Goodreads | The God Delusion

topics	replies	last activity
Who has money on Pascal's Wager?	80	04/18/2008 11:12AM

Julian rated it:

05/30/08

Read in May, 2008

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 yo...more

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

15 comments

Chris rated it:

11/30/07

bookshelves: 2007, religion

Read in November, 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...more 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 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 this review? yes (29 people liked it)

142 comments

Anica rated it:

12/20/07

bookshelves: changedmylife

Read in December, 2007

recommends it for: everyone, but particularly Christians and Muslims

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, then i...more

Like this review? yes (17 people liked it)

1 comments

Aeisele rated it:

11/03/07

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). The ar...more 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). 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 this review? yes (18 people liked it)

9 comments

Brian rated it:

07/07/08

Read in June, 2008

recommends it for: anyone interested in Atheism vs Theism

This book was a real eye opener for me, as an Agnostic since my early teens. Growing up in a Southern Baptist family, later to rebel and to travel my own roads, I found this book refreshing, entertaining and enlightening all at the same time. Since I have read a lot on this subject, I can't say that everything Dawkins had to say was totally new to me, but there were a few gems that stick out in my mind.
For example, he totally demolishes liberal Christian theology along with the conservative vi...more This book was a real eye opener for me, as an Agnostic since my early teens. Growing up in a Southern Baptist family, later to rebel and to travel my own roads, I found this book refreshing, entertaining and enlightening all at the same time. Since I have read a lot on this subject, I can't say that everything Dawkins had to say was totally new to me, but there were a few gems that stick out in my mind.
For example, he totally demolishes liberal Christian theology along with the conservative view. He spares no one. He shows how that when Christians admit to no longer living according to the Old Testament law, they are in fact admitting, whether they realize it or not, most probably they do not, that our human sense of morality is in fact universal and does NOT come from within the pages of the Bible or any other 'holy' book. It is this universal sense of morality, for instance, which allows us to say today that the stoning of adulterers is not only no longer culturally accepted but that it is in fact immoral. This same universal sense of morality tells us that stoning children for talking back to their parents is immoral. This sense that these things are wrong can NOT be coming from within the Bible, for it is the Bible itself which tells us to do these things. And this sense of morality is something that we all possess ,it is universal, and we therefore do NOT need the Bible in order to live moral lives.
Aside from these few gems though, I found myself scratching my head though, in that I just could not find where Dawkins had in fact proved the non-existence of God. He did not, instead he proved the fallibility and immorality of organized religious institutions. It could be that all religions are wrong all the while God still does in fact exist. Proving religion wrong does not disprove God. I felt like Dawkins just dismisses any aspect of the spiritual out of hand, as if it is just a given, yet he does not sufficiently give reason for this belief. For him, if he can touch it, see it, smell it, hear it, etc, then for him it does not exist. For him, if it can not be proven then it does not exist, or at least does not deserve to be fretted about.
My girlfriend has said that since evolutionary Biology is perfectly capable of explaining life on earth, it renders God unnecessary and if God is unnecessary then why would he exist? That may be true.
I have also heard that when using causation as a basis for a belief in God, Theists point to God as the ultimate Cause, and then posit him as existing forever, the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover. But why not just say that the Universe itself has always existed, in one form or another, and cut out the middle man? In other words, it is not the existence of eternity that Theists have a problem with, they can fathom that God has existed forever, it is not ultimate cause that Theists have a problem with, they can fathom that God himself is uncaused. Why not just all of these things for the Universe and call the Universe itself God?
Lots of things to think about and ponder and that's what I do quite a bit. It's just who I am.
This book was very well written and caused me to re-think some of my positions. I have always considered myself an Agnostic but was able to say, "Yea, I could see myself as an Atheist."
I was also pleasantly surprised to find that Dawkins himself, at least in this book, was nothing like his "anti-Christ" persona. That he was not out to hurt or make fun of people, that he was in fact a very likable and personable guy. I did not get that he was belligerently or militantly Atheist at all. I had actually put off reading any of his books, because of my fear that he would be too offputting in his approach. I found him to be just the opposite. Very bright, erudite, enlightening and approachable.
I especially liked the beginning part of the book where he describes the spirituality of people like Einstein and how it was NOT Theism but instead, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "
Dawkins says that he has this same unbounded admiration for the structure of the world and it in this way that even he has been called deeply religious by his close friends and associates.
I also am very averse to organized religion but in Einstein's and Dawkins' Pantheistic way, I am also deeply religious.
I am just not as sure as he is that the soul does not in fact exist. I tend to still believe in the soul and it's immortality. Maybe he does too, just in a more physical way, as in our bodies being broken down and going back to the universe, "ashes to ash, dust to dust." ...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Alex rated it:

03/06/08

bookshelves: books-read-in-2006

Read in December, 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 chapter ...more 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 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.

