The God Delusion

---

Read more Read less. Customers who viewed this item also viewed. Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1. The Magic of Reality: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Science in the Soul. Sponsored products related to this item What's this? The Theory of Everything. Dawkins and the Selfish Gene Postmodern Encounters. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.

See a Problem?

Customers who bought this item also bought. Review "A very important book, especially in these times To get the free app, enter mobile phone number. See all free Kindle reading apps. Start reading The God Delusion on your Kindle in under a minute. Don't have a Kindle? Black Swan 21 May Language: What other items do customers buy after viewing this item? A Brief History of Humankind Paperback. A Brief History of Tomorrow Paperback. Share your thoughts with other customers.

Write a product review. Read reviews that mention richard dawkins must read god delusion open mind natural selection read this book well written delusion by richard gravely challenged oxford university eye opener great book human mind open minded existence of god best book reading the book quality of this book religious beliefs read for people. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later. Kindle Edition Verified Purchase. A 'must read' for all rational minds. If you are grappling with the question of 'God' and faith, this will clear your thoughts, settle your doubts and answer your queries to a great extent.

Irreverent - even provocative - and brutally honest in its approach, this book was unlike anything else I ever read. Or, as computer nerds like to say, "Garbage in, garbage out. Other possible "moth to the flame" corollaries could be due to psychological hardwiring to do other things, such as finding correlations, joining groups, discriminating against " others " in favor of the familiar, etc.

Judgment day

Children are born with dualism hardwired, whereas monism must be learned. Related to this, children are also inherently teleological in that everything has a purpose: He refers to the studies of Paul Bloom that show dualism and teleology as inherent; the concept of separating the mind from the body and the concept of purpose, predispose religiosity.

From there, the idea of a soul or a created universe are not gigantic leaps to make. Dawkins also notes the neurological and emotional similarities of belief in a deity to the irrationality of love; that while polyamory makes more sense on an evolutionary and realistic level a person can love more than one wine or rock band, so why not people? Dawkins mentions that just as species drift over time when separated by geography, so do languages and accents, and in many ways so do religions.

That religion has an evolutionary component is certainly supported by evidence, such as the Christian co-opting of pagan holidays and rituals, as well as the many thousands of denominations and sects that are spread across the globe. Dawkins states that just because a gene or meme or religion propagates from generation to generation doesn't mean it confers a benefit to the species—if this were true, humans would have lost their appendixes long ago. Dawkins alludes to the teaching of certain craft skills from master to apprentice—the techniques might slowly change over time, but the results are relatively similar.

He likens the combined skills to memeplexes , which are the meme versions of gene cartels —that is, groups of genes that express themselves together, like the traits of carnivores versus traits of herbivores. Some memeplexes provide a fundamental group of ideas. Religions are examples of such memeplexes. Here, Dawkins invokes Life of Brian , Clarke's Third Law again and makes specific mention to the story of John Frum and how quickly a religion can spring up when promises of a Messiah are made.

If Vanuatu natives are willing to wait tens of years for their savior to return, who are Christians to criticize them? Dawkins mentions that morality existed on the islands where cargo cults were established, before they were established—thus, religion is not a predicate for morality setting up the next chapter.

Dawkins starts the chapter exposing the hypocrisy of certain religious individuals, particularly those that send him and the editor of Freethought Today nasty letters which amount to threats of death or damnation by the Christian God. Dawkins wonders why the omnipotent God should he exist needs such vitriolic defenders who would do His work. Dawkins notes four Darwinian reasons for morality: All are observed in non-human species. Specifically, Dawkins discusses altruism and reciprocal altruism. He briefly examines altruism as a basis for economics and money , and the regulation of cheaters through game theory.

Of particular note in this section is mention of the Arabian babbler, a small species of bird, whose members assert their dominance by feeding others. Dawkins takes a moment to mention that just because a behavior is a result of evolution, that fact does not diminish its other qualities. Having sex without the purpose of procreation, or adopting an orphan, while certainly not a purpose in a purely evolutionary sense, do not mean they are worthless activities—nor do they counter evolutionary ideas, as the cooperation and efforts involved certainly make life a little less difficult than without them.

