Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

The God Delusion

by Richard Dawkins (Goodreads Author)

3.9 of 5 stars 3.90 · rating details · 72,310 ratings · 4,162 reviews

The God Delusion caused a sensation when it was published in 2006. Within weeks it became the most hotly debated topic, with Dawkins himself branded as either saint or sinner for presenting his hard-hitting, impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types. His argument could hardly be more topical. While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized, the rise of religious fund...more The God Delusion caused a sensation when it was published in 2006. Within weeks it became the most hotly debated topic, with Dawkins himself branded as either saint or sinner for presenting his hard-hitting, impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types. His argument could hardly be more topical. While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized, the rise of religious fundamentalism, whether in the Middle East or Middle America, is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world. In America, and elsewhere, a vigorous dispute between 'intelligent design' and Darwinism is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science. In many countries religious dogma from medieval times still serves to abuse basic human rights such as women's and gay rights. And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind.Dawkins attacks God in all his forms. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry and abuses children.The God Delusion is a brilliantly argued, fascinating polemic that will be required reading for anyone interested in this most emotional and important subject.

Discover magazine recently called Richard Dawkins "Darwin's Rottweiler" for his fierce effective defense of evolution. Prospect magazine voted him among the top three public intellectuals in the world along with Umberto Eco & Noam Chomsky. Now he turns his considerable intellect on religion, denouncing its faulty logic & the suffering it causes. He critiques God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion & demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry & abuses children, buttressing his points with historical & contemporary evidence. In so doing, he makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just irrational, but potentially deadly. He's fashioned an impassioned, rigorous rebuttal to religion, to be embraced by anyone who sputters at the inconsistencies & cruelties that riddle the Bible, bristles at the inanity of "intelligent design," or agonizes over fundamentalism in the Middle East or Middle America.(less)

Mass Market Paperback, 463 pages

Published 2007 by Black Swan (first published October 18th 2006)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Dec 20, 2007 Anica rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition 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, then it must’ve been created...more

237 likes · like · see review

Sep 16, 2010 Alex Telander rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 chapter on the “god...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.

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

78 likes · like · see review

Mar 08, 2010 Keely rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 always saddeni...more

59 likes · like · see review

Nov 03, 2007 Aeisele rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition 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 argument is tha...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)

128 likes · like · see review

May 25, 2012 Carlo added it · review of another edition

Shelves: evolution, non-fiction, religion, philosophy, susan-jacoby

Regardless of your religious beliefs, I urge you to read this book.

41 likes · like · see review

Jul 20, 2012 Riku Sayuj rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Vikram Johari, Manjunath Muddaraju, Rohini Nair

Recommended to Riku by: Tarun Tripathi

Shelves: reviews

The God Delusion - Why there almost certainly is no God?

I have been a big fan of Dawkins from the time I read The Selfish Gene. This book does nothing to damage that, even though it is not as logically cohesive as The Selfish Gene. The God Delusion is easier to argue with and maybe even win, if only in my mind. Dawkins argues mostly against the Christian God that created earth and knows nothing of the vast universe beyond. He remains silent about the God hypothesis that can arise from new physic...more

51 likes · like · see review

Dec 28, 2007 Xysea rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition 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 beliefs until someone goe...more

78 likes · like · see review

Mar 24, 2007 Nick rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition 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

50 likes · like · see review

view all 21 comments

Nullifidian "I guess Dawkins is right...public hospitals, orphanages (both Christian inventions in the West)...."

"In the West?" What about not in the West? Oh, th...more
Feb 27, 2013 05:04pm

James Hoyle ^ Tell us how you really feel. :P
May 13, 2013 04:27pm

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 kind of sense of this debate.

Right now, I kind of know what the Bible me...more

35 likes · like · see review

May 14, 2007 Richard rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition 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 berated them for th...more 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 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)

61 likes · like · see review

May 30, 2008 Julian rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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) are strong, coge...more

30 likes · like · see review

Jan 22, 2013 Christian rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition 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 pretty early an...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 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 at an early age and 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 results and reflections he was able to raise, it far than exceeded what was intended. 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)

13 likes · like · see review

Feb 05, 2009 Manny rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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...more 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 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)

46 likes · like · see review

May 03, 2007 Susan rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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...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)

21 likes · like · see review

Feb 11, 2013 نــــدي الأبحر added it · review of another edition

" وهم الإله "

عنوان جذبني علي إحدي مواقع التواصل الإجتماعي منذ اكتر من 3 اشهر ، وبعد فترة تعثرت برابط تحميل مُترجم للعربية مما أجبرني علي قرائته عنوة
..

