The God Delusion Paperback – 21 May 2007

Brilliant book, Witty, engaging, critical and backed by evidence.

Loved this book, one of my best.

An excellent book, very well-written and thoughtfully argued. Stimulating and challenging - at times scathing - but something which definitely propels one to delve deeper into the reasons for belief - or indeed lack of them.Dawkins' central thesis seems to be that the evolutionary process of natural selection, as propounded by Darwin and bolstered by the amalgamation of much subsequent indicatory evidence, provides a viable and real alternative to the "God Hypothesis" - indeed it blows it out of the water. But, why then - if blatantly false - is religion so ubiquitous? Evoking theories of evolutionary psychology and the human need for consolation and meaning (as well as the scientific ignorance of our ancestors), Dawkins explains the popularity of religion in purely secular terms.But what, then, about morality? How can we derive our principles of right and wrong if not from an absolute source of incontrovertible authority (God / revelation)? Again Dawkins responds by explaining how the roots of morality have Darwinian origins and includes a chapter on how the moral lessons of traditional religion (quoting biblical scripture, although I suspect his treatment of the Quran or other sacred texts would be equally unsympathetic) are not that endearing anyway. Why be so hostile though - isn't religion a good thing, a quaint yet harmless cultural phenomenon? Well no, look at the fundamentalists, terrorists, homophobes and other fanatics being spawned by the religious project in increasingly large numbers. Dawkins is unequivocal: religion is dangerous and we need to protect ourselves from it.So what's the solution, what do we do? Simple, answers Richard with customary gusto: take a strong dose of courage followed by an even stronger one of rationalism, then cast off these restrictive fetters we've inherited from childhood. Grow up, for God's sake (no pun intended), and breathe the fresh, fragrant air of twenty first century scientific freedom! Our experiments have revealed, after all, that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden.This, in a nutshell, is a synopsis of the book and something, I must say, I found to be an exhilarating read. I approached the book with an open mind, determined not to allow the predilections of my preconceptions taint my appreciation of his arguments, and was sufficiently enthused to write directly to the author (I await his response). It's always refreshing to have your beliefs challenged, and Dawkins is an expert at doing that. He also has a brilliant knack of reducing complex scientific content down to digestible chunks (peppered with generous offerings of very entertaining humour), and this adds considerably to the readability value of the text. It's not for nothing that Dawkins was the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, demonstrating his ability to explain - in simple terms - science to the layperson. Also worth pointing out is one of the key benefits of the book in the way in which it collates into a single place so many of the classic as well as modern arguments for belief versus disbelief, making it into a cutting-edge handbook for reference.So what of the key questions the text raises? How can people of faith come to terms with the structured and forceful arguments outlined above? Can we marry faith with modern twenty first century scientific rationalism or are the two fundamentally incompatible, consigned to follow paths of mutually irreconcilable divergence?I, for one, remain content with my faith as a Muslim after reading Dawkins' book. Although appreciating the validity of many of his arguments, and recognising the negative impact that extreme religion can have, I'm not convinced entirely by the argument for blind and random evolution. Too many holes exist for my liking, and a "leap of faith" is required similar to what the religious person must commit to. I also found his section on the "anthropic principle" to be singularly unconvincing. Cosmology and the origin of life is something science is still stabbing in the dark at (although Dawkins says he has "faith" the answer will be found as the discoveries of science continue). I choose to have faith that the answer has been given to us, whilst fully respecting those who choose to disagree. Ultimately, it's the personal prerogative of each individual to forge an understanding of existence unique to them, whether buttressed by an accepted world-view or not. Dawkins challenges and stimulates us into believing that there is nothing outside of ourselves - we are the sum and substance of billions of years of chance occurrences and all supra-natural entities our ancestors believed in are nothing but the fictions of human imagination. What we choose to believe, though, is our individual and independent choice.

Great book for those looking into general theology, theism and atheism. Dawkins raises a number of great points such as contradictions in the ancient religious texts (he doesn't discriminate against a specific religion either) and endless interpretations of various verses.I won't spoil it for anyone, but it definitely makes you start thinking about the idea of a personal diety more and how humans got to where we are in the first place.

