The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.54 You Save: $9.41 (59%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.45 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The God Delusion
Book Review: I give one star because there's no option for zero... (revisited).
Summary: 1 Stars
This book is full of false premises and misunderstood concepts. Dawkins looks like he's trying too hard and has no shame when it comes to generalizing, and what is worse is that he does it with much arrogance. His text is more a journalistic type of pamphlet than a scientific and sober essay. A thing is not a bad or good thing per se; it is what we make of it. Sugar is a delicious thing, but don't eat too much or you'll get diabetes. A knife can be used to cut loaves of bread for the poor, but also can be used to assassinate. That's the same with religion. Dawkins also fails to realize that in many religions, specially in Christianism, the Church twisted the original teachings. I won't say it for Islamism, because I'm not an expert, but I think I can certainly say that for Christianism, since that was the religion I was brought up in. The Bible must not be taken literally (even theologians nowadays say that), but if many people do that it's certainly not to blame on Moses or Jesus Christ. The Bible is a mixture of truths and myths, facts and legends, written by many many hands, and more important, compiled and organized by the Church according to its own secular and political agenda. You can criticize this or that person for what they make with religion, but not religion itself.
As for the existence of God, maybe he is right when he says that "the existence or non-existence of God is too big a question to be decided by 'dialectical prestidigitation'". But I'll suggest Dawkins do his homework: his theology is shamefully poor. There can't be an intelligent effect without an intelligent cause! Period! It's obvious that mankind did not come from the biblical Adam and Eve, it's obvious that God didn't create Earth in 7 days etc. etc. I'm also not a creationist in the biblical sense. But I don't buy it that beings like us, capable of feelings like love, hatred, tenderness, brutality, optimism, depression, regret, able to produce philosophy, literature, science, in a word, capable of thought, can be the mere result of a randomly accretion of matter and chemical interactions (that actually took place as science teaches us). There must be other factors that also took part in making what we are. You there, moms and daddies, you truly think that your love for your children is just a chemical reaction in your delusional brains? What about our soul? What about feelings? So, I do not know if "God" is an entity with eyes, nose, arms and feet like us. I do not know even if what we call "God" should be considered as the ultimate being, without beginning and without end, all-knowing and all-mighty. What I do think I know is that intelligent life cannot be a chance by-product of matter.
We should always try and make the effort to grasp the notion of God, no matter how hard the task, the fact that it is highly complex to understand doesn't necessarily mean that "a God" doesn't exist. That is one of Dawkins' mistakes: because understanding the notion of God is a herculean task, he chooses the easy path, which is to deny God. In any case, if you do believe in God, how you develop your set of beliefs from there, how you dress up or depict your God and saints, well that is probably up for respectful debate. I agree with Dawkins when he debates morals, I also think that cultural diversities cannot be an excuse for every excess, such as, for example, clitoral mutilation. But what is wrong in Dawkins, in my view, is that he chose to approach the existence/non existence of God based on cultural manifestations of religion, which are subjective by definition! This is not science.
But what is really ungraspable and not at all plausible for me and many - though advocated by Dawkins and other atheists - is the notion that intelligent life just appeared out of chance matter interaction and that, after that, Darwin took over the wheels. Darwin's theories are not perfect. I'll be irreverent in my next comment just for the sake of argument: if you put a black Mercedes and a pink Prius sealed together in a garage for 5 billion years, they will not become alive, they will not fall in love with each other, they will not mate and they will not have baby cars!
The real issue is, or should be: what animates (gives life to) matter?
