The God Delusion: A Study of Religious Belief and Skepticism

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" is the book that raised consciousness about the "God" question. It takes a critical look at the belief of God and espouses a superior way of viewing the world. This book has inspired countless other books of this ilk and in many respects provided the inspiration for many people to "come out". The book holds up quite well after a third reading, biologist, best-selling author and icon of the atheist movement, Richard Dawkins takes the reader on a journey into the most fascinating topic of them all, religion. This captivating 464-page book is composed of the following ten chapters: 1. A Deeply Religious Non-Believer, 2. The God Hypothesis, 3. Arguments for God's Existence, 4. Why There Are Almost Certainly No God, 5. The Roots of Religion, 6. The Roots of Morality: Why are we Good?, 7. The `Good' Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist, 8. What's Wrong with Religion? Why be so Hostile? 9. Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion, and 10. A Much Needed Gap? Positives: 1. An influential book that inspired an intellectual movement. 2. The most interesting topic, religion, in the hands of a great, passionate thinker. 3. A thought-provoking book written with panache. 4. A book that focuses on raising consciousness on the "God" question, mission accomplished. 5. This book is a quote fest, "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." 6. A look at the many views of `God', "Of course, like any other word, the word `God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that `God' is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." 7. The author does a wonderful job of defining important terms. 8. Debunking misconceptions. Take Einstein for instance, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever." 9. The author does a wonderful job of supporting his arguments with case studies and sound logic. 10. The religious views of the Founding Fathers in perspective. Interesting stuff! 11. The spectrum of religious belief. 12. A look at prayer, "to pray: to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessed unworthy." The prayer case study. 13. A couple of chapters are dedicated to the most popular arguments for God's existence. 14. Natural selection as a conscious raiser. "Natural selection not only explains the whole of life; it also raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance." 15. Ideas of where religion came from. Many interesting ideas on why people are vulnerable to the charms of religion. Dawkins' specific hypothesis relates to the indoctrination of children. A partial list of religious memes. 16. The roots of morality. The four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be moral. 17. A great chapter on why people who claim to derive their morals from scripture do not really do so in practice. Biblical examples that illustrate that, "we don't get our morals from scripture." Dawkins takes off his gloves. 18. Debunking the notion that atheism is behind bad behaviour. "What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does." 19. The effects of religion, "one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." "As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect." 20. The dangers of indoctrination of children into religion. "Children should be taught not so much what to think as how to think." 21. I enjoyed reading the list of Bible-inspired phrases. 22. Debunks the notion of the necessity for a god. "Religion's power to console doesn't make it true". 23. An excellent appendix that provides resources for people trying to escape from religion. 24. Books cited. Negatives: 1. No links for Kindle. 2. Dawkins is unable to answer some questions in which I believe there are plausible answers. To the question of why religion has flourished in America, I would contend that the separation of Church and State has in combination with financial benefits (tax-free) and the open-market system has contributed greatly. In summary, I read this book years ago when it first came out and I must say it inspired me. I always felt that for the truth to have any value it would have to correspond to reality but never really had the courage to espouse my views openly. Thanks to people like the late Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris I was able to not only obtain the courage but the clarity of thought to be comfortable enough to be comfortable in my own skin. Is this book the best book out there on this topic? No. Is it the most theologically strident book? Hardly. Is it the most comprehensive book on the topic? Once again, no, but it may be the most important book on the topic because it caused an intellectual movement that is here to stay. Highly recommended! Further suggestions: " Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity " and " The End of Christianity " by John Loftus, " Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism " and "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Richard Carrier, " Natural Atheism " and " Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker " by Dr. David Eller, " Man Made God: A Collection of Essays " by Barbara G. Walker, " The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values " by Sam Harris, "The World Is Not as We Think It Is" by Dennis Littrell, " Immortality: The Quest to Live Forever and How It Drives Civilization " by Stephen Cave, , " God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist " by Victor J. Stenger, " Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists " by Dan Barker, "Christian No More: On Leaving Christianity, Debunking Christianity, And Embracing Atheism And Freethinking" by Jeffrey Mark, and "The Invention of God" by Bill Lauritzen.

Anyone who has read Prof. Dawkins knows that he is concise and articulate, but there is more to say about his extraordinary writing skill. He consistently succeeds in adding uniquely fresh and inventive touches to nearly any subject, from the most esoteric to the most mundane. This extra quality is sufficient to place "The God Delusion" pretty much in a class by itself among works aimed at helping the general reader understand how normal scientific progress has, over time, inexorably revealed fatal weaknesses in virtually all religious claims which specify some sort of observable effects or outcomes. Prominent among those claims, of course, are the ones establishing a class of supernatural creators and supervisors affectionately known as "gods." In the book's initial 160 pages, Dawkins builds a devastating case against the existence of any kind of personal, interactive, creator god. Enormous consequences ride on this case because the world's three "great" monotheistic religions have always, despite their occasionally murderous disagreements, had the same ultrapersonal god (Yahweh/Allah) in mind. In Judaism, Yahweh is the undisputed main man. Although Christianity is centered on the kinder and gentler persona of Jesus, loss of confidence in the father's existence would also extinguish the sole source of the son's divinity. The core principles of Islam make it perfectly clear that Muhammad completes the line of prophets from Abraham through Moses to Jesus, so Muslims