يقول أحدهم :
" الجنون صفة لشخص واحد يعاني من وهم ما ، أما عندما يعاني العديدون من هذا الوهم .. يُسمي ديناً "
و ها هنا تكمن الفكرة العامة للكتاب
الحديث عن الإلحاد كمذهب بدأ في الانتشار مؤخراً ، ولولا إعتناق العديدين له لما أثار ضجة فكرية زعزعت الاستقرار الديني في الغرب قبل الشرق

دفعني لقرائته كتاب " لصوص الله " لعبد الرزاق الجبران الذي مهد فكرة اللاأدري...more

9 likes · like · see review

Jul 11, 2011 notgettingenough added it · review of another edition

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/cos...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/religi...

In contrast we have one of those hilarious Guardian headlines:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/201...

'Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God.'

Well, that's it then. Millenia of belief a...more

14 likes · like · see review

Aug 17, 2008 Darrell rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 of t...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. 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)

25 likes · like · see review

Dec 02, 2008 Natalie rated it 5 of 5 stars · 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 name of religion,...more

25 likes · like · see review

Jun 28, 2008 Natali rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 cogently, alt...more

22 likes · like · see review

Nov 20, 2008 Jarrod Jenkins rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 there is...more 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 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 suggests 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, 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 zero, 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, by contrast, 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 the candle. 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)

12 likes · like · see review

Aug 02, 2008 James rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 Dawkins' The GOD Delus...more 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 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)

36 likes · like · see review

view all 10 comments

Traveller Hmm, I understand what you mean by Dawkins seeming a bit 'blunt' in a spiritual/philosophical sense. To give him credit I believe Dawkins tried to exp...more
Jan 06, 2012 09:49am

Dylan Mehrer I don't see why it has to be about disproving religion. Atheism is not about evidence against religion, its about the lack of evidence that religious...more
Mar 28, 2013 01:30pm

Dec 07, 2007 Trevor rated it 4 of 5 stars · 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 loved Go...more 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 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)

30 likes · like · see review

Jan 19, 2008 Nathan Greenwood rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 th...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)

9 likes · like · see review

Jan 19, 2008 Julia rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 a virtue to be satisfied with...more 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 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)

21 likes · like · see review

Oct 01, 2007 -uht! rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 "cargo cults"...more

9 likes · like · see review

Dec 20, 2011 Natalie rated it 2 of 5 stars · 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 idea and sold it well...

Steven...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jan 14, 2008 Jasper rated it 1 of 5 stars · 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 should have...more

31 likes · like · see review

May 31, 2012 Meetu rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I started reading the book because I recently became interested in Atheism. While Bertrand Russell has been one of my favourite authors, and I have read his views on the fallacy of religion, I continued to believe in God. But increasingly, I found myself irritated by religion. Where earlier I would feel that people were evil despite the good teachings of their religion, I had begun to believe that religion directly caused cruelty.
Being born into a Hindu family, I have always been glad for the fa...more I started reading the book because I recently became interested in Atheism. While Bertrand Russell has been one of my favourite authors, and I have read his views on the fallacy of religion, I continued to believe in God. But increasingly, I found myself irritated by religion. Where earlier I would feel that people were evil despite the good teachings of their religion, I had begun to believe that religion directly caused cruelty.
Being born into a Hindu family, I have always been glad for the fact that Hinduism does not believe in the systemic brainwashing of children or in the regularity of praying on designated days at designated times like the "great" monotheistic religions. Islamic terrorism is very real and scary, especially if you live in an inefficiently governed place like Mumbai where a zealot like Kasab could walk in and spray bullets at a crowd in the railway station. The sight of armed guards at the same station today only reminds you that this is eminently possible again. But while I believe that terrorists are inspired by their religion to kill, I feel it is madness for Hindus to "retaliate" as lawlessly and kill someone just because they are Muslim. And I feel sickened each time I hear someone praising a politician because he facilitated such a "retaliation" by allowing the Hindus to "vent". Couldn't the great patriotic politician have relied on the courts to mete out justice to the actual perpetrators rather than have a mob riot so righteously and kill and burn people who had nothing to do with the crime? Apparently not. And while reading Dawkins' book I was surprised to see the same thing was happening in "Talibanised America" where there are apparently a large number of middle class voters who would vote for a Christian America. I would not have thought this possible as America to us epitomises secular, free thinking. But then I know that secular India is only an ideal maintained by text-books and that a Hindu Rashtra is a dismissive idea only to the ivory-tower urbanites - it is a lusted-for ideal to a majority.
The sheer aggression of religion, its Danger is what Dawkins' book emphasises again and again. It is by no means, a harmless distraction. It consumes humungous resources that could be put to productive use if only people believed in people instead of god. So many gods of so many religions. But even a homogeneous religion would be a problem as it would USE people and their scarce resources for the glory of some invisible entity who desperately needs placating all the time.
I started the book, looking forward to the anecdotes and wasn't disappointed. The cargo cult was a particularly fascinating one. From cult to religion........history is full of such stories. But for the individual to clutter his life with the details of one such story can prove to be such a criminal waste.
The opium of the masses, Religion, is nothing more than a testament to the fact that "people would rather die than think." After reading the book, I feel that at least in my lifetime, it is certain that there will be no real decline in the problems caused by religion. But maybe, just maybe there IS a future in which logic is revered.