Regarding the debate between science and religion, for me it is a pseudo-debate. They are not excludent, they complement each other. Jesus Christ never taught that we should refrain from thinking. On the contrary, His was a moral message more than anything else. He taught that we can decide things for ourselves, he taught "freedom of decision". This is why I say that Dawkins' theology is poor. He actually doesn't know what he is talking about! To use a metaphor utilized by Dawkins himself, for me Science is like the visible light of the electromagnetic spectrum, and by all means it certainly will expand with time. So far, however, it can only explain a tiny small fraction of the universe we live in. But maybe we can use Religion to infer and speculate about the invisible part, to point out ways, to consider "maybes", to help intuition make the difference, and, who knows, perhaps with time the former will even prove the latter at least in its essential aspects. We have had many scientists who believed in God (Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Lemaitre and many more). THEY WERE GENIUSES IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, BUT THEY HAD THE HUMILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNIVERSE IS SO MATHEMATICALLY PERFECT THAT IT MUST BE THE CREATION OF A SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE, NOT THE RANDOM RESULT OF CHAOS. Despite what Dawkins thinks, I choose to stand with them and I think I'm in very good company. This is actually one of the many contradictions in the book. I quote: "The efforts of apologists to find genuinely distinguished modern scientists who are religious have an air of desperation". My God, ironically, this is precisely what Dawkins does throughout his book to try to prove and justify atheism, quoting ad nauseam Einstein, Russell and many others. Who's being desperate after all?
As I said before, it can't even be seen as a scientific work. It lacks much information on theology (his book is based on secondary sources and on what I would call "bar quotes, pub small talk" mostly rather than his own studies on religion and ancient texts) and even lacks references on serious atheists like the Baron of Holbach, of the 18th century, probably the most famous atheist ever (I, a religious Christian, know Holbach, but apparently Dawkins doesn't). So, actually he doesn't know the first thing even about atheism! He just woke up one morning in a fit of rage and suddenly decided to start writing whatever it came out of his head, without proper research. Lame try, Mr. Dawkins!
Book Review: Fair and judicious assessment of theism
Summary: 4 Stars
Obviously it is impossible to say anything about Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" that has not already been said in one of the 1100+ reviews here on Amazon, or in the many discussions elsewhere about the book. After all, the debate about the existence of god already was a hot topic in the days of ancient Athens, and probably even before that. But I nevertheless want to add my own view to the pile.
For a convinced naturalist like me, the main question is precisely how to approach the subject matter. After all, to make a philosophical critique of arguments for the existence of god is not quite the same as making a critique of organized religion in practice, or of the idea of theism as an explanation of the world, or of religious morality. In this book, Dawkins opts to do all of the above, each in a chapter of its own, while adding rebuttals of common criticisms and questions about the atheist worldview as well. In order, he addresses the issue of whether religion should be respected, the position of theism as a hypothesis about the natural world, the philosophical arguments for god's existence (mainly those of Aquinas and Swinburne), the probability of god's existence given what we know of the universe, why religion as a phenomenon exists, how morality comes into being, the moral status of the Bible, critiques of religious organizations and behavior, religion and children, and finally whether religion is not necessary for our emotional well-being.
All of this is argued succinctly and effectively in most cases. Dawkins is of course particularly strong on the side of the physical sciences, showing how the argument from design is completely untenable, how increasing knowledge of the nature of the universe's physical structure makes god more and more a 'god of the gaps', as well as decisively and clearly refuting many common mistakes about probability and chance as they relate to the questions of evolution and physics. Like any person with higher academic training, he has no trouble whatsoever in dealing with the supposed arguments or proofs from god's existence of a philosophical kind either, though he wisely does not spend particularly much time refuting all of them (for a book specifically good at doing just that, read John Mackie's The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God). The entirety of the silly reasonings of 'intelligent design' are demolished with gusto, and the same happens to the vague appeals of the likes of C.S. Lewis (whose reputation as an effective apologetic I have never understood).
Dawkins is less strong when it comes to religion as a social phenomenon, however. The chapter on the origins of religion as such, which of course require explaining once we reject theism, is very tentative and mostly lists a variety of different proposals by current-day popular science writers. Dawkins himself here proposes his theory of 'memetics' and cultural evolution, but fairly admits that it is controversial and as yet unproven. It is somewhat of an odd intermezzo in an otherwise effective polemic to insert a chapter that never goes beyond the level of vague and tentative suggestions; perhaps this is better suited at the end of the book, before the final chapter, rather than in the middle.
