Jump to content

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion


Freewheeling Andy

Recommended Posts

So much has been written about this book, I'm not sure that a new review is really needed. But then a lot of the stuff that's been written about The God Delusion is utterly misplaced.

 

A brief precis is that Dawkins, renowned UK Darwinist and atheist has written an atheist's handbook. Many people have read it as if he's trying to convert the religious.

 

But I think that's wrong. The book, as I read it, is more an effort to show that the proofs of god that are usually presented are deeply flawed; that the argument-from-design is, if anything, strong evidence that there isn't a god; that the arguments for religion (even if there is actually no god) are also deeply flawed.

 

The case is made strongly, and not in the usual slightly bolshy tone that Dawkins has when you hear him in debate on the radio. It's measured and sensible, and gives non-believers the tools they should need to survive the common attacks of the various religions who can't believe there are people who don't believe.

 

Only in Chapter 9, on the effects of bringing children up in a particular religion, does Dawkins beging to attack the behaviour of the religious. And he's on pretty strong ground, too.

 

I have a number of criticisms of his arguments - there's way too much of an obsession with Darwinism, I think; both in his suggestions of ways that science can offer the consolations removed by removing religion; and in his arguments for an evolutionary basis for religion - something that is not really necessary.

 

And occasionally the writing is a little self-aggrandising: there's a lot of talk of various eminent friends.

 

But this is a great book, and will hopefully begin to open up avenues for those who don't believe to admit that they don't believe. It is astonishing that in the UK we've never had an atheist prime-minister. It's even more astonishing that there is only one member of the 600-odd strong US senate who claims not to believe. The God Delusion is one step of many to making lack-of-belief as acceptable as belief in the eyes of the public.

 

A word of caution - it's probably not going to be happy reading for the religious, particularly those strongly Christian, where Dawkins has a fun attack on various bits of Old Testament nonsense. But the book isn't really aimed at you. The details of the old Testament stuff are also irrelevent to the broad argument being made - that people pick and choose bits of morality they want from Bible or Koran, and therefore morality even from religious texts is still relative and not absolute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for that Andy. I have started to read this book and have realised that its not a book to pick up and put down without being sure that you know where you got to the last time you picked it up. Phew!!! The reason I started to read it was because I wanted to know what he had to say about the subject and to see how much of it I would agree with . I havent got very far yet, just half way through Chapter 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who a) was brought up Catholic, and :smile2: believes in the evolution, I'm very much looking forward to this book. I just wish I'd find some evening free of everything else...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have started to read this book and have realised that its not a book to pick up and put down without being sure that you know where you got to the last time you picked it up.

 

Too right, Supergran71. I did this, and ended up having to put it to one side because I kept losing track. I will pick it up again some time though.

 

Great review, Andy. :smile2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I enjoy Dawkins, but as far as atheistic books go, I don't think his is one of the strongest in the field. I think it receives so much attention because it is quite polemic. I would recommend it for anyone questioning religion, but I maybe wouldn't recommend it to be the first book that they read. I feel that he does rely heavily on Darwinism to refute theism, which is his specialty so I don't blame him. I really like his book The Greatest Show on Earth though. My favorite atheistic book is Why I Became an Atheist by John Loftus. Loftus is a former minister and a theologian. Because he has been on both sides of the fence, his arguments just seemed a bit more well-rounded to me because he knows how Christians think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an ex Anglican Priest; this is an area I have plenty of opinions on! I agree Dawkins is fairly polemical and I prefer "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. The debate will continue and never end because we can never really be absolutely certain one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this recently and really enjoyed it. I was expecting a conceited argument from an arrogant professor, but in fact it was very measured. I suppose it helps that I'm an atheist as well, so I found myself agreeing with the majority of what Dawkins says.

 

And it's true what has been said; the arguments run on from one another so it's best to read it fairly quickly. I managed to get through it in just a few days, which is very quick for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book has really good historical facts and logic. I just don't like the stance of the book. It's almost like military propaganda or something, trying to round up all the people who are not religious. Every one knows his point after that one book and he continues to push it. I know he's trying to enlighten people but he's also making himself into a bit of a commodity. I really loved Stephen Frys talk at the debate on the Catholic church.

 

What annoyed me was that he kept pointing out the fact that "atheism" is a label and you shouldn't do that, you should just be religious or not religious. There are so many arguments out there with atheism vs creationism etc, I just barely understand it anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this book when it first came out and have to say that I was quite surprised to find myself agreeing with a lot of what he had to say, especially when he says there is no such thing as a Jewish, Christian or whatever child, but rather a child of Jewish etc parents. Most of the arguments are fairly persuasive I have to say, and I definately agree that religion is not necessary to make one a moral person.

 

There is one point however on which I do disagree with him - and that is that he seems to make the assumption that you have to be religious to believe in God - you do not as I am not religious and I believe in God - not the fire and brimstone one espoused by certain religions, but the God that lives in and is part of us, and for that matter everything that permeates the universe (as I understand and experience it anyway). This God does not judge us on the basis of what we do or not do, and expects nothing from us whatsoever (and certainly not that he or she be worshipped for that is borne from ego which is a human trait), other than that we come to know and fully experience who we are. You do not have to be religious to believe in this kind of God, but you do have to be spiritual. There is a world of difference between religion and spirituality and this from my observations is something that Dawkins fails to understand. This is a shame as spirit and science can and should be fully compatible. Mystics have been aware of the so called God particle for eons, albiet under a different name.

Edited by Talisman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...