Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The God Delusion” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

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)

3.89 of 5 stars 3.89 · rating details · 111,787 ratings · 5,165 reviews

Evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins is not an atheist who sits quietly in the pews. The scientist Discover dubbed "Darwin's Rottweiler" refuses to regard religion as mere harmless nonsense; he views it instead as one of humanity's most pernicious creations. In The God Delusion he attacks arguments for the existence of God; accuses religions of fomenting divisiveness, war...more

Hardcover, 374 pages

Published October 18th 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Co. (Boston/NY) (first published 2006)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

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

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The God Delusion, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

Notable Atheist Books

1st out of 277 books — 712 voters

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling

Books That Everyone Should Read At Least Once

255th out of 12,199 books — 59,838 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Dec 20, 2007 Anica rated it 5 of 5 stars

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

flag 345 likes · like · see review

Nov 03, 2007 Aeisele rated it 1 of 5 stars

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)

flag 213 likes · like · see review

view all 104 comments

John Niemeyer @aeisele

Your statement about structure and content is too beautiful to debate so I won't even try, but I do think you trip yourself up into redefining...more @aeisele

Your statement about structure and content is too beautiful to debate so I won't even try, but I do think you trip yourself up into redefining things to suit your purpose. Suggesting a liberal view is too narrow for you from what is ultimately a conservative position seems indirectly to redefine something.

I think redefing questions (not words, mind) is a very useful tool when done honestly. Changing from 'how do the stars orbit the planet?' To 'how does the planet orbit a star?' was arguably the greatest of examples I can think of. I think it is unfair to say that science cannot answer some questions. I think it may not ever get to answer some of the questions you banish to theological thralldom, but I believe it can. I believe it can precisely because of your 'long' (no it wasn't) response. It made me realise that we cannot necessarily answer the 'meaning of life' question in part because we are asking the wrong question. I may be guilty of the redefining you may disapprove of, but we need to break questions like that up. Try asking why do we ask such a question? It is unlikely that a goat asks this question. So it becomes perhaps a question within the purview of science. Their is a chemical reason why a being with a higher level of consciousness would ask that question. Does it answer the original questions? Nope. But it is likely if you want to answer the question in its original form, you will have to part it out.

Theology claims these questions because in the end, the real answers to them are probably depressing and the answers theology offers are up lifting. Science does not ask as often because in the end, science has bigger fish to fry, and historically, one way to be the fish fry was to try and claim the question back from the church.

Yeah, we do bad things to each other and to blame religion for them as if we would all suddenly behave if it were gone is ludicrous. My boss had surgery last year for lung cancer. He did not just give up and let that cancer have him even though waiting in the wings was a problem related to heart disease. I am very glad he took out the cancer and had heart surgery because I still have his guidance. We can do without religion and we can do without whatever misdeed might replace it. You cannot progress if you can't face one fear bravely with the awareness of the next terror beyond. I'm not scared because I'm arrogant. I feel I know what needs to be known to live a good an upright life. Do I know how something came out of nothing? No, I do not. I don't need to. I ponder such questions for entertainment, but they are not a guiding light in my life. I do not dismiss them like Dawkins, no. I love to read those who have the time to ponder them at greater length than myself, but it is merely entertainment. If we need religion to answer these questions, it is simply a matter of convenience. Religion is philosophy's shortcut.(less)
Aug 23, 2014 04:32AM

Dr. Gold In my opinion, the problem is not the amount of knowledge and its crystal point of view concerning with intellectuality and the truth of the facts Ric...more
18 hours, 20 min ago

Dec 28, 2007 Xysea rated it 2 of 5 stars

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

flag 144 likes · like · see review

Aug 18, 2014 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: science-evolution, r-r-rs

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

flag 131 likes · like · see review

Mar 08, 2010 Keely rated it 3 of 5 stars

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

flag 111 likes · like · see review

Sep 16, 2010 Alex Telander rated it 5 of 5 stars

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)

flag 100 likes · like · see review

Mar 24, 2007 Nick rated it 1 of 5 stars

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

flag 80 likes · like · see review

Feb 05, 2009 Manny rated it 4 of 5 stars

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)

flag 78 likes · like · see review

May 14, 2007 Richard rated it 5 of 5 stars

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)

flag 76 likes · like · see review

view all 6 comments

Richard Daniel wrote: "So you like this book because you simply agree with it. I would like to see you criticize it objectively."

