The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.53 You Save: $9.42 (59%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.45 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The God Delusion
Book Review: Christmas and Dawkins
Summary: 5 Stars
Now, I am a Danish native speaker and, albeit reading a lot in English, I have only read "The God Delusion" ("Illusionen om gud") in Danish translation. However, having read most of the books of Dawkins in English, I tend to believe that I have got the message right. Thus having covered my most used bodypart and further wish to disclaim any professionel knowledge on the subject (I only have an old Danish masters degree in Social Science), it is nevertheless with delight to comment on this book.
It is a book written with humor and charm, knowledge and reason. Four keywords to the writtings of Dawkins in general. But the special thing about this particular book is that it addresses the opposite of all four in one. The book presents a fierce and well documentet attack on religious dogma in an intimate-with-the-reader way (as Dawkins masters so well) and never falls into the trap of becoming dogmatic itself.
After all, the central postulate is that the existance of God has never been proven or even made likely, and that the Hypothesis should be dealt with as any other (failed) Hypothesis. It should at least be testable by reason (if not, "especially" problematic in this special case, by experiment!) and it has failed to do so. The God delusion as a real comfort may have an appeal ("faith in faith equals more comfort"), but it still remains pure faith, not an argument for the actual existance of God. Dawkins makes a solid case for challenging God as existant or as of comfort. In fact, I find the stance of Atheism so clearly spelled out that I wonder, why Dawkins makes no reference to Albert Camus ("The Myth of Sisyphos" etc.), because, in the existentialist Univers of Camus and others, I find grand overlaps to the Darwinian stance. That, in my humble oppinion, is a shortcoming. Dawkins makes a major case - rightly so - of the American "Creationism" as the religious opponent to scientific reason. I completely agree and I worry too. "Gods own country" has become too religious!
Here are my main concerns with the book. Although Dawkins here and there refers also to Islam as a dogmatic religion, his main target is "only" Creationism. It seems to me that he avoids - not ignores - the danger to the West posed by the rise of Islam during the recent decades. Religion is a cause of conflict. Overall, the book is predominantly opposing Christian Creationism, not Islam. I wish the critical voice on religion would have sharper teath against the fundamental problems of Islam (not Muslims) than the book presents. That is probably more than is realistically to be expected from Oxford, were the rich elite from muslim countries come with many money to study. I have another problem, which I guess everybody share. Dawkins claims that "replicators" only had to arise once. Logically true. But in a discussion of God, pro or Con, one cannot avoid discussing the existance of the Universe, which, given the value of "six Numbers" (Martin Rees) is extremely likely not to give rise to life. Dawkins comes up with astronomical likelyhood figures for life given the Universe, and I personally believe the Universe is full of life, but, it seems we run out of argument for or against God when reversing time to Big Bang. Dawkins has no answer to this. Ultimately he therefore cannot prove or disprove God. God may be a designer. Personally I think of no designer, just a Universe more complicated than physicists can explain. But ultimatly it is no argument concerning God (sorry, Mohammed, bleshed be his name, the Prophet).
Basically it is a very intelligent book and it is full of challenge to othodoxy, dogma and irrationality. This is where Christmas comes in! Dawkins is a civilised person and I guess he too, has a Christmas Party. But this is not religion. It is culture. Santa may be out of reach, but the Christmas Carrols and the Turkey is of this world, and they tune in so well and taste so well that they make heaven on Earth. Even a month before Christmas. Read Dawkins and become a little more clever. We do not believe in Santa, The Banana God , Allah or God as such. I do not.
Book Review: Speak up for Atheism
Summary: 5 Stars
I think i was about 7 years old having discovered the wonders of dinosaurs and their existence over millions of years, that lead me to being a closet atheist. But having had to sit through the boredom of church as a child i guess i had it drummed in to me through various sources that God is good and everything else is bad. Thankfully under a moderately christian mother and Atheist father and the with the assistance of The God delusion I discovered that it is nothing to be ashamed of and that God is not all that good.
I don't suppose anyone who still believes the world is less than 10000 years old will ever open the cover of books such as these but to all those with an inkling of curiousity and intelligence this book comes highly recommended. Unfortunately for the fundamentalists a childhood of "brainwashing" makes the most logic of arguments almost impossible to sink in, but for those fortunate enough to have had a mixed upbringing this is certainly gives a pathway to bringing up their old children: that is to question everything, and be skeptical of people telling you something is true because I said so and ill get very angry and condemn you to hell if you dont.