Equally, Dawkins has a tendency to go on tangents that get tiresome after a while, in particular when he discusses "what is wrong with religion"; he spends a lot of time giving examples of religious fanaticism, which non-fanatics will not identify themselves with in the first place, and which fanatics will not care about. Similarly, the many pages he spends discussing the matter of whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists and therefore atheism is evil is far more than such an inane proposition deserves. Fortunately, he admits as much at several points, and a lot is compensated for by Dawkins' good sense of humor and excellent rhetorical skill.
Finally, I find it disappointing that his analysis of religious behavior and religious morality as a social phenomenon is so weak - there is absolutely no discussion of socio-economic structures and their relation to religion. There is no recognition that if religion is a phenomenon that requires an evolutionary answer, then surely the historically persistent presence of atheism is such a phenomenon too! Trying to judge what the Bible's text says by modern moral standards and trying to remark on the cruelty of God may be effective for people already strongly wavering in their religious belief, but is not a very germane topic for the question where religion comes from in the first place. After all, as Mormonism and Scientology have shown, anyone can come and create a new religion with a new holy book even in modern times, and this turns out to be effective in Akron circa 2000 just as much as in Jerusalem circa 30. What requires answering is why religion attracts certain people more than others, and why some become fanatics and others 'moderates', and so forth; and "The God Delusion" does not tell us much about this. It must be said though that that is not a major criticism, as after all the book is not a discussion of sociology of religion, but a polemic against considering religious belief a good or sane idea.
Overall, Dawkins' book is very well-structured, well-argued and rhetorically effective. Almost every common argument for religion or against atheism is addressed at least in passing, and he even goes out of his way to go into the more 'human' issues of whether we can be consoled without religion, and whether beauty and morality would not suffer without it. Dawkins rightly recognizes these as serious issues, more so than many other atheist polemicists do. After all, religion is rarely a rational decision, so addressing it at the emotional level is at least as important as addressing it philosophically. My criticisms above do not detract from the overall power this book has as the premier atheist manifesto of today, and one that I wholeheartedly support for the vast majority of its content. It is indeed of vital importance that everyone capable of reading reads at least the first chapters, the ones on the relation between theism on the one hand and probability, evolution, chance, and physics on the other hand, since this would take away a host of misunderstandings and misconceptions popularly held. Only a pity that Dawkins is a better biologist than he is a sociologist.
Book Review: More than mere delusion
Summary: 2 Stars
Perhaps best known for his first book, The Selfish Gene, the eminent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is also the author of eight other books. In his latest book, The God Delusion , we experience Dawkins as an outspoken atheist and fierce opponent of religion in all its forms. The first message of his book is directed at those unbelievers who are still trapped, like R. Kelly's narrator, in the closet: "You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." But Dawkins is not content with mere emancipation from the shackles of belief; he will not rest on his laurels while religion is merely accorded an equal footing with atheism. Dawkins goes so far as to liken the religious education of children with sexual abuse, and calls for the extirpation of religion; he even finds agnosticism to be a "poverty". For not only is religion nonsensical but, departing drastically from Voltaire and Seneca, it is a pernicious influence which is holding humanity back from the all-but -inevitable progress (with occasional saw-tooth regressions) of the moral Zeitgeist.
That the 20th century, result of this "progress", was by far the world's bloodiest escapes his attention, as he optimistically states, without proof--blanket and unfounded assertions are par for the course for Richard Dawkins--that "there seems to be a steady shifting of standard of what is morally acceptable". In short, all religions are bad because 1) the books upon which they are based are stupid; 2) the followers fail to actually follow the books; 3) and even when they do follow them they shouldn't do so because (see 1) the books are stupid; meanwhile, those who have had their "consciousness raised" by (the prophet) Darwin, the keepers of a completely arbitrary and morally subjective system under the guise of a loosely defined Zeitgeist are more moral. The reason: because Richard Dawkins is oh so smart.
