Status
Call number
Publication
Description
Religion & Spirituality. Nonfiction. HTML:A preeminent scientistďż˝??and the world's most prominent atheistďż˝??asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11. With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines 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 and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe's wonders than any faith could ever m… (more)
Media reviews
User reviews
There are some very interesting and well-made arguments in this book, but they're drowned out by Richard Dawkins' own arrogance and venom. He seems to be in love with his own name and IQ in the way he constantly praises the irrefutable points he promises will come in future chapters, alludes to moments of brilliance included in his other books and drops the names of people more famous than him as a way to introduce quotes praising him that would be more appropriate on a dust jacket than in the middle of what's supposed to be a logical argument. Rather than simply making a clean and orderly argument for his case, he peppers his logic with an awkward frenzy of counterpoints to past and on-going disagreements he's had with people other than the reader.
What is the most distasteful is the condescending way he insists that the "educated elite" all are atheists, or if not, suggests they're conflicted and confused; the way he implies all other belief systems are for the weak minded. His "my way is the one and only truth, and anyone who thinks otherwise is dim or deluded" way of thinking is no different from that of any religion proclaiming to have the only truth, which makes it just as dangerous.
He argues that miracles are just things we don't have the science to explain yet, but that God cannot exist because our science doesn't allow for any such thing. In admitting we don't yet have a definitive library of science, the possibility must be allowed that we simply don't yet have the pieces of science that can include God. Dawkins praises the majesty and mystery of quantum-mechanics (one of my favorite playgrounds) but won't allow for for any kind of spiritual mystery. He brazenly proclaims he offers consciousness-raising arguments, while denying any kind of Universal Consciousness. If you're going to reference Schroedinger's Cat, doesn't it follow that God also is and is not until that moment we get to look into the unknown?
There are many arguments to be made in favor of atheism, and maybe now that he's vented his frustrations here, he can some day write a good book on the religion of science.
In "The God Delusion", noted evolutionary scientist
1. The explanations for the existence of god are intellectually weak.
2. Laplace's Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
3. God is complex, thus highly improbable to come into being. What immortal hand made god?
4. The social invention of God and religion can be explained.
5. Old Testament god is a nasty fellow. If he exists, he should not be worshiped.
Dawkins arguments against religious practice are:
1. Religious beliefs are an inconsistent mix and pick, changing with the Zeitgeist.
2. Most religious people are ignorant about their religion's full content.
3. Religious adherence is an accident of one's birthplace and time.
4. Religion beliefs lead to human suffering (science, homosexuality, abortion, etc.).
6. Religious indoctrination of children is wrong.
Dawkins is an excellent writer and he wields one of the most effective intellectual weapons, the theory of evolution. His overall mission, however, is marred by a somewhat rambling presentation and switching targets in the middle of the book. While his discussion about the improbability of a personal god is excellent, his attack on religious beliefs suffers from painting with too broad a brush. A hellbent American preacher is way more dangerous than a mild Sunday School teacher. Instead of torching everything, I find Jefferson's idea of mutual tolerance more appealing. But the bellicosity of his opponents perhaps asks for stronger treatment. The book, thus, is more effective as an intellectual armory than as a sequential text, best witnessed when Dawkins picks his arguments during a discussion.
So it's an interesting book. Dawkins gets in his own way more often than he should have, especially with his point that atheism is the only rational choice. But he presents the basic reasons for atheism and the criticisms he has of religion in a clear way. It was one of those books I'm happier to say that I've read, than I was to actually read it, but it was informative.
If you've ever followed the topics of religion and science, even casually, probably none of the issues he raises will be unfamiliar. And much of the arguments he raises are against a fundamentalist, anti-science version of Christianity which very few Christians espouse. But in addressing some of the science of our beginnings, he does go into some very interesting areas, with clear, engaging explanations of issues involving natural selection, fascinating creatures and chemistry. He's less sure-footed on topics like linguistics, but the issues he's raised are worth thinking about. He's a polarizing guy, who expresses himself forcefully and not tactfully. It's useful to know what he actually has to say, as opposed to what people say that he's said.
Dawkins states that one of the purposes of the book is to encourage atheists to “come out”. A secondary purpose seems to be to persuade agnostics to make the final step into atheism. He claims in the preface that another goal is to convince open-minded believers but, not surprisingly, this book will not change a devout believer’s mind any more than Dawkins’ other books – he just can’t seem to speak the truth without doing so with an unmistakable arrogance that doesn’t bother ME too much (after all, I agree with him), but would not be persuasive to someone who disagrees strongly.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – there are other books for that – but Dawkins is such a careful and intelligent thinker and writer, that I sometimes wish he would write a kid-glove book that I could recommend to believers… and after the first chapter, I thought briefly that this might be the one.
