Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

Richard Dawkins

The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins' arguments against religion are well known. The God Delusion is a collection of such arguments, with answers to many of his critics. Some people object to Dawkins' stance on religion, but he rejects the idea that arguing about religion is OK as long as you keep away from a list of taboos which you are not allowed to mention - this is strictly no-holds-barred. Thus he shows how horrible the message from religious scriptures would be if you took it all seriously, as well as speculating on how religious belief could have originated in the first place.

Dawkins claims that the book is an argument against religion in general, but I found that actually his arguments were chiefly against its more irrational forms. Arguments against those with more moderate beliefs seemed weak to me - the only one of substance being the effective support they give to the more extreme proponents. So if you are an atheist then you probably enjoy Dawkins arguments, but I feel that it is probably more important for those of you of a religious frame of mind to read it, to check whether you really identify yourself with the more ridiculous things done in the name of religion.

Amazon.com info

Hardcover 416 pages
ISBN: 0618680004
Salesrank: 3924
Weight:1.4 lbs

Published: 2006 Houghton Mifflin

Amazon price $14.79

Marketplace:New from $9.00:Used from $4.13

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Hardcover 416 pages
ISBN: 0593055489
Salesrank: 4651
Weight:1.46 lbs

Published: 2006 Bantam Press

Amazon price £14.00

Marketplace:New from £9.99:Used from £4.84

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Hardcover 416 pages
ISBN: 0618680004
Salesrank: 5527
Weight:1.4 lbs

Published: 2006 Houghton Mifflin

Amazon price CDN$ 18.87

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 17.30:Used from CDN$ 16.04

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
A preeminent scientist -- and the world's most prominent atheist -- asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11. With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe's wonders than any faith could ever muster.

Product Description

A preeminent scientist -- and the world's most prominent atheist -- asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.

With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe's wonders than any faith could ever muster.

Rising Slowly from the Deep to Prevent the Bends *****
As a former Catholic Christian fundamentalist, Richard Dawkins book has aided me immensely in removing the "immoveable, unchangeable" blocks to reason and truth. Especially helpful are the sections treating "natural selection". I could see the light as I gradually floated upward toward the oxygen I needed to recover from the abuse I suffered about eternal damnation, fear, and "suffering is good". Regardless of the outcome, I can encourage others who have suffered the same, to let his book speak to you. "the truth shall make you free". Also recommend Christopher Hitchens - "god is not great".

Rising Slowly from the Deep to Prevent the Bends *****

As a former Catholic Christian fundamentalist, Richard Dawkins book has aided me immensely in removing the "immoveable, unchangeable" blocks to reason and truth. Especially helpful are the sections treating "natural selection". I could see the light as I gradually floated upward toward the oxygen I needed to recover from the abuse I suffered about eternal damnation, fear, and "suffering is good". Regardless of the outcome, I can encourage others who have suffered the same, to let his book speak to you. "the truth shall make you free". Also recommend Christopher Hitchens - "god is not great".

An Essential Read *****
The God Delusion is a book that really ought to be read by open-minded people of faith. My favorite point in the book is the idea that having two views, God(s) and no God(s), doesn't mean we have a 50/50 toss-up. As far as any kind of a "call-to-arms" goes for secularism I'm still on the fence. I'm convinced that pure fundamentalism is terrible, and that we really need to keep "Intelligent" Design out of public schools, but I attend a more moderate church with my family and I see no real dangerous delusion, just some intellectual inconsistencies. I don't believe that there isn't a god, I'm CONVINCED there isn't one, (a subtle difference.) I put it like that for personal reasons which I think anyone who reads this book will understand. In the end religion is going to be around for a long time. Maybe forever as someone like Chomsky or Hitchens would argue. Atheism/secularism may be loosing the masses of the layman but I don't think this is true with the masses of higher education and people who really enjoying asking the tough questions. Read this book. Sit down with your friends, and yes your family too, and have a civilized conversation about Dawkins brilliant collection of ideas. It's awkward and tense at first, but you'll find that as you argue your viewpoint you'll learn more about yourself and what you believe. I don't think we have enough of that these days...let's shake up the boat. Wouldn't it be nice if all disagreements were expressed over coffee and book swapping?