Hi Daniel. I'm going to try t...more
Sep 04, 2014 03:24AM

Richard Tesh wrote: "Ok, so the writer of the catholic encyclopaedia made a couple of foolish assumptions. But is Dawkins judging Catholicism just by one foll...more Tesh wrote: "Ok, so the writer of the catholic encyclopaedia made a couple of foolish assumptions. But is Dawkins judging Catholicism just by one follower's writings? For every foolish piece of writing there wo..."

Hi Tesh. Your comment seems to pick on a very minor part of my book review (and that fact would tend to encourage me to assume you are Catholic, though this may be a false assumption).

Regarding 'The God Delusion', I think one of the major issues with the book for people of faith is that they assume that the book is aimed specifically at them, and at their beliefs. Catholics believe that they are singled out, as do protestants, Muslims etc.

But 'The God Delusion' is much bigger than that. It is showing that the nature of all religions is nonsensical and dangerous.

I would summarise the whole thing as follows.

Take as an assumption the starting point that religious people are right. There is a god. And it is actually one of the Abrahamic 'versions' of god. That means that either the Jews, Christians or Muslims are 'right'. How do you know which is right? How can you go about objectively determining this? There is *no* way to know? The majority of people in the world subscribing to one of those faiths do so because their parents were of the same faith. The awful thing is that, not only is there no way to determine who is right, but according to the various belief systems those who are wrong are damned for eternity *despite* there being no way of determining who is right.

But then, assume that we did find a way of determining which is right. Just for you I'll select Christianity, but, as I say, in reality either of the other two is just as likely. Is Catholicism right, or Protestantism? Once again, there is *no* way of really determining that. And in reality tens of thousands of people have been slaughtered just because of that one question! Assume that it is Protestantism, which of the tens of thousands of versions is right? And once again, according to doctrine if you pick the wrong one you are damned for eternity. Or maybe its Catholicism, though frankly, if it is, I think the hypocrisy of millions of starving children while the church of Rome sits of unimaginable wealth would mean that god would want to disown you.

So if the god of the universe exists 2/3 of the groups who subscribe to the various flavours of the Abrahamic religions are going to be punished for eternity for a choice that was made on the basis of no evidence at all. That ignores the billions of people in the rest of the world who subscribe to Hinduism, Buddhism or any of the hundreds of aboriginal faiths around the world. Once again (and I can't emphasise this enough) on the basis of not picking the right flavour of superstition which they would have to have done on the basis of no evidence or reason at all.

Thousands of years of religion brought us wars and genocide which continues to the present day. It has brought good (early universities and hospitals), but it has been instrumental in attempts to limit these developments and their potential. Hospitals treated people according to religious texts and suppressed attempts to push forward knowledge that could have helped people, universities taught only what the religious wanted taught.

When you can believe in something without evidence, when you can suppress all attempts to learn because the religion is meant to encompass all knowledge then human kind makes little progress. When, as humans have since the enlightenment, you can look to reality, test it and push knowledge forwards then humans can flourish in their knowledge. And that flourishing has no need of superstition or faith.

You may be able to produce a well written, well argued piece by a Catholic scholar regarding the nature of atheism. But by its nature, Catholicism, like all faiths is on shaky foundations. In fact, I would argue its not really on any foundation at all. The book that it rests on has suffered through repeated translations (you must know that the original meaning of the word that is translated as 'virgin', as in virgin Mary is young girl, undermining all of the miraculous nature of what is pretty much the central figure of Catholicism). It is full of internal inconsistencies, makes inaccurate statements about reality and is so open to interpretation and misinterpretation that it is essentially useless for anything other than faith. There is little to no historical evidence for any of the events in either the old or new testaments.

