference at least, was nebulous certainly, but one could discern discreet elements to the cloud of metaphors and concepts.

I got a degree in religion in college, went on to four years of seminary, proceeded to degrees in depth psychology and philosophy, read and continued to read quite a lot about religions, theologies and metaphysics. Along the way, on a few occasions, I even encountered a few apparently non-human, but intelligent, entities, some by my own intention via "consciousness-expanding" drugs, some quite by surprise--enough, in any case, to appreciate the possible experiential bases for belief in such extraordinary entities.

Then, of course, there are dreams. We, all of us, dream and meet in our dreams hosts of apparently non-human, but intelligent entities. We don't, however, generally take our dreams very seriously as witness my treating them in the possessive. We, in our culture, tend to treat dream contents as derivatives of waking life. This has not always been the case, nor is it the case in all cultures. I paid a lot of attention to dreams, keeping daily records of them for at least six years, reading books about dream theory.

Dawkins, unfortunately, appears to have done very little study about any of this. He is upset by the religious right and has at least perused the bible. Reading it as a biblical inerrancist might, he is understandably quite upset. In addition to this, he has also paid some attention to some of the histories of doctrinal orthodoxies in the Christian tradition. There, too, he has been upset by both the conceits of medieval metaphysicians and the intrinsic authoritarianism of the whole mindset. I share these concerns, but have the psychologist's concern to understand whence such doctrinaire
authoritarianisms come from, a concern which, for him, seems to start and end with the observation that many people are either thoughtlessly insecure or cravenly prone to prey on the insecurities and ignorance of others. There are plenty of instances of such to be sure, as witness cynical manipulators like his fellow atheist Karl Rove, but there's more to all of this religion business than that and his simplistic and insulting dismissal of the religious is unlikely to give him much of a hearing among the people he wishes to convert.

Dawkins is a scientist and modern science has prejudices which, while heuristically productive, are limiting. They include (1) a preference for the quantifiable, (2) a rejection of phenomena which are not etiologically reproducible, and (3) a rejection of models of causality which are not etiological. The domains within which these assumptions are profitably employable are many and broad, but they are not exhaustive and they have very little direct bearing on how we experience our lives day to day. While such methods can be, and are, applied to the phenomenology of religious experience, the experience of, say, parapsychological research seems to indicate that some very real phenomena are not--not now at least--replicable. Perhaps they are just too complex, just as god-concepts which try to represent what amounts to the philosophical interpretation of the world must needs be complex and variable.

One of the possible etymologies of "religion" pertains to paying due reverence to ancestors and traditions, much as is found in ancient Roman religion and modern Shinto. While many traditions taught in comparative religion courses are atheistic (classical Buddhism for one), "our" tradition in the West has been predominately tied to one or more kinds of theism for quite some time. If it is okay to treat such precursors as Copernicus or Galileo or Newton or Darwin as revered contributors to our modern scientific interpretations of the the world, then too it should be appropriate to pay a bit more reverence for and attention to the theologians, their circumstances, their evidences, their methods and their interpretations.(less)

like 10 likes

· see review

Nov 20, 2008

Jarrod Jenkins rated it

Shelves: nonfiction

This book knocked me on my ass. I originally read it planning to strengthen my faith. I reasoned that if I could understand the best arguments against God and still retain faith, then mine would be that much stronger. Moreover, if we truly believe what we claim we do, then we shouldn't be unwilling or afraid to explore those beliefs.

The question of whether or not there is a God is the biggest one of our lives. The answer changes everything. Dawkins says that God does not exist because...moreThis book knocked me on my ass. I originally read it planning to strengthen my faith. I reasoned that if I could understand the best arguments against God and still retain faith, then mine would be that much stronger. Moreover, if we truly believe what we claim we do, then we shouldn't be unwilling or afraid to explore those beliefs.

The question of whether or not there is a God is the biggest one of our lives. The answer changes everything. Dawkins says that God does not exist because there is zero evidence for such a being. He puts the burden of proof where it belongs: on the party making the positive claim. You can never prove a negative. (E.g., Prove that there isn't a giant, invisible tea pot floating around Jupiter. Prove that God isn't actually a Flying Spaghetti Monster with noodly appendages.) He also attacks faith--which he refers to as blind belief based on nothing--as a vice. He submits that people do not show faith in any other area of their lives. Rather, they behave and modify their behavior based on tangible evidence as it becomes available.

Dawkins further claims that all the religions of the world are wrong and misguided. Just because people want God to exist doesn't mean he does. Dawkins treats religion as an example of a Darwinian survival trait gone wrong. Children who listen to their parents are more likely to survive. For example, the kid who ignores warnings about hot stoves, high cliffs, or dangerous animals is more likely to die, thereby failing to pass on his genes. Dawkins stipulates that religion survives because people's parents told them to believe it--and most do.