An Essential Read *****

The God Delusion is a book that really ought to be read by open-minded people of faith. My favorite point in the book is the idea that having two views, God(s) and no God(s), doesn't mean we have a 50/50 toss-up.

As far as any kind of a "call-to-arms" goes for secularism I'm still on the fence. I'm convinced that pure fundamentalism is terrible, and that we really need to keep "Intelligent" Design out of public schools, but I attend a more moderate church with my family and I see no real dangerous delusion, just some intellectual inconsistencies.

I don't believe that there isn't a god, I'm CONVINCED there isn't one, (a subtle difference.) I put it like that for personal reasons which I think anyone who reads this book will understand.

In the end religion is going to be around for a long time. Maybe forever as someone like Chomsky or Hitchens would argue. Atheism/secularism may be loosing the masses of the layman but I don't think this is true with the masses of higher education and people who really enjoying asking the tough questions.

Read this book. Sit down with your friends, and yes your family too, and have a civilized conversation about Dawkins brilliant collection of ideas. It's awkward and tense at first, but you'll find that as you argue your viewpoint you'll learn more about yourself and what you believe. I don't think we have enough of that these days...let's shake up the boat.

Wouldn't it be nice if all disagreements were expressed over coffee and book swapping?

Fairminded and Convincing *****
Though he has received highly virulent criticism for his books and opinions, (I think) Dawkins does a remarkably fair job of presenting his views on religion and god(s). It is simply a result of the fact that the issue itself causes a great deal of argument and disagreement that it can be difficult to discuss. Dawkins, however, does a wonderful job in being non-offensive in his remarks - if the evidence requires it, sometimes one cannot avoid being rather blunt in showing it. If anyone actually takes the time to understand/read his work, one can clearly find a well-reasoned and thoroughly researched argument. Indeed, in this book, Dawkins continues to present the case in such a way that I am constantly amazed that anyone can presist in disbelieving in evolution. I find, more often than not, that Dawkins has the ability to present evidence, logic, and (quite simply) common sense in ways that make me say, "yes! that is exactly how I feel!"

Fairminded and Convincing *****

Though he has received highly virulent criticism for his books and opinions, (I think) Dawkins does a remarkably fair job of presenting his views on religion and god(s). It is simply a result of the fact that the issue itself causes a great deal of argument and disagreement that it can be difficult to discuss. Dawkins, however, does a wonderful job in being non-offensive in his remarks - if the evidence requires it, sometimes one cannot avoid being rather blunt in showing it.

If anyone actually takes the time to understand/read his work, one can clearly find a well-reasoned and thoroughly researched argument. Indeed, in this book, Dawkins continues to present the case in such a way that I am constantly amazed that anyone can presist in disbelieving in evolution.

I find, more often than not, that Dawkins has the ability to present evidence, logic, and (quite simply) common sense in ways that make me say, "yes! that is exactly how I feel!"

Good book, but not that deep. ****
If you are an atheist this is a good book for you, but Richard does not really try to convince us that there is no God, his arguments are of a different kind. I was an atheist and I can understand Richard, but there is a higher place from atheism which pictures "God" in a different light than the classical one (bible). The progression is like this: God (bible) -> no God (atheism) -> new God (revelation) The book was a page turner at some points, in average about 100 pages were the good part. Sometimes I found it rather boring. A good book in average, but not what I expected, his aim was more to point out the flaws in religion (good arguments) than to prove that there is no God, purpose, etc.

Good book, but not that deep. ****

If you are an atheist this is a good book for you, but Richard does not really try to convince us that there is no God, his arguments are of a different kind.

I was an atheist and I can understand Richard, but there is a higher place from atheism which pictures "God" in a different light than the classical one (bible). The progression is like this: God (bible) -> no God (atheism) -> new God (revelation)

The book was a page turner at some points, in average about 100 pages were the good part. Sometimes I found it rather boring.

