Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion - Reviews

Member Reviews

3 of 3 members found this review helpful.
- Rated 4 stars
“Interesting read but I would say that Dawkins still falls short. Parts of it I thought was just plain rambling. I can see the atheist point of view and I respect that. I also respect GOD/religion because it helps millions of people live normal, healthy & sound lives. Dawkins claims religion need not fill the gap but then what does? I feel that Dawkins seems to be looking only at the worst of religion.
For me this book isn't convincing enough to go from agnostic to atheist. I would recommend reading some of the many books challenging Dawkins claims to get a balanced view unless you're a fundamentalist atheist... ”

mittux wrote this review Wednesday, March 5 2008. ( reply | view 1 replies | permalink )
2 of 2 members found this review helpful.
- Rated 5 stars
“This is a controversial book because people tend to hold their beliefs, and disbeliefs, closely. This is akin to former smokers who become evangelical about not smoking.

Dawkins has his moments where he allows his irritation and impatience to show, so some people will be rankled. But I find his arguments compelling, and the moments where he writes of his astonishment at the universe are moving.

I particularly appreciate his addressing so many of the arguments that I hear for the existence of God or the necessity of having a God. He does an excellent job of bringing to light their bedrock assumptions and showing that they are, well, delusions.

For my money, this is an excellent, although occasionally brusque, dissection of the nonsense and ignorance that passes for faith. Well done.”

JT Caldwell wrote this review Thursday, June 5 2008. ( reply | permalink )
2 of 2 members found this review helpful.
- Rated 4 stars
“A straightforward, well-reasoned argument against theism. Some very simple arguments I'm surprised I haven't heard (or thought of) before. Also witty, funny and deeply insightful. Hard to put down.
My one criticism is the book's tonal harshness. I personally thought Dawkins' dismissals of religious belief were amusing, but, as the ostensible purpose of the book is to convert theists to atheism, I'm not the target audience. Dawkins does argue that religion shouldn't be treated with kid gloves (and I agree), but I can see his belittling tone turning off readers who might otherwise be persuaded of his arguments. It's easy for me to laugh at religion now, but it wasn't so simple when I was 18 years old and renouncing all I'd once held true. Maybe I'm not giving believers enough credit here - maybe they're tougher than I imagine. I hope so. I'd recommend this book to any theist, agnostic or athiest I know.”

Spencer D wrote this review Saturday, March 1 2008. ( reply | permalink )
2 of 2 members found this review helpful.
- Rated 3 stars
“Richard Dawkins doesn't mess around. This book has a shiny, silver book jacket, which made it very difficult to read covertly on the subway. Which is precisely what Dawkins probably wants-- the whole world to know he is an atheist, and that he thinks you are stupid and delusional if you are not one. That being said, I liked and agreed with 90% of the book. The other 10% is him being so condescending that it took it down to 3 stars for me.”

viki k wrote this review Friday, February 29 2008. ( reply | view 1 replies | permalink )
2 of 2 members found this review helpful.
- Rated 3 stars
“As many people have said, this book has the potential to polarise: atheists may love it and theists find any number of reasons to hate it. As a result there are not many people who rate it as 2, 3 or 4 stars.

So, this review is aimed exclusively at people who have no axe to grind either for or against organised religion. I am an atheist and put down the axe to write this review, in the hope someone may find it useful.

1) Dawkins as "qualified to write about religion".
Anyone is qualified to write about religion. Religion, by its very nature, is personal. Some people respond to religion A over B and vice versa. The very choice of being anything other than agnostic qualifies anyone to write their opinins about it.
If you want to read Dawkin's opinions, they are here in this book. It doesn't make them right or wrong. If you don't think scientists should write about religion, save yourself the stress of a hot collar and go and read something else.

2) Dawkins discusses Science and Religion be in the same tome: can this be done?
Why not? After all, the Intelligent Design hypothesis itself appears to have been born of a need for religion to fight back against the "evidence" of science that many claim disproves the existence of an omnipotent deity. If you believe that science and religion cannot be discussed simultaneously, you should probably not buy this book unless you want to get even hotter under the collar.