Dawkins highlights studies of Marc Hauser [note 3] which suggest that morality is mostly universal, regardless of religion or other factors, as revealed through the study of subjects' responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas, referencing Immanuel Kant frequently. Hauser's works also find that the answers to these questions showed no statistically significant difference between atheists and the pious.

Dawkins, by himself and quoting Einstein et al , states that not only is this a fairly cynical question if a person is only refraining from murdering, raping and stealing because he's worried about what God thinks, what does that say about the person? Dawkins starts this chapter by noting that the religious texts of nearly years ago do not reflect modern times, and anyone who would set their moral code based on those texts have either not read them or do not understand them. Dawkins highlights a variety of tales, such as the stories of Noah , Lot at Sodom and Gomorrah , Abraham and even Moses , and how from a purely moral standpoint they are really quite horrible tales, hardly Aesop's fables.

He also points out the many crimes punishable by death according to God. So, just like they might with scientific evidence, it's okay for them to cherry pick the word of their Lord, which they hold sacred and infallible? Interestingly, Dawkins praises the story of Jesus as one Jew who chose to break from the ancient traditions prescribed by those that came before him be nice to the unfortunate, turn the other cheek, etc.

Dawkins points out that many of his teachings are similar to the structures of modern cults [6] and he didn't treat his mother very well. Guilt by association , it seems, is the cross born by every Christian. Dawkins notes that some interpretations of the Bible note that quotations such as "love thy neighbor" referred only to Jews.

Similarly, a strong Commandment instructs that "Thou shalt not kill" actually means "Thou shalt not kill other Jews". He goes on to note that throughout the Bible, as well as the doctrines of other religions regardless of origin, there is an inherent appeal to othering and segregation being taught. Dawkins asserts that if religions were not responsible for any other atrocities in history, indoctrination of the concepts of "us vs. Since even the most pious of Christians obviously do not use the Bible as the only source for their moral code, then where do modern humans get their morals?

Dawkins remarks that morality is relative to the spirit of the times, noting that even Abraham Lincoln 's views on black people , while progressive in his time, would be considered reprehensible today. Even modern standards of immorality or questionable morality change—the policies of Adolf Hitler pale compared to the death sowed by Genghis Khan or the amoral codes of Caligula , and Donald Rumsfeld would be considered a bleeding-heart liberal compared to the war chiefs of World War II.

Dawkins admits he doesn't have an answer for why morality changes over time, but one thing appears certain: While recognizing that Joseph Stalin was an atheist, and we all know that Hitler was a Catholic , Dawkins states that it follows logically that both assertions are irrelevant due to the fact that their actions and policies were not created in the name of atheism, nor because they were or might have been atheists. Hitler, in particular, was praised by German cardinals and tacitly supported by the Vatican. Dawkins ends the chapter by asking a fairly critical question: Why would anyone go to war over the lack of a belief?

Here, Dawkins notes that he eschews confrontation, refusing to get into debates with creationists on the grounds that it would only serve to uplift their credentials and degrade his own. Somewhat answering his own last question in the previous chapter, he states that his "hostility" as others call it is limited to words, and he isn't going to kill or bomb anyone for not agreeing with him. That being said, there are still plenty of reasons to be pissed off with religions' bullshit.

Dawkins remarks that scientists will admit they are wrong and change their point of view if new evidence renders an old theory obsolete—something no fundamentalist would admit to doing about their own beliefs. He compares the inspirational exaltation of one scientist being proven wrong about a fundamental [8] of cellular biology to the tragic descent of geologist Kurt Wise into young earth creationism as a modern day Winston Smith.

Fundamentalism, Dawkins fears, is robbing humanity of some brilliant minds who, hopelessly entrenched in their beliefs, will never contribute anything of consequence to the world beyond useless PRATT. Dawkins discusses examples as late as where blasphemy and apostasy are still considered crimes by fundamentalist groups and governments, punishable by death in some instances. Dawkins notes that while the Taliban executed homosexuals, even in his own country homosexuality was a crime until as recently as , tragically too late for Alan Turing , whom Dawkins asserts did more for the effort against the Germans in World War II than either Dwight D.