A good book in average, but not what I expected, his aim was more to point out the flaws in religion (good arguments) than to prove that there is no God, purpose, etc.

Live and let Live No More *****
Now in my late 40's, I grew up quite literally in the shadow of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK--the epicenter of American Evangelicals. My Mother was Roman Catholic and my father Southern Baptist. It's taken many years and Herculean effort to escape such an auspicious orbit. And I thought I had long escaped. I eventually settled into a live-and-let-live, middle-of-the-road agnosticism. Then I read this book. And I realized that that passive acceptance, that "live and let live" approach to American Fundamentalist Christianity I'd held, was itself dangerous. By not openly refuting something so blatantly ignorant and destructive, I was passively contributing to it. I now realize this to be clearly true and I thank the author for this powerful distinction. Especially as I reflected back on my own religious indoctrination, as a very young child, I desperately needed even a wink from a wise soul, as if to say, "Don't worry son, the smart ones don't actually drink the kool-aid." Only after reading this book, I realized, I had to start standing up for what I believe in. And especially, for what I don't believe in. Those schooled reviewers who criticize Dawkins as being too hard on religion or especially personal spirituality are still missing the point. If you believe in anything other than a Fundamentalist, Literalistic interpretation of religious texts, you are abjectly hypocritical. If forced to accept your own believes literally, you would abandon them. Moreover, by accepting them as being divine but also vague, you accept that any interpretation is acceptable--it's a personal choice (and yet, a divine overarching truth). You might then say, those choices, however, have limitations--say laws to prevent inspired apostles applying their personal interpretation as to fly planes into tall buildings. But then you're saying religious texts are superseded by laws, composed by sober societies. So your religious ideal is now relegated to a very vague, still divine, but not proscriptive idea, which you're entitled to because it makes you feel good. Like smoking pot. And yet, indulging even privately in that inebriant is illegal. I highly recommend reading this book in corroboration with Letters to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and Misquoting Jesus by Epstein. This book is important. If you love religion, read it. You've nothing to fear. Right?

Live and let Live No More *****

Now in my late 40's, I grew up quite literally in the shadow of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK--the epicenter of American Evangelicals. My Mother was Roman Catholic and my father Southern Baptist. It's taken many years and Herculean effort to escape such an auspicious orbit. And I thought I had long escaped. I eventually settled into a live-and-let-live, middle-of-the-road agnosticism.

Then I read this book. And I realized that that passive acceptance, that "live and let live" approach to American Fundamentalist Christianity I'd held, was itself dangerous. By not openly refuting something so blatantly ignorant and destructive, I was passively contributing to it. I now realize this to be clearly true and I thank the author for this powerful distinction. Especially as I reflected back on my own religious indoctrination, as a very young child, I desperately needed even a wink from a wise soul, as if to say, "Don't worry son, the smart ones don't actually drink the kool-aid." Only after reading this book, I realized, I had to start standing up for what I believe in. And especially, for what I don't believe in.

Those schooled reviewers who criticize Dawkins as being too hard on religion or especially personal spirituality are still missing the point. If you believe in anything other than a Fundamentalist, Literalistic interpretation of religious texts, you are abjectly hypocritical. If forced to accept your own believes literally, you would abandon them. Moreover, by accepting them as being divine but also vague, you accept that any interpretation is acceptable--it's a personal choice (and yet, a divine overarching truth). You might then say, those choices, however, have limitations--say laws to prevent inspired apostles applying their personal interpretation as to fly planes into tall buildings. But then you're saying religious texts are superseded by laws, composed by sober societies. So your religious ideal is now relegated to a very vague, still divine, but not proscriptive idea, which you're entitled to because it makes you feel good. Like smoking pot. And yet, indulging even privately in that inebriant is illegal.

I highly recommend reading this book in corroboration with Letters to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and Misquoting Jesus by Epstein.

This book is important. If you love religion, read it. You've nothing to fear. Right?