As Dawkins points out in more colourful language the God of the bible is one of the most evil villains in literature happily supporting murder, rape, incest, slavery and various other attrocities. Yet people claim to gain their morals from this book with morals so obviously meant as Isrealite propaganda 2000 years ago. Most moderate Christians admittedly, chose morals that appeal to them in the bible proclaiming love for thy neighbour etc, but the question is asked, there is nothing to say in the bible or the Koran to say this part is good that proclaims peace and being kind to your fellow man, or this part which proclaims stoning of homosexuals or killing of infidels. Unfortunately many fundamentalists often take the parts they like which can be interpreted to support flying a 747 into a building to gain access to limitless virgins, or to kill an abortion Doctor with a rich life of memories, family and friends to preserve a handful of unwanted cells.
The God delusion has taught me among other things too:
1. It is more moral to be good to your fellow man as an atheist, rather than one doing good deeds to please the overhead policeman.
2. Any member of any religion should not be giving any specials rights against criticsm, or a voice in the various parliaments of the world due to its backward philosophys.
3. It is appalling to label our children as a muslim or christian child as if they had any say in the matter. We dont label children "labour" or "conservative" children. Bring up your children so they can see all the facts, and if they are not blinkered and confined to 1 book they will undoubtedly reject these false prophets. More so dont permanently traumitise them with visions of hell and fire and brimstone.
4. Speak up and be proud to be a free thinking, rational, logical member of the public and reject the notion that your life is controlled and overseen by a God, or worse one of the many proclaiming themselves to speak directly through God.
5. Faith is not a virtue, there is nothing to be proud of faith in something were there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact faith in the wrong hands so often causes many of the attrocities we see today.
In response to other readers, Dawkins as any good scientist doesn't claim that there is absoluteley 100% no chance of the existence of some kind of higher power but countless evidence continues to bring that figure ever closer.
However the rantings of a hodge-podge book compiled 2000 years ago by a group of camel herders, heavily plagiarised and so poorly edited with glaring flaws and inconsistencies,does not stand up to any great evaluation and can and should be laughinly pushed aside. We should no longer have to be dictated too (or oppressed)by anything so glaringly false and the deluded ideas of its followers.
Book Review: Dawkins strengthened my faith
Summary: 5 Stars
I love this book because one of the staunchest athetists of our times actually says God possibly exists, thanks God for that:
In Ch.4 (which contains "the central argument" of the book - p.187), Dawkins says "God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain (p.176)". The "entities" he is referring to are the various specific parameters of our universe that allow us, sentient beings, to exist. But, as he points out correctly, "any probability statement is made in the context of a certain level of ignorance (p.166)". It is therefore inappropriate to use probability to estimate the chance that we exist. In fact the "probability" that we exist is exactly "1"; so is the probablity that "the entities" God "is supposed to explain" occur. So his argument that God is improbable is invalid.
Interestingly, he actually accepts that "there must have been a first cause of everything (p.184)" [one does not really have to] but for unfounded reason he maintains (on the same page) that the first cause has to be "simple" and therefore cannot be God. But why? Why does God have to be simple? His answer is "the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative escalator or crane, perhaps a version of Darwinism in another universe (p.186)." This does not make any sense to me at all. I will be delighted to be educated upon this.
It is important to note that Dawkins has been honest to state: "What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable (p.77)". He himself "cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there (pp.73-74)". I do not think he succeeds in demonstrating that God is improbable and therefore he at least essentially says that God is possible.
Another way of expressing his argument against the existence of God is "creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it (p.52)." The problems are (1) simply because intelligence can exist through the process of evolution does not mean that this is the only way to generate it and (2) there is no requirement that God (if He exists) has to possess what we call "intelligence".
I love the way he tries to "attack" Jesus: the only thing he can say against Jesus is his "family values" (p.284). I have to give credit to him that he admits that Jesus is "one of the great ethical innovators of history", way ahead of his time, and "anticipated Gandhi and Martin Luther King by TWO THOUSAND YEARS" (p. 283, emphasis mine). Clearly that's not enough to move him.
It also puzzles me a bit that while he tries very hard to "raise consciousness to the fact that to be atheist is a realistic option (p.23)", at the same time he admits it is a "ludicrous idea that believing is something you can DECIDE to do (emphasis in the original, p.130)". Very perplexing I have to admit.
So, overall a very enjoyable read - I really LOVE the way he criticizes the Old Testament stories and religious extremists. To a thinking Christian, however, it should be able to consolidate your faith.