are, regardless of any delusions of independence, firmly welded by their own doctrine to the Old Testament deity. Such admirable unity among billions of big-three believers makes Yahweh/Allah an exceptionally large and well-delineated target for rational analysis. Regarding Y/A's character, chances are Dawkins' frank appraisal of him as a "...megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" will ring true to every thoughtful person who has read the Bible without spin from an "interpreter." Dawkins doesn't ignore the classic philosophical "proofs" of god's existence; in fact he devotes all of Chapter 3 to their strengths and weaknesses. But his main thesis, delivered in Chapter 4, is pragmatic and firmly grounded in science. The author picks two potent and practical grenades to toss at the glass houses in which personal gods so precariously dwell. First, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god suffers severely from a simple lack of evidence because a) events and conditions in the observable world do not suggest the presence of an omniscient, all-powerful overseer, and b) the consistently successful explanations and predictions of modern cosmology and evolutionary biology reveal no scientifically credible requirement for any kind of conscious, sentient creator/designer. The second grenade contains a challenge to the very idea that calling up supreme beings serves any logically valid purpose, or (as a lawyer might put it) has any probative value in solving the mysteries of the universe and our place in it. Here Dawkins evokes an ingenious and powerful metaphor -- god as the "ultimate Boeing 747." To set the stage, he cites British astronomer Fred Hoyle's attempt to refute evolution by charging that the prospect of living things being formed by random processes is as unlikely as a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and fortuitously assembling a jetliner. (Hoyle's misunderstanding here seems monumental, since evolution teaches the GRADUAL accumulation of small, initially random changes in germ cell genomes via the decidedly NON-RANDOM process of natural selection.) The author then picks up Hoyle's logically misdirected cudgel and, this time with valid premises, swings it back at the defenders of supernatural design. Dawkins' point is that if creationists can't explain where the designer came from and how it acquired its abilities (which do, after all, massively interact with the natural world), then their god is even more far fetched and intellectually useless than Hoyle's accidentally blown-together airplane. The author rightly charges that preferential coddling of religion is neither justifiable nor beneficial to society -- in fact quite the opposite. In no way does he advocate censoring beliefs, but instead supports the reasonable view that supernatural claims belong on the level playing field where all other ideas, including scientific ones, fairly compete. Related to this issue are the sometimes unhelpful contributions of scientists themselves. For example, in Chapter 2 Dawkins explains how the NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) slogan, coined by paleontologist Steven Jay Gould, has been used to promote the dubious notion that some sort of uncrossable barrier divides science from religion. In the interest of avoiding controversy (and preserving grants?), NOMA enthusiasts somehow manage to ignore the constant stream of readily checkable claims emanating from religious sources. When someone confidently claims the Earth is only a few thousand years old, or prayer works, or guilt transfers across generations, or the Bible originated morality, or evolution fails to account for the full variety of living things, Dawkins asks us to remember that the resources and methods of science can and should be used routinely to help decide whether such assertions are credible. Dawkins' discussion of the changing moral zeitgeist (Chapter 7) is particularly interesting and, I believe, significant. "Zeitgeist" is a German term meaning "spirit of the times," an index of people's collective attitudes through history. In addition to many depressing examples of morally brain-dead attitudes in the Bible, Dawkins provides striking reminders of how recently our current views on such issues as universal suffrage and racial equality were formed. He supports his case with some absolutely appalling quotes from T.H. Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog"), Abraham Lincoln and H.G. Wells. On the other hand, the positive side of zeitgeist drift is the rapidity with which social attitudes can change for the better when, after long stagnation, a tipping point is finally reached. A prime example is the drastic rejection of smoking which is happening today in response to overwhelming medical evidence. Perhaps it is not futile to hope that the words of Prof. Dawkins and many other voices of reason are, even now, stirring the wave of understanding which will eventually free billions of basically kind and intelligent people from the tragically false and harmful grip of supernatural pipe dreams.

The New Atheist movement that influenced the course of early 2000s that made many atheists, and its "Four Horsemen" should be well known to many of you. I have no desire to hash out the arguments made in this book or any of its peers about the existence nor absence of the divine. I will attest that this book along with many of the other Horsemen books made sound arguments against religions, the supernature or other beliefs not supported empirically. With that said, I am no atheist, and I believe that even "believers" or the "curious" should be well versed in the criticism against faith as all serious thinkers - even ones who believes in Aquinas, Augustine, Ibn Al-Haitham, Maimonides or the Buddha will be edified knowing where their weaknesses are. For it is far more intellectually honest to admit faith is indeed believing in the unreasonable, unprovable than the vain and often intellectually laughable stances provided by half-logic, circular reasoning or science denial provided by apologists of faiths. This book is a 4 star and not 5 because the book made a compelling argument against faith, and though it is not the goal of this book it should truly provide a sound, intellectually honest, and emotionally compelling for an alternative especially if the goal is to "convert"? Given the tone of the book, the veracity of its attacks, and the ruthlessness of its dismantling of "God" it seems to be the goal was to convert. Non-Belief is a by-definition "negative" belief - that is a stance for the absence of, not the "positive" assertion of something. The Horsemen's decades long crusade against faith has thus far failed and religion has been recovering precisely because non-belief provides no philosophical, sociological grounding required for the healthy mind to exist. Whether it is humanism, pessimism, nihilism, or whatever-isms required for a mind to exist, it is evident by the revival of not only religion but traditional religions like Catholicism & Orthodoxy that the human mind needs philosophical grounding. And this weakness is shared by this book but I will still like to recommend to any serious thinker to see the logical fallacies, the weak arguments for faith and God.