A very intelligent man...so why doesn't he do a bit more reading? *****
Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man, that much is evident. A professor at Oxford, prolific author, witty and knowledgeable. So why doesn't he actually do some wider reading so that he can accurately report on issues of religion, Christian theology etc. I'm not a scientist, but if I were going to write a piece on science then I would at least read something BY scientists and not ABOUT them, on what they actually think and not what someone has told me they think. Whatever Richard Dawkins is as a scientist I distrust him completely as an accurate reporter of Christian theology. A first-year theology student or informed layperson will simply not recognise the crude characterisations of Christian theology that are painted by Prof. Dawkins. How can someone who is looked up to by so many as a well-informed commentator be so very ignorant of some very basic and accessible issues of what is believed by so many Christians. One has to conclude that Richard Dawkins writes this way because it serves his purpose in the polemical debates. At times, this book descends to the level of fundamentalist rant. It is so sad that someone of Professor Dawkins' standing has resorted to the level of debate enjoyed by those religious fundamentalists' he so despises. For analyses that are just as witty and insightful, but far fairer, try the late Carl Sagan. Other fascinating and stimulating reads are those works on science and religion by people who, unlike Richard Dawkins, are conversant and competent on both eg Prof. Sir John Polkinghorne or Prof. Alister McGrath .

A very intelligent man...so why doesn't he do a bit more reading? *****

Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man, that much is evident. A professor at Oxford, prolific author, witty and knowledgeable. So why doesn't he actually do some wider reading so that he can accurately report on issues of religion, Christian theology etc. I'm not a scientist, but if I were going to write a piece on science then I would at least read something BY scientists and not ABOUT them, on what they actually think and not what someone has told me they think. Whatever Richard Dawkins is as a scientist I distrust him completely as an accurate reporter of Christian theology. A first-year theology student or informed layperson will simply not recognise the crude characterisations of Christian theology that are painted by Prof. Dawkins. How can someone who is looked up to by so many as a well-informed commentator be so very ignorant of some very basic and accessible issues of what is believed by so many Christians. One has to conclude that Richard Dawkins writes this way because it serves his purpose in the polemical debates. At times, this book descends to the level of fundamentalist rant. It is so sad that someone of Professor Dawkins' standing has resorted to the level of debate enjoyed by those religious fundamentalists' he so despises. For analyses that are just as witty and insightful, but far fairer, try the late Carl Sagan. Other fascinating and stimulating reads are those works on science and religion by people who, unlike Richard Dawkins, are conversant and competent on both eg Prof. Sir John Polkinghorne or Prof. Alister McGrath .

Very tenous argument...uter drivel *
I bought this book with high hopes of reading strong and convincing arguments against the idea of there being a supreme being. I'm no religious person and have my doubts that there is a god but this book is soooooo boring, disjointed, repetitive and clogged with very weak and almost ridiculous arguments and analogies. c'mon prof dawkins, u cud hav done better! total waste of money...i cud have written a better book on the subject!

Very tenous argument...uter drivel *

I bought this book with high hopes of reading strong and convincing arguments against the idea of there being a supreme being. I'm no religious person and have my doubts that there is a god but this book is soooooo boring, disjointed, repetitive and clogged with very weak and almost ridiculous arguments and analogies. c'mon prof dawkins, u cud hav done better!

total waste of money...i cud have written a better book on the subject!

Too much pretentious waffle and French... **
I love to read and always planned on having this book on my shelf. The subject of atheism fascinates me. However, upon trying this work, I found it long-winded, pretentious, boring, superfluous, self-congratulatory and completely uninspired. I know reading some of the reviews on here, that people will think me narrow minded and uneducated for saying such things. But such is life. My only use for this piffle is for getting an early night in. My apologies Dawkins fans - I think the author was more intent on showing off for the 'hierarchal parasites', rather than expressing his points of view in a manner which is entertaining for all. Big mistake. This book received mass coverage because the news reports nothing but dross. Had this book been placed on a shelf and left for the people to recommend to others, I doubt it would have sold at all. Thanks.