Firstly, a salute to Richard Dawkins for his bravery: For walking into the lions' den and challenging the big cats of faith, much more openly than Salman Rushdie did with The Satanic Verses. But if Dawkins is ever martyred for the cause of atheism, as with the jihadists and crusaders he repudiates, there won't be 72 virgins waiting for him on the other side (who makes that rubbish up, anyway?). The difference is, he knows it, and judging by his affirmations is no mood to trip this mortal coil just yet.Through the pages of his book Professor Dawkins examines and demolishes the central tenets of religion and faith using logic, science and, at one point, rhetoric. He takes apart arguments such as "have faith", "the Holy Book says so" and the latest desperate refuge, Intelligent Design, systematically and meticulously.Of course, for this particular constituent of his audience he was, if he'll forgive the expression, preaching to the choir, and I fear that his ambition of converting the superstitious hordes to what I'd prefer to call Rationality are to be disappointed. But then he is probably under no illusions in that respect, despite his hopes. Professor Dawkins comes over as a frightfully realistic man.Mostly the arguments are well-presented, if sometimes familiar to someone who has already determined that a considerable part of his upbringing was based on a blindingly inconsistent set of fictions. He brings out the very clear general dichotomy between the Old Testament retributive God and the New Testament reconciliatory God; the rather odd self-sacrifice by a man who may or not be God-incarnate, God's son, both or neither, in reparation for an Original Sin that even some of the faithful now rather oddly accept as allegory; the immoral actions of some of the various "heroes" - Abraham, Jeremiah, Jephthah (child abuse, ethnic cleansing, child murder and ethnic cleansing) and so on - whose behaviour I seem to remember being taught as laudable in Sunday School because they were obeying God (or maybe only following orders?). As Dawkins observes, we don't need religion to give us a moral compass.I didn't always agree with some up the implications. Religion is not always a force for bad. Many birdwatchers will testify to the contribution hunting makes to preserving game birds such as the black grouse, despite reservations about hunting itself. So it is with the role of religious institutions in promoting learning (the early universities), preserving literature (the library at Alexandria), and opposition to tyranny (the liberation theologists of Latin America). But just as hunting has also had its dark side (the persecution of birds of prey), so religion has suppressed learning (Galileo et al), destroyed literature (the library at Alexandria) and been tyrannical in its own right (the Inquisition). Ironically, one of Dawkins's detractors, "religious scholar" Tobias Jones, in a newspaper article well after the book's publication, accused Dawkins himself of totalitarianism; had Jones actually read the book, he would have seen the rebuff to that accusation. What is missing from Jones's accusations, as with any of those of his ilk, is a coherent defence of religion; in fact, not even an incoherent one. He and many like him make Dawkins's case for him.Some conclusions for prospective readers: Atheists will find some comfort in knowing that there is someone patient enough to produce an intelligent book promoting atheism (here is not the place to discuss the inadequacy of the term). Agnostics may find themselves shifting away from the comfortable middle ground and actually making up their minds about something. Semi-believers may move towards agnosticism.But the faithful of any stripe will be totally unmoved, even if they get to the end of the book. Their minds are made up, they have not had to do much thinking in order to arrive at that position, so why start thinking now? I am not calling, and Dawkins to my knowledge has never called, as Tobias Jones suggested, religious people stupid. Religion is stupid; the religious are just the products of their upbringing. But the thing most noticeable about Jones's article was the very lack of argument against Dawkins's case presumably because, as Dawkins establishes, there isn't one that makes sense.The bankruptcy of Christianity is revealed, for example, in the aforementioned Intelligent Design (ID) scam. Having failed to pull the wool over some eyes with the "have faith" or "the Bible says so" arguments, the IDists have resorted to the "well, all this is way too clever to have evolved" ploy. So, asks Dawkins at length, who created the Designer? Where did that expertise come from? If anything, he gives too much respect to ID, given the lengths he goes to in arguing against it.The God Delusion is, in fact, a challenge to the faithful to for once to shape up and defend themselves with something other than a circular argument. I promise I'd read it with an open mind, and I'm sure so would Richard Dawkins. But better make it as well-presented as the case he presents in his book.

This book is written with such a soft, intellectual and mature manor. I would say this is a life changer and highly recommend everyone read it.

