The God Delusion: Book Review
Mikey 21 comments
When it comes to the topic of biology and evolution, you would be hard pressed to find a greater authority than the articulate science communicator Richard Dawkins.
In his boldly titled book 'The God Delusion', Dawkins puts forward his case on the topic of religion, and more specifically why he deems it unnecessary for him to belong to any.
The tone of the book is set early on, but this is not an anti-religious rant. If it were it would lose all credibility. Dawkins, unlike most creationists, allows for the possibility he might be wrong:
"I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
~ Richard Dawkins
And with that sets sail his arguments towards the high improbability of God.
No particular religion is singled out, as Dawkins hypothesis is fundamentally solid: some religions are dangerous and other more popular forms are aberrantly flawed. Even Jonny Church-goer could agree with that.
For the atheists, Dawkins reasoning and examples of logic will be a reassuring testament to their lack of faith. For agnostics, the calculated arguments might just be enough to force a decision towards atheism (Dawkins already has a section on his web site called Converts Corner). And for the religious, your definition of 'evidence' will likely differ to Dawkins'.
One of Dawkins more interesting points is on the subject of morality, and suggests it doesn't come from religion and that it has a less clear origin. He speculates morals to be "a combination of genetic instincts" which evolved when people realised they could be more productive and beneficial through co-operation.
The subject of children is also raised. Dawkins says a child raised religious is a form of indoctrination and constitutes child abuse. He says it is wrong for people to simply accept terms such as 'catholic child' or 'muslim child', because a child could not possibly form unregimented opinions on transubstantiation or Jihad any more than they could affiliate themselves with any particular political party.
'The God Delusion' is not light reading by any means. If you want to some intelligent arguments and theories to challenge your religion, you could do a lot worse. If you want to offend your god fearing friend, it will make an apt birthday present.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 26th June 2007 | 10:30 AMMichael, great review. I enjoyed the book immensly. It has been stated before though I do find it slightly ironic that Dawkins' ferverence towards athieism almost portrays him as a fundamentalist of his own 'religion/faith'.
Much the same as if I had been a member of a fanatical cult, a deprogramming phase was required to rid myself of the judeo-christian theology. During this phase of my life, I found Dawkins' research and various interviews and movies extremely useful.
If you ever get the chance though, Jacob Bownonski's 'the origin of man' and the resulting 10 part documentary series is just encredible and runs through evolution very thouroughly.
Everything must be questioned though, from the word of the minister, the priest, the deacon, the gods, the dawkins'. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt as it is all tainted by opinion and translation.
Franken
Tuesday 26th June 2007 | 10:32 AMI couldn't get through it only about 2/3 way in fact. Theres way too much to absorb but I do have a short attention span. He makes interesting cases and some things I never ever thought about b4 but he comes across a bit too sure of himself but nowhere near as snooty as his documentaries!
Thanks Jake. As you would know there are way too many points in this book to put them all under the spotlight for a book review, so I just raised a few.
Yes it's a great read, and there is a lot to take in as Franken said above. I am tempted to go though it again and I would expect it to be easier the second time around :-)
andrew
Wednesday 27th June 2007 | 12:28 AMi guess it could make for a good read on an aeroplane..in fact i am getting on one next week, gee and i will be closer to god!!!!!
Gilly
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 12:40 PMhttp://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=15376
You might want to leave your blinkers on tho.
Kindra
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 02:01 PMAs ironic as this descriptive sounds, its a 'good book'. Here is the crux of Dawkins philosophy.
He cares about the truth. In order for something to be true it needs to be supported by evidence. For without evidence anything can only be regarded as speculation.
Religious faith is the polar opposite of truth. It's simply accepting something to be true in the absence of evidence. And in this modern day and age why are we still passing down this myth to our children and teaching it as fact?
Without pure indisputable evidence we can not truly arrive at any real conclusions, only guesses. Even educated guesses are still guesses.