Too much pretentious waffle and French... **

I love to read and always planned on having this book on my shelf. The subject of atheism fascinates me. However, upon trying this work, I found it long-winded, pretentious, boring, superfluous, self-congratulatory and completely uninspired. I know reading some of the reviews on here, that people will think me narrow minded and uneducated for saying such things. But such is life. My only use for this piffle is for getting an early night in.
My apologies Dawkins fans - I think the author was more intent on showing off for the 'hierarchal parasites', rather than expressing his points of view in a manner which is entertaining for all. Big mistake. This book received mass coverage because the news reports nothing but dross. Had this book been placed on a shelf and left for the people to recommend to others, I doubt it would have sold at all. Thanks.

Mostly Froth **
I read this book because I am a Christian and I wanted to challenge my faith and see whether it could stand up to the arguments of one of the most well known advocates of atheism. I did enjoy the sections on science in which Dawkins has a clear expertise, but I was unimpressed by the majority of his arguments against religion. The manner in which he delivers his arguments is so emotive that he lacks the objectivity that characterises serious intellectual argument. He is emotionally involved with the topic to the point of enjoying quoting people insulting religion. At times he comes across as an unpleasant mocking character. He also uses religious extremists to illustrate his points that are far from representative of what most religious people think. His arguments are highly selective of the evidence and hardly approach a systematic or rigorous treatment of the subject. I have the feeling that he is being deliberately sensationalist in order to sell more books that seems to be the primary reason for its publication. I started the book as a believer and finished it as a believer.

Mostly Froth **

I read this book because I am a Christian and I wanted to challenge my faith and see whether it could stand up to the arguments of one of the most well known advocates of atheism. I did enjoy the sections on science in which Dawkins has a clear expertise, but I was unimpressed by the majority of his arguments against religion. The manner in which he delivers his arguments is so emotive that he lacks the objectivity that characterises serious intellectual argument. He is emotionally involved with the topic to the point of enjoying quoting people insulting religion. At times he comes across as an unpleasant mocking character. He also uses religious extremists to illustrate his points that are far from representative of what most religious people think. His arguments are highly selective of the evidence and hardly approach a systematic or rigorous treatment of the subject. I have the feeling that he is being deliberately sensationalist in order to sell more books that seems to be the primary reason for its publication. I started the book as a believer and finished it as a believer.

Dawkins' Great Mistake ***
Dawkins title lets us believe that he will show that the idea of "God" is a delusion. The book, however, is about religion and religious anachronisms. It is a bit like banging the baby's crib: no one in his right mind, not even theologists, would deny many of the quite superficial arguments or obvious facts Dawkins comes up with. Most religions were born thousands of years ago and - necessarily - mix religious notions with superstition and simpleminded reasonings in order to go down well with the tribes or masses that needed social discipline in the form of dogma. But Dawkins does not do much to convince that there is no "God". To the contrary, after reading the book one has the feeling that the auther actually believes there is "something" but is trying to shout it down with "scientific" arguments because the idea gives him the creeps. Still, interesting enough for three stars.

Dawkins' Great Mistake ***

Dawkins title lets us believe that he will show that the idea of "God" is a delusion. The book, however, is about religion and religious anachronisms. It is a bit like banging the baby's crib: no one in his right mind, not even theologists, would deny many of the quite superficial arguments or obvious facts Dawkins comes up with. Most religions were born thousands of years ago and - necessarily - mix religious notions with superstition and simpleminded reasonings in order to go down well with the tribes or masses that needed social discipline in the form of dogma.
But Dawkins does not do much to convince that there is no "God". To the contrary, after reading the book one has the feeling that the auther actually believes there is "something" but is trying to shout it down with "scientific" arguments because the idea gives him the creeps.
Still, interesting enough for three stars.

