The God Delusion

By Richard Dawkins

Add to Cart Please wait, the system is processing.

Average Rating: (See all 7 reviews) Format: Paperback, 464 pages, New edition Edition Published In: United Kingdom, 21 May 2007 Ships within 6-11 days "The God Delusion" caused a sensation when it was published in 2006. Within weeks it became the most hotly debated topic, with Dawkins himself branded as either saint or sinner for presenting his hard-hitting, impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types. His argument could hardly be more topical. While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized, the rise of religious fundamentalism, whether in the Middle East or Middle America, is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world. In America, and elsewhere, a vigorous dispute between 'intelligent design' and Darwinism is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science. In many countries religious dogma from medieval times still serves to abuse basic human rights such as women's and gay rights. And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind. Dawkins attacks God in all his forms. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry and abuses children. "The God Delusion" is a brilliantly argued, fascinating polemic that will be required reading for anyone interested in this most emotional and important subject. About the Author Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and a fellow of New College. The Selfish Gene catapulted Richard Dawkins to fame, and remains his most famous and widely read work. It was followed by a string of bestselling books: The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Ancestor's Tale and a collection of his shorter writings A Devil's Chaplain. Dawkins is a Fellow of both the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Literature. He is the recipient of numerous honours and awards, including the 1987 Royal Society of Literature Award, the 1990 Michael Faraday Award of the Royal Society, the 1997 International Cosmos Prize for Achievement in Human Science, the Kistler Prize in 2001, and the Shakespeare Prize in 2005. The God Delusion was originally published in 2006 and has since become a worldwide bestseller. Prizes The international bestselling broadside that has taken the world by storm Publisher: Black Swan ISBN: 055277331X EAN: 9780552773317

I have to agree with the previous reviewers comments, this book is quite superb at explaining the inadequacies of logic concerning intelligent design, the bible, the koran and any other religous text. What i like about this book is that although it explains evolutionary theory or fact, it doesn't head into the extreme of saying all forms of religion should be lost. He makes a strong case for treasuring the bible and the koran for what they are, great fantastical stories. Well worth a read.

Dawkins writes passionately and lucidly - he is one of the rare science writers who can put a complex subject like evolution into language that anyone can understand.

But this book is less about evolution, and more about why religion is a relic of a bygone era that we should shed ourselves of.

It considers each of the main reasons why people commonly think religion is useful, such as in providing moral guidance, and shows why it just isn't true.

For me, the most interesting section was on countering the theories of creationists and followers of the intelligent design belief. Time and again Dawkins shows that followers of intelligent design misrepresent evolutionary theory with questions like "which makes more sense - believing this wonderfully complex plant/animal/organ formed by random chance, or that it had an intelligent designer?". If you can't see what is wrong with that question, then you need to read this book!

The last chapter is quite extraordinary. In a nutshell, science is revealing how mind-blowing our universe is. When reality is so truly weird and wonderful, why would you want to spend any time theorizing about sky-fairies (angels/gods/devils) and other such religious nonsense?

At $11 it is excellent value.

If you don't have it, buy it. It really is that good.

The material in this book is very challanging, and this is exacly what we need right now. After centuries of myths and fables, we now have some scientific material enabling everyday people to make up their minds regarding the blind belief in a god. This book is not about religion or atheism, but the power to decide for one's self. The title itself explains the situation in the world today - delusions. Readers will find this material easy to digest and liberating them from years of false beliefs and dogmas, that may have stifled living their everyday lives. Dawkins must be congratulated for compiling all this scientific material based on evidence.

I bought a copy of this book as soon as I heard it was available. It lived up to all of my expectations of Dawkins and is truly an enjoyable read. The previous (positive) reviewers gave a good overview of the content so I'll end my review by saying 'I think everyone should read this book'!

The reviewer who gave this book 1 star has missed the point entirely. Dawkins doesn't deny that there are good religious folk in the world. He doesn't even suggest otherwise. But that fact has NOTHING to do with this book or its overall message. The reviewer also made the point that many people need religion to get them through their day, because it provides solace and comfort. Well, so does heroin, but that does NOT make it a good thing. Dawkins admits that religion gets alot of people through their respective days, but rather than leave it at that, he asks "why", and then questions whether or not this is a good thing. Dawkins uses stone cold logic to consider the question "Is there a creator god?", with particular (and admitted) bias towards Christianity. The answer he comes up with is "most likely not". An excellent read, should be compulsory in schools (at least in as much as the Bible is).

