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: The Dog Delusion?
Summary: 1 Stars
Upon writing this opinion there are 1141 reviews! Obviously, the subject of God is important to these people. What I don't understand is why it should be so important to Dawkins.
Much like the other Richard, Hawkins crusade is religious in nature. A non belief is a belief in the sense that to state it removes it from the vacuum of non existence. To argue against religion on scientific grounds is to give substance to its existence. Since science is unable to answer whether our thoughts are physical or meta-physical, Dawkins may very well have re invented God on his own terms--a God that does not exist, when in fact everything that does not exist in the real world can said to be subsumed by God.
It seems that the question is approached from both sides of the "singularity". From the left (the modern liberal side) we are subjected to sophistic arguments derived from logic and reason. From the right (the ancient conservative side) we are compelled to believe, not from reason, but from an unqualified faith, reason being the enemy of faith. Neither side can explain the essence of what it means to begin or end. And that is what we are concerned with, whether we are consumed by questions of birth and death, or whether we are confounded by thoughts of cosmic infinities, whether large or small.
With regard to thought: Whether mental states are physical or exist in some Platonic ideal universe outside the one that scientists are willing to consider within their domain cannot be resolved by a description of the mechanism of thought. A description of how we go from here to there cannot capture the personal experience of going the distance. Given a plus, we must always consider a negative. The essence of the world is defined by that which divides any one aspect from another, including our capacity for belief and disbelief. Hence, we have foreground and background. I would venture to propose that the Gods argue as to whether we exist and that we exist because they doubt. Ultimately, our survival is codependent. The many worlds view, being infinite in nature, allows for any possibility. How droll to staunch our imagination with a process that requires mundane predictions and verification without validation. Science cannot prove, any more than Gödel could, that the equations of science are true for every observation. Science will find that an infinite progression of hypotheses is not sufficient and that in the end the final revelation will be of diminished, insignificant importance. The world will end with a whimper, not a bang.
Hawkins would disprove the existence of God as the limit of vanishing infinitesimal quantities--each process being derived from a lesser complex process--kind of like big fish regurgitating little fish, and large turtles standing on the backs of smaller turtles. Dawkin's claim that God cannot exist because an even more complicated process would have to be made responsible is the inverted argument for the existence of God from first cause. His argument also contradicts the basic principles of evolution--that more complex processes can be formed from less complex processes, given the cost of entropy. If we are created from nothing, then, given the cost of morality, why not God? The irony is that all this started with a Big Bang!
We interpret this beginning as chaos, when, in fact, for an infinitely small period of time--or for all eternity, for we have no way of knowing--the universe was in its simplest state of being. Everything that followed is chaos--space churning, time unwinding. We are nothing more than a ghostly collection of molecules come together by accident. Given the scale and scope of time and space, our small existence cannot be interpreted any other way. Science, a great invention of human imagination, wants to invert this and say otherwise when, in fact, science itself can exist only by chance. It doesn't matter that we are able to perceive order and rules. How many other universes are there where none of this ever happened? We are an accident, the protest of theists, atheists and deists not withstanding.
Science can not prove or disprove the existence of God. Science and religion are both mutually compatible and incompatible activities and have nothing and everything to do with each other. Dawkins goes beyond a defense of science against religion and attempts to discount all belief in God. Why does Dawkins feel that it is relevant or worthy of so much time? In this capacity he is falsely representing himself as a scientist. As a philosopher, he leaves many questions unanswered. Moreover, he fails to even ask the right questions. The current conflicts over evolution in our society are social issues that will not be resolved by reason. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God, but religion takes it upon itself to be offended, as does Hawkins, conversely or perversely. Dawkins is no different from others who proselytize their religion.
Why do I care? It is the grand fiction of existence. And what fiction reveals for us is our inner nature and how far we are willing to go. As long as there are people, there will be Gods. When there are no more people, it will no longer matter.
Book Review: Thought-provoking Rhetoric
Summary: 4 Stars
I'll try and say some new things about a book that so clearly polarises.