It's doesn't matter if you are are a callous atheist, a mild believer, or a religious fundamentalist, you should read this book anyway. It will probably leave you with your own faith and beliefs, but enriched with many stimulating ideas. It will also make a perfect source of discussion subjects to liven up those boring dinner with your friends. The first part of the book is about refuting the so called "proofs" of God existence and pointing out the fact that a "God Hypothesis" is far for being useful to explain the universe , since it creates the biggest problems of explaining God. Not so interesting and new if you have done already a little thinking by yourself but still useful. One really good idea I found in the first part of the book was the the criticism of the "automatic respect for religion", that is the habit of according respect and tolerance to the weirdest behaviours if only they are a consequence of religious faith. The discussion that I found more interesting are about the morality of human beings and its possible origins and laws, and on the origin the seeminly universal religious sense in our race. The idea of religion as by-product of some other evolutionary useful mechanism like blind obedience to parents, or the ability to understand things through their real or imaginary "purpose" and "intentions" is really fascinating. So is the idea of religion as an extention of the psycological process that causes children to create imaginary friends. The chapter on the "evils" of religion and how , even in its "moderate" forms can harm the happiness of people is also definitely worth some pondering. Where this book falls a little short is in his analysis of the Bible and the New Testament. First, the real "sourcebook" for Christianity is the New Testament, it is not calle New for nothing... but this is not Dawkins's fault. In my deep ignorance about history I have alway wondered why Christianity in anglosaxon countries is so centered around the Bible instead of the New Testament, which, if believed is orders of magnitude more important than the Bible. And it seems to have deep consequences on the national characters, if one just looks at the cleverly organized by kinda business cold anglo-saxons compared with the warmth of latin people. Or maybe it's not a consequence but a cause... who knows? The most glaring gap though is a total failure in appreciating the geniality , the poetry and the depth of Jesus life and teachings. Considering the idea of God suffering and dying for the human race as a sadomasochist act is a superficial and silly idea. Even as a little child I noted that Christianity was the only religion I knew of where the founder had not used his cult to life a life of happiness power and domination but suffered and died miserably. That immediately rules out the scenario in which some smart guy uses religious sense in other people to reach wealth and power. It's also an highly poetic and genially crazy idea , the idea of a God suffering and dying like the human race has to suffer and die. I don't know about you, but I would not be able to feel much sympathy for a God that sits comfortably in his Paradise while man has to cope with the harshness of life down here... A subject that needs way more analysis and thinking is morality. It's often repeated that if there is no God to decide what's good and what's evil , than morality is necessarily bound to be subjective and arbitrary. I disagree with this. It would be like saying that without parental guide a kid would not have any idea of what is good and what is bad. What you see instead is a lot of kids who can do much better than their parents, even when they happen to have terrible parents. The objectivity of morality is rooted not in someone arbitrary decision, be him a parent or a god, but in understanding the objective consequences of an action. It would be quite depressing even for a religious person to believe that, for example, murder is evil not because of its evil consequences but because God doesn't like it. And that's also why religious people everywhere should have very clear that while reason cannot prove or disprove religion, any religious claim or behaviour must stand the test of reason. I would also object to Dawkins optimistic and naive idea of the moral standards improving with time. That's a very narrow point of view that surprises me in an intelligent man like Dawkins..yes, standards of life has improved , sure, in his little corner of the World.. most of Europe and US, but this is just a tiny bit of ur planet. Richard you should have the courage of giving a hard look at Africa, Asia and south America and realize that the only things that has improved is the economy of a minority of Earth nations, and this partly because of the advancement of science and technology but mostly because of the exploiting of the rest of the planet, like the Iraq war can easily remind us. The only thing that can provoke an improvement in morality is culture and knowledge. In that sense I see the metaphor of God as "The Verb" particularly striking. Intelligence, knowledge and culture can help us see through the consequences of our actions and give an objective , "scientific" foundation to make this planet a decent place to live in. Look around, and you will easily see that the persons responsible of selfish, brutal or irresponsible actions are very often persons who have little education and cultural background. And with culture I don't mean just the one you can get from books and university, but even the family traditions, as in this respect wisdom is more important than sheer knowledge. And finally about the inspiration that the authors tries to give in the final chapters, which should fill the gap left by the refutation of God.. well I have to say that Dawkins is am exceedingly brilliant science writer, extremely stimulating and fascinating as far as science is concerned, but as for inspiration and passion, well he's just a tiny bit to "technical" for that. And here comes my last critic to this nonetheless fascinating book. Religion can be dangerous, but so can be any kind of fixation, even an adoration for science that makes you look at everything through the same old glasses of science and analyze your life and reality just in those terms. If your life is centered only around one spot, be it religion, literature, science, sportsmanship or whatever else you might like, your life and your view of the cosmos is necessarily going to be narrow , rigid and ultimately boring. ps> and please, Richard, stop it with your meme theory, it's not a scientific theory, it's not needed to explain anything, it's just an analogy.

The irrationality in religious arguments for the existence of God. In this book and his related conferences around the world Richard Dawkins rightly demonstrates the irrationality in the arguments put forward for the existence of god. He also correctly analyzes the distorted thinking in major religions of the world and in Creationist dogma under the guise of "Intelligent Design" and how religions have been harming societies of the world throughout history. He refutes many religious allegations that claim to prove the existence of god one by one by showing the distorted and inconsistent thinking in them. For example, the religious reasoning that if science can not explain a natural event this is proof that the natural event is designed and caused by God and therefore God exists is ludicrous. The fact that something is not yet explained by science is no proof of the existence of God. Many natural events that have scientific explanations today could not be explained scientifically centuries ago. Dawkins gives the example that thousands of years ago humans could not explain the sunrise and concluded therefore that it was an event caused by a diety. Science does not claim to be able to explain everything. However, even if science can never explain a certain natural event this does not lead to the logical conclusion that God did it and that God exists. Somethings can not be proved nor disproved scientifically. For something to constitute a scientific hypothesis it must be falsifiable either by observation and / or experimentation. I recommend that the reader refer to Karl Popper's books on the philosophy of science for details, although the subjectivity of observations has been brought as a counter argument by some people. When somebody makes a claim and says you can not disprove it by science that does not make the claim automatically true. Dawkins quotes the great philosopher Bertrand Russel on that : if somebody were to claim that a teapot was in orbit around the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter this claim could not be proved nor disproved scientifically because at present we don't have telescopes powerful enough to show such a small object so far away from Earth. However, the fact that science can not disprove it does not make the claim true. Dawkins states that similarly the existence of goblins, genies etc. could be, in fact are claimed and their existence can not be disproved scientifically. Using this as an argument that they must therefore exist is illogical and irrational. By the same reasoning, claiming that God exists because science can not prove its non - existence is also ridiculous. If we want to conclude that God exists this must be based on some strong evidence, not necessarily scientific evidence, but some evidence nevertheless. Religion states that creation as explained in the Holy books is evidence. Dawkins demonstrates that holy scripture is not evidence ; it is not based on any rational reasoning. Religious reasoning goes : " it is so because the Bible / Kuran say so. You can not question the Holy books because