If you are an atheist or an agnostic, I definitely recommend reading this book.
Or, read it just for a laugh. Because, for such a dense text full of science, logic, reason and rhetoric, it is also incredibly funny. Dawkins is deft with a phrase and has made some highly specialized information palatable for the layperson.
Really, I wasn't aware I needed this kind of confirmation, but I am so glad that I have it.
It's hardly surprising that Dawkins - an evolutionary biologist, after all - should object to religious accounts of the creation of the universe. But that he should do so as trenchantly and repeatedly as he does makes you wonder: Is it just because this stuff sells, or doth the lady protest too much? Is Richard Dawkins perhaps trying to convince himself as much as anyone else?
Science, he says, "flings open the narrow window through which we are accustomed to viewing the spectrum of possibilities". It is, to quote the late Carl Sagan, "a candle in the dark". It's the path to the truth. Without science, the universe has no meaning.
Of course, these are all things which a religious person (which I'm not, by the way) might say about God.
Dawkins says God is nonsense (there are shades of that famous exchange in graffiti: "`God is Dead' - Nietzsche. `Nietzsche is Dead' - God"), but in wishing to annex the epistemological high ground, Dawkins has engaged a piddling match which he simply can't win. The scientific method, being inductive, can no more reveal the truth about the universe than a holy scripture can. That's a formal logical proposition, by the way, and not some woolly post-modern nonsense. Brilliant philosophers and scientists, from the Descartes at the dawn of the Enlightenment to Hume at the end of it right down to post-war 20th Century writers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, have all grappled with exactly that problem: How *do* we categorise science; an endeavour which seems to move unerringly toward the truth without ever having the tools to achieve it?
For all that, Dawkins is persuasive that we shouldn't forgo our own considered judgment for that of wise men in funny clothes who claim to be learned in obscure scriptures - then again, this is hardly news to anyone with a tertiary education. But in claiming science as the *true* candle in the dark, Dawkins sets his scientific brethren up to be no better: wise men, only dressed in lab coats and not habits, learned in obscure "scriptures", to whom we should defer our own judgment (if you think I'm overstating this consider: do *you* understand quantum theory, or even know what it is? Fluid dynamics? Aerodynamics? If not, and you still ride on aeroplanes, then on what basis, other than faith?).
This observation, which owes something to the historian Thomas Kuhn, infuriates Richard Dawkins, but I don't see any way around it. Kuhn argued, persuasively that the development of science and the particular currency of given theory is far more contingent on ostensibly irrelevant social and environmental circumstances than scientists care to acknowledge: a scientific paradigm provides not only answers to conundrums, but the questions, too, so its objective validity is impossible to measure from within the paradigm (or for that matter, from without).
The irony is that Richard Dawkins (who has avowedly rejected Kuhn's work elsewhere) drifts ever closer to it in the latter pages of The God Delusion - even citing favourably Ludwig Wittgenstein - without ever acknowledging the logical trap he's falling into.
That it's been a runaway best seller is indisputable; exactly why is harder to fathom: it's not as if it's bringing anything new to the table: Dawkins rehashes exactly the same old Philosophy 101 arguments that we all remember from those golden years at university, when there was time to argue the metaphysical toss, and self-righteously baiting self-righteous Christians passed for some kind of sport.
It's a sport that Richard Dawkins appears not to have grown out of. Nor has passing time or increasing maturity tempered his tone. But wailing dogmatically about the perils of dogma isn't going to persuade anyone who isn't already part of the congregation.
Nor is it even the most considered entry on the topic in the last year: Dan Dennett's "Breaking The Spell", published not six months previously, is a more erudite, thoughtful, intellectually stimulating and tolerant take on pretty much the same subject.
This book is an embarrassment to the scientific community.
I'm shocked by the bias and the shadings and the lack of research and the bizarre methods he has of defining religion. If he likes it, it's not religion. If he doesn't like it, it is religion and is evil.
What a huge waste of money.
I'm disappointed and angry that Dawkins, who purports to be a scientist and indeed bases his claims to crediblity on that fact, has abandoned scientific method in this book.
You should know that I have only read about the first third of this book at the time of this writing. I had to put the book down for a little break, because he's really bugging me and I want to actually finish it.
He ridicules religion for being simplistic -- but can't even get the facts straight on what a saint is in Catholicism, or the role of Mary. Simplistic but not worth researching?
