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. ( )

This is a classic well-argued case for atheism (and against religion) based on the anthropic principle, rationality, ethics, fairly brazen biblical analysis that is nevertheless open to him and the evolutionary theory that has been available since the time of Darwin. It is not strident. It IS entertaining and thoughtful. ( )

Very interesting book, if you're interested in one way or the other on the debate of god. If you're against, you'll probably agree with the book; if you're for, you'll probably disagree with the book; and if you're a fence sitter, it's food for thought.

One main thing I didn't like was that he's as much against the idea of god as others are for it, therefore, I felt the book was biased, though no more so than others that are on the other side.

All in all, worth reading. ( )

It seems to be very obvious for me that Dawkins himself is deeper than this book. And when I ask myself why Dawkins wrote such a book which can be compared with some soviet bellicose atheists' papers, I see the answer is clear. This book is a kind of popularization, it was written for a people and not for intellectuals. Here, as one can see, Dawkins hits the target. God Delusion was translated in many languages and have discussed world-wide. So I suppose, we need to be grateful to author's efforts. Even if we disagree with him, when he talks about religion as the root of all evils. In fact it was a good slogan too, but not a rational agrumentation. ( )

I was disappointed I found this to be quite dry. There were a few flashes of humor throughout. Overall not what I was expecting ( )

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (2006)

Although not as eloquent and gripping as Christopher Hitchen’s similar-themed book, God Is Not Great, this book is nonetheless pretty fascinating in its own right. Author and Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins puts religion, notably fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, to the same rigorous scrutiny that a scientific theory would be subject to and he gleefully tears them apart, relegating religion to the realm of “nonsense.” Like Hitchens, he lays waste to the absurd ideas behind intelligent design, and points a damning finger at various ridiculous people who have made outlandish statements inspired by their religion.I found much of interest in this book and found it to be 90% captivating. ( )

I imagine this book rankles a lot of people. The mere title is sure to raise hackles, calling their cherished lifelong faith a delusion. But it's not nearly as mean-spirited as the title may suggest. The book begins with an explanation of the difference between supernatural religion and Einsteinian religion. Einstein, though he often mentioned "God" did not actually believe in a personal, supernatural god. He was talking about the universe as a whole. Though not something to be worshiped, the same awe and reverence usually associated with religion is unquestionably felt by atheists.

Dawkins then proceeds to address large numbers of arguments for the existence of a personal creator-god. Most of his rebuttals against the creator-god boil down to this: if the universe is so complex that it must have been designed, then the designer must have been even more complex, and using that same logic, must therefore also have been designed. He also responds to famous arguments such as those from Thomas Aquinas and Pascal's Wager.

The chapter "why there almost certainly is no God" goes through various probability-based arguments, most of which return to the fact that natural selection is not random chance but rather a series of tiny changes over thousands or even billions of years. With the exception of the very first spark of life, nothing just spontaneously appeared over the course of evolution. That initial spark is then argued for using the anthropic principle. This idea, when applied to the origin of life, is that we know that though the odds of all the conditions being just right for life are infinitesimal, we know that they are non-zero because we are alive to ask the question. I can't refute it, but it's a terribly unsatisfying argument.

Dawkins then moves on to address the roots of religion and morality in Darwinian terms. That is, if there is no god, why does religion pop up in all cultures? If there is no god, what's the point in being good? Dawkins discusses both of these questions thoroughly and concisely.

After a chapter about why he is so hostile to religion and one equating childhood religious upbringing with child abuse (though he does believe that religious books should be taught as part of literature, just as the Greek myths are currently), Dawkins closes with a discussion of why we as human beings don't actually need religion to be happy. Though religion has traditionally been expected to fill our needs for consolation and inspiration (among other things already addressed), there are plenty of other sources for these. The book ends with a revisit to the Einsteinian religion with various descriptions of the amazing, the mind-boggling, and the inspiring in our universe. The more we know, the more we yearn to know. Life is beautiful even without the supernatural.