Behind the anti-religious rhetoric Richard Dawkins throughout 'The God Delusion'is actually a powerful advocate for the 'moral force' of science: For Dawkins, science reveals the world and creates good for us in the way of advances in modern medicine, technology and inventions. For the Darwinian Dawkins, the scientific method with its ceaseless emphasis on hypothesis, carefully developed research programs and building theory on the back of independently testable evidence strengthened by peer review shows what comes of an open mind, the power of reason and the willingness to validate ideas by their explanitive power in the real world.
By contrast, as Dawkins sees it, religion is inescapably wedded to the teachings of its holy books, its rituals and intellectual traditions, and its propensity to breed closed minds that self-limit inquiry and filter new worldviews. In other words, in the calculus of creating new ideas and bringing about progress to humankind science wins hands down over religion. I think this is what lies at the heart of 'The God Delusion'. Dawkins is passionate about how scientific investigation reveals and explains the wonders of the natural world, and communicates something of what its explanitive power personally feels like for him. In this I think he is entirely uncontroversial.
As a Darwinist Dawkins evaluates religion from the lens of natural selection and offers naturalistic explanations for the origin of religion. He is entitled to do so as a scientist. However, such an approach does not capture what religion means or is felt to be by believers. For the faithful religion is a subjective experience, a turning and submission to God (or other transcendental concept) infused with the powerful emotions of love and kinship He evokes. From this comes deep devotion - As someone brought up in a religious faith I understand the enculturation and communal sharing that brings this 'rapture' about. And yet, as soon as faith is lost these emotions, this sense of God just as quickly tends to evaporate - something I find truly strange if 'The Creator' really does exist outside ourselves.
In the book Dawkins has made the point that many religious people don't know what it is to explain something: I would go further and say that language plays tricks on many people, particularly among many religious believers, and particularly about what is meant by 'supernatural' which underlays most religious belief.
Believers often say that science can - and should - say nothing about the 'supernatural' because by definition science concerns itself with the natural world. The concept of 'God'- the quintessential example of what is held to be supernatural - is left deliberately vague by believers. They say that His nature cannot be explained because it 'lies beyond human comprehension'. But the term 'supernatural' may as validly be interpreted as a definition that builds a wall against rational enquiry so the 'mystery of the divine' is left intact. Understood this way 'supernatural'is not a coherent idea: It is actually a phenomenological device created to serve the needs of the worldview or ideology of those who use it. Put more simply, it is a way of saying our minds cannot go there and allows the believer to say that God is 'infinitely mysterious'. Proceeding further along this line of thought is the deeper implication that 'God' may be actually defined into existence, and that once defined becomes its own 'reality' in the mind of the faithful - a reality which for them exists independently but difficult to separate from the proposition of God as an external (non mental) entity. Language as a means of communication and device of inquiry is clearly not artificially bounded and is a powerful generator of human experience, emotion, curiosity, reason and skepticism. How can we tell that 'God' is not just a creation of language?
Dawkins makes some obvious points about the Old Testament - its inconsistencies, its all too anthropomorphic God that exhibits all too human - and sometimes pathological traits. He harps on the power of religion to inspire murderous fanaticism. And above all he chides the inherent tendency of religion to create in-groups which have the baleful consequence of cultivating tribal animosities. All of these things thoughtful believers need to confront and accommodate in a wordldview that posits a loving God who cares for humankind - the traditional concern of theodicy.
The fundamentalist believer will be affronted by The God Delusion and will often resort to sophistry and intellectual dishonesty to rebut every positive review of it - something sadly all too evident in the comments you will read in these pages, should you care to check. Such 'anti-reviews' call into question the ethics of their authors and should be a challenge to Amazon in the context of providing value to prospective customers. Returning to TGD, to those who have an open mind, to those who like to have their views challenged and tested I would recommend this book whole-heartedly. As has also been mentioned, the book is engagingly written as well.