It's OK for you to say 'I don't need evidence all that matters is I believe', but don't go spreading that falsehood onto others and especially children, teaching and preaching it as truth. It's not truth - its fiction. This is how the score card reads right now:
Creationism evidence: zero (all speculative)
Evolution evidence: off the freaking charts (based on truth, albeit a small portion theoretical)
Now if I can lighten the mood, watch Kirk Cameron get his arse kicked with his extremely dated views on creationism and evolution. How embarrassing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J0cSnYnFg">
And then this hilarious case made for creationism, with 'the atheists' nightmare'. It was an effort to type this while suppressing my laughter.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw">
Gilly
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 03:52 PM----
Kindra
Creationism evidence: zero (all speculative)
Evolution evidence: off the freaking charts (based on truth, albeit a small portion theoretical) ---
Dumb Dumb Dumb
Please Explain
Where does mutation take place that is positive and where did life come from. Evoloution can not explain these two fundamental problems. IT IS FLAWED WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION.
You are taught that evoloution is true, but it is not and there is no evidence to back it up, it is pure theory.
The Bible proves creationism. You disprove the bible and you win.
Anybody that teaches there children evoloution, is a child abuser.
--------
Kindra
Without pure indisputable evidence we can not truly arrive at any real conclusions, only guesses. Even educated guesses are still guesses. ---
What constitutes pure indisputabe truth? TV? Dawkins?
Science? A Jury? A Judge? Go on enlighten me.
Kindra
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 04:14 PMJust because evolution can not explain the origin of life, does not mean the answer must be God. That's primitive thinking, along the same lines as the savages of yesteryear who couldn't explain natural phenomena. The desire for an explanation is what led to the concept of a God. Don't assume that because something cant be explained that God must be the solution. If it can't be explained it is either because we haven't found the answer or we haven't evolved enough to realise the answer.
You say "What constitutes pure indisputabe truth?"
Are you joking? You are so stupid you can't even think of a single example of irrefutable truth? I can think of a billion. Lets just take one random...the trajectory of the moon for example..is based on mathematical truths. We know where the moon orbits and where it is headed at any given moment. We apply the same mathematics to work out when comets are going to pass by, when eclipses are going to occur etc.
A couple of thousand years ago people would have simply said "God moves the moon up each night and down each morning". But we are smarter now. We know why these things happen. We can now say the moon orbits on path x and deviates slightly at region y etc...and that is an absolute evident truth.
Please - give me one single shred of evidence to suggest god exists? Just one. Evidence I said - not speculation - actual hard core infallible evidence. You know? That stuff scientist use to approximate the age of fossils, calculate the trajectories of planets and moons, etc. Stuff that doesn't have to have it's foundation brought into question all the time because it has been established as a universally accepted truth. Not like religion of course. religion is for lack of a better term - just faith. Believing blindly without evidence.
Kindra
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 04:17 PMOh, and you said "You are taught that evoloution is true, but it is not and there is no evidence to back it up, it is pure theory."
Actually there is a tone of evidence to back it up. Have you ever picked up a book that wasn't a bible? I am guessing you haven't or you wouldn't have made such a dumb-ass statement.
gilly
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 09:29 PMNot like religion of course. religion is for lack of a better term - just faith. Believing blindly without evidence.----------Kindra
Child logic. I am smarter than you Nah nah
1+1=2 Clever Kindra
Ok what constitute truth if you cant see it?
I am stupid. Enlighten me, answer the QUESTION
Please Explain
Where does mutation take place that is positive and where did life come from. Evoloution can not explain these two fundamental problems. IT IS FLAWED WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION.
GO ON???
ANYONE???
Oh Kindra, in the mean time try to be nice.
Kindra
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 09:57 PM"Evoloution can not explain these two fundamental problems."
And religion can? Hahaha how I find that so amusing. Hey what's your obsession with mutation? I thought you already knew the answer to that question - god is responsible! Oh yes he made everything! The http://youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw">banana demonstration proves everything! It's obvious which side of the fence you sit on but surely morons like the one in that banana video must be an embarrassment to you? I mean - c'mon - a banana has the same amount of edges as the human hand has when made into a light fist formation - therefore god exists. WTF? Even the homer simpsons of the world can see how flawed that logic is.
Here's a thought Gilly. I or anyone else can sit here and post oodles of well constructed literature or even hypothesis directed at your misguided questions, but based on the comments I have seen you leave on other blogs on this site in which you offer nothing that actually supports anything you say, but the problem is no amount of this will pass into your thick skull because you've already made up your mind.