I think Dawkins exaggerates the harm that religion has caused in the world and ignores the good it has brought. Obviously, religious fanatics unwilling to compromise their beliefs and perfectly willing to behave violently are a problem. D'Souza makes two points about this. 1. These people misrepresent religion. It's like blaming automobile manufacturers for drunk driving accidents. 2. The evil actions of atheists are at least on par with--and probably surpass--those of theists. I would add the ideas that human life is sacred, the Golden Rule, human equality and dignity, and the existence of absolute moral truths have their bases in religion. It's difficult if not impossible to preserve certain aspects of religion and throw out the rest; you're tossing the baby with the bathwater. Dawkins seems to want to keep all the aspects of religion he likes while ignoring the inconvenient things like obligation, self-restraint, and ultimate right and wrong that spoil his fun.

I also don't believe that religious people are psychologically maladjusted. Belief is not a sickness or delusion, and his claim to the contrary overstates the case. He is on his strongest ground when he's espousing the low probability of a supreme being. He doesn't claim the probability to be absolutely 0, but it's close enough.

The implications of his conclusion are still terrifying, and I find myself convinced but disturbed. Dawkins spends so much energy destroying belief and faith that he doesn't have enough to replace the destruction with anything. He says that atheism is liberating and exciting because you learn to appreciate these precious moments even more. I disagree. I don't feel liberated or excited, I feel tired and willing to succumb to nihilism. What's the point of anything if there is no God? Why be good? Is there even any such thing as "good?" Nothing matters at all; why not commit suicide? As Dostoevsky put it in The Brothers Karamazov, "Anything is permissible if there is no God." What's the basis of morality without God? If I rape Dawkins's girlfriend (or boyfriend, I'm still unsure about which way he swings, but South Park seems to think he likes boys) and kill her, he would surely believe, "That's wrong." But isn't he merely saying that he's not particularly fond of my actions? The universal claim "that's wrong" is very different than saying "I don't happen to like that." How can he possibly turn the latter into the former without God? By what standard does he make a sweeping claim that something or anything is right or wrong? And what if I don't agree with that standard? Wouldn't might make right in nature? Shouldn't we just do whatever we can get away with? Assume Dawkins and I are alone in a field, and I say it's ok for me to kill him while he says it's not. How do we resolve our disagreement? If I succeed in killing him do I then automatically become right because the person arguing that I'm wrong no longer exists?

These are the questions for which I find Dawkins short on answers. He believes that it will all just work out, and people will behave themselves out of enlightened self-interest. The tyrannies and genocides of the 20th century expose the wishful nature of this thinking and force Dawkins into the ludicrous position that Stalin's Soviet Union became a kind of religion of its own. That line of argument stretches reason beyond its breaking point.

Along the same lines, Dawkins places much faith in the explanatory power of evolution. It may explain morality and provide answers to the above questions (i.e., actions that promote the survival of our species are moral, and actions that risk the survival of our species are immoral or "sins"). From personal experience since reading this book, it seems entirely plausible to me that a belief in a higher power helps promote the survival of our species. Believers seem so happy. They have purpose and something to live for. They can celebrate their bringing new life into this world, and take comfort in the warm blanket of God's eternal Truth. They procreate with abandon.

Atheists have no respite, save some Sisyphean smiles, from the brutality of nature. If there is no afterlife, no absolute moral truth, nothing to live and struggle for, then suicide is at least one rational option. That option's appeal only grows when the cynical humor poked at the absurd turns stale. Why endure suffering if it can all be ended? ("[B]y a sleep to say we end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to—'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep...") A simple cost-benefit analysis would indicate that once the balance of one's life tips in favor of unhappiness over happiness, the game is no longer worth playing. Is the balance tipped when one must work 5 days out of 7 at a job he hates? If so, quite a few of us are doomed.

This book made me depressed for a considerable time after reading it. In conversations with friends, I would say things like, "Life is an unwelcome imposition upon my nonexistence. I didn't ask for it, I don't want it, and, thankfully, soon enough, it will be over." And I certainly felt (still feel?) that bringing a child into a doomed existence and a senseless universe is highly irresponsible. Speaking with nonbelievers, this seems to be a common sentiment, though I have no polling data. Thus it seems that atheism leads some, if not many, to depression and/or nihilistic attitudes, which in turn lead to a desire to escape feelings of misery, which in turn lead to desire for "sleep," a refusal to bear children, and ultimately a decline in human population.

All this is to say that if morality's roots are to be found in evolution and the promotion of our species, atheism is a powerfully immoral idea to the extent that it decreases fertility rates and accelerates a "shuffling off this mortal coil." But perhaps Dawkins isn't particularly concerned with humanity at all. If not, how pernicious his assault on it has been.(less)

like 5 likes

· see review

Oct 23, 2008

Aisha rated it

Recommends it for: No one

Shelves: never-to-be-finished, day-after-tomorrow-burn-for-heat

I have decided to fully give up on this book. It makes me feel bad. I feel I should finish it, with my interest in religion. I should know what the atheists believe are the reasons for no God, should know what their arguments are against the existence of God. But this book is just so awful I cannot take it any more.