they are scripture downloaded from God. " Dawkins reminds us that scientific reasoning is based on developing scientific hypothesis that can be tested against evidence. Science never claims to have found the ultimate truth, scientific explanations have been developing and changing for the past 400 years. By contrast, all the major religions claim to have the ultimate truth already. They are divine and written in the Bible, the Kuran etc. There is no need to test them because they are divine truths. And if science claims the contary regarding creation etc. it is science that is wrong, because the holy books are divine scripture and God can not be wrong. Dawkins reminds us that religion is based on faith resulting from indoctrination at childhood. Is God a scientific hypothesis or not ? I agree with all of Richard Dawkins' comments so far. But two of his statements in two different parts of his book / lectures seriously contradict one another. On the one hand he says that God should be a scientific hypothesis subject to proof or disproof like any scientific hypothesis. On the other hand he says that science can not disprove God. By themselves these statements are OK. But taken together they are mutually exclusive ; they can not both be true. If God is a scientific hypothesis we can not say science can not disprove God ; science may not yet have proved or disproved God. But as a scientific hypothesis it should eventually prove or disprove God. If on the other hand the statement that science can not disprove God is true then we can not say that God is or should be a scientifc hypothesis. Because something that can not be proved nor disproved scientifically, like the teapot in orbit around the sun, is not a scientific hypothesis. It seems that Richard Dawkins overlooked this contradiction in these two statements of his. He did not make these statements one after the other ; they are quite separate in his book / lecture. Put the two statements together and the contradiction is obvious. I think Mr. Dawkins needs to make up his mind about this; can the existence / non- existence of God be a scientific hypothesis or not ? If yes, then he should not say elsewhere in his book / lecture that science can not disprove God. He can say science has not yet disproved nor proved the existence of God. By contrast if he concludes that science can not disprove God then he should drop his other statement that God should be a scientific hypothesis. Both statements can be considered and discussed and perhaps accepted separately, but not together. It is obvious that Dawkins has been analyzing the subject of Religion and God for many years, has traveled the world, discussed with clergy of various religions etc. and is very knowledgeble about it on top of his expertise on biology. I am amazed that with so much knowledge he can fall into such a logical error. Proof / disproof does not have to be scientific. Whether God should be a scientific hypothesis or not is a discussable issue. However, I wish to add that not everything need be a scientific hypothesis to be fasifiable and / or provable. For example a brilliant detective like Sherlock Holmes can prove who committed a murder by analyzing various evidence and making logical inferences that at the end prove the murder. The method used by the detective is not science no matter how analytical or brilliant it maybe. Yet the proposition of who committed the murder is falsifiable and provable. Likewise many analytical and logical thinking methods that lead to proofs / disproofs are not science. For example mathematics, logic, historical analysis etc. are not science. Mathematics is a tool used by science. Many theorems can be proved / disproved mathematically. Some scientifc propositions maybe analyzed and helped to be proved mathematically but mathematical propositions themselves, although provable mathematically, are not falsifiable by observation and therefore not science. If as a reader of this review you find it hard to accept that math is not a science I recommend that you read some material on what science is and is not. Math is a very valuable analytical tool of science, but is not science itself. My main point is that if it is concluded that God is a scientific hypothesis its existence / non-existence will eventually be proved or disproved, however long it may take. But it does not need to be a scientific hypothesis to be falsifiable or provable. On the other hand, if it is determined that God can not be a scientific hypothesis this does not mean that existence or non- existence of God can not be proved / disproved. It only means that the God proposition, although unscientific, has not yet been proved nor disproved but may be proved / disproved in the future by some other rational method that is not scientific. Or it may never be proved / disproved. What is certain is that irrational religious arguments have not proved the existence of God and never will. Any proof / disproof will come from some kind of rational method of reasoning. Are there any benefits of a religious life ? Among other subjects he mentions in his book Richard Dawkins says that religious ceremonies such as weddings in churches and the like should still be part of our culture and we should still learn about the Bible and other holy books like we learn about any work of literature. But that we should do these without indoctrination and dogma. When we study the Iliad and similar works as part of humankind's literature we don't necessarily believe in them. The study of Holy books should be no different. Do we need religion to have moral lives ? Dawkins also explains with examples that even though religious faith may sometimes provide psychological comfort, that does not make the religious claims true. The allegation that we must be religious to have moral and ethical lives is false. A person can be good without believing in God. Among religious people there are many good ones and many immoral ones. Some of the ethical teachings in the Holy books are good morality but many of them ( Dawkins gives many examples ) are immoral to common sense and downright detrimental to society. Who is the audience ? This book and Dawkins' lectures are very much needed in the contemporary world where religious polarization is on the rise. However, religious people will not read his book nor listen to his lectures. Even if they do they will not change their minds. Because minds that have been shaped by religious indoctrination since childhood can not be changed by logical arguments and presentation of scientific evidence. Were Galileo and Copernicus able to change the minds of the clergy by presenting scientific evidence of their theories ? Dawkins says that he received some messages from readers that they stopped believing in God and religion after having read his book. But I doubt that they were fundamental advocates of religion in the first place. This book is likely to ( in Dawkins terminology ) " raise the conciousness " of people who are moderately ( non - fanatic ) religious or non - religious. It has no chance of convincing the religious fanatic. Not because it is not a good book, but because dogmatic belief of any kind is not open to evidence of alternative opinions. In fact, we can see on Dawkins' videos on the internet how he has been insulted by religious leaders around the world when he went to discuss with them. I am sure Dawkins does not intend to convert them, perhaps he wants to expose their intolerance to the general public. What can we do ? I am writing this review from a country that has been a secular republic since its establishment in 1923 but has always been under threat of religious fundamentalism. In fact, access to Richard Dawkins' website is blocked by court decision from this country, no doubt as a result of religious fanatic initiative. I think the challenge facing the secular people in various countries in the world is keeping secular education alive and ensuring that children are brought up with secular - not necessarily atheist - methods of thinking. In his concluding remarks, Dawkins does not recommend parents to indoctrinate their children to become atheists, although he is an atheist himself. He says don't indoctrinate your children with religion and don't label them as catholic, protestant, moslem or jewish children. They ARE NOT catholic, protestant, moslem or jewish children. They are children of catholic, protestant,moslem or jewish parents. Labelling children as young as 4 years of age with religion is as ridiculous as labelling them as socialist, marxist, capitalist, keynesian, monetarist etc. Therefore Dawkins advises parents to let the children decide themselves when they become adults what they think of religion and of the holy books. Do not indoctrinate them to believe the Bible, the Kuran or atheism at a young age. This is very good advice, but unfortunately only a minority of the populations in many countries have the capability to provide a secular education for their children. I hope that secular education will become more widespread leaving the choice to be an aetheist or religious to the individual without indoctrinating him / her to be either. However, I am not too optimistic that this will ever be possible on a wide scale. Is Richard Dawkins taking security measures to protect himself ? I see on his videos on the internet that he goes around the world to discuss with leaders of militant Islam, with fundamentalist Christians and although he appears to be courteous on the videos he says that he is an atheist and is often insulted. His views are too extreme for religious people to tolerate and I am worried that he maybe attacked one day. It does not appear on the videos that he is taking any security measures.