3) Are you looking for a justification of atheism?
If so, here it is.

4) Are you looking for a deeper understanding of "god"?
There are few answers for you here.

5) Is the argument Dawkins puts forward "scientifically sound"?
That depends upon what you think is sound science. I found Dawkins' arguments to be very solidly based. What he essentially argues is that ID assumes the existence of God by view of the fact that science has no explanation yet of some concepts, QED, God is the reason.
Dawkins argues that that conclusion is flawed, and on the face of it, well, he seems right.
He suggests that throughout recorded history, concepts and phenomena previously seen as the work of a "god" have now been proved to be nothng of the sort, only physics.

As a result, it is not surprising that religion counters with Intelligent Design. Who "created" the laws of physics then? A good question that takes the debate on.

Many ID believers will say to Dawkins' suggestion that there is no evidence of God that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and thus ID is "just as believeable".
Dawkins' pre-empts this by suggesting, albeit in a very "holier than thou' tone that I found disappointing, that 'lack of evidence of absence is not evidence of existence' and until that evidence is found beyond doubt, he will remain an atheist.

And that is the problem with this book. No-one is ever likely to ever prove the existence of god (whichever of the 3 main ones you choose) to every man woman and child on this planet. By corollary, no-one is ever likely to prove the non-existence either. Dawkins tries here, but fails. It is just not provable, either way and he says as much himself in the book.

So, in the end, it is a great read in the area of science, philosophy, religion and ethics. It is no more than that either.

Does if prove God is a delusion? Well, if you are someone of faith in the absolute power of God, maybe no. If you are someone with faith in the absolute power of scientific method, meybe yes.

Enjoy it. Just don't expect it to lead you to any great understanding.
”

orientdave wrote this review Monday, December 11 2006. ( reply | permalink )
2 of 3 members found this review helpful.
- Rated 2 stars
“Richard Dawkins wants everyone to be an atheist, and in this book he tells you why there's absolutely no other way to think, unless, of course you're an under educated bumpkin, delusional, or just plain stupid. He honestly has some brilliant things to say - however his *tone* of, "I am so smart! I am so smart! Believers are so dumb! Believers are so dumb!" rather grated on my nerves. So if you seem to "not know that you don't have to believe in God (or god)", go ahead and read this book. If you've never had an introduction to natural selection, if you've never pondered the inhumanity done to man in the name of religion, you might need this guy to point these things out to you. Okay, I'm not going to say that I agree or disagree with this man. I will say one thing though - he cannot think how to disprove that we aren't actually a computer simulated life form, much like "The Matrix".”

LeAnn G wrote this review Thursday, January 24 2008. ( reply | permalink )
1 of 1 members found this review helpful.
- Rated 4 stars
“Of the so-called 'four-horsemen' of atheism, Richard Dawkins is certainly one of the most well-known, and probably (next to Christopher Hitchens) the most controversial as well.

As the theological and philosophical implications of this book has been reviewed in various places by far better and more erudite scholars of theology and philosophy than myself, I will contain my remarks only to the historical arguments made by Dawkins for the pernicious influence of religion in society.

Aside from perhaps PZ Meyers or Kenneth Miller, one could find few better teachers of the science of evolution in both terms of ability to render a vast amount of information into a coherent argument as well as unwillingness to comprise their position in the face of mindless ideological creationist opposition than Richard Dawkins. At times, however his vehemence leads to rhetorical excess, and Dawkins’ broader attack on the effect religion as a whole in society falters on a few very hasty historical assertions made about the historicism of religion. To his credit, Dawkins does try to avoid many of the more banal references to the Crusades, the Inquisition. (p.351) Even so, it must be said that outside of the Christian tradition, the author seldom pulls his punches. (His use of Ibn Warraq as a leading Islamic scholar is especially troubling) More disturbing still, is the tendency of the author to render down complex social conflicts into highly simplistic 'religious' battles, as if to suggest (as he does on p.23) that political conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would simply evaporate in the absence of religion. While it is undeniable that the propensities of certain religious believers towards extremes of passion and violence (so aptly pointed out by the Dawkins himself) have certainly exacerbated the conflict in Israel and Palestine, to consider religion to be the ‘root’ cause of the conflict is incredibly simplistic thinking.