But this is nothing more than what Chesterton, who knew a thing or two about atheists, called refusing to "submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around." Dawkins reasons that early Americans were unenlightened because they, like the rest of humanity, kept slaves, while modern Americans are more moral because we no longer do. It is telling, though less than surprising, that Dawkins fails to single out the cause of slavery's demise: Christianity. That we practice infanticide and call it abortion is irrelevant to Dawkins, moral parasite that he is. Though it will surely give future atheists reason to gloat when the barbaric practice is finally banned because of the movement of the Zeitgeist. One envisages a future Dawkins character proving that atheists are more moral because we no longer practice abortion like our benighted ancestors.
Parts of his book are good: his tangents related to evolutionary biology are informative, and his warnings about the dangers of fundamentalism, though cliché, merit heeding. But one gets the feeling that Richard Dawkins knows no more about religion than I do about his master subject. He can't see how anyone could believe any of it to be true, and thus pretends that it is not useful. But there are a great many people who have believed it to be true; in fact, atheism is largely a new trend, and if many of the pagans, like Seneca, doubted that their religion was correct, they didn't sneer at those who did believe, and they certainly didn't pretend that it was without utility.
Throughout, Dawkins' tone is condescending and mean-spirited. And while I couldn't care less about what Dawkins thinks of believers--my faith is not that shallow--mocking those who happen to believe in a non-materialistic world is not the best way to win converts--or friends. Even those who are sympathetic with him will conclude that Dawkins is a jerk, and a tactless spokesman for atheism.
But there is another rather large flaw in The God Delusion. Dawkins believes that science has largely answered humanity's questions, questions whose very ambiguity caused our ancestors to regulate them to the realm of theology. To Dawkins, questions that presently remain unanswered will either be answered by later science or deserve no answer. By virtue of his enormous brain, Dawkins knows that those questions which cannot be answered by science, will also be unanswerable by religion. "Why are we here?" may be more meaningful than "Why are unicorns hollow?", but both are difficult to answer so--implicitly of course--why bother asking? This fails to account for the possibility of revelation: certain questions are beyond the capacity for human reason to understand, but are attainable since God has, allegedly, deigned to walk among us. But Dawkins knows that this could not have happened because his human reason tells him so. QED.
Now science is not without its uses. Indeed, many religious people practiced science; Albert Magnus--from those poor Middle Ages, which produced Dante and the cathedral of Chartres--springs to mind. Whether we believe the world to be a part of God's creation or simply the result of natural selection applied over a large period of time, or both, science allows us to better understand the natural world around us. But science cannot answer the deep probing questions which have haunted man since the beginning of time. For all of our science, we are no closer to understanding why humans existence than was, say, Gilgamesh. Worse, we seem to forget this, postulating that because Gilgamesh did not have science and technology, we are obviously better off than he was. Maybe. But we still die, and all the science in the world is unable to tell us what it all means.
Contrary to what one might infer from his book, most religious people don't care if Dawkins doesn't share their faith, though many certainly pray for him. The religious individual who reads his book should not be filled with indignation. Instead, the feeling which he will feel first and foremost is that of pity. At worst, religions are, in the words of the irreligious Fred Reed, "gropings toward something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and the next and grander automobile." Those who cannot even begin to consider that something suffer worse than mere delusion.
Book Review: The God Delusion: A handbook for lifting our religion disease
Summary: 5 Stars
2/8/08
Amazon Book Review by Donald A. Collins, a free lance writer living in Washington, DC
TITLE: The God Delusion: A handbook for lifting our religion disease
TEXT: Having read several of his books, when Richard Dawkins, on his American book tour for his latest book , "The God Delusion" arrived at Politics and Prose, an independent bookseller in NW Washington, DC, I eagerly attended his lecture there and had him sign a copy of his book. His talk was enthusiastically embraced by the overflow crowd, many of whom confessed to leaving various faiths for atheism.
As I prepare to enter my 78th year, I find numerous obituaries of people who didn't make that milestone and feel sublimely lucky to have done so in relatively good health.
