The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $11.97 You Save: $15.03 (56%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.98 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The God Delusion
Book Review: ????
Summary: 1 Stars
That was my reaction when reading most of this book. Mr. Dawkins obviously has no idea what he is talking about. Much of the "evidence" he presents has already been debunked by both sides of the evolution/creationism conflict. Perhaps he should research a bit more before he gives us his "facts." Such nonsense as there is in this book can only hurt the atheistic movement. Be sure of your facts before you write about them. Mr. Dawkins also doesnt even take the time to show how creationist views are wrong, he simply ridicules their views. This is what an ignorant person does when he cannot counter an argument.
This book is an example of how major evolutionists think, and for that, you might want to consider getting it, as it shows just how biased Mr. Dawkins, (and many other prominent evolutionists), are. Their strategy is to ridicule someone's beliefs that are based on scientific evidence, since they cannot disprove them themselves.
Book Review: A
Summary: 5 Stars
Excellent job by Dawkins here. He gives a thorough argument against God's existence, refuting all the common arguments for his existence before moving on to arguments against his existence. His arguments may not be new for the most part, but he organizes them well and adds his own nice twists.
My only significant criticism would be that when discussing the pros and cons of religion, he does not give much weight to the arguments of religious proponents or discuss those arguments at very much length, as would be expected in a philosophical work (which anything of this nature really is). Dawkins definitely succeeds as a scientist more than he does a philosopher, but he still makes quite the foray into philosophy.
Overall, it is a terrific read for any agnostic, skeptical theist/deist, pantheist, or atheist. If you are religious and easily offended, however, I might steer you towards Daniel Dennett, as Dawkins does not hold back in his scathing critique of religion, or even hesitate to call religious people "nutters" and the like.
Book Review: A "moderate" theist's view of The God Delusion
Summary: 3 Stars
Let it be said: Richard Dawkins is a very good writer, and the kind of person with whom one can readily imagine an enjoyable and simulating evening over a glass or two of red--enjoyable that is, so long as he refrained from his predictable outbursts of rambunctious polemic. And this highlights the two sides of Richard Dawkins: at once engaging, personable, rational, pleasant, entertaining; and alternatively unreasonable, angry, boisterous, given to ill-conceived diatribes. If he is preaching to his own choir, these diatribes will likely elicit hearty "amens!" If believers are his target audience, his arguments would go farther if he would restrain his clamorous tone.
Many believers will find, as I do, that Dawkins' arguments are often wide of the mark with respect to our brand of theism and Christian Faith. Some of his arguments are undisguised straw man. Many others are waged against a fundamentalism into which many Christians do not fit. In fact many believers will find themselves nodding in agreement. For example, when Dawkins declares "As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect," I heartily agree! However in Chapter 8 (Dawkins' defense of his own hostility toward people of faith) he devotes the final section to answering why he deplores even the more moderate, rational wing of Christian faith. Here he develops his "moderates validate fundamentalists" argument. "The teachings of `moderate' religion," Dawkins contends, "though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism." What?? And how does this not apply equally to "moderate" atheism? While Dawkins dismisses the notion that Stalin and Hitler operated out of their atheistic world-view (his arguments are less than convincing), why are extreme acts of atheists not validated by more moderate atheists? I have often thought that Hemingway followed atheism to it's logical extension: existential despair and suicide. While most atheists I've met do not take their atheism to that extreme, could it not be argued that moderate atheism paves the way to such actions. (I'm not forwarding this argument here. Theists also commit suicide. And Hitler's atheism is arguable. I'm only suggesting that Dawkins' argument against moderate expressions of faith is unfair, and can be turned back upon his own brand of moderate atheism.) It is apparently Dawkins view that, without the more moderate voices of religion, the more extreme versions would fade away. He never explains the logic behind this supposed linkage. It could be argued that all forms of moderation legitimize and validate related extremists. Moderate social drinkers validate alcoholics. Moderate environmentalists validate eco-terrorists. Moderate progressives validate socialism. But so what? Assuming the truth of the argument, does this mean we should abandon moderation?