As with many other regions in the Middle East and the World abroad, sectarian conflict is often the overt expression of serious socio-political economic conflicts dwelling underneath a surface of religiosity. Can Dawkins honestly say that anyone would give Hamas or Islamic Jihad the time of day if tomorrow, by some ‘miracle,’ Israel were to tear down the wall separating Gaza from the world, to remove the checkpoints within the Occupied territories and to permit given Palestinians the right to vote in their own country? How does Dawkins’ thesis explain the frequent occurrence of intra-sect conflicts among the Sunni and Shi’i militias in Iraq? Even in Lebanon, arguably one of the most sectarianly divided countries in the world, religious affiliation is not an end itself, but rather a means of dispensing political patronage, economic favoritism and social privilege. Recognition of such facts would have been a rather simple affair, and would not have damaged Dawkins overall argument that religiosity can be extremely harmful. Instead the author chose a more intellectually lazy route.

Another area in which Dawkins missteps is his chapter which aims to respond to the notion that Hitler and Stalin’s alleged atheism was the cause of their misdeeds. Here Dawkins makes the defense that “individual atheist may do evils things, but they don’t do evil things in the name of atheism.” (p.315) To me, this is a rather weak argument at best, but more importantly, it misses a much larger point. By focusing on the motivation behind Hitler and Stalin the persons, Dawkins simply repeats the error of many of his critics. The cold fact of the matter is that genocide, wherever it may occur, is very much a team effort. The Nazi Holocaust (to take only one of the many 20th century examples available) was very much an organized, planned, and enthusiastically documented event involving thousands of people. To say that one individual’s personal beliefs or lack thereof could have been responsible is to miss the true horror of genocide entirely- namely, that it is an act perpetrated willingly by many, rather than the sole responsibility of lone psychopathic individuals in positions of power.

Ironically, had Dawkins delved deeper into the social realities of fascist Germany or Stalinist Russia he may have found more fertile ground for his anti-religious argument. Both governments relied heavily on a secularized form of state religion, employing iconography, hagiography and doctrinal discipline which could have only evolved from one source – religion.

I will conclude by making a few remarks about Dawkins final chapter, “Much Needed Gap,” in which he assures his reader that a religion-free, rational world would be a much happier place to live. I agree with the author entirely in his sentiments that the world would be a far better place to live without the Taliban in either its Afghanistani or American manifestations. So too do I sympathize with the author’s thinking that scientific ignorance, blind-belief, and intolerance are threats to human existence in the most profound sense. Even so, there is something troubling in Dawkins’ insistence that pure rationality will lead the world to a better place.

We need not recount again the number of people to whom great violence has been committed against in the name of religious authority. We should remember however, that the same beautiful science that gives us medicine, helps grow food, and brings people together has also condoned lobotomies of women and minorities, made nuclear weapons, and helped governments kill their own people with a ruthless efficiently undreamed of by Torquemada. Scientific rationalism, though far better than religious ignorance may have the potential to led to a better future, but rationalism in and of itself it a rather blind force indifferent to human suffering. If we truly are to embark upon a bold new future free of religion, then we should take care to ensure that our faith in science not led us to the blind acceptance of authority, the myopic understanding acceptance of all technology as a boon, and the vacuous belief that ‘progress’ is an inevitably rather than an earned privilege.
”

Jeremy P wrote this review Thursday, August 7 2008. ( reply | permalink )
1 of 1 members found this review helpful.
- Rated 2 stars
“Many have criticized Dawkins for his 'tone' in "The God Delusion". Personally I do not mind, nor am I intimidated by it. If his arguments are good then they stand on their own. Here is where my first concern arises. Frankly, I was disappointed with the philosophical weakness of his arguments. I had hoped that the book would have set me back on my heals. Atheists should be concerned that "the God Delusion" is the toast of the the New Atheism movement (I realize that Dawkins doesn't speak on behalf of all atheists anymore then Benn Hinn speaks for all theists). But I was speachless when I reached the midpoint of the book (pp.157-159) where Dawkins sums up his argument. Even on a generous reading of the argument, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. I recently came across a brief rebuttal of "The God Delusion" that captures the essences of my thoughts and so I include it here. The following is from William Lane Craig's website: www.reasonablefaith.org in response to the follwoing question:

"What do you think of Richard Dawkins' argument for atheism in The God Delusion?"