He writes about how much of a pass we give religion in legal jurisprudence -- and cites a 2006 Supreme Court decision for it, while NEGLECTING to mention that the 06 ruling overturns a long, long line of decisions barring the conduct allowed in the 06 ruling. The problem is that you can't just cite this case for the facts of the case. You need to see *why* the SC overturned its prior line of cases and in fact the SC is probably, in this case, shaking its finger in the face of a Congress that it thinks is being too lenient on religion and showing us what the consequences could be.
He writes about how bad religion is for the world today, but he backs up his statements with inaccurate and oversimplified generalizations about current affairs and with citations to 4th century theologians and the Crusades and the like. So, first, don't tell me about the Crusades or the Inquisition, dude, we ALL agree they were bad.
But second, if you're going to talk about current affairs, get the role of religion in them right:
If you're going to object to the phrase "ethnic cleansing" (which, by the way, I object to as well), don't replace it with an even more euphemistic and incorrect term ("religious cleansing"). Use the real word: Genocide. Maybe the reason that Northern Ireland's combatants are called "nationalists" and "loyalists" is because that's a more accurate term than Catholics and Prots. We all know perfectly well that the "troubles" there were caused by Britain, just as the civil war in Iraq is not a religious war but a political one, the opportunity for which arose when the US came in and scrambled the political structure.
He focuses on Christianity "because it's the religion {he is} most familiar with." I say he should do his research rather than relying on his impressionistic memories. Asshole.
He gives Buddhism a pass because, as far as I can see, he just doesn't want to do the work to look into it. I try to practice it as an ethical framework, but I have had plenty of arguments with people who say with a straight face "It's not a religion" even as they sit on a dais in front of statues of the Buddha and of Kwan Yin, to which offerings of food have been made and before which people are bowing. smh If all religion is bad, go for it. But don't say that all religion is bad and then define stuff you like as "not religion." That's intellectually unsound.
And for that matter, he says that the Church of England is the least distasteful, and I think he desperately needs to examine his reasons for that. Maybe, just MAYBE it's because the C of E is the one he's had the most real experience with, and maybe, just MAYBE he could examine whether this experience could indicate that the better you know a religion, the less evil it seems.
I'm an atheist, too. But I dislike the shrill voice irrespective of what side it's on. If you say that you know the truth because you're a scientist, then subject all your arguments to the intellectual rigor that science demands. Either that, or don't try to draw parallels between scientific method and your biased and prejudicial statements.
I'm disgusted.
Sam Harris does the same shit.
I think that if your hypothesis is correct, it will convince people on its merits. I don't think you have to use hyperbole or shading or bias. I think that *weakens* your argument. I think Dawkins is a terrible representative of atheists -- the group he claims to stand for.
I say "pseudo" scientific because if he used the same thoroughgoing processes demanded by the scientific method upon the substance in his
There's not much new here. The same atheistic arguments are peddled that have been provided for over a hundred years. "Evidence" against religious claims, especially regarding the Bible, are uncritically accepted. As is expected, Dawkins focuses on the Old Testament and not really the New-- for if he spent more time in the New Testament, divorced from Anglican dogma that he was taught, again, the book might be quite different.
While he might deny it, Dawkins is an atheist fundamentalist and a man of sincere faith in the dogmas of post-Enlightenment triumphant rationalism. Everything is laughably simplistic, and one gets the strong impression that while Dawkins strongly encourages skepticism in regards to religion, he hasn't quite been skeptical enough of his own presuppositions and worldview.
His assumptions regarding the lack of existence of anything beyond that which is material are not as evident as he would like. He enjoys playing to the extreme as much as those whom he despises. His arguments often assume their own proof. It's painfully clear that it takes more faith to accept Dawkins' alternatives for origins than to believe in a Creator. He proves more than willing to question the design paradigm, but there's no evident questioning of the evolution/materialist paradigm.
His handling of Zeitgeist is equally deficient-- if it undermines religious claims, it would equally undermine the claims of rational thinking and reason as alternatives. He tries to give "Darwinist" explanations for morality, but gets nowhere near handling how "Darwinist" explanations for deviation from morality would flatly contradict such things.
This is a work of a highly smug and militant atheist who is perfectly willing to let his own operating assumptions slide without critical review while he mocks and derides the operating assumptions of the majority of people who have ever lived and who live today. Poor form.
His argument about the raising of children is exceptionally naive. All children are, to some extent, "indoctrinated" by some kind of ethical/moral code of conduct, be it through religion, the lack thereof, or some other ideology. I don't disagree that children should be taught how to think and to value critical thinking, but to assume that such can be done after they are brought up in a moral/ethical vacuum is laughable.