You are welcome to believe, just don't ask me to share that belief. You are welcome to believe that those who disagree with you are damned, or whatever. But humans should no longer base their behaviours or laws on ancient books written by semi-literate bigots. You can believe anything you like as long as you don't expect to use your unfounded beliefs to tell anyone else how to live or what to believe.(less)
Sep 04, 2014 04:06AM

Aug 23, 2014 Huda Yahya rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: عن-الأديان-والنقد-الديني

لا يقل الملحد المتعصب سذاجة عن المؤمن المتعصب‏
كلاهما تكاد تراه محتقن الوجه من فرط الانفعال والتأثر‏
وهو يقفز لأعلى و أسفل مرددا : أنا صح .. أنا صح

سأتعامل مع دوكينز هنا كمفكر ‏
وأفصله عن العالم الذي يمتعنا بكتبه العلمية المتخصصة‏

العلماء بعيدا عن العلم يدعون أحيانا للرثاء
فنادرا ما تجد من هو مثقف تثقيفا حقيقيا‏
وله عذره فعلمه وإسهاماته تكفيه وتكفينا
ولكن بعضهم يأبى إلا أن يخوض في ما لا يعرف‏
يظن أنه بعلمه- مهما كان غزيرا ‏
يكفي لدراسة البشرية ومنظومتها الفكرية العقائدية‏

ولذا كثير من العلماء
الذين يحاولون...more لا يقل الملحد المتعصب سذاجة عن المؤمن المتعصب‏
كلاهما تكاد تراه محتقن الوجه من فرط الانفعال والتأثر‏
وهو يقفز لأعلى و أسفل مرددا : أنا صح .. أنا صح

سأتعامل مع دوكينز هنا كمفكر ‏
وأفصله عن العالم الذي يمتعنا بكتبه العلمية المتخصصة‏

العلماء بعيدا عن العلم يدعون أحيانا للرثاء
فنادرا ما تجد من هو مثقف تثقيفا حقيقيا‏
وله عذره فعلمه وإسهاماته تكفيه وتكفينا
ولكن بعضهم يأبى إلا أن يخوض في ما لا يعرف‏
يظن أنه بعلمه- مهما كان غزيرا ‏
يكفي لدراسة البشرية ومنظومتها الفكرية العقائدية‏

ولذا كثير من العلماء
الذين يحاولون إثبات عدم وجود الله
ينتهي بهم الأمر بكتب ضحلة ثقافيا‏
وإن كانت محترمة علميا

قليل منهم قد درس وقرأ
فعلمهم يستغرقهم تماما
وبتخصصهم المحترم يتوهمون بأنهم لا يحتاجون لدراسة ثقافات المجتمعات ‏
وهم يظنون أن دراسة جزء تغني عن الكل
وهذا هو السبب الرئيسي في نعتي لهذه الكتب بالسطحية‏

::::::::::
ملحوظة
::::::::::

السطحية هنا تختلف اختلاف شنيع
عن سطحية كتبنا المسخرة –عذرا في اللفظ
والتي تتناول أعداء الدين ومحاربة الإلحاد
السطحية في كنب العلماء تعني النظرة الضيقة
التي يمتلكونها عن الدين والمعتقدات

لا يوجد عندهم ما يمكن بأن يسمى عمق النظرة
فاستخدام العلم لإثبات وجهة نظر
بشكل لا يقبل النقاش يبدو طفوليا للغاية‏

;;;;;;;

هل ينسى العلماء الملحدين التعصب الداروييني السائد في الأوساط العلمية؟
هل ينسون من تم فصلهم من الجامعات لتبنيهم التصميم الذكي ورفضهم للتطور؟‏

التعسف صفة إنسانية قد يعطيها الدين قداسة حيت يتم استغلاله
لكن هذا لا يعني أنه بدون دين قد يختفي التعسف والعصبية من الوجود‏

كنا لنخترع طريقة جديدة للسيطرة والظلم والكراهية‏

دائما ما نفعل

(less)

flag 61 likes · like · see review

May 25, 2012 Carlo added it

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

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

flag 61 likes · like · see review

Aug 02, 2008 James rated it 2 of 5 stars

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)

flag 60 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

flag 47 likes · like · see review

Dec 27, 2011 Paul marked it as assorted-rants-about-stuff · review of another edition

Shelves: god-botheration

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

flag 40 likes · like · see review

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)

flag 38 likes · like · see review

May 30, 2008 Julian rated it 4 of 5 stars

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

flag 34 likes · like · see review

Sep 05, 2014 Cecily rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: science-ish

This book is so well known, it seems almost pointless to review it. If you are a believer, you will not like it, though you're probably aware of that.