Eisenhower or Winston Churchill for his efforts in decoding German intelligence. He goes on to mention Pat Robertson , Jerry Falwell , Fred Phelps and others for their considerable Christian charity towards gays and lesbians , along with the societies that tolerate them. Dawkins goes into the many slippery slope arguments involving faith and abortion , capital punishment , euthanasia , stem cell research , in vitro fertlization, Army of God and martyrdom that plague the international conversation. He notes that those that possess the religious zeal to kill an abortion doctor [9] definitely do not see any irony in their actions, only righteousness.

In addition to describing and debunking the fallacy, Dawkins goes on to mention that pro-life actually means "pro-human-life", desiring to afford special rights to a mass of cells that pro-lifers recognize as human without understanding what that mass of cells actually is or, indeed, what classifies a being as human to begin with. Dawkins also notes the interesting contradiction in the fundamentalist tendency to attribute humanity to a mass of cells while simultaneously not recognizing transitional forms of humanity such as Australopithecus through evolution as human.

He acknowledges that unerring faith has driven some well-educated, middle-class young men to blow themselves up in the name of a deity. Dawkins blames the tactics of indoctrination that were forced upon them as children. Dawkins begins this chapter relating the story of Edgardo Mortara, a 19th-century six year-old Jewish boy in Italy who was rescued read: Dawkins relates this story to begin his assertion that forcing beliefs upon children, who are too young to understand what they are being taught, is a form of child abuse.

Taking this moment to finally talk about the abuses of Catholic priests against children as well as other abuses of the church such as the Magdalene asylums , Dawkins asserts again as he had previously done in conversation and in public discourse that the psychological trauma caused by, for example, suggesting to a child that their recently deceased child friend is going to Hell for being a Protestant is significantly worse.

He discusses the use of Hell Houses to scare children into being pious as utilized by Dominionist priests. The commonality between the physical and mental abuses perpetrated by religious officials is the abuse of trust. Dawkins shares some letters sent to him and other accounts of individuals who have escaped from the indoctrinations of nuns preaching hellfire and damnation e. Dawkins asserts, citing psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, that children have a right not to be force fed bullshit by anyone , even parents who believe they have the right to teach them whatever they want.

A physical manifestation of this "right" can be seen in practices of female genital mutilation.

The God Delusion

Supreme Court ruled previously in a case involving the Amish that the parents had every right to pull their children from public school if the teachings conflicted with their culture. However, no one bothered to consult the children to see what they wanted. Both Humphrey and Dawkins question whether parents are really doing their children any service by denying them access to science, vaccines or medical care in order to assert their own rights—whether it be justified by the preservation of cultural norms or by unconfirmed perceptions of reality.

Dawkins talks about Emmanuel College, funded by Peter Vardy , a British public school active in the teaching of creationism and Biblical literalism , highlighting the denial that Vardy practices when others ask him about the curriculum. Dawkins uses the example of three four year-olds appearing as the "Three Wise Men" in a creche by their religious affiliations as egregious and inappropriate as identifying them by atheistic-affiliative terms, or by what political party or economic school of thought they subscribe to Marxism , Keynesianism , etc , despite protest from concerned parents who would argue that "they're just kids".

He even asserts that an organization such as the Brights Movement would be inappropriate to label children, suggesting that if you have to tell someone what they believe or think, then they can't be identified by those beliefs or thoughts. Identification, specifically self-identification, requires an active decision on the individual being identified. Faith, in particular, which requires a belief in superiority over other forms of faith, denies a belief in equality —can any teaching be more horrible for a young child?

Despite all of his objections against gods and religions, Dawkins recognizes the need for understanding the Biblical texts as well as Greek mythology and Norse mythology , and others in order to maintain literacy. He lists dozens of Biblical quotes, idioms and metaphors that appear throughout everyday fiction, nonfiction, music, conversation and colloquial expressions—while simultaneously pointing out studies that show a marked ignorance of Biblical references, particularly in the United States.