One will readily expect the perceptions and reviews of Richard Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION to fall along what might euphemistically be called "party lines." Blue Staters, rationalists, and the college educated (especially in mathematics, engineering, the sciences, and technology) will find it thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating even if they disagree with the author's views. Red Staters, religious fundamentalists, and readers (if any) with less than a college education will be repulsed, likely to pit it against the Bible and regard Mr. Dawkins' as already marked for hellfire and eternal damnation. In the broad sweep that is religion, few minds will be changed, but was that really the author's objective? I think not. Mr. Dawkins offers clues to his game plan fairly early on, arguing that atheists have no reason to be apologetic. He argues vigorously against the, "I'm an atheist, but..." position offered by many, treating it as an unnecessary concession to the forces of blind, irrational faith who would never reciprocate. Mr. Dawkins sets out as well to convince agnostics (among whom I've long considered myself) that their position is an unfounded hedge, hoping to convince them that outright atheism is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from so many arguments. His arguments are direct and persuasive, and I for one will confess to being swayed far closer to his position than previously. THE GOD DELUSION is thorough in its approach and exceedingly well structured. Presenting his case like a lawyer in an extended closing argument, Dawkins moves from chapter to chapter setting up his opponents' many historical arguments for the existence of God and religion and then demolishing each of them by force of reason and scientific argument. He does this in a direct and highly readable, almost colloquial style, while injecting a sense of wry humor throughout that serves admirably to lighten the discussion. Dawkins demonstrates a remarkable scientific, philosophical, and even pop cultural range, with multiple references to the incomparable, much missed Douglas Adams. To my great surprise, he draws as well on theories from Lee Smolin (multiple universes emerging from black holes in a Darwinian, evolutionary style) and Julian Jaynes (theories of the origins of human consciousness in the bicameral mind), both of whose books I read some years ago and had thought long since forgotten by most. Equally enlightening for me were Dawkins extensive quotes from America's Founding Fathers, making it eminently clear (despite so many right wing conservative statements to the contrary) that the United States was not formed as a Christian state, nor that of any other religion. To the contrary, the Founding Fathers appear, by their own words, largely to have been atheists, or at least atheistic leaning agnostics. Review readers should note that Dawkins does not simply confine himself to the question of existence of a higher being. He addresses issues of altruistic behavior and morality from an evolutionary perspective, debates the relative merits of religion over the course of human history, and presents (in Chapter 9) a devastating argument against the worldwide forced inculcation of children into religious belief by their parents. Quoting Victor Hugo at the opening of that chapter, "There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the clergyman." From my own life experience, seldom have truer words been spoken. With well over a thousand reviews posted on Amazon alone, I see no reason to summarize the book's content or arguments. In fact, the only way to do real justice to the author's positions is to read it in its entirety - no summary can adequately convey Dawkins' step-by-step demolition of those who argue on behalf of God, faith, or religion. For those who have doubts in these areas and those who are left queasy over the clear and present danger religious fundamentalism poses to democratic American institutions and its role in international terrorism and the threat of broad scale war, THE GOD DELUSION is an excellent palliative. Large swaths of post-millennial America are moving increasingly toward theocracy, a trend viewed with alarm by most of the rest of the educated, Western world. One need only look at the disturbing comments from Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin (expecting to see the Messiah return in her lifetime and incorporating the end of days into her admittedly limited foreign policy views) to see just how close to reality this is becoming. For those who consider themselves even minimally open-minded on the subject of religion and the existence of an all-powerful being ("whatever you conceive him to be, hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin" in the immortal words of the National Lampoon), THE GOD DELUSION is a book well worth reading and contemplating.

