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: A Case For Atheism
Summary: 4 Stars
Richard Dawkins does an excellent job of building a strong case for atheism by using logic and science in "The God Delusion". He shows the logical fallacies of the so-called proofs of Gods existence. He debunks the myth about religion being the source of morality and ethics, debunks other myths about the immorality of non-believers. He exposes some of the logical inconstancies and errors within the religions themselves. All in all, he does an outstanding job of explaining why atheism is on much firmer ground than any of the major religions.
There are some problems with the book as well, but before I go into those it is important to note that this is definitely a good book for religious people as well as atheists and agnostics to read. It gives a good explanation of why atheists don't believe in a god or gods, and probably deserves an overall rating of around 3.75 stars. So while I will go into some more detail about what I thought was not so good about the book that is merely because it is necessary to be more detailed about the problems than it is to be about the parts which are well done.
The weaknesses of the book all stem from one source, and that is that Dawkins, like everyone, is too close to the subject. It is probably impossible for anyone to take a completely dispassionate look at this subject, as we all have had to deal with various religions throughout our lives. On several occasions, Dawkins ventures out from his base of logic and science to make assumptions which are based only on his thoughts and not facts. For example, in Chapter 10, "A Much Needed Gap" he implies that religious people should be happy when a loved one is about to die, and goes on to imply that because they aren't it is somehow significant in the argument. However, people grieve for a variety of reasons, and not necessarily because they don't truly believe in heaven. As an atheist, I grieve for the absence in my life of a loved one, and there is no reason to believe that religious people don't feel the same sense of loss, regardless of whether they believe that person is going to heaven.
Another example is in Chapter 5 on "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God" where he correctly states that "since we are alive, eukaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps", or in short that it doesn't matter how improbable our existence is, because we exist we must have beaten those odds. What he fails to do though, is accept that same argument for the improbability of the existence of God. One could just as easily say that if God exists, that it doesn't matter how improbable its existence is. Of course, we don't have proof of God's existence, but the point is that if we are here because of the existence of a God, then its probability becomes irrelevant. The argument works in both cases, and while it is fair to say that the case for evolution is more probable, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.
Probably the worst chapter is Chapter 9 on "Childhood, Abuse and Religion". In this chapter, Dawkins argues that bringing up a child in a specific religion is a form of abuse. However, he really offers no way of solving this supposed problem. Would he have the State take children away and raise them? Would he require that people be at least 18 before they are allowed to attend services? And if so, how would he monitor what the parents tell the children at home? He ignores the fact that everything that parents do in raising their children can be for good or ill. They might spoil them with gifts or be too strict. They might teach them bad eating habits which will lead to health problems. The entire argument is based on emotionalism and is irrational, and it offers no answers. The vast majority of parents do a very good job of raising their children, whether they raise them in a specific faith or not.
Now that I have beat up on the book a little, let me finish by saying once again that despite its flaws, this is a very good book and enjoyable to read. The vast majority of the material is presented in a rational way. Dawkins really grabs the reader's attention, and I am sure that religious people would enjoy debating in their minds the points Dawkins makes just as much as I did. This book is a much better look at atheism and the problems with religion than Harris' "The End of Faith". It is not perfect, but I have no problem rounding "The God Delusion" up to four stars.
Book Review: A Cautionary Note
Summary: 3 Stars
Speaking as someone who is not a member of organized religion, nor a "believer," I am compelled to comment on this book (and by association, other books of Richard Dawkins).
Dawkins' work preaches to the converted, not unlike Sean Hannity speaking to conservatives or Al Franken speaking to liberals. Having said that, Dawkins' approach is similar; self-satisfied, a little angry, and polarizing in its scope.
I would suggest that the reader recognize that Dawkins is a biologist speaking about religion, a theoretical concept (not unlike string theory)that requires a mind that is well-trained in philosophy and logic. Dawkins is not a philosopher, a theologian, or a student of religion. Perhaps a science book written by the Pope would be an apt contrast to Dawkins' intellectual inappropriateness in taking on this enormous subject. Given his lack of knowledge and learnedness on this topic, it is not surprising that he resorts to character assassination of a deity, using a weak literal and uneducated reading of Judeo-Christian literature. He is not arguing against God or religion in this book; he is arguing against Religious Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is merely one small piece of the religion pie. One should be reminded that engagement with the divine is NOT monolithic; there are a variety of methods to engage the metaphysical. Not every religious person is a fundamentalist.
In fact, the literal reading of the Bible is restricted to the Evangelical/Born-Again/small "C" conservative worshipper. A majority of the faithful see scripture as metaphor and analogy, mythology and legend, all of which are tools in which the reader can better understand the human condition. So for Dawkins to attack religion in an all-too-literal method puts him in a corner where he is only one extremist fighting the other extremists. All the other believers who people the vast spectrum of religious faith are left in the middle of the battlefield, disrespected, mocked, and hit by "friendly fire" from both sides.