Dawkins' explicit aim is that “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down” and that unbelievers shouldn't be ashamed to say so, to which end he presents a detailed and cross-referenced set of arguments, examples, discussions and thought experiments, touching on science, philosophy, psychology etc. Many of his points are f...more

flag 31 likes · like · see review

view all 50 comments

Ted Cecily wrote: "Well said, Ted.

And to go from your well- explained words to something more trivial, this
Ted wrote: "The "theory" that all swans are wh...more
Oct 05, 2014 11:06AM

Cecily Ted wrote: "much of the public (at least in the U.S.) has little understanding of science, and simply assumes that anything that can't be "proved" can...more
Oct 05, 2014 02:35PM

Feb 11, 2013 ندى الأبحر added it

" وهم الإله "

عنوان إجتذبني علي إحدي مواقع التواصل الإجتماعي مذ اكثر 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 اللاأدر...more

flag 31 likes · like · see review

view all 35 comments

Bassam Yaghmoor دعنا نأخذ الموضوع بطريقة عملية : ما الاستنتاج الذي تسعى إليه من نقاش هلاك الأقوام ؟

لا امانع من ان اتركك تستمتع باسلوبك الخاص في الكتابة ، ولن ازعج نفس...more دعنا نأخذ الموضوع بطريقة عملية : ما الاستنتاج الذي تسعى إليه من نقاش هلاك الأقوام ؟

لا امانع من ان اتركك تستمتع باسلوبك الخاص في الكتابة ، ولن ازعج نفسي بالتدخل في كل كلمة..

حرب العنوسة ليست بالانجاب اكثر.. وهناك قاعدة فقهية عريضة تغفلها دائمًا: دفع المضار وتحقيق المصالح ، ولن يكون هناك بأس من نماء تعداد السكان لو كنا نتعامل فيما بيننا بالعدل والصلاح

خمر الجنة لا تسكر.. والعجب أنك تبدو تستخف بالأبحاث العلمية المعترف بها في العلاج ببول الإبل - بغض النظر عن التفاصيل - وكأن المسألة حتى لا تنتهي بحكم العلم التطبيقي

ولي فضول أن أعرف من أين استقى الفلاسفة العلمانيون أخلاقهم ؟ من الداروينية ؟ لماذا إذًا يقول دوكنز أن القيم التي نأخذها عن الداروينية هي أن نخالف الداروينية ؛ لأن مجتمعًا مبنيًّا على الداروينية لن يكون مكانًا سارًّا للعيش ؟ وعلى أي حال عدد من أشهر هؤلاء هم جزء من الفوضى عبر التاريخ الحديث فيما أعلم

90% من العلماء ملحدون ، لا أستطيع الاستدلال على شيء سوى أنّهم يبدون لا يهتمون بمسألة وجود الخالق الرب من عدمه ، كل همهم هو في المختبرات والفوز بنوبل وتسطير أسمائهم في سجلّ العلماء .. وهذا جيد وخلاّق وفعال عمومًا ، ولكن من الطبيعي ألا يكونوا هم الأجدر بالكلام عن الإله وموجد القوانين والمتفوق عليها - سبحانه - ، كما أن الفلاسفة الذين يعرفون كيف يفكرون ويؤطرون للمسائل بأطرها الصحيحة أغلبيتهم مؤمنون .. إن دلّ على شيء فيدلّ على عدم موضوعيّة ولياقة العلماء التطبيقيين بالحديث عن أمور مثل هذه ، ولهم كامل الاحترام والتبجيل في علومهم ودرجاتهم العلمية .. والعالم قد يكون أيّ شخص ، من زير نساء إلى أكثر الناس أخلاقيةً ، والأمثلة مشهورة ، وكما يقول هايزنبرج أن الله في أول طبقات العلم يختفي من الأنظار ، ولكنه في القاع يبدو لنا وجهًا لوجه ..