Dawkins begins his final chapter by wondering about the necessity of a deity to fill "a much-needed gap" [note 6] —if, for example, there isn't something that would be more worthwhile to fill that gap. Dawkins includes a poem by A. Milne about an invisible friend named "Binker", remarking that lots of children have invisible friends [note 7].

He does not criticize this practice, as some reported stories about a person's invisible friends appeared to contribute positively to their psychological well-being. He posits that perhaps the invisible deities are simply manifestations of these friends that were retained by certain adults out of childhood and puberty. He also considers the inverse, that the tendency to have imaginary friends evolved from beliefs of supernatural gods, but doubts it as the less likely of the two. Dawkins questions the psychological need of invisible friends for consolation, and that assertions of pointlessness without a God is a fallacy , stating that simply because a religion says "things get better" doesn't mean that they will.

In other words, feelings do not equal truth, and vice versa. He notes that happiness and unhappiness do not know religion, or a lack thereof. While some can take comfort in an invisible friend that things will be better, Dawkins states that science offers more effective consolations, such as medicine. We simply have to face up to the fact that monotheists are extrem [Original review, Jan 19 ] I must admit that I was somewhat taken aback when Donald Trump suggested the US should deny entry to Muslims and require them all to carry ID cards. We simply have to face up to the fact that monotheists are extremely dangerous.

From the thousand Philistines that Sampson slew with the jawbone of an ass Judges 15, , through the Conquistadores and the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre to the Thirty Years War, monotheists have shown time and time again that they are ruthless terrorists who will stop at nothing to spread their sick, perverted ideology. And it's hardly surprising. What do you expect of a religion originally founded by a man who was on the point of killing his only son because the voices in his head told him to do it, and whose most important principle is to deny the validity, or even the right to existence, of all other faiths?

Don't get me wrong. I'm saying all this in a spirit of tolerance - some of my best friends are monotheists! Nothing else will do. He shamelessly flaunted his fanatical monotheistic beliefs to the extent of being a member of a dance squad with a local Greek Orthodox monotheist church. Under Obama, people would just have been wringing their hands and asking for tougher gun-control laws. But I think President Trump will actually do something. These monotheists must be stopped. The God Delusion - Why there almost certainly is no God? 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 The God Delusion - Why there almost certainly is no God?

He remains silent about the God hypothesis that can arise from new physics and eastern cosmogonies. I feel that while The Selfish Gene was a standalone book intended to convey a brilliant concept in a very articulate fashion to the general reader, The God Delusion is a more of a glorified pamphlet meant to be a handbook of reference for any atheist for the range of illogical, childish or even intelligent arguments that might be addressed to him.

An atheist who reads and remembers a fair bit of The God Delusion will always be well equipped to blunt any argument against his position. But this huge strength of the book is also its major flaw that demotes it much below the Selfish gene in my opinion. The Selfish gene is a must-read book that I would thrust in the hand of anyone I like - because I want them to learn from it, raise their consciousness or because I want to have a wonderful discussion with them. In contrast, the God Delusion is a book I would thrust in exasperation at someone with whom I am tired of arguing and would rather prefer them to go through Dawkins' exhaustive repudiation of most arguments.

That is the difference. The book would be useful if I want to convince someone or If I wanted to win an argument. But what if neither was ever my objective? It gives me no intrinsic value that is not situational. But then, perhaps I was never one of the intended audience of the book; the purpose of this book, is not to explain science.

He also spends a lot of time debunking obvious fallacies and beliefs purely because they are prevalent. It might be important to show how silly they are, but I frankly was impatient to get on with it and not spend time on such obvious facts. Most of the arguments in the book are ones that I could have come up with too if I had sat down and though about it. True, Dawkins has made my job easier, but what if I am comfortable with not having the God Delusion and with the fact that a lot of people have? What if the formula of zeitgeist that Dawkins proposes about what is moral is applicable to religions too?

After all, the religion of today is far from what it was in the s. The only genuinely useful sections in the book for me were the intriguing discussion on morals and that wonderful last chapter on model building. If only the rest of the book was as memorable. I have a few other peeves with the book too - It condemns anyone who understand religion and science and takes the informed decision to be an agnostic. This condemnation by Dawkins of agnostics is perhaps my single biggest point of difference with Dawkins.

