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 $3.77 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The God Delusion
Book Review: A Great Book
Summary: 5 Stars
Richard Dawkins makes you stop and think. How anyone can disagree with his logic is beyond me. The phenominal brain-washing by religious leaders will never be undone, but Dawkins is a good start.Book Review: A Great READ, even if one doesn't agree with Dawkins!!!!
Summary: 5 Stars
You don't have to agree with Dawkins to enjoy his gifted mind. His premise that there is NO GOD is a position that has been held by some of the most gifted intellectuals throughout history. At the same time, many of these renowned minds thought they found God just before their deaths. I have read thousands of books, and I have never heard of anyone who chose to renounce God when they were close to death. Why is that?
Why is it that so many atheists have believed in a non-God concept, but find the need to change their minds near life's end? Does one's fear of nothingness overcome their predilections as atheists, when the time comes? The answer is perhaps.
If I have a problem with Dawkins, and I do, it is that he is so adamant about his LAW, not a belief, but a law that there is no God. I feel that he goes to the extent of believing that the rest of us who might have such a belief, are rather STUPID. He wants to demonstrate in paragraph after paragraph why such beliefs are naïve, false, and for the simpleminded among us.
What Dawkins is pushing for, is that we all have an OPEN MIND when we read his arguments that there is NO GOD. Yet, I find in reading this book, and I have read every word, is that he is closed off to the concept that there might be a GOD. Isn't it really a necessity that if one is a first rate scientist that they maintain an OPEN MIND.
Should you read this book if you have a deep and fervent belief in God? The answer is a resounding YES. Don't hesitate. This is a great book, and the reason is that Dawkins is a first rate scientist, with a first rate mind, and a fabulous writer to boot. Don't let my problem with his condescension, and belittling attitude toward religious believers stop you from a great read.
Dawkins and this work are important because it gets you to think. You are challenged. You are forced outside the box. No matter what you believe or don't believe, Dawkins is going to rip you out of that chair, and force you to rethink your thoughts, and that is a very good thing. Some of the spellbinding thoughts in this book are:
· If you feel trapped in the religion of your upbringing, it would be worth asking yourself how this came about? The answer is usually some form of childhood indoctrination.
· The status of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago.
· Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.
· Thomas Jefferson is reputed to have said that, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
· Benjamin Franklin said, "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."
· Even John Adam's got into the act with, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
· The Journalist Roger Sherman asked George Bush Senior if he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists. His answer was, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
· Carl Jung once said, "I do not believe, I know."
· Arthur C. Clarke the scientist once wrote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from MAGIC."
· Dawkins even had a sense of humor. He wrote that George W. Bush had said, "God told me to invade Iraq." The author then states, and I'm paraphrasing, it's a pity that God didn't tell him there were no weapons of mass destruction.
I have told you of my difficulties with Dawkins' attitude towards those who are believers. This in no way lessens the value of what he has to say, regardless of how the reader may disagree with it.
Dawkins goes after the Bible also in his discussions. He is very pointed and accurate in pointing out discrepancies that take place in the various different texts. It doesn't matter to the believer, but it sure does to Dawkins. For a fuller, and fascinating account of Dawkins' descriptions of the incongruencies in the Bible, you want to read anything written by Bart Ehrman. He is a professor of religion at UNC Chapel Hill, especially his "Lost Christianities" book.
If you are a firm believer in God, than don't be afraid to read Dawkins and the "GOD Illusion". It will challenge you, and make you a better believer, because now you will have a firm understanding of what the other side thinks, and that's a good thing to have.
If you don't believe in God, than this is probably the best book you can read since 1957 when Bertrand Russell wrote, "Why I am Not a Christian." For an in-depth look at Christianity, a magnificent book was written by Nobel Peace Prize winner (1952) Albert Schweitzer more than a half a century ago entitled "The Quest for the Historical Jesus".
I like Dawkins. He makes me think. He makes me question. He moves me to a new level, and you are not going to get there by having cocktail party conversations at your neighborhood bar drinking blue Safire martini's. You've got to work for knowledge. You have to struggle for it, and you will be a better believer for the knowledge and the struggle. Good luck.
Richard Stoyeck
Book Review: A Great Read
Summary: 4 Stars
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion for the most part is a delightful read. I actually belly-laughed at Dawkins' witty put-downs of ecclesiastical nonsense. Dawkins' approach is also very thorough.
Dawkins shows explicitly the Old Testament's barbarity; he explicates the origins of morality as having nothing to do with religion; and he speculates as to the evolutionary reasons for religious belief (although he and others risk making evolutionary psychology into a parlor game, for many of its assertions, while plausible, are unfalsifiable).
However, when it comes to certain issues, Dawkins' scientific training falls into a wait-state.
1. Professor Dawkins repeats the BBC's claim that President Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. (Dawkins' doesn't mention Mr. Blair's or Mr. Howard's reasoning; presumably they were channeled by God through Mr. Bush.)
In 2005, the White House officially denied that Mr. Bush made such a statement. Now, in the civilized world and parts of Scotland, a denial also serves as a "just-in-case-I-misspoke" retraction. But doncha see, in Mr. Bush's case, the BBC and Richard will have none of it. They gleefully prefer having Mr. Bush hearing voices.