قرفك الشخصي من سفاح القربى يتعارض مع اعتقادك بانه لا اخلاق جيدة تصدر من الدين ، وهذا بالضبط ما احيل النظر اليه: لست مدركًا لحقيقة الامر وأصله.. ولا مجال للمقارنة بين سفاح المحارم في الاسلام وزواج ابناء العم ، الاخير منتشر حول العالم بشكل كبير وقد اثمر الكثير من الذريات الصحيحة الفاعلة.. والان اصبحت ليست مشكلة وتعد انت الان الاقليات جديرة بالاهتمام - لا اعترض على الاهتمام بالاقليات لكن لا تعارض نفسك -

وألا ترى نفسك وكثيرين غيرك مصابين بنفس خلل الدوبامين هذا ؟ بدلالة أنّك تكرر - وكثيرين - الانتقاد من باب الاغتصاب والتعدد ... إلخ من التصرفات الجنسية ..(less)
updated Apr 25, 2014 08:34AM

Bassam Yaghmoor لا تؤاخذني ان لم ادافع عن بعض ما تسخر منه في خطابك ، فلا اجد لدفاعي سببًا ما لم يكن الطرح موضوعيًّا
updated Apr 25, 2014 08:12AM

Aug 17, 2008 Darrell rated it 5 of 5 stars

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)