I have no problems with the debunking of the God Hypothesis as Dawkins defines 'God'. But, his atheism goes into exactly those realms which he accuses religious fundamentalists to be going in. He gives an example of a Priest who says that even though he has moments of reservation about the existence of a God, he keeps such doubts to himself and extols God's virtues purely so that the common man is not mislead into doubt. Dawkins condemns this as intellectual and moral cowardice. Then later, in a section titled 'Why there almost certainly is no God', he freely acknowledges that "most probably" God does not exist and then classifies himself as an agnostic leaning heavily towards atheism.

Then he says that such agnostics should refrain from calling themselves agnostics as it will cause damage to the common people who want to support atheism. Is this not the same intellectual and moral cowardice? If you cannot in your own logic call yourself a full blown atheist, do not do that just to prove a point or to support a pet theory.

If there 'almost certainly' is no god, then it is 'almost certainly' a 'delusion' to say that pure atheism is fully reasonable too. Dawkins makes an appeal to closely define the meaning of the word "God". But then, not matter how you define it, as long as the basis is in irrationality, the same principle is being attacked. And hence to say I believe in Science as the ultimate answer when it has so far been unsuccessful in furnishing one is just to substitute the term "Science" for "God".

Of course I understand the value of people like Dawkins being there to be the vanguard for this change. And there is a real need for a spokesperson for the atheists when the other party has so many very vocal ones. But that does not mean that he should call for educated agnostics to brand themselves as atheists just to add religious fervor to the brand. All that is still no reason to call for making atheism an organized religion too. There are too many paradoxes and unknowns in nature which science is more and more throwing up its hands in utter confusion towards.

What if the universe truly is 'queerer than we can suppose' as J. Dawkins manages to explain most phenomena with natural selection but dismisses the larger conundrums and paradoxes with the great sweeping idea called the 'Anthropic principle'. The Anthropic principle might be a good tool to stall an argument but is no authentic scientific theory as he pretends it to be. It would be the equivalent of saying that the clock is telling time correctly isn't it, so that explains its form and function and hence it needs no designer.

I just paraphrased above the argument Dawkins uses to prove that atheism is absolutely valid. Well, unless we resort to such rhetoric devices, it is not. And in the 'belief spectrum' ranging from radical theism to complete atheism, the only position we can take without resorting to faith is one of doubt - agnosticism. In conclusion, my opinion is that pure atheism is not possible under present scientific knowledge and that is why agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take - without slipping into blind belief in science after climbing out of blind belief in religion.

May 26, J. Keely rated it liked it Shelves: 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 saddening. A common argument I've encountered is 'if you don't believe in god, then what's to stop you stealing, raping, and killing as often as you like? However, if you turn the question around, it has very unflattering implications for the believer who asked it: That most of the time, you're sitting there fantasizing about murder, and the only thing stopping you is fear of divine punishment? It's not that most of us are sitting there wishing we could do these awful things, and being held back by fear of punishment.

No, for the most part we don't like to see other people hurt. Even soldiers and doctors, trained to deal with death, still experience psychological trauma when confronted with its reality. We don't want to live dangerous, criminal lives, fearing constant reprisal. We want to live normal, pleasant lives of friendship and respect. For all his flaws, Dawkins helped me to realize that there is something to be achieved by identifying as an atheist. Not merely because it represents my position on any theology, but because people won't come to trust or understand atheists unless they are willing to speak openly.

It shouldn't be a dirty word in America, a country founded on dissent. Our legal documents outline a system that holds personal beliefs and opinions to be of concern only to the person holding them, yet particular kinds of belief still carry political clout and others, social stigma. This Scientific American article looks at various studies analyzing how Americans think of atheists, at one point showing that the average person trusts an atheist about as much as they do a criminal. Some might suggest that it's a choice, no one is born an atheist, any more than they are born a criminal though arguments could be made there, too , but how much of a choice is it, really?