I find the comments here interesting. I've got to order this book and read the author's viewpoint for myself. I have some thoughts concerning some of the comments posted here. As a Christian I see many problems with the church and those who call themselves "believers". I believe the entire concept of "hell" has been distorted over the years to scare people into church attendance. The Greek text doesn't seem to support the current concept of hell as much as Christians would like it to. Nor does the overall O.T./N.T. teaching on "hell". The modern church seems to do alot these days to increase attendance and make money in the name of God. I will never agree with that. I must say that all that comes in the name of science is not always science. Much of it is not observable nor can it be truly tested. We have to admit that what science has called fact and good for us often times becomes false and bad for us somewhere down the road. We all thought Pluto was a planet. Now some within the scientific realm are trying to tell us otherwise. I think there are more hidden agendas around than we want to admit to within science. It's not as cut and dry as we would like to make it. There is alot of philosophical thought within the discipline we call "science". Where scientific fact cannot be observed it is often substituted with the latest philosophy that promotes the cause. When this happens it should no longer be considered purely science or science at all. Much of it is not observable, testable, or repeatable. We turn to so-called "experts" but who can we call an expert when the experts cannot even agree? Even the most note-worthy of scientists that are considered credible still differ in opinion. Can we determine who is an expert simply from their educational background? If so, then since some colleges and universities are better than others then which college or university produces the best experts? Should the ones who earned a degree with an "A" average be considered better than the ones who earned a degree with a "C" average? Do internet classes count? If scientific experts disagree then which one should we consider to be the expert? We tend to agree with the ones that support our lifestyle choices and support our way of thinking. In the same manner much of what is done in the name of Christianity/Religion is neither Christian or particularly good in any way, shape, or form. Just because someone with a cause decides to label it as Christian doesn't make it so. All that comes in the name of Christianity is not necessarily Christian. You cannot judge Christianity by the deceived who claim to follow it yet show no evidence of it. I also question the concept of Christian's abusing children with the teaching of a concept of hell. While this may or may not be entirely true in some cases why doesn't anyone question the child abuse done over and over again by those who have absolutely no religious affiliation at all? How many naturalist/atheists have abused children? Some of the reviewers out here act as if only religious people are guilty of child abuse and that those who are not religious never abuse children. You tend to get angry over supposed abuse surrounding an ideology but not physical forms of abuse or perhaps false ideologies that you may hold to that have been taught to your children. If morality evolved along with us apart from a god then how do we know it evolved properly? Is there a morality of the fittest as well? Random chance morality doesn't seem all that wonderful. If we all evolved and there are many, many different views of morality how do we decide which moral stance is right and which one is wrong? Obviously some evolved better or at least different than others. How do we make the determination that one view of morality evolved better than another? Which evolved view of morality do we accept and cherish as being proper? What if my evolved morality believes that it is proper to kill one of your children yet your evolved morality says that it is not o.k. for me to kill your children? If it is all part of a random chance evolved morality how can you say it is wrong for someone to believe that murder is right? What is the standard for morality in the world of "evolved morals"? When it comes to evolution I have often wondered why "man" as the highest evolved creature seems to have less ability to survive in some cases than the lower evolved animals he dwells with. When the tsunamis hit most of the animals had something within them in that told them to seek higher ground before the flood water engulfed them. Meanwhile the human beings were swallowed by the wave. I would like to believe that mankind should have all that the animals have to survive plus so much more. Yet it is apparent that we dont. Why is it that the highest evolved species of man has so many problems? We are dispensing so many psychotropic drugs these days under the guise of "if we cannot help you we will sedate you". We turn to science for answers to our problems but many times we do not find any help at all. The concept of answering life's problems in an easy to swallow pill form seems appealing but it is not realistic. The problems still exist beyond our cloudy sedation and science induced designer pharmaceuticals. Our household pets seem to have less problems than us. That doesn't always make me feel like the crowning glory of the evolutionary process. I do not see as much adaptation to the environment as I do stress, trying to cope, and all out searching for answers. The plethora of self-help material, over use of prescription drugs, psychology, and psychiatry seem to point to a problem without certain answers. I don't have to mention all of the down sides to religion in my post here. Others will do fine without my help. I just lost a marriage that I wanted that only got worse when church people became involved. I don't need to hear about what is wrong with the church goers. I already know. It seems likely that both sides are lacking in evidence and explanation. As Christians we need to focus more on living a proper lifestyle that sets an example and doesn't leave non-believers wondering-"What is so great about Christianity or religion?" As for science-----there needs to be some admitting of certain philosophical presuppositions that are held near and dear instead of calling it science. I'll give the book 5 out of 5 stars before I even read it. It's worth 5 stars simply because it promotes debate.

The fact that there are already more than 1500 reviews of this book testifies to its importance and timeliness. An overview of the reviews also points to an interesting sociologic phenomenon. Reviews written by readers who agree with Dawkins' thesis tend to get a "helpful" comment, while equally well written reviews who point out fallacies in Dawkins' argument tend more commonly to be regarded as "not helpful." This seems to point to a need to have the atheistic point of view validated by a respectable scientist. This is also the stated purpose of Dawkins book. He wants to "raise the consciousness" of atheists because, atheism "is something to be proud of, standing tall to face far horizons, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." While I agree, that one need not be ashamed of atheism but regarding it as a source of pride seems equally unwarranted because we are talking about opinions rather than facts and, in addition, pride is not necessarily a healthy emotion. The book can be regarded as the equivalent of the 1848 Communist Manifesto which was likewise designed to shore up a minority view in the hope that the ideas expressed therein would inevitably triumph because they were so logical and self-evident. When one exchanges the words "oppression by the bourgeois class" for "religious oppression" one will find considerable similarities between these two documents. This is especially true for the assumption that abolition of classes in the Marx and Engels manifesto, and abolition of religion in the case of Dawkins, will usher in the messianic age of pace, harmony and good will among the majority if not all human beings. But past history does not bear this out. The French Revolution, which abolished religion, led to the reign of terror and so did Lenin's 1917 revolution. Let us also not forget that National Socialism was guided by reason and logic, as soon as one bought into the basic premise of what has been called "social Darwinism" and one was "racially pure Aryan." Dawkins does not mention these precedents and may regard them as aberrations, but religious people can then point out that the excesses which have occurred under organized religions were likewise deviations from the norm rather than the norm itself. Dawkins is correct in stating that religious dogmas are incompatible with scientific facts and that the probability for the existence of a creator God who personally influences our daily lives is small. I agree with Dawkins on this point and it was the reason why I wrote The Jesus Conundrum-A Search for Truth beyond Dogma, as well as related articles on my website. Nevertheless, it should also be pointed out that when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God we are dealing with opinions rather than theories or hypothesis which can be experimentally verified. Although Dawkins has discussed some objections to a purely scientific approach to life there is an additional reason why science does not lend itself to a proof for the existence of God. First of all, instead of "science" in the abstract we should talk about the scientific method. It relies on measurements which in turn result from phenomena which have been visually apprehended and put into language. Even if the language consists originally of