According to the author, in the beginning he boats that, if you are a religious person, by the end of the book, you will become an atheist. Not only did this not work on ...more

like 11 likes

· see review

Jan 27, 2008

Pamela rated it

Recommends it for: Inquiring minds

Richard Dawkins may provide lifelong atheists like me some much-needed moral support in his wide-ranging, witty, and intelligent screed The God Delusion, but this book isn’t really for us. Deeply religious people might profit from reading it, but it isn’t really for them, either, and they’re probably the least likely ever to pick this book up. Dawkins is aiming at people who have their doubts about religion but see no easy way to reject it or to separate themselves from it.

He tackles...moreRichard Dawkins may provide lifelong atheists like me some much-needed moral support in his wide-ranging, witty, and intelligent screed The God Delusion, but this book isn’t really for us. Deeply religious people might profit from reading it, but it isn’t really for them, either, and they’re probably the least likely ever to pick this book up. Dawkins is aiming at people who have their doubts about religion but see no easy way to reject it or to separate themselves from it.

He tackles the familiar arguments for religion, among them the ontological proof and the argument from design, uses natural selection and evolutionary theory to construct an argument against God’s likely existence, and attacks the claims of religion to be any kind of useful guide to morals. Many religious people, and even some who harbor doubts, cling to a particular faith largely because it was the one in which they were raised, and also because it provides them with a social system, usually one with very strong bonds in the case of traditional or fundamentalist religions. (Dawkins points out in his introduction that atheists, secular humanists, and freethinkers, independent sorts who are extremely distrustful of authority, haven’t organized the kinds of social structures that might compete with religions here.) Another reason for religion is as a basis for morals; too many people assume that ethics must be grounded in an absolute, such as God, and that only immorality can result from rejecting such belief; in other words, goodness requires God. Dawkins demolishes such claims and along the way recounts several lurid Bible stories that show just how unsuited that Bronze Age document for pastoral tribespeople is as any kind of guide to morality. One might just as well be guided by The Secret History of the Mongols, and the New Testament, with its doctrine of atonement, isn’t much better. Dawkins’s most controversial claim may be that religious indoctrination, especially of the more rigid, fundamentalist variety, constitutes a form of child abuse (anyone who doubts this might check out the recent documentary “Jesus Camp” and view the obvious mental torment of the children in the movie) and also teaches the child that certain things shouldn’t be questioned—about the last attitude any truly open advanced technological society should be encouraging.

Dawkins points out that he is not advocating getting rid of all religious artifacts and practices. Celebrating Christmas or Passover preserves treasured cultural customs (Dawkins has admitted in a recent interview that he enjoy Christmas carols), and Dawkins notes that the appreciation of much Western literature requires a grounding in the Bible as literature. (My very limited acquaintance with literature in predominantly Muslim countries indicates that a thorough knowledge of the Qur’an may be very useful there as well.) In any case, it isn’t usually freethinkers who go around destroying art or music, religiously inspired as much of it is, but those who are most closely wedded to rigid religious beliefs.

Some will think Dawkins has been extremely rude (to put it mildly) in this lively polemic. I disagree. Living in a country where religion is affecting social policy for the worse, “intelligent design” crackpots are threatening our educational system (we have enough trouble educating our children in science as it is), an atheist neighbor of mine is careful not to reveal her beliefs to many of the people she knows while the religious never miss a chance to get in one’s face about their beliefs (and I live in a relatively progressive region), while those running for political office are pretty much required to profess belief in a religion, we would be far better off with more skeptics.
(less)

like 6 likes

· see review

Dec 20, 2007

Alex rated it

Of the many atheist manifestos to hit the shelves within the past few years—among them, The End of Faith, Breaking the Spell, and God is Not Great—none have been so deliciously rewarding as The God Delusion, by the world-renowned evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins.

It's to his credit that Dawkins has never been concerned with the tactics of the science vs. faith debate, with strategic savvy and political niceties, but simply with determining what is true. He believes that the "...more

like 8 likes

· see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
agnostic: the way to go.	79	97	Feb 07, 2012 02:28am
the moral zeitgest BS	5	72	Dec 22, 2011 05:39am
Who has money on Pascal's Wager?	90	226	Oct 25, 2008 09:42am

title link	preview: The God Delusion
avg rating	preview: The God Delusion Goodreads rating: 3.92 (29307 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14743.The_God_Delusion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1166659877m/14743.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14743.The_God_Delusion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins[/url]

The God Delusion

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (46)

Videos About This Book

Genres

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Books by Richard Dawkins

Trivia About The God Delusion

Quotes from The God Delusion

Groups That Shelved The God Delusion