Dawkins' "central" atheistic argument is found in chapter 4. After dismantling (to his satisfaction) many of the standard theistic arguments in chapter 3, Dawkins attempts to demonstrate "Why There Is Almost Certainly No God". This argument from probability betrays his simplistic concept of the Christian view of God. For those unfamiliar with Dawkins' core atheistic contention, Dawkins' argument runs something like this: Believers, appealing to the extreme improbability of this universe developing as it has, the fact that it is hospitable to life at all, indeed the extreme improbability of life itself, contend that our universe demands the existence of an intelligent Cause. But, Dawkins counters that postulating a God only extends the problem of improbability, and pushes it back in time. That is, any God appealed to to account for the complexity of our universe must himself be yet more complex. And his existence thus becomes more difficult to explain than the material universe we observe. Thus, in Dawkins' view, the notion of God is "very close to being ruled out by the laws of probability." Dawkins is either unaware of, or fails to understand the Judeo-Christians concept of God as the eternal "self-existent" One. No believer I know has struggled with the question, "Whence God?" Nor will Dawkins' expostulations raise such a question for believers. The God of believers is far beyond Dawkins' notion of demanding explanation. It is indeed reasonable that we seek logical explanations for causation in our material world. To suggest the same logic must apply to God does not follow. Christians understand that God exists outside of our physical dimensions. As such, he cannot be restrained to our time bound concepts of causation. Dawkins' shallow reasoning reminds me of a favorite passage from David Bentley Hart: "... since strict materialism is among the most incoherent of superstitions ... it is incapable of imagining any conception of God more sophisticated than its own." (The Doors of the Sea, page 14.)
In fairness, Hart goes on to depict unbelief in more generous terms, but Dawkins leaves one wondering if his concept of God is as small as it seems.
There is an interesting confluence in Richard Dawkins, and one that should be telling for believers. He is considered by many to be both the world's foremost evolutionary biologist, and the world's foremost atheist. Is this indicative that evolution and atheism are intrinsically linked, as many of my believing and unbelieving friends insist? Or is it rather indicative of how believers have 1) failed to embrace evolutionary science (which has now moved beyond reasonable doubt), and 2) failed therefore to develop a reasonable theology around evolution. Because I am convinced of the later, I am engaged in discovering the promising theological implications of evolution. As other Christian thinkers join in this process, I believe one effect will be to remove the stinger from Dawkins' atheist arguments. For example, Dawkins devotes much of The God Delusion to evolutionary explanations for the development of religious impulses, morality, altruism, etc. Apparently, he views these explanations as the death knell of theism. As a theist who has thought long on the concept of "Evolutionary Creationism", I found little in these explanations to disagree with. Furthermore, I did not see how his arguments inherently favored atheism over theism. Certainly they undo many worn-out theistic arguments. And they effectively rebut many traditional Christian assumptions. But those arguments and assumptions were incorrect, and should be scuttled. If the Creator has (as I believe) used evolution to bring humankind into a state of God-consciousness (which by Dawkins' admission is ubiquitous in all cultures, and favored by the great majority of people), why should it surprise us that evolution would be his tool of choice?
Reading The God Delusion was, frankly, less challenging to my faith than I anticipated. His best arguments are leveled against religious fundamentalism; here I share many of his views. But when he turns his guns upon my faith, his extreme hostility tends to invalidate his arguments. When a person becomes consumed with antipathy, reasoned argument can give way to irrational tirades. Dawkins' atheistic zeal seems to have negated any trace of respect he might have shown toward those with a different persuasion. And when we cease to respect our adversary, a consequence is that our arguments are inevitably weakened.
Book Review: A BOOK TO LOWER CONSCIOUSNESS?
Summary: 1 Stars
The God Delusion is one of the most depressing books I remember reading. Not because of Dawkins' fanatical disdain of religion. I gave up believing in religion more than fifty years ago. My reasons were; 1) hypocrisy of religions, 2) internecine warfare between religions, 3) sexual and mental abuse of innocent children (and gullible adults), and 4) religions were created by human beings for controlling the hearts and minds of others. It seemed irrational that a `living' God would be confined to ancient scriptures. Was that all He had to say? Do we still need ancient words thumped into us because we're too thick to know what is beneficial or harmful? Come on! On the other hand . . . .