mathematical formulas they have to be retranslated into ordinary language so that others can evaluate it. These are significant limitations and they exclude the workings of the inner mind. If one wants to, one can analyze Shakespeare's works scientifically and we will be stuck with word counts, sentence structure etc., but that aspect which makes Shakespeare - Shakespeare, the feelings and thoughts which his words arouse in us will be entirely lost. I submit that a similar situation pertains in relation to our feelings about God. As a scientist I have no problem accepting current scientific results and the idea of natural selection, but as a human being I also think about the why and wherefore. "To be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it," may work for Dawkins but not for me. The difference is that Dawkins seems to live mentally in a digital universe where there are zeros and ones, yes or no, true or false; while mine is populated by yes-buts, qualifications which allow for an "as well as" approach, and attempts at synthesis of the best ideas rather than mere total rejection of one for another. These are, of course, personal aspects but to believe that human beings have reached the status of Homo sapiens is wishful thinking as the events of the past and current century prove. To achieve that status we still have a long way to go and digital thinking, in the manner of Dawkins, will not get us there. The true-false, good-evil, right-wrong dichotomies, of the religious as well as secular variety, have gotten us into the wars we are currently engaged in and are likely to bring about further catastrophes. Dawkins decries moderation and tolerance but unless we come to a meeting of minds by mutual concessions we will continue to kill each other regardless of the name the killing is ostensibly done for. We don't need "secular humanism" which is opposed to "religious humanism;" let us instead create a "Humane society," not just for animals but people. The amazon program seems to have a problem at this time and this is why I have to append my response to Mr. E. Bordon's comment here: Thank you for your comments which deal with fundamental problems the human race has struggled with for the past 2500 years and I have dealt with them in various Hot Issues of my website [...] I have also tried to answer Pilate's question, "What is Truth?" in the last chapter of The Jesus Conundrum-Searching for Truth beyond Dogma and shall, therefore, be brief. You have raised the question of pride and I agree that certain religious communities also show an extraordinary pride in their belonging to an elect group. But that doesn't make it right, and fighting fire with fire leaves the landscape desolate. There was good reason why the Catholic Church as well as Buddhism, has declared pride a sin in the first instance, and as a human defilement in the second. There is a difference beween "a god" who has a specific name, associated with some specific properties, and the concept of "God" as spirit which cannot be named and whose properties are unknown; although one hopes that they are predominantly benign. This "God" resides in the innermost depths of the human being and as such is a subjective experience which cannot be objectified. Even talking about it cannot do justice because words are already symbols and inadequate ones to boot. The mistake which is made by "professional atheists" (defined as: individuals who feel the necessity to destroy the religious faith of others) is that they do not want to realize that the human being does not live only in the physical universe, which can be apprehended through science, but also lives in an inner world of thoughts and emotions which take over as soon as one closes the eyes or "daydreams." Yet they are the mainsprings of speech, reason and conduct. Since they are subjective and intensely personal they are not accessible to scientific methodology. As an example one can take a sonnet by Shakespeare. One can scientifically study it in terms of rhyme, length of sentences, word usage etc. But why does it profoundly affect one person and is a "so what" for another? One can readily analogize this to the concept of God and why an agreement on God's existence or non-existence will never be reached by the majority of humanity. While God is a "delusion" for Dawkins and an "illusion" for Freud, God is the essence of one's being for others. Absolute truth is not obtainable by human beings and what we regard as truth at a given time may become either patently false, or more commonly partially true at another. Even in science we are not dealing with unadulterated objective truth. A given scientific fact is ascertained with a specific methodology and is true within that limitation. But, to make it useful, this fact has to be "interpreted" and this is the point where subjectivity can overpower science and lead to "scientism." That glaciers have considerably shrunk in size during the 20th century is a measurable fact which anyone can convince oneself of. The argument is not over the shrinking, but its cause which continues to be endlessly debated by reputable scientists. Tolerance is indeed a worthwhile goal but it should be practiced in one's conduct and labeling other human beings who cannot share someone else's belief system, even if bolstered by scientific results (which are irrelevant for the question at hand), as deluded does not help matters. As I said earlier, atheists and agnostics should be granted equal respect to those of "religious people," as befits their status as human beings, and when either group oversteps the boundaries of decency it should be taken to task. As mentioned the questions you raise are indeed fundamental to our outlook on life and I shall devote the June installment of the Hot Issues under the title "Digital Thinking" to further discussion. If you have other questions in the meantime I will try to answer them here. Thank you for your comments which deal with fundamental problems the human race has struggled with for the past 2500 years and I have dealt with them in various Hot Issues of my website [...] I have also tried to answer Pilate's question, "What is Truth?" in the last chapter of The Jesus Conundrum-Searching for Truth beyond Dogma and shall, therefore, be brief. You have raised the question of pride and I agree that certain religious communities also show an extraordinary pride in their belonging to an elect group. But that doesn't make it right, and fighting fire with fire leaves the landscape desolate. There was good reason why the Catholic Church as well as Buddhism, has declared pride a sin in the first instance, and as a human defilement in the second. There is a difference beween "a god" who has a specific name, associated with some specific properties, and the concept of "God" as a spirit which cannot be named and whose properties are unknown; although one hopes that they are predominantly benign. This "God" resides in the innermost depths of the human being and as such is a subjective experience which cannot be objectified. Even talking about it cannot do justice because words are already symbols and inadequate ones to boot. The mistake which is made by "professional atheists" (defined as: individuals who feel the necessity to destroy the religious faith of others) is that they do not want to realize that the human being does not live only in the physical universe, which can be apprehended through science, but also lives in an inner world of thoughts and emotions which take over as soon as one closes the eyes or "daydreams." Yet they are the mainsprings of speech, reason and conduct. Since they are subjective and intensely personal they are not accessible to scientific methodology. As an example take a sonnet by Shakespeare. You can scientifically study it in terms of rhyme, length of sentences, word usage etc. But why does it profoundly affect one person and is a "so what" for another? One can readily analogize this to the concept of God and why an agreement on God's existence or non-existence will never be reached by the majority of humanity. While God is a "delusion" for Dawkins and an "illusion" for Freud, God is the essence of one's being for others. Absolute truth is not obtainable by human beings and what we regard as truth at a given time may become either patently false, or more commonly partially true at another. Even in science we are not dealing with unadulterated objective truth. A given scientific fact is ascertained with a specific methodology and is true within that limitation. But, to make it useful, this fact has to be "interpreted" and this is the point where subjectivity can overpower science and lead to "scientism." That glaciers have considerably shrunk in size during the 20th century is a measurable fact which anyone can convince oneself of. The argument is not over the shrinking, but its cause which continues to be endlessly debated by reputable scientists. Tolerance is indeed a worthwhile goal but it should be practiced in one's conduct and labeling other human beings who cannot share someone else's belief system, even if bolstered by scientific results (which are irrelevant for the question at hand), as deluded does not help matters. As I said earlier, atheists and agnostics should be granted equal respect to those of "religious people," as befits their status as human beings, and when either group oversteps the boundaries of decency it should be taken to task. As mentioned the questions you raise are indeed fundamental to our outlook on life and I shall devote the June installment of the Hot Issues under the Title "Digital Thinking" to further discussion. If you have other questions in the meantime I will try to answer them here.