It is imperative to understand that the author is not well enough educated in philosophy to dispute "The Ontological Arguement," which still stands strong after some 900 years. Nor is he capable enough to dispute the intellect and understanding of those who attempt to find a commonality between science and faith. (If you are truly interested in learning more about the work being done in this area, I highly recommend the work of the Reverend Doctor Sir John Polkinghorne as a starting point.) It would appear that Dawkins has never even heard of this man - a prime indicator that his research, such as it is, is far from adequate.
My problem with this text is that it is an "us or them," "with us or against us," "right or wrong" proposition. Bellicose in tone, it is the polemic of one raging against the darkness rather than lighting a small candle.
Let it not be said that Dawkins doesn't make some good arguements; but that is all they are, and each is subject to rebuttal. The text is interesting and thought-provoking, but can only add more unsupported theories regarding a subject that is already poorly understood at the best of times.
God cannot be disproven anymore than God can be proven. To argue for or against this simple premise sets one up for a hard fall; there will be no winner in either corner.
Hence my cautionary note: Dawkins' book is an entertaining read, but should be read with a critical mind. The text is full of sound and fury, but in truth, it signifies nothing.
Book Review: A Challending Read
Summary: 5 Stars
One of Dawkin's best! This book will keep you entertained with new ideas if you are already an atheist and will challenge you greatly if you are a theist.Book Review: A Christian's view
Summary: 2 Stars
I must confess to picking up this book in some trepidation. I am both a Ph.D. scientist as well as a Christian who has thought deeply and long about my faith, in the process reading books like this. The glowing reviews left me fearful that this book would leave me in a painful period of doubt and questioning. Unfortunately, it seems that I didn't have to worry because I've found the book underwhelming and not all that challenging. Unfortunately, I can only cover the most obvious things here.
First off, it is clear from the outset that Dr. Dawkins did not set forth to write a fair or balanced discussion of the belief in God. In many cases the language used either shows a complete lack of understanding how others will react or else is purposely combative and insulting. This immediately makes his views and reasoning suspect, which has been borne out by other reviewers who've showed how some quotes have been taken out of context. I also find it interesting how Dr. Dawkins begins by quoting so much from Einstein, all except for Einstein's statement that, "There are people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." (Excerpt from Walter Isaacson's "Einstein" as published in Time Magazine, April 16, 2007). I'm not saying that he inaccurately describes Einstein's beliefs, but leaving out that quote makes one wonder how others who were quoted would have felt about it. As for his appeal to religion as being due to wishful thinking, he should be careful; that knife cuts both ways. An atheist has his or her own reasons for hoping there isn't a God. A careful reading will show some of Dawkin's.
Dr. Dawkins also incorrectly applies the anthropic principle, at least as far as I understand it. The anthropic principle states that whatever the probability that intelligent life would develop capable that probability must be such that it would occur once because otherwise we wouldn't be here pondering the question. If this is a correct understanding then the anthropic principle does not apply to the question of whether life is the result of God's action or rather to chance and natural selection. The anthropic principle only applies if you assume that there was no active cause and therefore random chance is the only option.
Dr. Dawkins also attacks the NOMA proposition, i.e. that science and religion don't overlap because they don't deal with the same questions. His argument is that miracles certainly fall under the magisterium of science because they are events that happen in the physical world. However, what Dr. Dawkins fails to do is tell us what would have to happen in order for him to believe that he'd actually seen a miracle. If one believes, as Dawkins seems to, that science does not allow for supernatural causes, then isn't he much more likely to think, "Well, that was something I don't understand, but I'm sure there's a perfectly natural explanation and I'm sure we'll understand it someday."? If science rules out supernatural causes by definition, and I agree that it does, then how can science ever be used to prove a miracle?
This same inability to step out of his paradigm, that paradigm being that there is nothing outside this universe and no options other than chance variation and natural selection, is what also makes his ultimate 747 argument unconvincing to anyone who does not share his initial beliefs as expressed in that paradigm. And I've chosen the word "beliefs" on purpose because that's what they are. What Dr. Dawkins doesn't seem to understand is that if you don't subscribe to those beliefs, and Christians don't, then his argument is unconvincing and underwhelming. To us, God is not in this box we call a universe. All the mystics from all religions agree that God is not a thing or a being like anything we have even imagined. That's not a cop out, it's simply a fact. God doesn't "come from" anywhere, God has always existed without beginning or end. Dawkins accuses intelligent design proponents for lacking imagination when they cite "irreducible complexity", but Dawkins also lacks in imagination; he seems unable to envision anything different from this universe.