Philosophers of every stripe have enjoyed giving counsel on how to prepare for death. Books are rife and varied, so one has enough choices. In fact even if you started reading these tracts early in life you likely wouldn't cover them all. One major source of such advice of course is the world's plethora of religions. These diverse sects stress "Getting right with God". So I went to my search engine using that phrase and WOW, the list was long and detailed. One fella named James Petzold has been at it since he was 22 in 1972, when his girl friend rejected him. Hey, that's when he got serious, no screwing around with eternity which he describes in a turgid litany of his path to Jesus and God. Happy ending? You betcha: His group, "Precious Testimonies is supported financially by those God directs to sow into this ministry. We ask each person reading this to please ask God on an on-going basis if He would have you sow a financial gift to this evangelistic outreach of His - trust that He will clearly communicate His will to you in the matter - then simply be obedient. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about the current financial needs of this outreach, or any other questions you may have. For convenience, you can simply click on the secure Pay Pal donate button below if you want to donate by credit card. Otherwise, you can send your precious gift to: Precious Testimonies, P.O. Box 516, Jenison, MI 49429.
Well, folks, to each his own. If the psycho babble of the religious fantasy mongers pleases you, then stop reading this right now and certainly don't buy Dawkins' book as it will frighten you..
For many years I have been "unchurched" although when, as a widower, I remarried 14 years ago my bride and I were delighted to call upon a clergyman relative from each of our families to bless our union. These two are wonderful people, each with a sincere and abiding faith in their religion, whose moral compasses come not from their religious beliefs but from the intrinsic goodness of some humans as compared with the intrinsic evil in others. Moral codes come not from religion but from the transactional experience of human evolution, despite the claims of the faithful.
I have been a practicing atheist for years. Just what are the standard religious options? As Oxford Don and Darwinian exponent, Dawkins writes in "The God Delusion", "A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation.... He answers prayers, forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think about doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the world God as a non supernatural synonym for nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. ....Pantheism is sexed up atheism. Deism is watered down theism."
I evolved from being a "reverent agnostic" as I became aware of these various standard gradations of belief. So where is agnosticism? Again Dawkins comes to our rescue by describing that position as "fence sitting". Any doubts about the fact that no God exists, he says, have been reconfirmed by the advance of scientific knowledge and overall human experience.
In fact, Dawkins has provided us with a jaunty, yet scholarly, credible textbook which will allow thinking people of any age to throw off the bonds of Original Sin, everlasting life, and the obtuse visions of the various hucksters whose religions' divine origins he thoroughly demolishes.
More importantly, looking at the inevitable end of our life on Earth, it has become very possible for me to be buoyant in the knowledge that I have done my best and that whatever happens to my molecular leavings will be followed by some human beings who will likewise try to help the world be better. However, I am definitely in the minority, but proud to be there. Dawkins reports that polls show that 95% of US citizens believe they will survive their own death. To me that is the ultimate act of human cowardice. I would add an 11th to the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt Not Believe In the Afterlife", as belief in eternal life or heaven (or hell) is akin to taking LSD or some other life threatening drug.
Dawkins' comprehensive look at its history shows conclusively that religion has done enormous harm and possibly will lead us all to the ultimate downfall of life on this planet. As the several major, powerful, equally evil sects collide, the chance of our failing to allocate resources, trim pollution and curb population growth to a level of long term sustain ability dims daily. Avoiding this pending apocalypse will involve outgrowing the sway of organized, corrupt secular religious power. I encourage a simple, but decisive first step: Become an agnostic, which would be like taking the 2nd of the 12 steps in the Alcoholics Anonymous recovery program with a new twist: Come to believe that there is no power greater than other human helpers that can restore us to sanity.
Book Review: The atheist on a mission - (and not accomplished)
Summary: 1 Stars
The atheist on a mission - (and not accomplished)
After reading a few other books on religion, I was really looking forward to read Dawkins. From an ethologist and biologist I would have expected a sound and logic reasoning based on evidence of why humankind is deluded into believing the existence of god and why there is no culture that can seem to live without religion.
What a disappointment!
After endlessly quoting the nut cases of creationism and extremes of American Christian fundamentalists (and a few Muslim and Jewish ones), the question of WHY we are deluded is not answered. Most of the anecdotes we have heard before. Of course, among the many there are quite a few interesting ones, funny ones, and, as they were extreme choices, also frightening ones.
