The God Delusion

Reviews (See all 4,360) Write a reviewfor this

It's a hit!

So here's the deal: an highly ranked British Oxford professor of zoology and evolutionary biology seeks to consider the existence of the big guy in... (show more)

So here's the deal: an highly ranked British Oxford professor of zoology and evolutionary biology seeks to consider the existence of the big guy in the sky (God, not Elvis).

He seeks to analyse the concept of religion and faith from a logical and reasoning perspective (with a healthy base in Darwinian science). Largely, his argument focuses on the existence (or rather, non-existence) of God himself.

He carefully cites and argues against all possible reasons for believing in God, the existence of God, and the logical falacy that is 'faith' itslelf. Also provides a hilarious destruction of agnosticism and creationism. He also provides a number of Darwininan, biological and cultural reasons for why religion and belief in God are so pervasive across all societies. Needless to say, none of these reasons have anything to do with God actually existing.

This book is a fantastically entertaining read, and will definitely have you wondering whether the existence of God. It will make fundamentalists turn into moderates, moderates into agnostics, agnostics in atheists, and atheists into a very smug-looking bunch indeed. (show less)

 

 

by Will Plowright

No, it's a flop!

Richard Dawkins is completely right. If only he didn't have to be such a douche about it.

The snarky presentation of his arguments probably stems ... (show more)

Richard Dawkins is completely right. If only he didn't have to be such a douche about it.

The snarky presentation of his arguments probably stems from Dawkins' inability to pin down an audience: is he addressing the firmly religious? This seems to be the case when he refutes stances which generally belong to the dogmatic--for example, that Bible passages are always literally true. Yet he discusses these dogmatists the way a gossiping teen would laugh about someone mutually disliked and not currently in the room.

Aside from his disrespectful tone, Dawkins frequently simplifies his opponents' arguments to straw man levels. It's easy to win a debate about abortion when you claim that the pro-lifers consist solely of hypocritical religious fanatics, then only acknowledge the extent of your oversimplification in a two line footnote several pages into the debate.

Basically, although Dawkins is 100% correct in pointing out the circular reasoning used by many to "prove" God's existence, and he certainly informed me of new ways to consider the basis for atheism, he makes no friends with this book. The religious are likely to find him arrogant (and rightly so), and anyone with a sense of logic can see that he sometimes deliberately misinforms his readers in order to justify his triumphant attitude. Worth reading if you're interested in the subject, but take the ideas in this book with at least a few grains of salt. (show less)

 

 

by Facebook-gebruiker

More Reviews

• 
  

  (disclaimer: this reviewer is both a longtime atheist and a practicing Buddhist. He does not consider these positions conflicting.)

  Dawkins is opinionated. Dawkins is loud. Dawkins is, in short, many of the things the Godless and the Godly dislike about each other but find it difficult to recognize in the mirror.

  The Good. Parts of *The God Delusion* are creative (as opposed to merely witty) and represent new and/or innovative thinking. Questions like "why do religions get special t... (show more)

  (disclaimer: this reviewer is both a longtime atheist and a practicing Buddhist. He does not consider these positions conflicting.)

  Dawkins is opinionated. Dawkins is loud. Dawkins is, in short, many of the things the Godless and the Godly dislike about each other but find it difficult to recognize in the mirror.

  The Good. Parts of *The God Delusion* are creative (as opposed to merely witty) and represent new and/or innovative thinking. Questions like "why do religions get special tax breaks even when they operate like commercial enterprises and are often not answerable to their own parishioners?" or "Why does religious freedom trump other kinds of rights and civil liberties?" (where Dawkins points out that religious institutions can get a exemptions to federal law for the use drugs like peyote as sacrament, but other people dying of cancer can't get access to medicinal cannabis even though they're in horrible pain as a result) are thoughtful explorations of subjects that don't get thought about nearly enough in public discourse.

  I particularly enjoyed the section on how morality appears to be a universal trait in that virtually all humans, in all cultures, whether religious or not seem to share a very close consensus on what is and is not ethical behavior. And Dawkins' thoughtful speculation on the origins of religion as an integral part of the human character on both genetic and memetic levels is itself worth the price of the book ... even if not its weight, necessarily.

  The Bad: The bone Dawkins wants to pick is not so much with religion as with The Lord him or herself. It's like he's got a personal grudge against the Big Guy. So he specifically exempts Buddhism and Confucianism (neither of which have any particular concept of God) in his definition of religion and contents himself instead with savaging the Abrahamic faiths, with occasional vitriol reserved for Hindus and various flavors of polytheists.