So why would I waste my time? Have you actually read anything you wrote? I see some people actually offering substance in support of what they say but with you it's the same "you're idiots and Im right and ya cant tell me otherwise" crap through and through. Yawn.
Hey people way off-topic here (you know who I'm talking to!). This is a book review.
Sorry to be a comment nazi but I start deleting comments from now on that steer off-topic and don't offer any feedback or conjecture about the book or the review. If you want to continue this argument then someone needs to post a relevant article.
Gilly
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 10:07 PMOk what constitute truth if you cant see it?
I am stupid. Enlighten me, answer the QUESTION
Where does mutation take place that is positive and where did life come from. Evoloution can not explain these two fundamental problems.
And you called me stupid. I am only asking you disprove creation.
The Bible does answer it COMPREHENSIVLY.....
GOD CREATED
it is not hard to understand.
Work this out. What you say to me is what I think of you.
You like every Lemming here trumpets evoloution. Where is the proof?
Anonymous
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 10:09 PMhttp://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=15376
Not mine, but gives a fair alternative.
Fair.
Anonymous
Saturday 30th June 2007 | 10:11 PMHey people way off-topic here (you know who I'm talking to!). This is a book review.
Sorry to be a comment nazi but I start deleting comments from now on that steer off-topic and don't offer any feedback or conjecture about the book or the review. If you want to continue this argument then someone needs to post a relevant article.-----
your breaking my heart.
Answer the question Michael in the suitable topic section of course.
Thanks Gilly
Allan J.K.
Monday 2nd July 2007 | 12:24 AMThanks for an easy review. Most of the ones out there start off good but then start to drift off into a rant. I haven't read it yet but it's already on my wish list for an upcoming birthday. I will swing by afterward and let you know my thoughts.
Allan J.K.
Allan J.K.
Saturday 8th September 2007 | 09:49 PMI told you I would be back :-)
The book is bloody marvellous but there is some occasional 'interesting' logic on Dawkins' behalf which might not have worked in his favour. As a long time agnostic books like these make me lean further and further away from the centre towards the other 'A' noun.
After you get through it you realise just how wrong some people interpret Dawkin's intentions and ideas, me included. But he isn't the only atheist to be attacked for simply being that.
His philosophy of "living by the assumption he (God) isn't there" is something to admire as it remains respectful of religion in that is simply means 'this is what I believe, not what is'.
I would recommend this book to people of any or no faith.
Darren
Wednesday 14th November 2007 | 07:00 PMI bought this book last week as an early xmas present and powered through it in 3 nights.
Dawkins should be commended for his valuable insight and explanations. It's no surprise some religious feathers will be ruffled because Dawkins' is supported by fact and common sense. Religion is the art of placing your brain in your pants and saying "you know what? I am going to ignore factual evidence and common sense and keep idly believing we were all put here by a supreme being who made us the centre of the universe and I will therefore obey his commands and it doesn't matter that scientific evidence outweighs religious evidence 100,000 to zero. And as I am a close minded pragmatic prat I will make damned sure my children believe the same."
This book is a loud "why the fuck are you idiots still thinking with the brain of superstitious peanut from 2000 years ago while the rest of us have seen what is obvious?. Wake up!"
Gayle
Saturday 23rd February 2008 | 08:27 PMI got the book as a xmas present from my husband. Firstly let me state for the record that Dawkins is on the right track. But the explanations offered in this book could have benefited from being less intimidating to the average reader. Parts of it felt like work.
It's a lot to take in and Dawkins technical jargon which probably feels right at home with other biologists doesn't make it any easier and therefore becomes less effective for the layman. They should release another version called THE GOD DELUSION - LITE.
Still a great book.
Rodney
Tuesday 26th June 2007 | 12:21 AMFirst P05t!
I haven't read the book cover to cover but I can see how this book, and all others like it, just serve to confirm people's beliefs. Atheists will think "what fine logic..." while religious people will think "I disagree with that point...". In that regard, it get's people thinking about their stand point and that's a good thing. All people should be able to back-up and explain their beliefs; whatever their persuasion... eh Gilly?
The book's not perfect. It's too preachy and it does make some flawed arguments but overall, he presents a strong case and does it well. As a religious person it doesn't offend or scare me.
But seriously... prepare for the onslaught...