- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
About the Author:
Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University
A DEEPLY RELIGIOUS NON-BELIEVER 9
Deserved respect 11
Undeserved respect 20
2 THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 29
Secularism, the Founding Fathers and the religion of America 38
The poverty of agnosticism 46
The Great Prayer Experiment 61
The Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists 66
Little green men 69
3 ARGUMENTS FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE 75
Thomas Aquinas' 'proofs' 77
The ontological argument and other a priori arguments 80
The argument from beauty 86
The argument from personal 'experience' 87
The argument from scripture 92
The argument from admired religious scientists 97
Pascal's Wager 103
Bayesian arguments 105
4 WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD 111
The Ultimate Boeing 747 113
Natural selection as a consciousness-raiser 114
Irreducible complexity 119
The worship of gaps 125
The anthropic principle: planetary version 134
The anthropic principle: cosmological version 141
An interlude at Cambridge 151
5 THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 161
The Darwinian imperative 163
Direct advantages of religion 166
Group selection 169
Religion as a by-product of something else 172
Psychologically primed for religion 179
Tread softly, because you tread on my memes 191
Cargo cults 202
6 THE ROOTS OF MORALITY: WHY ARE WE GOOD? 209
Does our moral sense have a Darwinian origin? 214
A case study in the roots of morality 222
If there is no God, why be good? 226
7 THE 'GOOD' BOOK AND THE CHANGING MORAL ZEITGEIST 235
The Old Testament 237
Is the New Testament any better? 250
Love thy neighbour 254
The moral Zeitgeist 262
What about Hitler and Stalin? Weren't they atheists? 272
8 WHAT'S WRONG WITH RELIGION? WHY BE SO HOSTILE? 279
Fundamentalism and the subversion of science 282
The dark side of absolutism 286
Faith and homosexuality 289
Faith and the sanctity of human life 291
The Great Beethoven Fallacy 298
How 'moderation' in faith fosters fanaticism 301
9 CHILDHOOD, ABUSE AND THE ESCAPE FROM RELIGION 309
Physical and mental abuse 315
In defence of children 325
An educational scandal 331
Consciousness-raising again 337
Religious education as a part of literary culture 340
10 A MUCH NEEDED GAP? 345
The mother of all burkas 362
A partial list of friendly addresses, for individuals needing support in escaping from religion 375
Books cited or recommended 380
Posted February 28, 2007
I am amazed at some of the negative reviews of this book and am doubtful that some of these reviewers actually read the book. I found The God Delusion to be a well-assembled and witty argument against faith. For the reviewers that throw scriptures at him as rebuttal, you might as well threaten him with unicorn attacks, as they hold as much weight--none! This book will not convince those blinded by faith to open their eyes but it reinforces the convictions of those that still hold onto reason. Richard Dawkins does a great job of showing how faith requires the believer to suspend their reason. The fact that so many are willing to do this is troubling and downright scary. I particularly enjoyed his dismantling of the 'uncaused first cause' argument. I was raised as a Catholic and always asked 'Who created God?' I never did get a satisfactory answer, only 'God always existed.' Well, the fact that the universe always existed is more likely because it doesn't rely on some 'bearded sky daddy' that hears your thoughts and answers your prayers, just physics we don't yet understand. Too many of us have been brainwashed as children to believe in fairy tales. Thankfully, some of us recover the reason needed to see how foolish we were. I have read most of the books that the negative reviewers recommend and would put Dawkin's book against all of them. Logic always wins over blind faith!
53 out of 64 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 15, 2007
I found this book very refreshing, and a great read. Although it may be considered condescending at times, he gets his point heard in an intelligent and even humorous way. As a born and raised atheist I did not need anymore convincing, but I definitely enjoyed the read. Anyone bashing this book because of their own personal beliefs should really just step back and take another look. If you don't agree with it, read it again. Maybe you'll catch it this time around. A great read for all open-minded intellectuals.