The most lamentable part of the book, however, is the parts where Dawkins is entirely correct about the way that many people have acted on account of their religious ideologies. If there is value in this book, it is here-- the testimony at how the faith is blasphemed because of the ungodly conduct and attitudes of believers.
An example of one such
Throughout that section, Dawkins assumed the categories of "right" and "wrong" without even defining how these categories could exist at all in his worldview consistently. Instead, he engages in circular reasoning whereby what is right is defined by Darwinian social conventions. So what we know what is right is because "right" has been defined by social conventions which evolved in a Darwinian fashion. However, we know that these social conventions which evolved in a Darwinian fashion are right because we have just said that they are right.
This totally subjectivist view of ethics is logically incompatible with the absolutist stance of Dawkins on various issues like his insistance that is is absolutely wrong for "children to be indoctrinated". Perhaps it is the case that our "evolved Darwinian social conventions" actually says that it is right for "children to be indoctrinated", in which case Dawkins is wrong. Judging by the numerical superiority of those who are religious compared to those who are not, Dawkins' absolutist stance on this issue is logically incompatible with his supposed "embrace" of Darwinian social conventions defining what is and is not right. After all, if what is "right" is defined by Darwianin evolution of our social norms, then what is "right" is defined by the majority of society. Therefore, not only on the issue of "indoctrination of children", but also on whether religion is good etc, Dawkins is wrong on these issues according to his own subjectivist system of ethics.
If Dawkins truly believes that what is "right" and "wrong" is defined by Darwinian evolution of social norms, let him stop his anti-theistic and anti-Christian screed and follow the norms regarding the rightness and wrongness of religious behavior held by the majority of the people in the world. Otherwise, we have the opportunity to see a visible display of Ps. 14:1 - "The fool says in his heart: there is no God &c"
Most importantly, Dawkins teaches us that religion and the religious are not a topic to be taken seriously, offered any respect, airtime, money, or diffidence. If you want to see a fundamentalist totalitarian society, go visit Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to understand how it feels to have thoughts and beliefs controlled. This is the Christian Right's vision, and Dawkin's book knocks the wind right out of their sails.
Prior to starting this review I glanced through the reviews already on LibraryThing and would recommend that you do the same - a wide range of dis/approval ratings are apparent. Some very eloquent
Personally I enjoy his science writing much, much more but that is because his usual subjects are set in a stimulating and fascinating world and I find that fact is always stranger and more interesting than fiction (religion).
There are no mysterious atheist spells laid on this book - true believers will not be in danger from reading it - they are of course immune to logical evidence and conscience anyway. It is those that are not fully immersed in the non-logic and non-thought of faith who may be prompted to examine their own beliefs.
Dawkins covers the subject matter methodically and with step by step sections which, while ultimately the only way to organise such a comprehensive case does prevent a real narrative/polemic flow from building up. His turn of phrase and gift for the English language are just as evident as usual but its just that pointing out the errors, inconsistencies and dangers of religion is not as inspiring as describing the intricacies of evolutionary theory. But then I have been an atheist for a long time so most of the arguments were familiar to me and I suppose that covering the dangers of unfounded belief is simply not as inspiring as understanding how the natural world developed.
A must read for anybody.
However, I feel as though he is trying too hard to convert people to atheism. He goes so far as to say that all religion serves as a backdrop which can
In the end though, what really irritated me and turned me off of the book was his pompous and self-righteous tone. It certainly got in the way of a rational, open discussion. He seems to assume that his opinion is the only correct opinion, with very little room for change. Really now, isn't that what you were crying out against in the first place, Mr Dawkins?
I'm professing christian since 10 years - so I'm certainly biased.
There are some interesting chapters - especially when he speaks about evolution which is his field.
But the rest is - to my
Then he is pretty unfair in taking bad examples. Surely there are a few christians that serve as bad example - and it's pretty easy to pick those - which he does.
To me it sound like he wants to win the arguments by just being loud and not listening to what christians are saying.
I really hoped to get some good arguments for atheism but I was quite disappointed!
Dawkins overall point is that while one might certain concessions to logic to accommodate their religious indoctrination, in all cases, this represents nothing more than a willing delusion. The lengths some will go to are comical to behold -- all the way up to urban legends with no factual basis cited by religious apologists as canonical truth. The God Delusion is a terrific read and will buttress any lingering disregard one has for "the word" regardless of who is delivering it.
Dawkins is so angry with religion and God that he overstates his case to the point of nausea. He dismisses all concepts of God as
The author throws away a chance to present his argument constructively, and uses the same polemic of his opponents. He must have alienated a lot of open thinkers in the process.
Read it if you hate God and would like to listen to someone ranting against Him. Otherwise, you might be a tad disappointed.