A monster of a read, with tons of huge ideas, some of which are almost impossible to wrap your head around. Which is not to say that Dawkins isn't presumptuous; one of the first things he claims is that if you're on the fence about God, reading this book will most likely "convert" you over to atheism. I'm on the fence, and after finishing, I'm more confused than ever. Still, like the book that inspired me to read this one(Godless by Ann Coulter), Dawkins presents his material in a way that makes you question the established reasons of the world. ( )

EC Ratcliff was the only liturgist in recent memory to hold a Regius Chair of Divinity at Oxford or Cambridge. One evening, the taciturn Dean of St Paul’s, W R Inge, was dining at Ratcliff’s Cambridge college and Ratcliff asked him, by way of polite conversation, whether he was interested in liturgy. “I am not,” replied Dean Inge. “Nor do I collect postage stamps.”

That is the root of the problem with Dawkins’s book. Dawkins is an atheist. Fine: it’s a free market in ideas and no religious person other than a total bigot should have any problem with that. But we should not make the mistake of arguing with him because it bound to be a dialogue of the deaf. I would not attempt to educate someone out of a belief in fairies; and for Dawkins ‘religion’ comes into the same category of none-sense. Best walk away from the discussion.

The minor problem is that Dawkins has a prose style with all the limpid clarity of a bowl of pea-and-ham soup. But no further criticism that I might muster could add anything to the withering verdict of Terry Eagleton. I still look forward with interest to reading a crisply-argued, unbombastic demolition of religious belief. This is not it.

Ponderous battery of artillery to subdue once and for all any miscreants unfortunate enough to have a religious belief. As an atheist I found the self-assured over-bearing manner worrying in that there never was any possibility of an alternative view. Seldom if ever is there one absolute answer, there are always shade of grey, uncertainties. One uncertainty is that there is every indication that the human animal is predisposed to a belief system. If so how that works out in a modern society is surely worth exploring. My only caveat is that with creationists running the educational stake in the US of A any ambiguity may well used as a further weapon to sow doubt. So only on that score can I say good on you Dawkins. Otherwise an mildly interesting lope through the gamut of anti-religion arguments, been there thought that. ( )

Dawkins is in top form, refuting all of the common (and not so common) justifications people make to reconcile a believe in god in spite of evidence that challenges the plausibility of it all. Particularly funny is how he uses their own weapons against them. In challenging the argument that morality is impossible without the structure of religion, Dawkins reminds the reader that the coveted "10 Commandments" applied only to Jews. It was perfectly fine to kill your neighbor if he wasn't one of the "chosen people", and in fact, there was much encouragement to do so. Dawkins also reports on studies that show a highly negative reaction to some of the events in the bible when the perpetrators were not disclosed -- most, for instance, found Joshua's campaign of genocide reprehensible. However, when the biblical characters were identified, suddenly, the story met with much approval. Society has a seemingly infinite capacity to accept hypocrisy when it comes to religion.

Dawkins overall point is that while one might certain concessions to logic to accommodate their religious indoctrination, in all cases, this represents nothing more than a willing delusion. The lengths some will go to are comical to behold -- all the way up to urban legends with no factual basis cited by religious apologists as canonical truth. The God Delusion is a terrific read and will buttress any lingering disregard one has for "the word" regardless of who is delivering it. ( )

Dawkins' prose is exhilerating and persuasive, but i think he ought to stick to social biology. His understanding of the ineffable and esoteric is shallow and he is too dismissive of what is not (at least yet) explained by science. ( )