15 out of 20 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted November 9, 2006
I have read virtually all the major works concerning freethought, evolutionary theory, and atheistic philosophies. In many ways, atheism as a theory is far closer to the truth, than most organized religious systems of superstition, dogma and oppression. So far, so good. However, if Dawkins were completely honest he'd see that Darwinism says nothing pro or con about the existence of God or gods. In fact, there are very capable philosophers and scientists who accept both evolution and the existence of some creative intelligence that started the Universe on its path, with the evolution of life forms being produced of necessity. Such philosophies are known as theistic or deistic evolution. One Xian production produced by an ultra-fundamentalist group, that intends to subvert the secular basis of the USA wrote 'Evolution without God begs a thousand questions.' The whole matter is solved rather quickly and easily by seeing, that if there is a God or gods, what kind can exist as opposed to the traditional image of a hot-tempered anthropomorphic Jehovah sitting on a throne in heaven bribing mankind with promises of eternal life in return for slavery or threatening them with eternal hellfire if they can think for themselves. It is clear that this type of God is superstitious, stupid and creates atheists. Yet, there is another type of God or gods, the God of Spinoza, and a somewhat different variety the Red God, or the spiritual powers of the Amerindians. Both of these posit something totally different than atheism vs. traditional theism or the deism of Jefferson, Paine and Voltaire. Pantheism is the belief that the Universe [Nature as a whole or system] and God are nothing but the same thing. In such systems if you believe in Nature, or the Universe, de facto you believe in God. The Native American theology that posits two principle powers: The Mother Earth who is given primacy, and the Great Spirit that moves and dwells in all things: people, plants, rocks, trees, animals. Actually, none of the arguments of the God Delusion, which attack the Xian/Neo-Platonic god affect these pantheistic viewpoints whatsoever. In the Upanishads it is written, 'The Universe is indeed Brahman'. Core Hinduism sees this. The Hindu Brahman and its manifestations or reflections including the local manifestations of life forms like us, are very close to the Sioux Wakan Tanka or Sacred Assembly. While Traditional religions do nothing but spout dogmas, laws, rules, and miracle stories that are credible only to a complete moron, the Native American traditions hold the land, the Earth sacred. I myself was raised Xian, unlike Dawkins, and could fill a volume with horror stories of fundamentalists gone mad and the abuse of children, not the least was a young black autistic boy who a few years back suffocated during an exorcism attempt. Dawkins is right to equate fundamentalism with child abuse. It is. It is one thing to tell a child that Nature sustains you, manifests in you, is your source and the source to which you will return to when you die. It is nothing but brainwash and child abuse to tell a child that God is watching his every move, knows your every thought, invades every bedroom, and will torture you for eternity with the fires of Hell if you displease him, sadist that he is. What drivel! In my college days in my philosophical period I became an apostate and abandoned the faith of my parents and became an atheist. Yet, now at 45 years old, I found out something that amazed me. There is an alternative to Xianity, or other faiths like Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism besides atheism. For those who learn to understand the voice of Nature and her message, one has all the benefits of traditional faiths and moreover, since Nature is real Native American spirituality actually produces results. While traditional Gods are human socio-political constructs created more to keep the stupid rabble in line, than promote anything true or necessary they ar
12 out of 19 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 13, 2009
Before this book, I knew that I didn't believe in "God" or anything of the sort. I knew what a person like myself was called before I read this book, but afterward I understood more about it afterward. I've learned a lot from this book and I recommend it to all, atheists especially who need solid ground to stand upon.
10 out of 15 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 1, 2008
This book is an essential spiritual guide for the contemporary reader. Richard Dawkins teaches us how to make peace with reality. He shows us not just that there is almost certainly no God, but he also shows us how to understand and make sense of the world once we've discovered that there is no God.
9 out of 15 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 15, 2007
At last it is great to read a rebuttal of the voodoo cultist crap that is splattered upon history,literature and through every church,institution and or tent in the world by either warped or control- freak human dung carriers. Dawkins makes sense. Can't people see it? Please read this book regardless of your faith or imagination.