Book Review: Rabble Rouser
Summary: 1 Stars
Richard Dawkins dislike of religion does not make an objective book on God possible. I kept notes while reading and had 10 pages of objections before I decided to give it up. He proceeds relentlessly from his preconceived starting point to his predetermined conclusion. His highly selective examples are used in a haphazard manner best suited to his needs. Some are amateurish conjectures, some incoherent misinterpretations, almost all unprofessionally argued.
Science is the study of the behavior of particles in motion. Science is mute on ethics and morals, it only describes one aspect of reality, it doesn't even begin to give us a full description of knowledge.
Dawkins unwisely teaches that the theory of evolution has explained away God's existence. Not even close. So in this book he attempts to give us a sophisticated seminar on godlessness because it is evident religion will not die on it's own accord.
Those who speak of the elimination of religion fail to explain how this elimination is to take place. If atheism saw itself as one religious option among many, there would not be a problem. Atheism, however, has a disturbing tendency to see itself as the only faith. I'm wondering what were suppose to understand by the quote on the inside cover that goes, "If this book doesn't change the world were all screwed." Modern society prizes itself on tolerance and has limited patience with those who demand the elimination of beliefs and or believers.
Dawkin's tell us to not go with the lazy default of gullibility in believing in God, but to live your life as the evidence dictates. That evidence is staring us full in the face in his chapter, "Why there almost certainly is no God." Mathematicians have calculated the odds of a right fit life supporting universe making itself out of random chance and they are astronomical. Dawkins describes just one of them, the strong nuclear force. Had it's value been off one thousands of a degree the universe as we know it would not exist. Multiply scores more similar factors and the theory of evolution is reeling for an explanation. Let's not forget the birth of the universe out of nothing. How does Dawkins handle this damaging indictment against his 'certainty'? Like a defense lawyer.
He "dumbs it down for the jury." He calls the precision numbers the "Goldilocks zone." He paints a picture of God in a lab coat turning dials to fine tune his universe just so, calling God, the 'Divine Knob Twiddler.' Incredible Dawkin's logic tells us the problem in this argument is that an impossibly unlikely universe would require an impossibly complex divine super-intellect one notch beyond impossible. So if an all knowing all powerful supreme being [God] is beyond HIS belief, let's all go with nothing and say 'Zilch' made everything. That's more likely and makes better sense. You can bet your soul on it.
Science has the luxury of not having to be certain or definite of anything. When new ideas surface old ones are discarded. People shouldn't concern themselves with getting ID into the schools but they should lobby to get Darwinism out. It is a religious/philosophy that disqualifies any rival ideas. Any one who objects is accused of making a religious claim because it goes against what Darwinism will allow. Irreducibly complex structures in the cell cannot exist simply because it is outside of what Darwinism teaches. If that's the case then forensics, archaeology, and the search for extraterestial intelligence should all be discontinued as branches of science, because they all rely on discovering patterns that cannot be the result of the natural law of chance.
A few pages after the cosmological anthropic principal blunder I stopped reading. Dawkins goes to a 'mad scientist' theory to help bail him out of the fine tuned universe argument. He searches for a natural selection type of band aid and finds it in the multi-verse. Zillions times zillions of universe edge to edge like soap bubbles in a kitchen sink with us living in the lucky bubble. This theory has zero credibility. But all that is required to stretch your imagination to accept this science fiction is what he calls, "Darwinian conscience raising." I guess physicists feel more comfortable talking about what they can explain and haven't yet quiet caught on to, coins down the well wishful thinking.
Never trade in what you do know for what you don't know. You know there is one universe. You know it had a beginning. You know it had to have a cause. You know it had to have been created for a cause. And by examining the properties of the universe what or who created it must be phenomenal. If anything this book should lead the honest seeker to God, because it is fraught with problems. I recommend, "The reason for God" by Timothy Keller and "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza. Those books have great answers for every hard ball question you can think of. Dawkins is a fine biologist and author but he struggles with a personal bias when it comes to this subject. Keep searching, there is many great books to read, don't let a poor one like this have the final say.
