Product Description

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2492 in Books
• Published on: 2006-09-18
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 416 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780618680009
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
The antireligion wars started by Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris will heat up even more with this salvo from celebrated Oxford biologist Dawkins. For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. But Dawkins, who gave us the selfish gene, anticipates this criticism. He says it's the scientist and humanist in him that makes him hostile to religions—fundamentalist Christianity and Islam come in for the most opprobrium—that close people's minds to scientific truth, oppress women and abuse children psychologically with the notion of eternal damnation. While Dawkins can be witty, even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is "psychotic," Aquinas's proofs of God's existence are "fatuous" and religion generally is "nonsense." The most effective chapters are those in which Dawkins calms down, for instance, drawing on evolution to disprove the ideas behind intelligent design. In other chapters, he attempts to construct a scientific scaffolding for atheism, such as using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality. He insists that religion is a divisive and oppressive force, but he is less convincing in arguing that the world would be better and more peaceful without it. (Oct. 18)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Scientific American
Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, tells of his exasperation with colleagues who try to play both sides of the street: looking to science for justification of their religious convictions while evading the most difficult implications—the existence of a prime mover sophisticated enough to create and run the universe, "to say nothing of mind reading millions of humans simultaneously." Such an entity, he argues, would have to be extremely complex, raising the question of how it came into existence, how it communicates —through spiritons!—and where it resides. Dawkins is frequently dismissed as a bully, but he is only putting theological doctrines to the same kind of scrutiny that any scientific theory must withstand. No one who has witnessed the merciless dissection of a new paper in physics would describe the atmosphere as overly polite.

George Johnson is author of Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order and six other books. He resides on the Web at talaya.net

From Bookmarks Magazine
Richard Dawkins's latest book raises the question of style over substance. As in his well-known books The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and River Out of Eden, the renowned evolutionary biologist has done his homework, and argues with precision and a fair glaze of wit. But Dawkins can't restrain his vitriol for those that have put their faith in religion, to the point that he comes off as rabid as those believers whose eyes he yearns to open. This fatal flaw knocks his book down a rung or two for critics, many of whom seem inclined to believe in Dawkins, if only he weren't so preachy.

Copyright © 2004 Phillips & Nelson Media, Inc.

Customer Reviews

Read the Reviews!
I've just finished reading the 141 reviews above mine, and I think they're utterly fascinating--almost as interesting as the book. And the scores--the numbers who find each review helpful--are equally remarkable.

Some reviewers, delighted to find their opinions supported by Dawkins, use the opportunity to bask in their superior intellects and display their generous contempt for those who disagree.

Other reviewers feel personally attacked by this book, fending it off as best they can so they can retain their illusions, which are obviously valuable and meaningful to them.

Actually, you don't even have to read the reviews to see which is which. Just look at the numbers. If you see very few finding the review useful, you'll know the review was written by someone opposing Dawkins' ideas. And if the majority find the review helpful, that means it agrees with Dawkins.

This tells me that most of the people who are bothering to read the reviews are already pro-Dawkins--and it bodes ill for his hopes that his book will convert the believers.

It won't convert many believers, not because it is wrong--it isn't--and not because it isn't well-written--it is--but because whatever else you can say about faith, it isn't easily extinguished. For those who have it, it is the only life raft on a limitless ocean. Those who don't have learned how to swim, or plan to.

The most annoying reviewers, from my point of view, are those whose remarks demonstrate they haven't read the book (such as the fellow who insists Einstein was a believer), or those who feel Dawkins doesn't have the Biblical knowledge to back up his conclusions.

He doesn't need any Biblical knowledge. None of us do, when it comes to the question of belief. Memorizing the Bible neither adds nor subtracts from our ability to feel faith.

And that's the bottom line for me. I am unable to accept an assertion of any kind supported by nothing more than faith. I need some kind of truth, some kind of evidence.

There are or might be moments when I am jealous of those capable of faith. I would love to believe, when a loved one dies, that he or she is going to a better place and that we'll meet again some day. What a lovely, comforting thought. Would that it were true, or that I could believe it. But I don't--and it makes this life and every moment in it more valuable to me.

I once asked myself how a person totally unfamiliar with religion, might choose among the world's offerings, might decide to adopt one of the world's thousands of religions. I could find no way. They all claim they're right and all the other religions are wrong. But are any of them right?

Now I'm thinking similar thoughts about God. I saw a website recently that compiled the names of all of the gods, worldwide and throughout history. They found 3800 different gods or supernatural beings. If I were inclined to believe, which one would I choose and why?

Dawkins points out that we're all atheists. We don't believe in Amon-re, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Odin, etc., etc., etc. He just goes one god further.

Dawkins imagines no religion.
"As a scientist," Richard Dawkins writes, "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" (p. 284). In other words, the greatest crime of fundamental Christianity is to think without asking scientific questions. For those readers already familiar with Dawkins' work, it will come as no surprise that this book is nothing less than brilliant. Pity those readers, however, who either won't read this book (they should) or who will find nothing positive to say about it, because this is the work of one the greatest thinkers of our time.

In THE GOD DELUSION, Dawkins, the celebrated evolutionary biologist, Oxford Professor, and author (The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution), gives us a carefully-reasoned yet entertaining treatise on atheism that is equally eloquent and provocative. His basic argument is that the collective irrational belief in "The God Hypothesis" is not only wrong ("intellectual high treason"), but pernicious in its resulting intolerance, oppression, bigotry, arrogance, child abuse, homophobia, abortion-clinic bombings, cruelties to women, war, suicide bombers, and educational systems that teach ignorance when it comes to math and science. Sure to provoke his adversaries, Dawkins not only portrays the "psychotic" God of the Old Testament as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" (p. 31), but also challenges, quite convincingly, every major argument for God's existence, and shows that the Founding Fathers considered religion to be a threat to democracy. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, claimed "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" (p. 43). Benjamin Franklin said "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" (p. 43). A 1796 treaty signed by John Adams declares, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (p. 40). Adams also said, "this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it" (p. 43). Even conservative icon, Barry Goldwater, threatened to fight fundamentalists "every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans" (p. 39).

