The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $10.36 You Save: $16.64 (62%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.97 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The God Delusion
Book Review: tripe
Summary: 1 Stars
Richard Dawkins gives new meaning to the word arrogant. This book is astounding in its hubris. He writes venomously about religion with blinders on about atheism. His only tools of discourse are caracature and ridicule, usually after erecting an intolerably inaccurate strawman which he can then burn down.
I thought I'd seen the height of arrogance when I read Harry Gove's book, but Dawkins shows Harry Gove to be an isightful and tolerant human being by contrast -- Wow! What an acheivement!
Whenever Dawkins discussed something I actually knew something about, it was clear that he didn't and hadn't bothered to discover that he didn't. Instead he would just rail, ridicule and spew venom. The sweet tolerance of a Dawkins would likely end up making the lions of Nero's circus look benign.
Don't waste your money on this trash. There is a lot of better trash out there. Even if you want to make the case for atheism, this isn't it. It's not intellectually honest enough to be helpful. Dawkins writes with his conclusion running and no facts need apply. When he gets to the thought that teaching your religion to your children is a form of child abuse and that it should not be permitted, he reminded me of Plato's Republic, except Plato is actually quite religious and insightful -- Dawkins is neither.
Just a materialistic, scientismist rant like so many others these days. Unless you are making a study of madness among the extremely arrogant, save your money.
Book Review: unlikely to win converts
Summary: 1 Stars
Not just a disappointment, the book simply not very good.
Dawson claims his intent is to persuade to atheism those who are uncomfortable with their own religious belief. Yet his mocking, sneering condescension to and contempt for religious believers will put off many whom he might otherwise have influenced. He is oblivious to the intensity of religious experience. Religious belief generally correlates negatively with intelligence, but many believers are of course extraordinarily intelligent. While that doesn't count for or against their belief, Dawkins does not do well to treat believers as fools. He should reread (I hope it's re-) William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience; doing so might add depth and humanity to his view of believers.
Dawkins seems curiously unfamiliar with contemporary philosophical thought, perhaps because it tends to undercut his desire to subject religion to "scientific" analysis. He isn't very good at the history of philosophy either. I am neither believer, unbeliever, nor agnostic. I can't make enough sense out of the use of "god" to know what might count for or against the correctness of its use to denote anything. Dawson doesn't understand this position, although it isn't original with me and requires little philosophical sophistication to grasp. By the way, Anselm's ontological argument is by its own terms valid, but does not prove the existence of "god" as Dawkins uses the term.
Dawkins takes as his paradigm the argument between creationists and evolutionists. Creationism is both wrong and silly. But Dawkins will not dent those who previously resisted his arguments. It is easy to mock the vagaries and inconsistencies of religious conservatives. Fundamenatalists are in fact powerful forces for ignorance, irrationalism, and intolerance. For that very reason, if H.L. Mencken couldn't finish them off, Dawkins is unlikely to.
Dawkins wanders from his "delusion" theme when he speaks of the damage wrought by organized religion. Evil done in the name of god is obviously irrelevant as to whether god exists. Dawkins justifiably points to awful historical effects of belief, including 9/11. He does, however, ignore the political component of many, if not most, "religious" conflicts such as the Thirty Years war and the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Dawkins speeds past secular outrages such as Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Rwanda, Cambodia, American lynchings of blacks, the Armenian genocide, King Leopold in the Congo, the near extinction of Native Americans. Religion is not necessary to human vileness.
Book Review: very compelling arguments
Summary: 4 Stars
Mr. Dawkins is a very intelligent and accomplished scientist with a severe hatred for any organized religion. After reading a good part of this book, I still have the same opinions of religion and science. He makes many valid points concerning how religion has hampered the development of science through the ages, and even now in modern times.
However, he quotes various sources from modern, back to the beginning of creation and weaves them together to back his theory. Dawkins studied human behavior and it shows in how he uses the fear of violence when he attacks the historical atrocities brought on by religious beliefs. He agrees with the theory that we should be content with the wonders of our world and the use of science to understand it better. Then strikes at your heart by saying how the belief in God has kept us from these wonders. This book strongly parallels the beginning of Mein Kampf.