Dr. Craig responds:

On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements.

Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument implying the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.

A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements, not as premises, but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins' cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" does not follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified.

What does follow from the six steps of Dawkins' argument? At most, all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quite compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence. Maybe we should believe in God on the basis of the cosmological argument or the ontological argument or the moral argument. Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation. Maybe God wants us to believe in Him simply by faith. The point is that rejecting design arguments for God's existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism.

So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false. Take just step (3), for example. Dawkins' claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: who designed the designer?

This rejoinder is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

Secondly, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained, so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations; for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, and so forth. But leave those questions aside. Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

Other steps in Dawkins' argument are also problematic; but I think enough has been said to show that his argument does nothing to undermine a design inference based on the universe's complexity, not to speak of its serving as a justification of atheism.”

martin C wrote this review Wednesday, July 30 2008. ( reply | permalink )
1 of 1 members found this review helpful.
- Rated 5 stars
“Overall, I loved this book. Dawkins is a wonderful writer and I think I would have enjoyed his style regardless of the subject matter. The only major flaw that irked me was his habit of veering off into tangents, but even this was made bare-able by not only his writing style, but also by the fact that most of his tangents were just plain interesting. Dawkins makes his case even stronger, in my opinion, by fulling admitting to and even going out of his way to point out the limits of his own personal knowledge. At several times during the book, he will say that he suspects one thing but does not know for certain, showing an inquisitive and flexible mind, both humble and confident. It's a refreshing break from the average writer who seems all too sure of her/his omniscience.

With all that out of the way, I'd like to address a couple of issues with the book. The first is with Chapter Four or "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God." I found the whole chapter to be a disappointment. Dawkins takes the question of "if there isn't a god, how did everything fall into place so perfectly to produce us?" and tries to answer it with science. This points him in an awkward and unnecessarily defensive position because the question itself is not a legitimate one (something he never once says outright). It's like asking "how did my parents know to have sex at just the perfect time to conceive me?" It assumes that we are an end result, a goal that the universe has been working towards - rather than the more accurate assumption that the universe is merely ambling along in one of billions (to pick an unrealistically small number) of possible ways and we just happen to be a bi-product (one of many possibilities) that happened to emerge. There is nothing special about the production of us, whether as individuals or as a species.

Another quibble I had with the book is that Dawkins repeats multiple times that natural selection gets rid of negatives and keeps positives, which is just sloppy. What about the vast majority of mutations, which are just neutral? Or mutations that have both positive and negative expressions?I understand the need for brevity and keeping things simple, but this is a major point and something that a lot of Dawkins's opposition can't seem to grasp.

And the final detail that I took issue with is his statement that "[monogamy] [span style="font-style:italic;"]is[/span] what we expect, and it is what we set out to achieve." Is it? Maybe he's right, I don't know. Maybe monogamy really is the default. But that's not what even the quickest glance around the diversity of human societies in the world today will tell me. Many societies involve one man and several women, some even involve one woman and several men. If monogamy truly is the natural default, why isn't this expression universal? Like I said, maybe he's right - but because his statement was counter-intuitive, the existence of polygamous societies should have been addressed.

With all that said, this was a fabulous book and I am very glad that I've read it. It ought to have stayed on topic a little better, but that's okay. There were no parts of the book that I felt weren't worth reading and that's more than I can say for most books.”

MrPopularSentiment wrote this review Monday, July 28 2008. ( reply | permalink )