(less)

8 likes · like · see review

May 19, 2013 Beshr rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

أولا أسجل اعتراضي على تعاطي المسلمين وعلماء الإعجاز العلمي مع مسألة نظرية التطور والمسائل العلمية عموما، سواء كانوا من الباحثين كزغلول النجار وهارون يحيى الذين لهم من الهفوات والأخطاء ما لهم (وأحيانا تكون هفوات مخجلة جدا)، أو العامة الذين يتداولون على الانترنت قصصا وأساطير مخجلة تشبه كل شيء إلا العلم على أنها إعجاز علمي، وهذا اللغط الكبير والموجود أيضا لدى الباحثين المسيحيين أصبح ساحة واسعة للنقد وتصيد الهفوات والسخرية حتى من قبل علماء التطور

كمثال فإن ريتشارد دوكنز ينتقد بشدة ما أصبح يعرف بإله ا...more

4 likes · like · see review

Mar 02, 2013 Alan rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: atheism

As a Christian who is capable of deciphering fact from fiction, I felt it would be responsible to enlighten myself with the writings of the atheist idol Richard Dawkins', 'The God Delusion'. As expected, I was disappointed. Not simply because I disagreed with the material but because he is a horrible philosopher and spends the entire book negatively speaking of Christians and other religious folk as if we had just crawled out of Dark Ages and still burning witches at the stake. It's discouraging...more

5 likes · like · see review

view all 4 comments

Matt Linder I am an atheist and had some of the same problems with this book as you did. I'm not sure if there is really any other way to argue this subject thoug...more
Apr 07, 2013 05:09am

Alan Matt, I thank you for your comment and mentioning that you can sympathize with some of my feelings towards Dawkins' book. However, I do strongly disag...more
Apr 07, 2013 06:34am

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The God Paradox	18	171	Mar 13, 2013 08:07am
the moral zeitgest BS	22	220	Nov 16, 2012 08:32pm
Who has money on Pascal's Wager?	106	374	Nov 15, 2012 04:49am
Atheists and Skep...: Atheist Designer Videos	1	10	Oct 19, 2012 02:49pm
Atheists and Skep...: A Response to The God Delusion	22	89	Sep 19, 2012 03:19pm
A Chance Meeting.	8	63	Jul 09, 2012 06:13am
agnostic: the way to go.	779	395	Jun 16, 2012 04:18am

combine
Other Editions (62)

More editions...

Videos About This Book

Add a comment

Genres

Non Fiction

2,184 users

Religion

1,292 users

Science

941 users

Philosophy

773 users

Religion > Atheism

536 users

Religion > Theology

71 users

Spirituality

64 users

Biology > Evolution

54 users

Politics

50 users

Philosophy > Skepticism

48 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

Books by Richard Dawkins

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About The God Delusion

8 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The God Delusion

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” — 1,993 people liked it

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” — 813 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: The God Delusion
avg rating	preview: The God Delusion Goodreads rating: 3.90 (72310 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1929068.The_God_Delusion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327857563l/1929068.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1929068.The_God_Delusion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins[/url]

The God Delusion

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website