flag 31 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

flag 31 likes · like · see review

Nov 28, 2012 Salma rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

سألني أحدهم عن رأيي في كتاب وهم الإله لدوكنز، و لكن لم يسبق لي أن كنت قرأته... فبحثت في النت و عثرت عليه... قرأت مقدمته و مقاطع متفرقة منه... الكتاب كتاب إلحادي تقليدي، يتحدث عن وهمية فكرة الإله و الأديان بشكل عام و يقدم تصوره عن الأمر بطريقة لا تخلو من عاطفية مفرطة في كثير من المواضع أقرب لتصير تطرفا، _و أذكر وصفا طريفا لمن نصحني به بكون مؤلفه أشبه بجهادي إلحادي_ و يكاد المؤلف يجزم أنك بعد قراءته ستصير ملحدا... أو بعبارة أخرى أدق أنك ستعتنق دينه الإلحادي...0
في الحقيقة الكتاب لم يجذبني لأقرأه كا...more سألني أحدهم عن رأيي في كتاب وهم الإله لدوكنز، و لكن لم يسبق لي أن كنت قرأته... فبحثت في النت و عثرت عليه... قرأت مقدمته و مقاطع متفرقة منه... الكتاب كتاب إلحادي تقليدي، يتحدث عن وهمية فكرة الإله و الأديان بشكل عام و يقدم تصوره عن الأمر بطريقة لا تخلو من عاطفية مفرطة في كثير من المواضع أقرب لتصير تطرفا، _و أذكر وصفا طريفا لمن نصحني به بكون مؤلفه أشبه بجهادي إلحادي_ و يكاد المؤلف يجزم أنك بعد قراءته ستصير ملحدا... أو بعبارة أخرى أدق أنك ستعتنق دينه الإلحادي...0
في الحقيقة الكتاب لم يجذبني لأقرأه كاملا _مع أني حاولت مرتين كرمى لمن سألني رأيي و لكن الملل قتلني و لم أستطع_ فأفكار الكتاب مكررة و البراهين المقدمة عبارة عن توليفة من التأويلات و اقتطاع من السياقات تم حبكها بطريقة تناسب النتيجة المسبقة في الذهن، كمعظم براهين الدنيا... الكتاب بأسلوبه لم يقدم لي شيئا جديدا أو يزرع في بذرة شك أو تساؤل أو حتى رغبة في النقاش و لذلك لم أشعر برغبة تملأني لاتمامه... و الحق يقال أنه ليس عندي مشكلة أصلا في الإيمان بالإله، و حين لا تكون لديك مشكلة في مسألة ما و يفشل الكتاب في أن يفتعل داخلك تلك المشكلة فحينئذ الأولى أن تتركه... و ربما حري بي القول أنه لدي مشكلة في تصور أهمية الحقائق العلمية و الفيزيائية، لأني لا أشعر بها كثيرا و لا تجذبني أصلا أو أحفل بها و لا أعتبرها دليلا على شيء ما... يأتي شخص يحاول إقناعي بأمر عبر مثلا تطور جيني ما أو أحفورات ما أو حقيقة فيزيائية ما... و حينها يخطر لي سؤال له أن ما أدراك أني أنا و أنت و الجينات التي تخبرني بتطورها و الأحفوارت و الفيزياء و كل هذا الكون بكل ما فيه من قوانين ليس أكثر من حبكة روائية... ليس أكثر من كلمات في كتاب... و كلنا ندور و نقوم و نقعد و نحيا و نموت و نفكر و نناطح و نتخيل و نشطح و نحلق ضمن حدود هذا الكتاب... لا نستطيع أن نحيد قيد أنملة عن أسطرنا التي سطرت لنا؟ هل شاهدتم يوما شخصية روائية استطاعت اكتشاف أن ما تراه من قوانين العالم حولها ليس إلا كلمات يمكن تغييرها من قبل المؤلف بجرة قلم؟ اللهم إلا أن يرغب المؤلف بأن يخبرها بماهيتها، و ضمن الحبكة...0
أنا إنسانة غير واقعية معظم الوقت، أو دعني أقول لا أحب أن أركن للظاهر و الواقع كثيرا، و ربما لم يضرب على عصبي شيء و يرفع ضغطي من الكتاب برمته أكثر من قوله أن: "أليس الكون بجماله كاف حتى نحتاج للبحث عن وجود شيء وراءه؟!" لاء يا عمي... ليس كاف بالنسبة لي إطلاقا... لأنه لا يُشبـِع... كل جمال فيه و كل لذة غير مشبعة و منقوصة و زائلة... و الصورة الظاهرة لا ترويني... فضلا عن القبح و الظلم الذي يعتصره عصرا... فضلا عن الاحساس القتـّال بأن لا يعقل أن يكون ما نراه فقط هو كل شيء...0
فعلا أنا لا أتخيل كيف يفكر أولئك الذين لا يرون أبعد مما هو ظاهر... أبعد من السطح... أبعد من المادة الجامدة... و لكن ربما الجواب هو كما قال هرمان هسه في قصيدته "تلاق" من أنهم لا يريدون أن يتعبوا أذهانهم و يتجردوا عن المادة، لذلك فهم يريحون أنفسهم و يحذفون البعد الثالث... العمق...:0

تلاق: 0
الثابتون أبدا و الساذجون
لا يحتملون بالطبع شكّنا.0
و يشرحون لنا ببساطة أن العالم مسطح
و أن أسطورة الأعماق هراء.0

لأنه لو كانت هناك فعلا أبعاد أخرى
غير البعدين الطيبين المألوفين للناس منذ القدم،0
فكيف يمكن أن يعيش إنسان آمنا،0
و كيف يعيش إنسان بلا هم؟
فكيما نحقق سلاما.0
دعونا نحذف بـُعدا.0

فإذا كان الثابتون مخلصين حقا،0
و كان النظر في الأعماق خطيرا إلى هذا الحد،0
فإن البعد الثالث أمر يمكن صرف النظر عنه.0
(less)

flag 30 likes · like · see review

Feb 01, 2011 Erik Graff rated it 1 of 5 stars

Recommends it for: biblical inerrancists

Recommended to Erik by: A.M.

Shelves: religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

flag 28 likes · like · see review

Jan 19, 2008 Julia rated it 2 of 5 stars

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)

flag 28 likes · like · see review

Jun 28, 2008 Natali rated it 5 of 5 stars

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

flag 28 likes · like · see review

Oct 05, 2014 Kat Kennedy rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: i-learned-something-new

Rather like the meme, which Dawkins so helpfully coined the term for, this book has permeated through many parts of our culture. And Dawkins himself has become synonymous with the Atheist movement. How else does a book garner more than 10 books published simply to refute it.