This book is rubbish. Dawkin heaps vitriol on all religion without regard for all the many, many good, gentle believers in the world, or for the great amount of good that has been done in the name of religion.
In addition, religious beliefs and rituals bring many people enormous comfort, and can bind families and communities together in very positive ways.
"Religion" is such a huge and complex phenomenon that it cannot be simply catagorised as "all good" or "all bad" by one man in one book.
Individuals are responsible for their own behaviour, regardless for the philosophy they use to support it. What about "social Darwinism" which has been used by racists such as the Nazis to justify atrocities? Do these events mean that "all Darwinism" is bad - of course not. Any idea can be put to good use or to bad.

For the record, I am scientifically trained to post-graduate university level, I believe in evolution, and I can probably most accurately be described as a "seeker" or an "agnostic" (another group that Darwin blithely dismisses).

My review starts with a question about Doctor Who, which is in the end the one of the points which I found really interesting in the book. Did you know that Richard is married to Lalla Ward? She played the spunky and intelligent blonde Romana on Dr Who, a female Time Lord, who journeys with the Doctor for some time before being replaced by the spunky and intelligent Adric, a male companion for the Doctor.

Anyhow, my question is: If the companions of Dr Who can be male or female, why is the Doctor always regenerated as a male? Time Lords can be female, right? Doctor doesn't imply a gender, right?

You might argue that this is a stupid question to begin a review of this book, except that I reckon that if this question had been the bee in Dawkin's bonnet he could have written substantially the same book, but replaced the concept of "religion" with the concept of "gender".

The basic premise of the book is that a biological scientific approach can hypothesise that faith or religious impulse is associated with a primary biological drive, which, if reason is applied, is no longer necessary for human survival. Thus, holding onto and promoting faith to the levels which produce the violence, conflict and dis-ease which are evident in religious communities today, is ridiculous. I get this, and would be interested in Dawkins’ view on a the whole raft of issues which could have the same critique applied to them: gender, sexuality, monogamy, the quest for wealth and ownership of possessions, anger, jealousy, the need to subdue, the need to gossip, the quest to dominate your non kin group (apply your own pet peeve here).

But beyond this basic premise, Dawkins’ gets angry and argues that it all promotion of faith or religion is dangerous and abusive and needs to be dealt with - now. He argues that the nature of faith places it in fundamental opposition to science and the understanding of that which is around us, which our ever evolving brains are able to explore.

Yikes. Here is where I start to get uneasy – Dawkins’ argues passionately and moves into philosophical territory without caution. A simple example is his illustration of a woman swathed in a burka as representing the burden of faith belief in the world. Darwin, he argues metaphorically ripped away a burka when he moved science into the era of evolutionary theory.

What I see is that he describes the “unhappy spectacle” of a woman swathed in a shapeless burka. Sorry? Who is unhappy? Has he talked to women in burkas? What did they say? Nothing that he cares to share with in this book, because it is Dawkins, a white, wealthy, well educated english speaking man who is unhappy.

The biological world of post Darwinian understanding, while exciting, carries with it its own social, cultural and behavioural burdens. This is only acknowledged by Dawkins in a series of propositions about religion or faith which he answers in a manner which makes the final part of the book an excruciating read. It’s the kind of text which I was given as a student and asked to investigate the way language and imagery can be used to disguise the lack of cogent argument.

I was mostly disappointed in this book because I had expected so much more, but what I got was a philosophical version of the Da Vinci code. Lots of histrionic and entertaining language – not much new under the sun.

For this reason, attempts to rebut Dawkins theologically are kind of bizarre. Why bother? Dawkins doesn’t talk theology, he’s talking about his distress about the state of the world.

This is the way the book should be read, not as a serious attempt to name religion as an otiose biological impulse, nor as a serious exploration of the biological imperative to faith. (The best critique of the book as science I have read is by H Allen Orr in the New York Review of Books, at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775.)

If Dawkins’ wants to make a difference, he might use his fantastic communication skills to start dealing with the really serious questions about human behaviour which lead to the propensity of fanatical rejection of “the other”. A nice pop introduction to that area would be to pose a challenge to Doctor Who fans to accept a female incarnation when David Tennant’s time is up!