This book has given me quite a lot to think about, some of it rather uncomfortable. I'm not going to get into my own personal beliefs in this review. I don't agree 100% with everything Dawkins has to say, but I do believe this is an extremely important book and something people should read. It's not that reading this will necessarily turn you into an atheist (though I suppose it might), but I do believe that one cannot really hold convictions without having considered thoughtful and concise arguments to the contrary. Otherwise it's not a conviction at all, just mindless parroting of whatever you've been told. Even if this book doesn't change your mind about anything, it should help you focus on why you believe what you do. ( )

Invaluable ( )

Invaluable ( )

Thank God someone had the courage to say it! Religion as child abuse. ( )

If I believed in a god, I would get on my knees and thank her that I live in a free society where this book can be bought and sold legally. Since I don't, I can instead read some of the pathetic criticism leveled against it with mixed feelings of awe and disgust. BTW youtube has many supplemental videos from Dawkins, taken from various forums and interviews that are also worthwhile.
Most importantly, Dawkins teaches us that religion and the religious are not a topic to be taken seriously, offered any respect, airtime, money, or diffidence. If you want to see a fundamentalist totalitarian society, go visit Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to understand how it feels to have thoughts and beliefs controlled. This is the Christian Right's vision, and Dawkin's book knocks the wind right out of their sails. ( )

Dawkins is too aggressive in his ranting and is likely to put the very people he wants to read this book off in the first few pages.

I planned to actually write a long blogpost about this book as I did many many notes while reading.
I'm professing christian since 10 years - so I'm certainly biased.

There are some interesting chapters - especially when he speaks about evolution which is his field.
But the rest is - to my understanding - quite unscientific. Many arguments seem very thin and are easily refutable. Many things he didn't research but just assumes...

Then he is pretty unfair in taking bad examples. Surely there are a few christians that serve as bad example - and it's pretty easy to pick those - which he does.

To me it sound like he wants to win the arguments by just being loud and not listening to what christians are saying.
I really hoped to get some good arguments for atheism but I was quite disappointed! ( )

Interesting book. Dawkins makes it clear that he has no time for 'religion' and that it deserves no respect. Since he is honest and upfront, I can cope with his relentless attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular, though he makes plenty of annoying 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink' asides in parentheses or in footnotes.

I thought he was most on top of things in the things he is good at - talking about natural selection. I appreciate his concern that there is a temptation for creationists (of which I am one) to use irreducible complexity as an excuse for scientific laziness and resorting to a God-of-the-gaps mindset.

However, Dawkins seems unable to see the distinction between the 'is' of his position (data, facts, theories) and the 'ought' (what is right and wrong, policies to be adopted etc). His scientific understanding cannot lead to the positions he adopts and his criticisms of 'religion' without importing other (unjustified) assumptions. Much more could be said.

For the honest, miserable position he should adopt, read John Gray (e.g. Straw Dogs). For an understanding of the myths about religion that Dawkins wittingly or unwittingly adopts, read David Robertson (The Dawkins Letters). ( )

I want to say so much, but I feel that perhaps enough has been written in response to this book. Perhaps one day I will write a much lengthier review.

Without a doubt, Dawkins has charisma. His writing style is bity, quick, and on the occasion, funny. My knowledge of Darwinian evolution is limited, and if you are like me, then this book will clarify some of the keys to evolution. I cannot give an honest critique of his scientific persuasion because I am not qualified. However, I do understand theology and philosophy more. And here is where Dawkins really falls apart. He doesn't allow room for any theological assumptions, which many will say is good; however, he doesn't treat science in the same way, and why should I expect him to. That's why I say BE CAREFUL. Just because someone SOUNDS authoritative does NOT make him so. He creates and BELIEVES certain assumptions about Darwinian evolution. Dawkins discusses different and popular ideas of the "scientific" beginnings of the universe; however, he fails, just like Creationists, to prove or disprove his "findings." He brushes the possibility of God aside because it isn't probable. Well, the same could be said for his evolutionary thinking.

His sociological explanation for why religions are bad is interesting, but again, he fails to be objective. By the time I read this part of the book, it became evident that Dawkins isn't concerned about evidence or objectivity (which scientists seem to hold as their life source). Although he makes an interesting argument (a little religion leads to extreme religion), he fails to scrutinize science under the same microscope. One only has to go back 60 years to the atom bomb or the Holocaust to see my point. Dawkins would most likely say that I am missing the point, and that science was being used alongside of religion and politics. But I can say the same thing to him about religion. Nothing in this world can be so separated as not to be tainted by our human desires or "sin." To think you can separate science from politics or religion from philosophy or politics from sociology is naive.