But what about the middle road, where presumably most believers would associate themselves with? What about moderate religions, such as Buddhism (who have no missionary zeal) or the Bahai? There is no exploration of religions held in other cultures (which Christians in the past have derogatorily labeled as animism), maybe indigenous ones? Maybe one could find the answers there? Much of anthropology tries to find answers in indigenous or traditional societies to modern questions of society. The three major religions of the Fertile Crescent have undergone so many changes; have been misused for politics so much that it is very easy to pick their extreme or ultraorthodox manifestations to go on a "crusade" against religion.
There is some speculation in the book that a cause for religion would be that the evolutionary benefit of children trusting their parents: "This snake is poisonous!" causes the undesirable byproduct that children would also believe: "God created the world". But this argument calls for the application of the same question that RD poses to prove that creationism does not make sense: If there was an intelligent designer: who designed the designer? Apply this question to the children's trust issue, and the speculation seizes to be a plausible one.
So, RD gives no answer to my question.
When I was passing though Germany the other day, I saw that this book was awarded the science book of the year! That is even more shocking than RD failing to provide an answer to my question (after all, it is a difficult one to answer).
To be fair, RD is not choosing the awards he receives for himself, but I still find this rather shocking. If this kind of book is considered scientific, then theology is a science too (which RD seems to suggests, it is not).
To consider a book, even in a popular sense, scientific, it should meet some criteria: It should present a hypothesis, it should describe a methodology, should present facts in support of the hypothesis (leaving Popper aside for a moment) as well as those that would falsify it and it should be honest in its approach.
I think RD failed on a few of the above:
Towards the end of the book RD uses the Amish as yet another example of the damage religion does to children by depriving them of a state education. RD omits to tell that in Amish and Mennonite societies, children are actually not baptized until they are around 18, hence capable of making a decision of whether to join the church or not. Some 20 to 30 percent decide not to get baptized. A pretty high number for kids who are "indoctrinated", I find.
This could also have led to a related question which is why do humans tend to prefer the irrational in other areas than religion (and why do they seem to be able to distinguish between the much belaboured unicorn and religion)? A lot of such irrational causes appear later in life and are still being believed and do not require the manipulation of an infant mind. This is where I think the methodology falls short. It looks at religion as a case of irrationality (touching briefly on patriotism) without looking at other irrational choices humans make.
Alan Greenspan did believe the bubble would not burst. Mugabe believes he can stay in power forever. Pol Pot believed in the purity of primitive rural life. Hitler (and Henry Ford) believed in the Jewish - Bolshevik world conspiracy. And all these people found millions who believed their irrational nonsense and followed them and acted accordingly! All of this created many more millions of deaths than religion has ever caused in the last hundred years (the deaths of the current economic crises will not be easily counted, but could go into the hundreds of millions).
This is the question Mr. Dawkins fails to answer! Where is the "Delusion" gene (or its expression)? What evolutionary benefit do humans have from being deluded?
Picking religion is too cheap, I find - especially if the "other side" is not even allowed to be heard. Just to avoid misunderstandings, with the the other side here I do not mean creationism, but the benefits of irrational behaviour, or in this case of religion: who would know St. Giminiano without its many churches? How many wars were not fought because resources went into building West Minster Cathedral, the Hagia Sophia or Tenochtitlan? (All are income genertating tourist attractinos). What motivated Albert Schweitzer to go to Lambaréné and the Calvinist Henry Dumant to go to Solferino and found the Red Cross? The anecdotal mention that atheists are also displaying ethical behaviour is a necessary but not a sufficient argument against religion or for atheism. To make the point, one would really have to establish whether altruism is genetically inherent and evolutionary beneficial. I understand the debate on this one is still open.
So all I can conclude is that Richard Dawkins is on a mission - a mission to increase the number of atheists. An entertaining oxymoron. I find it hypocritical of a scientist to emphasize the scientific method to increase credibility while failing to actually apply sound scientific principles in making his case.
Mission not accomplished.