[Please note the pagination referred to in this review is of the paperback edition]
Book Review: The Cardinal Rule
Summary: 5 Stars
The cardinal rule of Darwinian science is `never let a Divine foot in the door'. Dawkins has violated this by insisting science should answer the question , is God real? To look for God, one must first allow for the possibility of His existence. The current definition of science prohibits any conclusion that might include the possibility of a supernatural causative agent such as God. Scientists are actually instructed to interpret anything they see as evidence of design, intelligence or purpose as being an `illusion' of design, intelligence or purpose because if it is NOT an illusion, it might mean there really is a God! NO evidence is allowed to be interpreted as supporting the possibility of a supernatural origin...PERIOD. So long as this is the case, science is truthfully unfit to look for God. That does not mean science can not find evidence of God, but only that, until scientists are allowed to consider all possible implications of the evidence and actually follow it where it leads, science cannot even begin the search. As things stand today, if Dawkins found God scientifically, he would be prohibited from promoting his discovery as science. For such a search, science would have to be re-defined , not as a search for natural causation, but a search for ANY causation, including the supernatural. Our science has become so bound up in its role as a gate keeper for evolution and a protector of Darwin's theory, that all evidence against it is routinely ignored, suppressed, or ridiculed in the hope no one will notice `the elephant in the room'. Clear science that merely has `metaphysical implications' is treated as heretical and its supporters are shunned as heretical scientists. `Real' scientists, as Dawkins states in the book, are virtually all atheists. Dawkins proposal to let science `decide the issue of God' is insincere . What he truly wants is to be able to promote atheism using science in the same way religions use catechisms. He wants scientists to lie to students and tell them that their parents, who believe in God, are deluded because scientists `know' or `have proven' or have a `consensus'....all the usual buzz words for a politicized discipline... that God is not real! He goes even further, claiming a religious upbringing is child abuse, parents should not be allowed to `inflict' religion on their children, and infers clearly that he thinks the state should intervene to protect a child's right to decide for themselves what they believe [based,of course, on the truth according to atheists] , and after this indoctrination, which will take place in atheist schools because religious schools will be banned, your child will be `allowed' to choose what they believe, which in his view will be atheism. Whatever else Dawkins believes, what he makes perfectly clear and what we should all understand, is that Dawkins and those like him , want our children, and clearly want them to become atheists. Since indirect indoctrination via evolution theory has had no appreciable effect, Dawkins would like science to take a more direct approach, declare God `not real' and foist atheism on our children in the classroom. Thank God there are many scientists who disagree with Dawkins. Take notice. Every one who believes in God should read this book. Forewarned in forearmed! I gave this book a high rating, because it exposes so clearly the true intentions of the Dawkins ilk.Book Review: A book that god himself must read if he wants to exist in our imagination
Summary: 5 Stars
It took me three readings of this book and a lot of courage to write this review. The earth has spun around the sun once, and I have moved from one continent to another. It probably doesn't matter what a bread crumb like me thinks about the big cheese, and it probably wouldn't make any difference to Dawkins himself, but I persist. I am sure he did not intend this book for an elite minority.
As a writer Dawkins has excelled before and this book is probably not one of his greatest literary gems, it is however one last attempt by the aging sage to slap the world to its senses. He has singlehandedly succeeded in some ways, but as it is hardly surprising, lost the battle even before it was started. He is vastly outnumbered in money and mortals. The sanity of Dawkins might make him think that religious delusion can be cured by logic, and reasoning, by trying to expose the fraud that is in every religion and by exploding the myth that is god, but it is an unlikely cure. What people need is another delusion or just a long passage of time. In Robert Sapolsky's last chapter on religion in 'The trouble with testosterone' the schizotypal personality succumbs to supernatural belief. It is not too nutty to think that most of us are nuts - and it shows in our irrationality. Religion and other superstitions are just one color in the spectrum, there are more. Even the most learned and educated person has some sort of latent bent for the anecdotal, the generalized, the black and white in preference to the shades of gray. We are the work in progress and if evolution could give a damn, then it would, but it doesn't care, and so we are stuck with this massive wiring in our head, which can make believe and want to make believe. We don't always have time to shave let alone do mental statistics. We are stuck with the alpha male who sleeps with the schizophrenic babbler in a wallet. And then we are stuck with these ancient texts that will not amuse us in the years ahead, but we won't have a choice, because democracy believe it or not is not an atheist. Democracy is Hindu or a Christian or a Jew, but Democracy is for the lack of sanity not agnostic or an atheist. Science is fortunately still the greatest power that there is - and if the religious don't want to agree - just ask them to skip all the pain killers in this life. You gotta love the irony sometimes.
This should be about this book - but I got a little carried away. I would love to see people read this book, and although it is a difficult read, and you can sometimes hear Dawkin's teeth gnashing through the words and between the lines, it is an important read.
If you are religious - you might want not to read this book, as it will make you feel a little deprived of senses and intellect. If we come up with a simulation for a model god, then that god must read this book to warm up to its early demise.
Hats off to Dawkins and I hope someone saves his brain so that we can plant it in later generation when the science would allow such a feat. The bull dogs against the gods are becoming extinct. If a brain transplant is too much to ask for, then perhaps hope that someone writes the pages in rocks and metal so it survives the ages, so that if we land ourselves in yet another primeval epoch, there will at least be one ancient book that would sound sane. Long live this book.