9 out of 16 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted September 6, 2008
Richard Dawkins has taken upon himself, with a scientific genius unparalleled since the rise of modern science, the task of dismantling religion before the eyes of the whole world. His intent and purpose is well summed up in a phrase of another master of the well-turned phrase: Francois Marie Arouet, better known as VoltaireL 'Encraser l'infame'. 'Religion is a disease of the mind, get rid of the damned thing!' The only answer to Richard Dawkins is an attack in the opposite direction, exposing with awful clarity the unreasoned foundation of his own premises and the pathetically infantile logic upon which they are based. He stands upon a mountain of knowledge of which he is the master and brillian exponent. but none of his conclusions flow logically from that mountain of knowledge, but are based upon the primal fears of a feral child lost in the woods and cursing the darkness. He is locked in the empiricism of Berkeley, Locke and Hume. He cannot recognize the difference between an opinion and a reasoned conclusin, and whose logical tools have been replaced by ridicule, revulsion and satire, in the face of a body of theological knowledge and theological culture too massive for his well-honed empirial skills. He is a master satirist, but satire is the last refuge of the intellectually incompetent, and of masters of deceit who create clever images to hide the poverty of their thinking and, like a master magician, become masters of ilussion as well. THe illusion is that of a master of anthropology, history, philosophy, literature, education, and every human art and sciencel, while his knowledge is wrapped up in a few key concepts of Darwinian evolution, which no reasonable person doubts, but from which he has drawn historical, anthropological and cultural conclusions having no basis whatsoever in the scientific data of which he is the supreme master. It reminds me of Adolf Hitler's use of a diseased racial anthropology, concocted by his own masters of deceit, to despise, outlaw, and ultimately plan the destruction of a whole race that he had painted with his own anthropological brush, and, if Richard Dawkins is correct in his diatribe against people of religious convictions, he is ready to outlaw those who hold convictions contrary to his own to his own and imprison them in his version of insane asylums. This deceit and calim of scientific impartiality is backed by a massive and overwhelming knowledge of microbiology, as if this knowledge gave him a key to the secrets of the universe and of human life itself. He has created an illusion of absolute certainty based on the three-legged stool of Darwinian evolution: Natural Selection, Descent with Modification and Survival of the Fittest. That stool is supposed to explain the whole of human civilization and culture, the totality of human history and the root and origin of religion. The rawest student of cultural anthropology could point out how thin the reasoning and how fallacious the claim: parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
7 out of 12 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted July 26, 2008
Reading this validated everything I've read up to now and those that have open, caring minds will take up this book and not be able to put it down. Very thoughtful and very well done. Bravo Richard!
5 out of 9 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 6, 2008
It becomes increasingly amazing what people will pay to read...oops...that must mean me too. Belitteling a belief system using Darwinism is so much a stretch. Current evolutionist have given up on Darwin's theory and looked under every rock imaginable, and some that aren't, to find something - anything except intelligent design that they can't see the obvious. Or they just don't want to see the obvious. Rule out a god and you rule out accountability and any stable morality. Right and wrong then become a slidding scale, totally situational. I will agree that there is intolerance out there, in fact most everywhere. But it is not from religion, it is from individuals and cults that twist and misuse it, just as Dawkins has misused his gift of writing to minuplate the readers conscience. Makes one wonder what is he really afraid of? Two stars for effort expended
4 out of 20 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 20, 2008
Like Natural Selection, atheism is an hypothesis, that should be demonstrable by repeated experiments. <BR/><BR/>This has not been shown by Richard Dawkins in this book.<BR/><BR/>Also, his concept of God is a caricature, held by no majot pholosophical or theological mind. If he is going to challenge belief in God ,he has to challenge the thinking and reasoning of the best philosophical and theological minds: Augustine, Aquinas, Barth, Tillich, Ratzinger, Maimonides. De Lubac. Rahner, von Balthasar.
2 out of 15 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 27, 2008
This book makes complete sense from cover to cover. I'm an atheist and I'm delighted that Professor Dawkins has stood up for our cause. Those people who have criticized him are those who want to see humanity suffer forever under their wicked and utterly false doctrines. I especially liked how Dawkins ridiculed the various 'proofs' for the existence of god. Religion by its very own inherent nature is evil. This book will give me and others points to use in defense of the freedom and democracy we all deserve.
2 out of 5 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted July 23, 2007
Richard Dawkins is one of the best I've ever seen at developing book titles such as The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion. However contrary to popular opinion, his imagination in life lacks depth. He is like the proverbial Chicken Little tapped in the head from above and assumes the sky is falling. There are differences between the Bible, religion, and God, but without sufficient pragmatism, people such as Mr. Dawkins and others see them as one and the same. The Bible is a book of wisdom to be read wisely. Religion is the result of people groping in the dark for what they know is there. God stands alone and is what He is. Were it not for being so encrusted in his own mental imagery, he would probably benefit from reading the book Biblical Paradigm Shift. Reading it would show him a logical and pragmatic view of the Bible. Atheism isn't avant-garde as he seems to think, it is simply one arm clapping.