Read the rest of the review at www.alexctelander.com

For more reviews, and writings, or to buy yourself a copy, please visit www.alexctelander.com....less

Like this review? yes (9 people liked it)

1 comments

Susan rated it:

05/03/07

Read in September, 2007

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 strange way,...more 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 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 this review? yes (7 people liked it)

2 comments

Darrell rated it:

01/14/08

bookshelves: reviewed

Read in January, 2008

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...more 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 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. I wonder if atheists should take another cue from the gay rights movement by pointing out that "Somebody you know and care about is an atheist." 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 this review? yes (3 people liked it)

1 comments

Nathan rated it:

01/19/08

bookshelves: currently-reading

Read in January, 2008

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=C&q...more 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=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 this review? yes (3 people liked it)

5 comments

Rebecca rated it:

06/11/08

bookshelves: biting-wit, froo-froo-intellectual, non-fiction, philosophy-and-religion

Read in June, 2008

recommended to Rebecca by: everyone

Rarely have I ever finished a book and immediately wanted to flip back to page one and begin reading again. This book is one that I suspect I will never tire of reading or thinking about, simply because it is the freshest, most invigorating, most uplifting breath of clean air I've ever experienced.

Unlike God is Not Great, written by Christopher Hitchens, another famous atheist, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is the kind of book I wouldn't mind returning to again and again...more Rarely have I ever finished a book and immediately wanted to flip back to page one and begin reading again. This book is one that I suspect I will never tire of reading or thinking about, simply because it is the freshest, most invigorating, most uplifting breath of clean air I've ever experienced.

Unlike God is Not Great, written by Christopher Hitchens, another famous atheist, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is the kind of book I wouldn't mind returning to again and again because it is simply pleasant to read. It is, like God is Not Great, a polemic -- and Dawkins is, though he makes a point to avoid confrontation in real life, an amazing polemicist -- but it is written in a completely admirable and in-control spirit that you often wish religious writers and thinkers would spend some time trying to mimic. His argument against the existence of a supernatural deity is grounded in his training as a biologist, is rooted in rational, logical, and extremely clear-headed argument, and is on top of all those virtues funny, witty, and engaging.

Dawkins is that rare author who is completely invested in what he has to say and completely passionate about what he believes, but who at the same time is wise and humane enough to admit where the gaps in his knowledge lie and who can clearly articulate what it would take to fill them. He also knows exactly what it would take to change his mind about his atheist stance: evidence that contradicted it. This stance is his retort to detractors who claim that he is "just as much a fundamentalist" as those he is decrying. One of Dawkins's premises is that the nature of science is to change one's perceptions based on developing evidence, and anyone who vigorously claims that their perceptions or beliefs are immune to the test of evidence should examine those claims closely for their truth value.

It seems to me that Dawkins has dealt with, or provided resources for his readers to research on their own, virtually every question, issue, attempted "proof," or rationale that might arise in a debate about the existence of god. He discusses the various proofs or arguments given throughout history for the existence of god and dismantles all of them carefully and thoroughly; he discusses why agnosticism is an untenable (permanent) philosophical position; he discusses various scientists who claim to be religious and what is really going on there; he discusses the prevalent myth that America was formed as a Christian nation; he discusses evolution and how religious spokespeople have misunderstood it; he speculates about the anthropological and psychological roots of religion and how these tendencies might have been passed from generation to generation through memetic evolution; he takes apart the assumptions behind assertions that people would be immoral without religion and discusses the possible Darwinian origins of moral behavior and our judgments of what counts as moral; he challenges the fallacies in statements such as "Stalin was an atheist; therefore all atheists are evil"; he discusses how religion has warped the public's understanding of scientific issues such as whether a cluster of cells eliminated from a uterus can actually suffer, much less whether it is actually human; he dismantles the distinction between 'moderate' and 'extreme' religion, arguing that extreme religion is just moderate religion taken to its logical conclusion; he argues that children should not be saddled with the religious labels of their parents before they are old enough to make up their own minds about cosmic and moral issues; and he ends by discussing the ways in which science and a quest for understanding in general can inspire and liberate humankind far more than belief in any brand of hocus-pocus ever could.

If you find yourself reading the above list of topics and saying, "But, wait! What about X issue that you have to take into account when discussing God?", then you should read this book. It will stimulate you, fascinate you, and give you enough food for thought to last several gourmet feasts.

...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Christian rated it:

03/24/08

bookshelves: non-fiction, philosophy

Read in March, 2008

recommends it for: Everyone and their mother

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 pretty earl...more 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 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 base 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 fare 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 this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Pamela rated it:

01/27/08

Read in January, 2008

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 ta...more 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 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 this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

-uht! rated it:

10/01/07

bookshelves: religion

Read in September, 2007

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 &quo...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

5 comments

Don rated it:

The God Delusion

discuss this book

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

lists with this book

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 6584)