Dawkins proposes that the 90% (or thereabouts) of people who believe in some kind of supernatural "God" are deluded. But I would like to propose another hypothesis based on known science for the 10% who don't believe. Many people who believe in God believe because they say they've experienced God somehow. I'm not talking about miracles. I'm talking about feeling a "presence" which has made a marked change in their lives. We know that spirituality has a genetic component. In a manner of speaking the ability to experience or sense God varies between people. We know that this variation occurs with all our sense abilities. Some people are color blind and so can't distinguish red and green. Others can't taste certain tastes, like bitter. I hypothesize that perhaps people like Dr. Dawkins are among that unfortunate minority of people who lack or have a very weak ability to sense God. Unfortunately, this leads them to assert that God doesn't exist rather than considering that maybe the majority is able to "see" something that they cannot.
Book Review: A Classic and Erudite Apologist
Summary: 4 Stars
Please allow me, before I offer a single observation on THE GOD DELUSION, to clarify two definitions just to be quite certain that we all share a common understanding of the terms. This will be critical if I am to have any hope of having my observations accepted by anyone kind enough to read these thoughts.
First, let us recall that, in the early centuries of Christianity, the new religion came under frequent criticism from both Pagan and Jewish philosophers, and that their Christian counterparts felt called upon to defend their relatively new beliefs. Such a defense, written or verbal, is properly labeled an "apology," and it is in this sense that I shall use the word, that is, in its meaning as a defense, not as an expression of regret. Second, let us look at the word "a-theist" for a moment. The prefix "a," which I've emphasize by setting it off with a hyphen, means "not." It does not mean "anti-" or denote opposition. Hence, an a-theist is merely one who does not support theism, which is defined as belief in one or more deities of some nature. Our problem is that the words "atheist" and "atheism" have taken on pejorative connotations beyond their denotive functions so that their use arouses emotional reactions that impede communication and understanding. Understanding this, however, perhaps we can now use the words without arousing unduly antagonistic emotion.
With these definitions in mind, may I now classify THE GOD DELUSION as a classic apology for atheism? The book is an "apology" in the sense that it presents a logical, reality-based defense of atheism, and it is "classic" in the somewhat ironic sense that it reminds the reader of the apologies written by Christian philosophers as the second and third centuries, C.E. ("Common Era," or "A.D." if one prefers).
Will Dawkins' book convert those now full of faith to the paths of objective, observable, provable scientific inquiry? Since "faith" can be defined as a conviction in a subjective, unobservable, and untestable idea for which neither evidence nor proof is sought or required, the answer is, of course, "No." If rationality is not to be considered, then no amount of rational logic or reason is going to impact the beliefs of the "faithful." Dawkins readily admits this and expresses the hope that, at most, his book may be just enough to help convince the fence-sitting agnostic to quit waffling and embrace atheism unequivocally.
What, then, is the value of Dawkins' book? For one thing, it certainly raised my awareness of the impact our linguistic practices have on our children, and how the language may psychologically predispose them to accept illogical faith in a probably non-existent deity over reason and logic. It points out how reference to a "Christian child" or a "Jewish child" or a "Muslim child" is truly ridiculous, for a child has neither the experience nor the reasoning power to decide on a belief system, be it one relying on faith or one based on observable reality. One may refer to "a child of Christian (Jewish/Moslem, etc.) parents," and that phrase is significantly different from "Christian (Jewish/Moslem, etc.) child."
The closing chapters of the book also heighten the reader's awareness of the many ways in which a scientific appreciation of the universe provides the explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration that religious apologists (defenders) claim for their non-scientific belief systems, showing that such belief systems are indeed not at all necessary for understanding existence, behaving morally, or finding joy in life.
It is perhaps inevitable that we compare THE GOD DELUSION to Sam Harris' book THE END OF FAITH. While I find no argument with Harris' thesis, I do find his writing to be somewhat strident, the written equivalent of being yelled at verbally. Dawkins' writing, on the other hand, is consistently restrained, orderly, logical and reasonable. In fact, one must pay close attention to Dawkins' sentences or risk losing one's mental way. I do not mean to imply that his writing is obscure or obfuscated, but it does require active scrutiny by the reader. I do not find him an "easy" author to read with full understanding.
The fairly lengthy list of rationalist, humanist and a-theist Web sites at the back of the book is a pleasant surprise, and the bibliography suggests quite a few interesting books for further reading.
Beyond the intellectual challenge of its prose, THE GOD DELUSION should challenge any reader who occasionally (or frequently) questions the logic of his or her faith-based belief system. It should challenge the "true believer" as well but probably won't because such a person is unlikely to read it. While the book may be condemned as blasphemous by the "community of the faithful" and seen by rationalists as "preaching to the choir," reading it can still be a consciousness-raising experience, and one could certainly do worse than spend some time with it.
I wish my former high school classmate would read Dawkins' book--but she won't. I vividly recall her shocked exclamation during a presidential election season when she caught sight of my campaign button: "(Gasp!) DIDN'T YOUR MINISTER TELL YOU HOW TO VOTE!?" With that true recollection, good reader, may I gently close with an admonishment that Dawkins' book really does need to be read?