An interesting read ***
As a person of faith, i did find this book interesting to read and i would encourage other believers to do the same. (i'm sure that most people who follow a religion or believe in a God will not) It's always important to hear other peoples ideas when they are different from yours and also question your own beliefs in the process. Dawkins has some interesting points on morality, how the universe was created, and the affect that religion has on society and children. I guess when your a scientist, there has to be some proof or validity to claims that their is a God and i guess faith just doesnt cut it. I contemplated giving this book 4 stars. For me, I wanted to be convinced that Atheism was a stronger position to have than having a belief in a creator. I still believe that their is a creator of the universe. Atheist will say that if God created the universe, then who created God? Maybe a being that created the universe and the understanding of what a God is is too hard for our minds to comprehend. And the debate continues........

An interesting read ***

As a person of faith, i did find this book interesting to read and i would encourage other believers to do the same. (i'm sure that most people who follow a religion or believe in a God will not) It's always important to hear other peoples ideas when they are different from yours and also question your own beliefs in the process. Dawkins has some interesting points on morality, how the universe was created, and the affect that religion has on society and children. I guess when your a scientist, there has to be some proof or validity to claims that their is a God and i guess faith just doesnt cut it. I contemplated giving this book 4 stars. For me, I wanted to be convinced that Atheism was a stronger position to have than having a belief in a creator. I still believe that their is a creator of the universe. Atheist will say that if God created the universe, then who created God? Maybe a being that created the universe and the understanding of what a God is is too hard for our minds to comprehend. And the debate continues........

The Probability that Life Evolved by Random Chance is Zero *
If it's 99% certain that an organism will survive after each single mutation, then the probability that it will survive just the first one thousand mutations is (0.99)^1000 = 0.000043 or about one in twenty-five thousand. Scientists like Dawkins know that the odds of a complex molecule like RNA just spontaneously coming into existence is astronomically low so they try to get around the improbability of this by saying that there are countless billions of planets in the universe and earth just happens to be one where pure random chance created our complex ecosystem. Other scientists say that in order for random chance to have created the right combination of physical laws that exist here on earth for sustaining life there would actually need to be an infinite number of universes to produce one planet with just the right combination of laws. --- "There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe `fine-tuned' for our existence." "'It's not a testable idea,' says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University. Because the different universes would not be detectable by one another, he says, 'You can't really prove it exists or doesn't exist.' When you talk about multiple universes, Steinhardt says, you're not talking about science anymore. 'In my view, you're into metaphysics.'" http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/dest_pb_test.html

The Probability that Life Evolved by Random Chance is Zero *

If it's 99% certain that an organism will survive after each single mutation, then the probability that it will survive just the first one thousand mutations is (0.99)^1000 = 0.000043 or about one in twenty-five thousand. Scientists like Dawkins know that the odds of a complex molecule like RNA just spontaneously coming into existence is astronomically low so they try to get around the improbability of this by saying that there are countless billions of planets in the universe and earth just happens to be one where pure random chance created our complex ecosystem. Other scientists say that in order for random chance to have created the right combination of physical laws that exist here on earth for sustaining life there would actually need to be an infinite number of universes to produce one planet with just the right combination of laws.

---

"There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe `fine-tuned' for our existence."

"'It's not a testable idea,' says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University. Because the different universes would not be detectable by one another, he says, 'You can't really prove it exists or doesn't exist.' When you talk about multiple universes, Steinhardt says, you're not talking about science anymore. 'In my view, you're into metaphysics.'"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/dest_pb_test.html

A Little Strident ****
Dawkins has written a thought provoking and well thought out challenge to religious views. The assembled references and the quoted material are excellent and will drive the reader out to find the referred to works. My only problem with the book is that its tone of denigration and scorn in some areas is annoying and detracts from the point. Why criticise the evangelical tone of the religious in a similar tone. It is unnecessary. The humour can be quite good and I believe is the best weapon against the more humourless religions but again the tone detracts. You do not need a shotgun to deal with the mouse in your kitchen. Or, as Dawkins would no doubt state, do you.

A Little Strident ****

Dawkins has written a thought provoking and well thought out challenge to religious views. The assembled references and the quoted material are excellent and will drive the reader out to find the referred to works.