  On the other hand, I guess why the book's called *The God Delusion* and not *The Religion delusion*, although Dawkins seems happy to muddle this distinction when it suits his purposes.

  First there's the Invasion of the Straw Men. Dawkins seems to take a certain savage glee in demolishing everything from Aquinas' Five Proofs of the Existence of God to dozens if not literal hundreds of other theological arguments ranging from God's innate goodness to the idea that religion (in the from of divine retribution) is what makes people behave ethically (see previous paragraph).
  
  But of course this is all Freshman Intro to Philosophy stuff, the kind of thing that if you haven't resolved it to your own satisfaction by the time you're thirty, you probably didn't find the questions very interesting in the first place. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, especially because Dawkins is so interested in being the sharpest kid on the debating team that he more than makes up for the rest of us.)

  In fact, in his eagerness to beat up the straw men he's erected, Dawkins overlooks the implications of his own most basic point point, which is that faith is fundamentally not a rational decision. So why, we ask, does he expect to win anyone over to his position with rational and, if I may say so, often tendentious reasoning?

  The answer, I suspect, is that Dawkins is preaching to the converted, a criticism many others have made more skillfully than me, and with which he rebuts (although not particularly well) in his Foreword. And if not to the converted, at least then to the choir, those who may be leaning toward an atheistic viewpoint but are really just looking for the security of an argumentative rockpile large enough to safely smite any Jehovah's Witnesses who might show up on their doorstep some Saturday morning...and feel smug about it afterwards.

  Well, in my experience, The Jehova's Witnesses are nice enough bunch of people, and very sincere, if tedious group of people. But point is, they're really pretty harmless. Which brings me-- and about time too-- to

  The Ugly. For a guy who excoriates all religions and religious folk (even the ones which are by his own admission often nice enough people and generally tolerant of those who don't happen to share their personal views) on the basis that it's the moderate ones who allow the extremists to breed-- you know like, Joe McCarthy used to say about Liberals and Communists-- Dawkins seems to advocate a lot of positions that some folks (myself, for instance) might find rather, um, extremist.

  Take the notion that parents ought not to be allowed to pass on their religious ideas to their own children. Now Dawkins doesn't come right out and say this, but he loudly decries the fact that they are (at least in this country and his own) allowed to do exactly that.

  Dawkins also seems to be rather hard on the idea of making any sort of public accommodation whatever for the fact that people just happen to feel differently about what sorts of things are right and proper and allowed or not.

  What Dawkins seems to be conflating is the often intertwined but ultimately discrete ideas of religion, morality, and culture. In his view, there's only one reasonable position for any of those, and that's his own.

  Which may explain why he spends so much of his time dealing with religious extremists: at the bottom of it all, they have a lot more in common than any of them prefer to admit.

  But after all the shouting is done, Dawkins explores a number of interesting and worthwhile ideas, does a whole lot of rehashing of some rather tired old ones, and even comes up with a few genuinely alarming new ones. It's a pretty mixed bag, and, like religion itself, what you get out of his atheistic potpourri depends largely on what you bring to it. (show less)

   

  by Rick Vosper on Feb 10, 2009 at 05:45AM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• 
  

  The God Delusion is the most recent thought provoking book by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins’ arguments for the unlikely existence of a supreme consciousness or creator are by and large extremely sound and echo the arguments made by Betrand Russell so many years ago. What this book adds is a lot more interesting data and a great sense of humor. Dawkins is not timid in his attack on religion and does not confine his arguments to extremism. I am certain that many will find this book insulting but... (show more)

  The God Delusion is the most recent thought provoking book by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins’ arguments for the unlikely existence of a supreme consciousness or creator are by and large extremely sound and echo the arguments made by Betrand Russell so many years ago. What this book adds is a lot more interesting data and a great sense of humor. Dawkins is not timid in his attack on religion and does not confine his arguments to extremism. I am certain that many will find this book insulting but I would encourage everyone to read it in its entirety. The fervor with which he assaults the central dogma of any supernatural belief does seem to border on the hysterical but method always underlies his madness. Perhaps he is correct that religious moderation is as much to blame as extremism for some aspects of societal strife and conflict. The greatest shortcoming of the work is that he fails to demonstrate that it is actually possible to remove religion from society without replacing it with something just as bad (nationalism, tribalism). He does devote considerable effort toward trying to understand why religion exists but I think it does not shed any light on how we might replace it or remove it. Nevertheless, this is an important work and deserves to be read and studied from cover to cover. (show less)

   

   

  by Michael Rolli on Jan 17, 2008 at 06:10AM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• See all reviews
  Write a review