If we were all Atheists, with no God in the picture or even imagined, then the arguments would be over who's scientific theory is correct. As other scholars would rise to the debate, people would pick sides and follow theoretical beliefs the same way they follow different religions now. Science would become the new religion.
In the early 1900's the world's greatest minds gathered to compare notes on the Darwinism. They concluded that the human race was evolving from animal to something higher. Blacks were obviously the lowest because they were more physically developed and less mentally so. Asian or Mongols were the most advanced, (slight in stature but the smartest). Then whites were in between these two with the attributes of both. "Mongolism" is so named from an unsuccessful "genetic leap" from white to mongol. Get the picture? They twisted the facts to prove their theory.
A very informative and entertaining read, but only folks of like mind looking for answers to their existence through science would be influenced by this.
Book Review: what it is , dude...
Summary: 5 Stars
if people are looking for religion in atheism, they won't find it...
paraphrasing, if not collecting stamps is a hobby, then atheism can be viewed as a religion.
on the other hand , if you need a splash of cold water on all the deep held hooey that we were fed at an impressionable age, "The God Delusion" might just be the ticket.
agnosticism is nice, polite and respectful. so is acknowlegement of the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. dawkins says, kids, move on...
d
Book Review: why theism or atheism?
Summary: 3 Stars
I am entirely sympathetic to Richard Dawkins's atheism. I believe he is correct to point out that much of fundamentalism involves an authoritarian mindset that easily lends itself to intolerance, war and genocide. God as Heavenly Father who slaughters in huge numbers and sends millions to hell is not a God I would worship if I thought he did exist. But where Dawkins goes wrong is in dismissing all other possibilities. Eastern religion, for instance, is based on experiences and conceptions of Brahman-Atman/Nirvana/Tao/buddhanature that do not at all resemble the Western "Wrathful Desert God." Personally, I do not consider myself a theist, or an atheist, or an agnostic. I reject the theism-based set of concepts altogether -- it seems to me that Reality eludes the attempt to box it with that language. The Buddha refused to address the question of "God" because he did not think it was fruitful. I experience something greater than myself which leads to awe and humility on "my" part, which connects me with all sentient beings in interbeing, and connects me with love, compassion and wisdom (though there is no "I," strictly speaking) -- it seems that this religious feeling is not something Dawkins has experienced.
Militant atheism is too much a reactionary response to fundamentalist theism -- what we need is another way that is not trapped in this war. We are all sisters and brothers, we are the left and right hand of the same Universe, regardless of our concepts, and we should remember that with love and compassion.
J.L. Mackie's THE MIRACLE OF THEISM remains, despite Dawkins, the best summary of the traditional atheist philosophical arguments. RELIGION EXPLAINED by Pascal Boyer is a brilliant study of the variety of religious beliefs, what people believe in and what they don't (see my review). I recommend David Ehrenfeld's THE ARROGANCE OF HUMANISM for all atheists and humanists, an environmentally oriented challenge from a biologist and devout Jew. Anything by Ken Wilber, including his new INTEGRAL SPIRITUALITY, points beyond the theism/atheism dichotomy. The first section of David Ray Griffin's REENCHANTMENT WITHOUT SUPERNATURALISM is superb on the limitations of Cartesian empiricism, and it is rooted in our daily lived experience (see my review). A KEY TO WHITEHEAD'S PROCESS AND REALITY, Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysical magnus opum edited for comprehensibility by Sherburne, is a more abstract exposition of the same point. Whitehead's process philosophy gave rise to the process theology of Cobb, Griffin and others, a Christian metaphysics that transcends Biblical literalism. And see my BUDDHA-DHARMA: HOW TO WAKE UP list for several good introductions to the teachings of the Buddha.
Peace, shalom, salaam, namasthe.