We each look at the world and try to determine what we think of it, and while some people make these decisions blithely, I don't feel like I have ever had much choice in my views. If I looked at a red shoe, I couldn't simply believe that it was blue, I have to base my conclusions on what I see. I won't pull out the old 'I was raised in such a way, and came to atheism in such a way' story, because it's hackneyed, and it isn't really useful here.

Suffice it to say that, as a child, I assumed a lot of mythical things were real, because people talked about them all the time--gods and angels and hell and ghosts and Santa and all those familiar cultural symbols appeared everywhere around me, even in cartoons. Eventually, as I learned more, none of it made any sense, nor did it answer any questions, so I stopped thinking any of it was real. Is that really a choice? There's also the fact that 'deciding' to believe in god, but not actually believing in your heart suggests that we can somehow 'fool' god, getting in on a technicality.

None of this indicates that we have any real choice in the matter. It isn't like voting for a politician or picking a favorite band. If there was a god who wanted us to believe in him, then he probably wouldn't have created a world where his existence was merely one of numerous equally-appealing options, which are all surmounted by the final option that none of them exist. But to suggest this, to most people, is apparently tantamount to admitting that I molest children, employ and murder prostitutes which is worse?

And it's this view of atheists as amoral that convinced me to openly identify as an atheist, instead of mere agnosticism. Like women, blacks, and gays, the first step in gaining respect is admitting what you are, and insisting that you are still a human being. Eventually, simply identifying with a movement is pointless, and even unproductive, since it strengthens the very separatist ideology that must be torn down for the sake of moving past the original conflict--but it's an important step in the beginning.

Agnosticism simply isn't a strong enough stance, since I disbelieve in god in the same way that I disbelieve in a machine gun bunker under my bed. I'm not going to live my life as if my bed will kill me, or as if working on Sunday will cause me to end up in a trash dump in a suburb of Jerusalem. I agree with Dawkins' conclusions, yet I don't find him convincing. His books have threads of argument, but I rarely feel that the metaphors and examples he uses are ultimately useful. He never goes quite far enough, and so I think he falls short of his stated goal of a reader starting this book as a believer, and finishing it as an atheist.

It feels more like a book to help confirm atheists. If you're already familiar with these arguments and their implications, then the book will make sense to you--if you aren't, then it's going to feel a bit incomplete. For example, at one point he talks about the idea of the 'sacred', that there are some things in religion which are not allowed to be discussed, and asks why this should be the case. We are scrupulous about discussing every detail of the rest of our lives, so why does this specific subset get its own special rules? Unfortunately, Dawkins doesn't provide us with the obvious answer: As Orwell explores in , controlling language, controlling what people are allowed to talk about is the hallmark of any tyranny.

And lest we forget, various churches have exerted this kind of political power throughout history, and some continue to hold that power today. So, it would be in their best interest to forbid discussion of dangerous ideas that might threaten their power.

Navigation menu

Yet Dawkins is certainly familiar with cultural Darwinism, with the way that ideas grow and change within a culture, the importance of 'infectious ideas' that take advantage of the natural fears, hopes, and habits of human beings--this should be all too obvious to the man who coined the word 'meme'.

And yet, he isn't working here to make obvious and deconstruct these infectious ideas, to reveal their origins and purpose, and to show why we might hold such beliefs. But if his arguments are fundamentally dismissive and incomplete, it seems obvious to me why this would be, looking at the trajectory of his career: Dawkins has put himself in the unenviable position of being a public philosopher.

He is a man of ideas which he constantly presents and defends against people who are uninformed, emotionally unstable, and self-assured. Something I've learned here on Goodreads is the more often people miss your point, responding only with the same tired antagonism, the more flippant and distant you can become. You start off reasonable and patient, which is time-consuming, draining, and rarely achieves anything. Watching Dawkins give one of his many lectures to believers is painful, because during the questions afterward, it becomes clear that almost no one there had sufficient knowledge of either rhetoric or theology to understand his points.

It's like watching a mathematician explain his solution for the Reimann Hypothesis and then, in the audience, a man stands up and says "I don't know what 'zeta-function' means, but you're wrong". Few seem to recognize the thought and study that goes into disbelief, since belief can be achieved quite easily by telling children that if they don't follow the sky man's book, they will be set on fire forever. But your average believer is a different from a biblical scholar, who has some understanding what he means by his belief, and who tends to reject the bible as 'word of god' simply because he knows that there is no single bible to believe in--there are a hundred different versions, each full of extraneous parts, errors, conflicts, and revisions.