If you are interested in New Atheism, then read the book, but be careful of his writing. Dawkins has the power of language on his side, but if you carefully examine his arguments, you realize that power is smoke. ( )

This was an interesting book but it was a difficult read. If you don't have some kind of science background to begin with your are going to have to do a little extra outside reading to really understand the earlier chapters. I understood them but I did have to re-read a few of the chapters more than once.The easiest and best way to understand the meat of Dawkin's arguments is to keep an active dialectical journal while you read the book. Also his endnotes section is terrific. I was able to check into and read further in depth using the listed web resources.Well worth the purchase price for the terrific sections on the idiocies of the pseudo-science of creationism alone. ( )

I gave this book a try because if I'm going to read a book denouncing religions and God in general, it's going to be a man with Dawkins' résumé. If he presented enough rational arguments against the existence of God, I would have 'converted' to atheism without a second thought. But throughout the whole book, he maintained the attitude of preachy condescension which I hate in extremists of all kind. However, it requires another reading to make sure I didn't miss anything.

I was inclined not to like this book. That didn’t come. Dawkins is intelligent and well informed, something which I cannot say about Sam Harris. His argument, when it comes down to those things he knows, is sound. But it is a biased argument, and if you go into it knowing that much, you are a lot less bothered by it (EG, he nominates the CS Lewis quote “Lunatic, Liar or Lord” as ‘artless alliteration’. But when a pro-Darwin website uses quite the same thing “lunatic/liars/layfield” [likely an ironic reference to Lewis] it is labeled ‘entertaining reading’).
“Religion is a label of in-group/out-group enmity and vendetta, not necessarily worse than other labels such as skin colour, language, or preferred football team, but often available when other labels are not.” Aside from the last eight words, that quote is wonderful. He unfortunately does not expound that much more – and we cannot blame him for it, he is after all a biologist and not a sociologist. I think if he did go into it further he would not find what he was looking for.
But he is guilty of over thinking some things. “Like most scientists, I am not a dualist, But I am nevertheless easily capable of enjoying Vice Versa and Laughing Gass. Paul Bloom would say this is because , even though I have learned to be an intellectual monoist, I am a human animal and therefore evolved as an instinctive dualist.”
Dear me, I hope not. Maybe you are capable of enjoying it because it is a simple idea, which really does not take much. Vague memories of childhood remind me of my first encounter with this worn plot type. In some cartoon or the other, adult and child touch the same electric fence. Outline of their forms then switch places, at which point they talk in each other voices. Never thought it was real, but it was how it was initially suggested to me. And I am pretty much sure I didn’t buy it even then.
And this is Dawkins big flaw. He goes on a little too much with just how Magical Darwinism really is. For him it is an answer all.
It bothers me more than a little. I like Darwinism as a theory. It is simple and elegant. But I alwasy found it easier to see it in the past than in progress, as Dawkins often does. And frankly, I am not sure to what extent it still functions in human society.
And I may not be the only one who thinks so.
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Genius-... ( )

This book really annoyed me as it was very patronising and preachy ( )

I suppose I was open to the message, but still opened my eyes wide. A seminal work for me. ( )

At first glance, the typographic layout of Dawkins' The God Delusion is beautiful. Gray headers, centralized title pages, full-capital section titles, they all work perfectly. Definitely worth commenting on.

The book was a great read. It is one of the best non-fiction books I have read this summer. Dawkins is continuously interesting from page 1 to the end. His prose is light and readable, even witty at times, and (having been raised Catholic and having nearly used the word "defection" to describe my path outwards from religion) the chapter on religion and the education and abuse of children was strikingly persuasive. His open contempt towards religion has made it so that, in a way, I do not think I'll enjoy any book that tries to reconcile science and religion ever again; Dawkins does not do this at all in this book. The section on NOMA (the erroneous concept that science and religion should remain completely separate fields) was extremely enlightening.

Dawkins is openly, but rationally and understandably so, aggressive towards most things having to do with religion. A lot of people seem to have been offended by this; I just think he's using a catapult to return a few stones that were thrown at him and, well, every other atheist in the western world. ( )

really just so good. dawkins has a great, witty, smart, writing style, and really supports his arguments. this is an important book. ( )

I too got caught up in the hype - but soon began to regret it: you might as well ask a sociopath to write a meaningful work on why social relations are pointless and therefore irrational.One of the most exquisite moments on radio for me recently has been to hear Dawkins squirm and flounder when asked to explain and justify the existence for humans, or the evolutionary purpose, of anything remotely metaphysical (such as, say, beauty, the effects of music, and the pursuit of philosophical truth) that lie beyond the ken and stricture of his own scientific rationality. He simply cannot do this convincingly, despite his considerable purely intellectual powers.There's a lot wrong with religion, and with reliance on religion but man does not live by bread alone - hence, indeed, the roots of science itself.

Inspirational book, with so much information and detail. I loved his enthusiasm for his subject and it gave me the confidence to say I don't believe in god and the tools to explain why. ( )