2 out of 8 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted July 4, 2007
This is the forth book by Dawkins that I have read (Ancestor's Tale, Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker) and while I don't think it's his best I still found it enjoyable and a much quicker read then any other book of his I've read. Having read some of the negative reviews I can only assume they either didn't read the book or at the best they only skimmed it. The negative reviews are full of quotes taken out of context and a complete misunderstanding of Dawkins views. Dawkins, on the other hand, is refreshingly honest. He admits that he can't say for sure that God doesn't exist but based on the evidence, or lack of it, he can feel reletivly certain that he doesn't (That's not a form of Agnosticism in his view). He also admits that there's still a lot about the universe that we don't understand but one day we will learn and as we learn will find even more things we don't know. In fact, that's his main complaint about religion. If there's something we don't understand religion is happy to attribute it to God while science tries to find an answere. His other complaint about religion is that they make no attempt to explain how God came to be. Creationist argument of irreducable complexity (something's so complex there's no way it could have evolved hence it was created by God) is countered by the fact that if God created it that means he's even more complex so where did God come from. To say God's always been there contradicts their own argument of irreducable complexity. If you're going to read this book with a closed mind about God then don't even bother. However, if you're an Agnostic, Atheist, or just unsure about religion in general, this book will be very helpful in your endless search for ultimate truth.
2 out of 4 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted May 15, 2007
Dawkins seems to have a deep loathing of American Christians. He completely misrepresents this group, making it sound as though the religious right is poised and ready to take over the U.S. Government at any moment. While I tend to agree with the authors opinions about religion, I did not care for the way he maligned American Christians. The book is an attempt to convert people to atheism but his arguments are often way over the top. He uses only the most extreme cases of religious nuts to make his point. These eccentrics certainly do not represent the majority of Americans. I don't think the book will convert anyone. If you're already a non-believer this may confirm your non-belief. If you are a believer it will insult you.
2 out of 6 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 3, 2007
Posted January 7, 2013
Dawkins is a "must read" for any intelligent and open-minded reader. Even if you do not agree with his basic premise, any refusal to review at least both sides to an argument demonstrates the presence of a closed mind - and at that point, things become dangerous.
However, Dawkins is (hopefully inadvertedly) his own worst enemy and desperately needs a new editor. The problem with many intellectuals is that they cannot organize their thoughts in a way that relaying them to their readership does not turn into an arduous task (for the reader). Dawkins has an infuriating habit of alluding to a point, to add that he will elaborate on the point in a later chapter (why?), and then not to mention in the later chapter that he discussed the outline of then previously. Whilst Dawkins can perhaps be forgiven for this, his editor cannot. Unfortunately, this issue seems to reappear in many (if not most) of Dawkins' publications, and has been a bone of contention with more than one reader.
It might also be worth considering to tone down the suggestion that if one individual hears voices in his/her head, he/she is a case for a psychiatrist, and that if many hear these voices, it's called religion. Admittedly, from Dawkins' point of view, that may be a logical conclusion, but it ignores an aspect (that Dawkins addresses in other context) that this is just the difference between reason and belief.
A slightly toned-down approach, with a bit less ridicule and patronizing might possibly bring Dawkins closer to his goal, and win over more readers than his often patronizing style.
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 6, 2010
Many things I have thought, but didn't know how to explain in such an organized manner, are in the book. He also brings up other issues I hadn't thought of before. He also made me look at many other things from an evolutionary standpoint.
I didn't see the point in reading this book because I didn't see the point. I know some religious people are delusional. Why should I read about it? But it was so highly recommended by some friends of mine, that I eventually caved in and I'm glad I did. I got a lot out of it.
1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted July 3, 2009
I Also Recommend:
Richard Dawkins is a great author and a very respectable scientist.
I found this book absolutely compelling and it is quite readable.
Some chapters I had to read several times as I was spellbound.
1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 11, 2008
Posted December 19, 2007
I wish to thank Prof. Dawkins for this excellent and superbly argued book. It is intelligent and outspoken men like him that will eventually rescue the dim-witted world from religion. America is a great hurdle in this regard, but hopefully it can be accomplished.
1 out of 4 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.