"The God Delusion" resurfaces like a philosophical comet, leaving a trail of fiery discussions and sparking fresh constellations of thought in its wake. Richard Dawkins' magnum opus continues to electrify minds, and this edition, adorned with new insights, feels like an awakening of intellectual exploration.Dawkins' prose is a symphony of eloquence and persuasion, orchestrating an ardent critique of religious dogma with a precision that is both awe-inspiring and disruptive. Like a master sculptor, he carves through the marble of faith, revealing the contours of reason that lay hidden beneath. The verve of his writing isn't just for show; it is the rallying cry of rationality that ignites minds and challenges them to dare question centuries-old beliefs.In this iteration, the book boasts an updated prelude and a concluding reflection by the author. These additions serve as a bridge between past and present, giving readers a compass to navigate the evolution of debates this book has instigated. Dawkins acknowledges the counterarguments his work has faced while steadfastly reaffirming his position—a gesture that is intellectually honest and encouraging of robust discourse.Dawkins' analogies are the torchlights guiding us through the labyrinth of theology. He compares belief without evidence to a spectrum of possibilities, from leprechauns to Zeus, forcing us to confront the arbitrary nature of our convictions. His poignant parables highlight the delusionary nature of faith and invite readers to break free from the chains of inherited beliefs.However, even in its brilliance, the book can be an acquired taste. Dawkins' unwavering conviction can occasionally feel like an unyielding wave crashing against differing shores, potentially alienating those who stand in the intersection of faith and skepticism. The book's focus on fundamentalist aspects of religion, while driving its point home, might not fully encapsulate the entirety of religious experience and expression."The God Delusion" is a phoenix, reborn from the flames of debate, its feathers now glistening with a decade's worth of insights. Dawkins' words aren't merely text on paper; they are the spark that lights the tinder of contemplation. This edition compels readers to reckon with their beliefs and explore the borders of human knowledge and understanding.In closing, the Edition remains a beacon of intellectual audacity, beckoning readers to dance on the edge of enlightenment. Dawkins' magisterial work remains an essential read for the curious, the daring, and the truth-seekers among us. If you're prepared to embark on a voyage that challenges your convictions, this book will be your compass to navigate the uncharted waters of belief and reason.

This book is definitely a milestone in my life and it has been a great help on becoming a real humanist.

Este es sin duda mi libro favorito del autor y dentro de los favoritos de mi biblioteca. Creo que todo mundo debería leerlo pues menciona con amplia claridad el peligro que representan muchas de las populares religiones del mundo y como la fe limita y/o destruye el espíritu de maravillarse por la realidad que nos rodea y la búsqueda de respuestas a las grandes interrogantes del ser humano. Además, explica como la mayoría de las religiones son abusivas, especialmente con la población infantil al utilizar la vulnerabilidad de creer que tiene esta población y que el adoctrinamiento debería estar prohibido, así como lo está la explotación infantil, la pederastia, entre otros. Otro punto interesante en el libro, es lo que se menciona sobre la creencia "light" que tiene mucha gente y que piensan que eso no es dañino como lo es el fanatismo, pero realmente conlleva a acciones no apropiadas para el mejoramiento humano.Sin duda, la mejor lectura que uno puede hacer. Es realmente esclarecedora.