2. Dawkins correctly trashes the silly syllogism: Stalin was an atheist; Stalin was evil; therefore, atheists tend to be evil. But then he repeats, calling it "striking," Sam Harris's similar syllogism: Religious folk in the US tend to vote Republican; Red states (states that went into Bush's column in the 2004 election) have higher crime rates; therefore, states with large religious populations tend to be less socially healthy than other states; and, of course, religious people by inference are more criminally active or more tolerant of criminality (it's not clear which) than nonreligious people; QED. (Both Harris and Dawkins use some weasel words to soften their endorsements of the above syllogism; nevertheless, the QED is clearly their intent.)
A high school sophomore might ask, oh, I don't know, say:
*Wasn't there a mass migration in the US from blue to red states over the last 60 years?
*Why did BMW, Daimler, Nissan and Toyota build huge auto factories in the socially unhealthy red states?
*Might not criminal types follow the money and also have secondary thoughts about religious people as being mentally slower (as does Daniel Dennett), naïve and trusting and therefore easy pickings?
*Red states being low-tax states, is there perhaps less public money available for the instruments of public safety?
On reflection, I should think Richard would be a bit embarrassed by his endorsement of Sam Harris's syllogism.
3. Dawkins points to polls in the US that show Americans to a very great extent believe in a personal god. He presents no similar polls for Europeans, but presumably they would show dramatically fewer such believers.
Here again, Dawkins' natural curiosity evanesces, for he fails to investigate the fact that in the US, especially in the Sun Belt, it is still socially permissible to voice one's religious belief, but in Europe, and especially the UK, it is definitely bad form. It has been shown numerous times that in polling, such socially dicey issues translate into bad polls; i.e., perhaps in their inner sancta, Europeans hold the same views, but fear expressing them to pollsters.
4. Toward the end of his book, Dawkins becomes decidedly unglued. He admits to trolling the Internet looking for outrageous statements by religious nutballs. And he makes the surprising logical error of finding an outrageous statement from the leader of a religious group and then inferring that the leader's thinking was mainstream in the US because there were millions of members in the organization.
5. Dawkins also makes the same error (as does Sam Harris) for which he criticizes Pascal: he roughs up Pascal for implying belief was an act of will; however, Dawkins strongly implies by means of a vigorous slapping-around of Kurt Wise that coming to disbelieve is also an act of will. It's as though one can believe one day, be shown the vacuity of one's belief the next day, and accept, with a palm-stroke to the forehead, atheism the third day.
***
One cannot help but feel that Dawkins' overall thrust justifies a reader's coming to the conclusion that Dawkins would be not at all unhappy if the first questions asked by the Senate of a Supreme Court nominee were: Have you ever belonged or do you now belong to any organization that professes a belief in the supernatural? If so, do you also believe in the inerrancy of any literature promoting such belief?
An affirmative answer to either question would automatically disqualify the candidate. (We are amazingly close to such questioning, for many Senators now consider being a Roman Catholic as automatically disqualifying.)
Nevertheless, even with the above lapses, The God Delusion is highly recommended.
Book Review: A Liberating Realization!
Summary: 5 Stars
I am going to refrain from doing an in depth review of the 'God Delusion'. I do believe that the good Professor is on to something. 'The God Delusion' is a well written and fairly tight argument that has its flaws. I remember Dr. Sagan speaking on this subject on many occaisions. Dr. Sagan was awed by the mystery of the universe and had a deep sense of 'reverence' for its elegance and beauty. He was fond of saying, with respect to 'God' that absense of proof was not proof of absense. I heard him say this a number of times. In some sense the question of a 'ground of being' or a summum bonum may not be observable by any empirical standards. Having said this science can take us to the threshold of this fantastic universe and enable us to peer over the edge a bit. It is truly more miraculous than God himself.
I finished Professor Dawkins "The God Delusion" about a month ago and have been thinking about it on and off ever since. I will continue to think about the subject. I have always been skeptical of organized religion. Riligion, if we are not careful, can be a cul de sac on the road to human enlightenment and understanding. The final realization that 'God' does not exist was really quite liberating for me. We must understand that no 'supreme' being is looking over our shoulder and those who really understand this can become dedicated to the truth. If indeed human beings have true free will then why would God need to hang around? Free will is either free or it is not. Having a God who intervenes would not really be free...would it?
We must become seekers of the truth not appeasers of imaginary golden calfs. When one reads Dawkins or..say.. Dr. Sagan it becomes evident that leading a worthwhile, interesting and fulfilling life is a reward in and of itself that has absolutely nothing to do with future rewards in another lifetime. It is, after all, this lifetime that is so precious...as is all life. This is a truly courageous way to live. I have to say that in arguing against the existence of 'God', Professor Dawkins is paradoxically arguing for something much greater. Science can take us to the threshold of the greatest of all mysteries whose story is truly more fantastic and awe inspiring than all of the ancient religious mythologies combined. The greatest of all mysteries is right before our eyes and most people cannot see it. All to often religion quashes human curiosity and learning by providing a pat framework of answers that make people feel comfortable. If mankind is really to survive through this period of high technology we have to move beyond the 'commandments' of the religious elite and understand that on Earth, God's work must truly be our own.
Book Review: A Misguided Debate
Summary: 3 Stars
Debate between religion and science is doomed from the outset because they come from two different domains: one from within (religion) and one from without (science). Therefore, Dawkins falls into a trap when he scurrilously condemns religion for scientific reasons.