While Dawkins is clearly out to change minds here, unfortunately, for most of his readers, he is only preaching to the choir. Nevertheless, for its erudite advocacy of science and rationalism at odds with the divisive, oppressive, injurious, and deadly forces of religion, THE GOD DELUSION is highly recommended. Further reading in this area includes Daniel Dennett's, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006) and Sam Harris's, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006) and Christopher Hitchens' recent God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

G. Merritt

Not the best work on atheism
Before considering Professor Dawkins's bestseller, a mention must be made of the over 300 reviews here posted as well as the assorted blogs, debates, and article the book has provoked. Reading through these, whether pro or con, one can not help but notice a clear and unnerving trend, not unlike one sees in reviews regarding works on the Middle East conflict; those who agree with his thesis from the outset almost always offer resounding and unadulterated praise without considering even the possibility of flaws in his methodology or logic. Of course, at the same time, those who hold his position as heresy rarely respond in any logical method to his position and rarely even seem willing to acknowledge the professor's obvious strength's as a writer. Such failure of reasoning on both sides points to a disheartening decline in the state of the western intellectual tradition that should give every person pause.

As a great fan of Professor Dawkins's previous work, "The Selfish Gene," a book that provided me with great food for thought several years back and profoundly altered my thinking, I looked forward with excitement to "The God Delusion." Reading the new book on recognizes quickly that this is in fact one book, with three goals. Professor Dawkins imagines these goals as not only compatible, but structural to the argument he seeks to build. As for me I am less certain.

The first part restates much of what might be found in "The Selfish Gene," albeit more briefly and with some editions based on more recent scholarship. There is no need to review the whole of thesis, his obvious purpose will suffice; defending Darwinian evolution from the current relentless and often absurd assault it now suffers at the hands of certain individuals who prefer to shout at the storm rather than consider an umbrella. Now "The Selfish Gene," was nothing short of brilliant, and Dawkins here again demonstrates much of what makes him a gifted writer of science, explaining the strengths of Darwin's theory, and devastating many of the positions of those who argue against it. Other works of course cover this same ground, but there can be no doubt Dawkins here shines.

Of course, these points are not the goal of Dawkins's work, but only the foundation of a broader argument. From there he moves into an evolutionary thesis for the origin of belief and religion. Here he remains on firm ground, though many may find it disquieting, even as he moves to the next logical position that evolution and the cosmos requires no deity to explain itself. And it is from there that the Professor moves onto shakier ground as he seeks not to simply discount the evidence often cited for a supreme being, but rather argue against the possibility of its existence. Of course, the logical difficulty of proving an absolute negative - for example, "there are no blue dogs," are legion -- yet this of course does not deter the professor who approaches the subject with a zealot's fervor. Yet, many of the arguments here stand as both pugnacious and flawed, moreover revealing that while well versed in science, professor Dawkins might consider a few classes in philosophy, not to mention religion so that he might recognize that the Anglicanism in which he was raised is not the totality of all Christianity and, moreover, Christianity is by no means the totality of religion.

One might take his arguments one at a time, but I will focus on one, it having received great attention. Dawkins posits "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." Of course this ignores the prevalent notion of both the Jewish and Islamic tradition that God exists both inside and outside his creation, and thus cannot be fully known. Moreover, he likely would not like this argument applied to cosmology; the fact that it grows increasingly complex as our understanding grows does not make the next more complex factor less likely, but merely outside of our current grasp. The effort to understand this with probability as a method of rendering a supreme being unlikely comes across as self serving and holding to a standard the professor would surely not wish to apply to science.

Yet it is in the final piece of his work that Professor Dawkins becomes the most vitriolic and, in fact, a bit sophomoric as he attacks religion by pointing to all the evil in history rendered in its name. The effort appears like the work of a rather polemic inclined undergrad, especially as the Professor fails to consider the good brought by religion, nor seriously consider the degree to which concepts arising from religion have influenced or even founded much of the secular humanist philosophy he holds so dear. Moreover, Professor Dawkins shows no taste for considering the considerable evil done in the name of atheism. Regarding these, however, he has no stomach for discussion, writing curtly ""We are not in the business of counting evils heads, compiling two rival roll calls of iniquity." Yet that is exactly what he does when it comes to those of faith, ignoring the torture and murder of many, often due to their particular commitment to religion done in the name of "reason" by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk. Instead, Dawkins contrasts theoretical atheist utopia with the religions practical and often horrific evils. Sadly, such an effort generates much heat and little light. Had he been willing to engage the more interesting and complex issue, he might well have concluded that humanity is capable of much horror and violence, for many motivations. But then, such a conclusion would hardly serve his narrow polemic goals.

Nothing in the world should be held as not subject to reason. Unfortunately, Professor Dawkins could well have used more of it in engaging in his efforts. While one can certainly render cogent arguments for atheism, indeed many have, the effort here seems more designed to score easy points by burning straw men at the stake. No doubt, this review will receive votes for and many more against, not based on its reasoning, but simply based on people's particular faith on which side of these issues the reside. But then again, most seem inclined to simply march along side their ideological kin, rather than engage in serious consideration of such weighty matters.