My only problem with the book is that its tone of denigration and scorn in some areas is annoying and detracts from the point. Why criticise the evangelical tone of the religious in a similar tone. It is unnecessary.

The humour can be quite good and I believe is the best weapon against the more humourless religions but again the tone detracts.

You do not need a shotgun to deal with the mouse in your kitchen. Or, as Dawkins would no doubt state, do you.

Old Whine - New Bottle *
Big hairy deal for Dawkins or is that Darwin? His organization of facile scientifically predicated arguments for the "no God" viewpoint is merely the latest reconstituted philosophical argument for us "moderns" now drawing breath in the 21st century (the vast majority born since the beginning of the last century) and for which ever increasingly do not take Philosophy courses [elective?] in post-secondary schools. His vectored arguments in trying to navigate the currents of complex human psychology and his criticisms of the role capital R - Religions assume in creating a world of turmoil seems to try and engender the same kind of Guilt in religious devotees that he criticizes religion for in the first place. And so it goes. Another spin of the wheel....another circle within a circle. Religious thoughts and beliefs in ALL religions have as their ultimate goal to GET OFF THE WHEEL - of life and death - and are matters of faith impervious to scientific rationalism as presented by any and all Darwins no matter the age. Psych 101 curriculum...Delusions...been there, took that. Spiritual convictions that transcend matter even when encapsulated in the human condition of organizing into "Religion" are always a matter of faith. No argument that the subject of religion as INTERPRETATION of enlightened teachings causes oceans of bloodshed throughout human history - but that is the interpreters problem not the teachers. There's more to meaning than the construction of letters into words. If you want a MUCH better read from a similar "scientific" perspective on the spiritual (God) try: E.F. Schumachers brilliant "A Guide for the Perplexed." By extension of Dawkins soon to be period piece, consider that Science is yet to adequately explain how or why electrons go around a nucleus in the atom...and that in the final analysis they do so because they WANT to. The WANT is the issue and (contrary to Dawkin's position) doesn't deny the underlying fact.

Old Whine - New Bottle *

Big hairy deal for Dawkins or is that Darwin? His organization of facile scientifically predicated arguments for the "no God" viewpoint is merely the latest reconstituted philosophical argument for us "moderns" now drawing breath in the 21st century (the vast majority born since the beginning of the last century) and for which ever increasingly do not take Philosophy courses [elective?] in post-secondary schools. His vectored arguments in trying to navigate the currents of complex human psychology and his criticisms of the role capital R - Religions assume in creating a world of turmoil seems to try and engender the same kind of Guilt in religious devotees that he criticizes religion for in the first place. And so it goes. Another spin of the wheel....another circle within a circle. Religious thoughts and beliefs in ALL religions have as their ultimate goal to GET OFF THE WHEEL - of life and death - and are matters of faith impervious to scientific rationalism as presented by any and all Darwins no matter the age. Psych 101 curriculum...Delusions...been there, took that. Spiritual convictions that transcend matter even when encapsulated in the human condition of organizing into "Religion" are always a matter of faith. No argument that the subject of religion as INTERPRETATION of enlightened teachings causes oceans of bloodshed throughout human history - but that is the interpreters problem not the teachers. There's more to meaning than the construction of letters into words. If you want a MUCH better read from a similar "scientific" perspective on the spiritual (God) try: E.F. Schumachers brilliant "A Guide for the Perplexed." By extension of Dawkins soon to be period piece, consider that Science is yet to adequately explain how or why electrons go around a nucleus in the atom...and that in the final analysis they do so because they WANT to. The WANT is the issue and (contrary to Dawkin's position) doesn't deny the underlying fact.

Outstanding *****
An outstanding and thought provoking missive. Dawkins is typically thorough and scientific in his approach, covering all the major counter-arguments to his position.

Outstanding *****

An outstanding and thought provoking missive. Dawkins is typically thorough and scientific in his approach, covering all the major counter-arguments to his position.