The first half of The God Delusion is a thoughtful, fact based response to religion, one that I thoroughly enjoyed. The second half tended to veer away from science based theory to more personal opinions of Dawkin's and this...more

flag 27 likes · like · see review

Sep 06, 2012 Ahmed Hassan rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: imp-to-read-books, favorites

خليني أعترف إني في البداية كنت متخوف من التجربة..القراءة عن الإلحاد..
من ملحد!
عجيبة الكوميديا في بلدنا..اللي عايز يقرأ عن الإشتراكيه يقرا لمصطفي محمود..
واللي عايز يقرأ عن العلمانيه يقرأ لمصطفي محمود..
واللي عايز يقرأ عن تجربة تركيا العلمانية يقرأ لراغب السرجاني..

المهم.

كنت متخوف في البداية لكن لما قرأت الكتاب أستمعت أيما إستمتاع..
الحقيقة قراءة كتب زي "وهم الإله" أو أي كتاب لملحد متزن ونقده عقلاني بيخرجك أما ملحد واما يطور فهمك لمسألة الإيمان أكتر..
وفعلاً أستفدت جداً من الكتاب وطور فهمي للأمور.

ريتشا...more

flag 27 likes · like · see review

May 03, 2007 Susan rated it 4 of 5 stars

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)

flag 23 likes · like · see review

Mar 31, 2008 Lia rated it 1 of 5 stars

Recommends it for: people who need more hate in their lives.

I feel the need to insert a negative review from a believer of evolution and a harsh critic of organized religion. His basic assertion that faith and science are inextricably entangled is sound. However, he leaps off this logical diving board and into a mess of false simplifications about the nature of faith, the logic of science, and the lives of atheists vs. believers. If you want to figure out if evolution is real, read some biology books and take a walk outside. This trash is only for people...more

flag 22 likes · like · see review

Jan 05, 2010 Paquita Maria Sanchez rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: truthiness

To be honest, reading this book was sort of like having your parents give you the "birds and the bees" speech at age 16...more than a little bit pointless. Herein lies the dilemma: I feel like the people who probably should be reading this book will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS read this book, and if they do it will only be in order to cherry pick it for their own purposes (which would clearly be at odds with the author's stated intention). All the same, the text is extremely informative due to the...more

flag 21 likes · like · see review

Jan 22, 2013 Christian rated it 5 of 5 stars

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)

flag 21 likes · like · see review

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

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
How can Science explain the existence of God?	109	116	Sep 29, 2014 11:48PM
The God Paradox	27	345	Sep 28, 2014 11:01AM
agnostic: the way to go.	805	575	Sep 09, 2014 06:14PM
All About Books: The God Delusion Readalong (Charbel, Jenny)	99	63	Feb 12, 2014 04:54AM
Who has money on Pascal's Wager?	108	458	Aug 20, 2013 11:19AM
Goodreads Librari...: Combine request	6	155	Jul 04, 2013 08:08AM
the moral zeitgest BS	22	256	Nov 16, 2012 08:32PM

Readers Also Enjoyed

Videos About This Book

Add a comment

Genres

Non Fiction

2,951 users

Religion

1,598 users

Science

1,283 users

Philosophy

1,058 users

Religion > Atheism

673 users

Spirituality

90 users

Religion > Theology

88 users

Politics

75 users

Biology > Evolution

69 users

Science > Popular Science

62 users

See top shelves...

Books by Richard Dawkins

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

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

+ Share on your website

Trivia About The God Delusion

9 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.” — 2841 likes

“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.” — 1165 likes

More quotes…

title link	preview: The God Delusion
avg rating	preview: The God Delusion Goodreads rating: 3.89 (111787 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14743.The_God_Delusion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347220693l/14743.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14743.The_God_Delusion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins[/url]

The God Delusion

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Popular Answered Questions

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share on your website