Dawkins hat ja eigentlich mal ganz anders angefangen. Er hat kleine, feine Beobachtungen gemacht und Stückchen für Stückchen Gedanken entwickelt.Verkürzt und vergröbert sowas wie: Warum trägt der Pfau ein Pfauenkleid, es ist doch sicher ein Alptraum, wenn man seinen Fressfeinden entkommen will? Nun ist die eine Erklärung, dass Gott das so gefügt hat und die andere, dass Pfauenweibchen hübsche Männer bevorzugen, weil hübsch Leistungsfähigkeit (und zwar vererbbare Leistungsfähigkeit) signalisiert. Wie der Pfau nun zeigt, kann sowas schiefgehen und die Pfauendamen fallen systematisch auf die falschen Männer rein. Sehen hübsch aus, können aber nix. Je hübscher desto nutzloser. Letztlich ist das dann "nur so eine Theorie", aber: Das kann man dann sogar ausrechnen, man kann Vorhersagen treffen, die man dann sogar bei bis dato unerforschten Spezies bestätigt findet usw. usw. Vorgefundene Zahlenverhältnisse in der Natur ergeben vor dem Hintergrund so einer Theorie einen Sinn.Und es ist ja nicht nur der Pfau, es funktioniert hier, es funktioniert da. Es entstehen Strukturen, eins stützt das andere.Und es ist auf den Menschen und die Gesellschaft anwendbar. Warum kümmern sich Menschen mehr um Kinder als um Geschwister zB? Auch hier entwickelt und denkt Dawkins, auch dieser ganze Sektor passt bruchlos in das Gesamtgebäude.Dann entwickelt sich parallel die Genetik. Ganz neuer Wissenszweig, vorab eine große Wundertüte mit Inhalt, den noch keiner kennt. Aber siehe da, ein großer Sack voll mit Argumenten für Dawkins. Man stelle sich vor, seit Langem ist im Streit ob Affen und Menschen eng verwandt sind oder der Mensch ein riesiger Sonderfall ist. Dann findet man tatsächlich Baupläne und siehe da, der Mensch ist im Prinzip nichts anderes als ein Schimpanse mit ein wenig variierter Ausstattung. Der Mensch ist sogar enger mit der Maus verwandt als die Katze mit der Maus.Was Dawkins die ganzen Jahrzehnte parallel aber noch macht: er popularisiert das Wissen. Schreibt es also für den Normalbürger auf. Verständlich, wenn man verstehen will. Und das macht ihn zur Zielscheibe.Natürlich gefällt es einem nicht, wenn man behauptet, der Pfau sei ein schönes Beispiel für Gottes Perfektion und dann bekommt man zu hören, der Pfau sei in gewisser Weise eher ein Beispiel für eine Fehlkonstruktion. Wohlgemerkt, eine Fehlkonstruktion, wenn man von "Perfektion" oder einem "Schöpfungsplan" im langfristigen Sinne ausgeht. Da kann man schlauere Pläne entwerfen. Keine Fehlkonstruktion, wenn man davon ausgeht, was einem in der ganz konkreten Situation beim Überleben hilft. Dann ist albernes Aussehen genauso Waffe wie scharfe Zähne.Natürlich mag man es nicht, wenn man menschliches Verhalten in Kategorien eingeteilt hat, von denen Gott manche mag und manche nicht, wenn man dann hört, dass da eine Rechnung aufgemacht wird, die aufgeht, in Gott aber nicht vorkommt, weil er nirgends zur Erklärung benötigt wird.Und dann gefällt es natürlich absolut nicht, wenn DNA entdeckt wird und die Argumente, die man bekämpft hat, auf ganzer Linie nochmal bestätigt.Da gibt es natürlich die Mehrheit, die den öffentlichen Aufschrei mancher Normalbürger ignoriert und mithilfe von Biotechnik Dinge erschafft (Medikamente, Nahrungsmittel, und ja, auch Gen-Kartoffeln und Waffen). Der Popularisierer Dawkins kann das natürlich nicht, er wird ständig konfrontiert.Und das merkt man seinen Werken an. Zu Beginn stehen noch hier und da leise Hinweise, dass diese oder jene hergebrachte Meinung wohl nicht haltbar sein dürfte, später nimmt die Verteidigung immer breiteren Raum ein und wird zunehmends aggressiver.Mit der Zeit wurde Dawkins vom Wissensvermittler zum professionellen Duellanten. Und er hat ja ganz ordentlich Geld und Ruhm damit eingeheimst, vermutlich viel viel mehr, als sich je mit der Beobachtung von Einsiedlerkrebsen verdienen ließe.Dieses Buch ist dann, wie gesagt, ein Wutausbruch am Ende dieser Geschichte. Polemisch, aggressiv, zuspitzend, absichtlich verletzend, persönlich werdend, einhämmernd, beharrend, eben die ganze Palette, die man mitten in einem Wutausbruch so produziert.Ich kann eigentlich viel mehr empfehlen, mal mit "The Selfish Gene" anzufangen und sich dann gedanklich am ganzen Gebäude, bei den Fundamenten angefangen, abzuarbeiten. Was man so als Ergebnis für sich selbst findet, ist jedem selbst überlassen.Die eigene Werteordnung und die daraus abzuleitenden Handlungsempfehlungen sind ja jedem selbst überlassen. Wenn das Kind krank ist, muss man wissen, ob man auf den Priester oder den Arzt hört. Bzw. auf welche Art Priester oder Arzt. Und jegliche andere noch so kleine oder große Entscheidung im Leben. Ich persönlich habe im Laufe der Zeit ein tiefes Misstrauen für simple Argumente, anwendbar auf jede Situation, entwickelt.