Book Review: Spiritual Wasteland
Summary: 1 Stars
I have a new won respect for journalists after reading The God Delusion. Lee Strobel's books,[Case for a Creator; Case for the Real Jesus; Case For Faith] written from the personal professional integrity of that discipline, makes a glaring difference in the believability on this subject.
Richard Dawkins is popular the same way the biting criticism, cynicism, from Simon of American Idol fame is popular. We are a tabloid loving society. Howard Stern gets paid millions of dollars to, 'not tone it down.' Dawkins goes for the shock and awe, and shock you will get. He gets affirmation from other atheists who prod him on. Like the 5 year old who wins the approval of his 7 year old brother by one day telling mom to, "Shut up."
But does God have for himself another worthy opponent? Dawkins seems to think so judging by the 22 adjective scornful character assassination of God at the start of chapter 2. If you pulled that paragraph out of this book and put it in The Satanic Bible it would be a seamless fit. Just like heavy metal album cover art, all things holy, sacred, noble, and true are profaned.
Richard can explain away your personnel conversion experience by the science of your brain. It works by electrical pulses and chemical reactions. What you see is only the interpretation of what's there. Therefore your brain can't be trusted, but you can trust his. Exactly. That is why The Bible speaks of the unchanging and eternal. It's a necessary spiritual guide, something we are beggars for without. Why did I not find any Bible quotes that weren't so bent out of shape they were not recognizable? You need a plumb line reading this book to know what straight is, or it might even start to make sense.
I thought this was pretty phony. The greatest scientists of yesteryear Newton, Galileo, Kepler, were all religious. Dawkins corrects history by teaching us they believed in God only because they were expected to. They had no other choice. Interesting, he can't bring himself to respect them for their work and discoveries unless he 'deludes' himself into pretending they were closet atheists. As for his scientific peers, the men who hold a belief in God now? "They are looked down upon in baffled amusement." Do you see what I see? In a crowd like that maybe it would be better not to admit to anything. Who needs the grief?
He says belief in God is no different than a belief in the tooth fairy. How many people do you know pour there life energy in trying to prove the non-existence of nothing? I wonder if he's convinced himself yet, or if 8 more books are on the way?
Richard teaches us belief in God stifles the growth of science, stunts the imagination of children,[Richard's parents took him to church where he got a 'splendid imagination'], anchors us in the dark ages, and should be dropped for the betterment of mankind. I wonder if we could test that theory scientifically? Set up an experiment between two groups of people. Atheist and Christians give them a mammoth scientific achievement as a goal, like walk a man on another planet and bring him back safety. And make it a race.
It was called the Apollo program. In the 1960's United States and Russia went head to head in the ultimate scientific, engineering, Olympics of the mind. It was war, a cold war between two ideologies, two world views. The future of mankind no less was at stake.
Russia in 1917 systematically abolished all religion, they banned the Bible and made museums of natural history out of the grander churches. Most though, were flattened, 20,000. It was against the law to own a Bible, the church went underground. They believed if they educated the ignorance out of the people the foolishness and superstition handed down from generation to generation would end. A dangerous leap into uncharted waters. They had a whole generation to tweak the system before their show down with Christian America.
In the United States more than 90 percent of the population believes in a supernatural being. They have a region called the Bible belt. They are unashamedly evangelical and proud of the fact freedom of religion is the core of all freedoms. Dawkins tells us people of faith have lower IQ's are bigoted, hostile, and out of sync with reality. This should have been no contest for the atheists.
Well that challenge was happening 40 years ago. When the lunar program shut down after Russia waved the white flag, the number of men who left their boot prints on the moon was evangelical Christian United States of America 12, Atheistic Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 0.
As for everything else human rights, standard of living, freedom of speech, put it this way. Russia built a wall to keep people in. America couldn't keep them out. Greatest military, greatest scientific achievements by miles. Want more proof? Ask God, cannot the one who made the eyes see? cannot the one who formed the ears hear?
