The God Delusion (2006)

It was amazing, thought-provoking, but not necessarily a quick, "easy" read. I think I learned that I'm not really an agnostic. ( )

It was amazing, thought-provoking, but not necessarily a quick, "easy" read. I think I learned that I'm not really an agnostic. ( )

There are any number of things I could criticize about the book, and it really does seem like one that wants lots of specific rebuttals. But I simply don't have that kind of time. Overall, let me say that Dawkins takes a remarkably narrow view of religion, and—I think—of human nature itself. I think he's also a bit too quick to overlook the shortcomings of rationality, but that's not as critical to my dislike of the book. It's worth reading, in order to engage with this important conversation (and because he does make a few good points). But the fundamental flaw underlying it makes it a much less worthy book than another author might have produced from roughly the same standpoint. ( )

Good, it's not great (my apologies, Hitch). ( )

Biologist Richard Dawkins explores the likelihood that God exists, and and the resulting discussion is at turns fascinating, frustrating, frightening, and utterly compelling. Dawkins is at his breath-taking best when he talks science and posits potential evolutionary explanations for the human creature's near-universal tendency to develop religion. He is crashingly frustrating in his attitude toward the devout (rarely better than sneering) and in his insistence on focusing on the horrors perpetuated by religion without giving any space to the good that can come from religion as well. (It can be argued (and has been, rather convincingly, by Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry (and I imagine many others as well)), that the horrors far outweigh the good, but Dawkins doesn't even bother to make the argument. And it feels a bit Ein Minuten, bitte, honestly, that he doesn't even go there.*) His rejection of the idea that another's religious beliefs ought to be respected even if they run counter to reason and rational thought may have been the single most compelling notion in the book for me, but also the most frustrating. Compelling because it challenges a prevailing attitude of my time and culture. Frustrating because Dawkins does not discuss this contention fully. It was as if he'd discovered a truth and expected that once he showed that truth to his audience, everyone would have a eureka moment and accept that truth as given without needing any explanation, proof, or discussion. It's a peculiar lapse in a book that is otherwise very thorough in its explanations of its arguments. Despite this frustration, recommended to anyone with an interest in biology, evolution, or religion.

*I refer to external good, here, for instance, running food kitchens, not internal, individual good, such as consolation, which Dawkins does address, fully and well. ( )