I am suspicious of Dawkins' agenda. As an atheist he strenuously attacks religions, even supplying "A partial list of friendly addresses, for individuals needing support in escaping from religion". Why would any independently functioning, intelligent person require help to escape from something that is so obviously false? It may be that most believers are neither independent or intelligent. Perhaps those with intelligence have simply not taken the time or trouble to think for themselves. Another, more pernicious reason, I suspect, lies between the lines of Dawkins' book. He seems to be keen on becoming the first high priest of Atheism. `Follow me out of the bondage of religion. I will lead you into another form of bondage free from illusory faith and hope. I will raise your consciousness, fill your mind with the wonders of science, and prove to all human beings that nothing exists beyond scientific provability.' Like gravity didn't exist until Newton `discovered' it?
Dawkins' bibliography is as extensive as his naming of friends and allies, but he somehow, perhaps consciously, ignores the dissenting voice of another rational geneticist. Readers would be well advised to read Gabriel Dover's scientific views of Dawkins in Dear Mr Darwin.
More than anything mentioned above is the ridiculous assumption that divinity can be subjected to scientific criteria after someone's personal revelation or in advance of a possible manifestation `evolving' from an experience. This writer had a remarkable experience at the age of eleven. The comforting and confident voice I heard did not identify itself. It did not demand worship or impose any obligations whatsoever. It simply provided help and comfort. I might have later dismissed it as an hallucination or psychotic moment of a distressed and naive eleven year old boy. However, I didn't dismiss it. Nor did I permit Ego to expand the experience for self aggrandisement.
I cannot say if God exists, but some wonders may only be revealed to and recognized by minds that have not denied their possibilities in advance. If God does exist it seems highly unlikely He will be troubled by our limitations.
17 January 2007
Book Review: A Brave New World!
Summary: 5 Stars
This book had me engrossed from beginning to end! From the very first few pages of `The God Delusion', I came to the realisation that all these years I have, in fact, been quite `normal' in my scepticism and anger at religion - this discovery has been quite liberating and reassuring I can tell you! For those of you out there who aren't sure or who may be fearful, read this book with an open mind and dare yourself to question the indoctrination received during your most formative and gullible years. Indoctrination to my mind is chillingly, more frightening than pure honest Atheism! The `going-ons' in the world news attest to this daily!
Dawkins urges the reader to 'raise his/her consciousness' especially with the help of Darwin's theory on 'Natural Selection'. I found myself at various times of the day thinking deeply about various applications of this theory to the odd scenario - some of them quite ludicrous! It certainly got me pondering on all sorts of outer-worldly things and hopefully my consciousness has been raised in the process!(?) Seriously though, isn't that what a good read is all about? - Stimulating writing that provokes thought or even challenges established mind-sets? Amidst his convincing arguments, Dawkins does provide plenty of light relief with his special brand of wit, peppered with a few cutting remarks, interspersed with some entertaining and amusing anecdotes.
I find our world far more wondrous without all that cumbersome, limiting, guilt-ridden `brainwashing-baggage' (!) and thanks to the scientific insights provided in this book, I am inspired to take a more active interest in future scientific discoveries, possible theories and explorations into the workings of our wonderful Universe. Dawkins' book does not inspire fear with the concept of Atheism, but more of wonder. Now with renewed enthusiasm, I will continue to encourage my children to question and challenge ideas lacking in solid scientific evidence and thus allow themselves, unencumbered, to marvel at the sheer magnificence of our existence and of the world.
Fear of the unknown and of death will prevent many from allowing this book to penetrate, but maybe a few seeds will be sewn along with some serious doubts and in a few years we could witness a bumper harvest! Now wouldn't that be a miracle - of Biblical proportions! Thank you Richard Dawkins for this brave new book - I do suspect however, it may earn you a few more enemies!