A discussion with a well-informed atheist there are, of course, many who are fundamentally ignorant is similar to a discussion with a biblical scholar: One can see Dawkins engage in these discussions in various documentaries, and he comes off as much less of a stuck-up prick. But by taking his ideas public, he encounters angry conflict with a mass of uninformed, self-righteous people, both believers and atheists, and he is invariably dragged down, slight for slight condescension for condescension.

More's the pity, he has an excellent background and a respectable mind, but fighting with the mob never elevates an intellectual argument. In the end, his responses should not be tailored to the ignoramus who asked a question he already answered. A big part of the reason I stopped studying atheism was that I realized all I was doing was training myself to argue with people who had very strong feelings about an issue they didn't understand. Instead, we should write for posterity, for the larger cause of human knowledge.

A lesson we all could learn, in an age when our words and actions may often be recorded and remembered. Perhaps it will lend me patience when I must answer the same question I have already answered a hundred times in the same thread, from someone who is responding not because they feel intrigued, but because they feel threatened. Even if, in the end, there can be no coming together in understanding, merely fight and flight, at least I can do right by me, and put forth my best and most patient face.

As far as turning believers into atheists, I'd send them to Bart Ehrman before Dawkins. View all 25 comments. Nov 02, Alex Telander rated it it was amazing Shelves: Dawkins latest book is as brutal and honest as its title. Having an open mind is actually one of the New Ten Commandments Dawkins cites.

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. 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. Another big issue with Dawkins is the labeling of children as belonging to the religion of the parents without any consent from them: If you liked this review, and would like to read more, go to BookBanter.

View all 7 comments. Nov 22, Manny rated it really liked it Shelves: 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.

The God Delusion | Books | The Guardian

Would it still be OK if they were a woman? Well, we have hard evidence on that now! Most people still say yes. Half the population says no! Considering tha I thought the very best point this book made came right at the beginning. 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. Dawkins just says what he honestly thinks, and doesn't see why he needs to be ashamed of it. 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. 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". 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: View all 65 comments. Mar 24, Nick rated it did not like it Recommends it for: People with a critical mind. Ok, we get it. Christianity is evil, Islam is maniacal, and all other religious zealots are out of their mind.

I guess Dawkins is right I wish we still practiced 'exposing' infants i. Although there seems to be correlation between violence, homocide, and arrogance wit Ok, we get it. Although there seems to be correlation between violence, homocide, and arrogance with organized religion, is a state without a god any better say, Maoist China? I think Dawkins has forgotten the most important axiom of science in his contentious ramblings and methodical deconstruction of ancient texts, history, and religion of which he is no expert Dawkins is only emboldening the religion of science at the exprense of the world's major belief systems.

I just hope humanity will resist a "brave new world" in which organized religion is replaced by other systems that devalue human life in the name of progression and knowledge. View all 32 comments. Apr 19, Richard rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Everyone, but especially anyone religious. 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: 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.

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

But it was an excellent read anyway. View all 10 comments. Aug 02, James rated it it was ok Shelves: 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.

I saved up my energy to read the radical atheism espoused in Richard Dawkins' The GOD Delus This book was a dramatic disappointment that did not live up to the "finally someone has proven religion is poppycock" hype it received. As a man of faith with a passionate interest in science, I understand -- and personally experience -- both sides of the God vs. 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. 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? View all 21 comments.

• A MIGHTY FORTRESS: Lead Bomber Over Europe
• Horrible Harrys Secret
• L(i)ebenslang und unvergänglich: Du lebst in meiner Liebe - bis in alle Ewigkeit (German Edition)
• Writings of Karl Radek: The Left Opposition in Soviet Russia
• Making Music (The Dickensian Challenge)
• THE SCARLET EGG: A Girl and Her Dragon
• Diary of Anna Green Winslow A Boston School Girl of 1771