This book is definitely a milestone in my life and it has been a great help on becoming a real humanist.

I have read (The God Delusion) from cover to cover with great interest because the subject is close to my heart. CONGRATULATIONS! Dr.R.Dawkins explanation of our narrow window of our burka world is very apropos, the ‘New Ten Commandments’ are refreshing, and the many quotes from Bertrand Russell etc are very revealing. I was hoping to find in his book the following quotes from Nietzsche’s “Beyond Good and Evil” written in 1886. Permit me: From 52: “To have bound up this New Testament (…) along with the Old Testament into one book, as the “Bible”, as the “Book in Itself”, is perhaps the greatest audacity and “sin against the Spirit” which literary Europe has upon its conscience.” From 57: “Perhaps the most solemn conceptions that have caused the most fighting and suffering, the conception of “God” and “sin”, will one day seem to us of no more importance than a child’s plaything…”. The question “WHAT NOW!” repeated itself many times before finishing the book to the point where I had to write to Dr. Dawkins. While investigating the book an inevitable conclusion arose leaving me with fact that civilization is at a critical Chaos-window, a critical point of bifurcation. This diagnosis becomes more and more urgent. We are living in a period of transformation which is struggling to be born. The Christian God-head and other religions are incomplete! We are in a world where knowledge and technology proliferates but wisdom languishes. The development of consciousness is the burden, suffering and blessing of humankind. We (all sides) are slowly going to be cooked in this alchemical retort (namely society) until we transcend our current state and differences and only then will the heat subside. The longer solutions are delayed the greater will be the heat! Understood psychologically, we either attract one another wisely in good spirit or confront one another in enmity. There is tremendous room for a sequel which could be a 'tour de force' given Dr. Dawkins popularity and abilities. It could help millions throughout the world in raising our consciousness and in shifting the moral Zeitgeist. This shift may be slow but it is time to raise the curtain on our next act and with it our collective awareness. We can evolve to a Breakthrough! Future generations may well look back at this time and regard it as a defining moment when man became more human.

"The God Delusion" resurfaces like a philosophical comet, leaving a trail of fiery discussions and sparking fresh constellations of thought in its wake. Richard Dawkins' magnum opus continues to electrify minds, and this edition, adorned with new insights, feels like an awakening of intellectual exploration. Dawkins' prose is a symphony of eloquence and persuasion, orchestrating an ardent critique of religious dogma with a precision that is both awe-inspiring and disruptive. Like a master sculptor, he carves through the marble of faith, revealing the contours of reason that lay hidden beneath. The verve of his writing isn't just for show; it is the rallying cry of rationality that ignites minds and challenges them to dare question centuries-old beliefs. In this iteration, the book boasts an updated prelude and a concluding reflection by the author. These additions serve as a bridge between past and present, giving readers a compass to navigate the evolution of debates this book has instigated. Dawkins acknowledges the counterarguments his work has faced while steadfastly reaffirming his position—a gesture that is intellectually honest and encouraging of robust discourse. Dawkins' analogies are the torchlights guiding us through the labyrinth of theology. He compares belief without evidence to a spectrum of possibilities, from leprechauns to Zeus, forcing us to confront the arbitrary nature of our convictions. His poignant parables highlight the delusionary nature of faith and invite readers to break free from the chains of inherited beliefs. However, even in its brilliance, the book can be an acquired taste. Dawkins' unwavering conviction can occasionally feel like an unyielding wave crashing against differing shores, potentially alienating those who stand in the intersection of faith and skepticism. The book's focus on fundamentalist aspects of religion, while driving its point home, might not fully encapsulate the entirety of religious experience and expression. "The God Delusion" is a phoenix, reborn from the flames of debate, its feathers now glistening with a decade's worth of insights. Dawkins' words aren't merely text on paper; they are the spark that lights the tinder of contemplation. This edition compels readers to reckon with their beliefs and explore the borders of human knowledge and understanding. In closing, the Edition remains a beacon of intellectual audacity, beckoning readers to dance on the edge of enlightenment. Dawkins' magisterial work remains an essential read for the curious, the daring, and the truth-seekers among us. If you're prepared to embark on a voyage that challenges your convictions, this book will be your compass to navigate the uncharted waters of belief and reason.

Didn’t start yet but I’m very excited

Wonderful