Book Review: Sound Reasoning, but Dawkins is Too Subjective and Lacks Imagination
Summary: 4 Stars
As an agnostic who believes in evolution and the possibility of God, I found the first half of Richard Dawkins book to be an excellent excercise in logical thinking and his refutations against a belief in God impossible to argue against. At first, I found his reasoning disturbingly air-tight (disturbing since I like to believe, as I think most people do, that there is more to existence than this life, and more meaning to existing than natural selection, which is for whatever reason unsatisfying to me). But as I gradually gave in to his arguments and became more skeptical about God, I started to become skeptical about the assertion that there is most definitely no God. Whereas Dawkins skillfully knocks down every argument one could think of for God, he seems frustrated by his inability to disprove God altogether. I will give in to the caveat that God is most definitely a more complex solution to life than natural selection, and is probably a result of natural selection himself . . . but so what? If there can exist a multiverse and collapsing universes of space-time of varying laws of physics, why could there not be an evolved supreme intellect out there, perhaps of infinite complexity that evolved from one of these other universes? And if the laws of physics breaks down beyond our own universe, what is to say that logic and science also does not break down? (Science is, after all, limited to human thought and human senses. How differently might a dog, if it had the brain, describe the universe? Probably as a series of smells.) Perhaps thought and imagination and faith have more substance in these spaces between universes. This isn't, of course, an argument for God, but an argument that atheists such as Richard Dawkins lack imagination when it comes to matters beyond their field of study. (Why must, for example, everything be described in evolutionairy terms? Dawkins views are almost too colored by his expertise.) Humans have been thinking about the mysteries of the universe and coming up with improved theories for ten thousand years, and neither Darwin nor Dawkins have found the ultimate truth. New discoveries will be made that will flip our world view upside down and be as upsetting to Darwinists as Darwin must be to Christians.
The biggest problem I had with this book, however, is in Dawkins' anti-religious tyrade. While I may not be religious myself, I learned long ago, while arguing with a Jehovas' Witness who I nearly made cry, the value of personal belief. Dawkins compares religion to a side-effect of natural selection, like a moth that flies into a candle flame. His dogmatic contempt for religion is clear and belies the clear-headed and non-subjective attitude of a good scientist. In one chapter in particular, Dawkins is confounded by the pan-cultural phenomenon that is religion, but while he shows the ridiculousness of some of the beliefs of people around the world and mirrors that with Christianity, he oversimplifies and downplays the value of religion as nothing but hokum. The Bible, however, served in ancient times as the collection of all human knowledge, covering fields of academia from literature to poetry, history to science. Yes, even science has its roots in religion, and the same need for truth that so passionately drives Dawkins is what also drove early theologians to write the books of the Bible. Dawkins erroneously suggests that religion may have evolved as a symptom of knowledge passing between adults to children, and that children, whose minds are gullible, developed a trait of gullibility and superstition. I find this in error for two reasons: 1) Children are by nature rebellious and usually seek out their own truth, anyone who has a child will tell you this. 2) Dawkins presupposes that religion is rooted in the irrational mind, when this is not the case. A careful study of most ancient religions will find a considerable amount of reasoning behind its teachings, including the passing of moral and pratical lessons. To the ancient Egyptians, for example, it was rational to believe that gods caused the Nile to flood every year, and this knowledge was passed on to help plan for harvests; in this case, though the prime causation was in error, the logic behind the belief was sound. For this reason I postulate an alternate theory for the natural selection of religion, being simply that it was advantageous for humans to pass on genes for imagination, or the ability to see things not as how they are but as how they might be. Imagination helped the first humans make fire, build homes, and dig graves. Religion developed alongside these early discoveries, and early cave drawings can attest to the imagination involved in faith: recombining animals and humans to create god images, and myths about gods also developed. Imagination was a great tool that helped early humans survive; it's what developed into religion and later into science.
Perhaps Dawkins would benefit by putting down his scientific lens and trying to see religion from a different perspective.