Customer Reviews: Read 736 more reviews...
 Fantastic Read August 26, 2008
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
This is one of Dawkins best books by far, and one which I have now read several times. I would highly recomend to anybody interested in clear logical arguments for the non existance of the supernatural god character.
 Logical explanation August 22, 2008
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
Bought to take on holiday (Texas & Arkansas) A bit long winded at times, I wished I'd bought the oral version, It explains why and how the God belief system is propagated.
Sadly I was only 40% through it when it was stolen from my room in an Arkansas Motel near the Crater of Diamonds State Park.
I hope that that Godless B*st*rd rots in Hell, though from what I read, he will probably not!
Congratulations, but August 12, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Although diehard theologians seem minimally affected by this book according to the author, I would like to say congratulations on "The GOD Delusion" in success in denying the existence of GOD. However, whether or not the author has been successful in giving a meaningful basis for life of ordinary people is yet to be answered. The problem with this kind of scientific thesis is that, if I borrow a paragraph from existing "psychical knowledge," "Science's thesis meets with no answering affirmation in the human heart--and in fact arouses the deepest antipathy." and this may be a reason why people need "God." Prof. Steven Weinberg is quoted by the author as saying (in Chapter 7/ p. 283) "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it...." I agree with the opinion. However, if you take the research results of the late Prof. Ian Stevenson (1918-2007) on "reincarnation of human," then you can also say that "Darwinism is an insult to human dignity, because it says that ape is our distant ancestor!"
Why God Doesn't Exist: An Intriguing, Often Insightful, Exploration From Richard Dawkins August 9, 2008
6 out of 9 found this review helpful
There may be no other scientist who has assumed, more often than not, the role of the Anti-Christ for the religiously devout than Richard Dawkins. No wonder. In his public appearances, articles, and books, especially his latest, "The God Delusion", Dawkins has assumed the mantle of "Evangelist" for the masses on behalf of Atheism. Indeed, he may be the world's best known "adherent" of Atheism, though Dawkins, himself, would be the first one to admonish anyone who regarded his acceptance of it - and active proselytizing on its behalf - as clear indications of his own fervent religious devotion to it. Instead, his acceptance of Atheism as the only credible philosophical response to devout religious belief, so he contends, is the logical consequence of his career as a distinguished evolutionary biologist.
Dawkins has publicly made no secret of his Atheism, referring to it in his recent books, either directly or indirectly, and most certainly in his public appearances, especially in the recent British documentary television series "Root of All Evil?", that condemns religion, from which his latest book is based upon, having served as the series' host. So why now, after all this time, has he written a book in which he refers to belief in a God (or Gods) as "The God Delusion"? He admits to four key objectives as his own rationale for its writing. "It is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and a splendid one." A second "consciousness-raiser" is demonstrating how Darwin's principle of Natural Selection - and other scientific principles - aids in our understanding of the natural world, including the cosmos, without reliance upon the "illusion of design in the living world" which it explains so brilliantly via a "far greater economy and with devastating elegance". His third "consciousness-raiser" deals with the issue of religion and childhood, since Dawkins contends that children are simply too young to know "where they stand" on matters of religious faith and devotion. Finally, last but not least, as his fourth "consciousness-raiser", Dawkins asserts "atheistic pride", by observing that, "atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and indeed, a healthy mind". This last "consciousness-raiser" will surely prove quite controversial to many who would be inclined, otherwise, to be in complete agreement with his observations.
Readers will find Dawkins' arguments initially to be quite thoughtful and persuasive, especially when, in Chapter 2 "The God Hypothesis", he explores the paradox of the United States of America as the West's most religiously devout country; a distinction our Founding Fathers did not seek for their newborn nation, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison, among others, all of whom Dawkins quotes extensively. His most revealing quotation is the introductory paragraph of the United States' treaty with the Dey of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams, which includes, "...the Government of the United States of America, is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (Of course a distinction with present-day religious conservatives would dispute most vehemently, claiming that our nation was indeed founded as a "Christian" nation.). A close second is an extensive quotation from a 1981 speech delivered in Congress by, of all people, Barry Goldwater, in which he defended our country's secular tradition in his still timely warning to religious conservatives, "...I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism."
Not surprisingly, Dawkins' best-argued, most well-reasoned, rhetoric is used on behalf of evolution, and especially Darwin's principle of Natural Selection. Indeed, he notes with ample eloquence, why "design" arguments are inherently abysmal examples of logic:
"Creationist `logic' is always the same. Some natural phenomenom is too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too awe-inspiring to have come into existence by chance. Design is the only alternative to chance that the authors can imagine. Therefore a designer must have done it. And science's answer to this faulty logic is always the same. Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural Selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested. And it is not only a workable solution, it is a solution of stunning elegance and power."
Then he demonstrates how Natural Selection succeeds in this eloquent passage:
"What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance. It is these end products that form the subjects of the creationst's wearisomely recycled argument. The creationist completely misses the point, because he (women should for once not mind being excluded by the pronoun) insists on treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. He doesn't understand the power of accumulation."
Incidentally, this brilliant bit of criticism could just as well be stated as a valid argument aimed against leading Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe's bold assertion, in his recent book, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits to Darwinism", that he has indeed found the "mathematical limits of Darwinism", by citing as his prime example, the implausibility of two mutations occurring simultaneously in the Plasmodium malarial parasite. Of course nothing is further from the truth in Behe's case, since he has relied upon an abysmal understanding of both probability theory and statistics in making his argument; an abysmal understanding that he has been correctly criticized, in several recent reviews of his book, from biologists Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne and Ken Miller in the prominent journals Science, The New Republic and Nature. Dawkins effectively demolishes Behe's concept of "Irreducible Complexity", soon after he relegates the notion of "Design" as a "valid" example of Creationist "logic" to the dustbin of philosophical reason. Moreover, Dawkins observes that "Irreducible Complexity" suffers from the "same faulty logic" as the "God of the Gaps' strategy" criticized by distinguished 20th Century theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (whom Dawkins has, surprisingly, not praised too for resisting Adolf Hitler's evil Nazi dictatorship; an act which ultimately cost Bonhoeffer his life.), who recognized that the shrinkage of gaps as science progressed would leave God ultimately with "nothing to do and nowhere to hide". He also implies that this train of thought also condones the persistence of ignorance, by its steadfast insistence on faith, instead of using that ignorance to ask other, more fruitful, questions, as a means of seeking scientific "truth".
In a later chapter, Chapter 8 "What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?" Dawkins clearly explains the difference between an evolutionary biologist such as himself who "accepts" evolution, and a fundamentalist Protestant Christian creationist who doesn't. Dawkins acknowledges that some may view his passion for evolution as an example of his own "fundamentalist belief", but that's due to his recognition that the evidence for evolution is so strong, firmly "buttressed" by ample data supporting it. He cites the regrettable example of one American creationist, Kurt Wise - who earned a Ph. D. degree in paleontology from Harvard University as a student of Stephen Jay Gould's and a brilliant scientist with much potential - "who tossed out science, evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes." Instead Wise chose to embrace "Young Earth Creationism", simply because of his strong faith and belief in what Scripture said about the age of Planet Earth. Dawkins admits that he is hostile to religion because of what it did to Kurt Wise, by subverting his acceptance of science, evidence and reason, and replacing it with a blind adherence to faith. He notes that what Wise did to himself was self-inflicted, simply because Wise could have followed theologians like Bonhoeffer in embracing an allegorical interpretation of the Bible without forsaking the promise of a potentially bright career in science (The same path taken by many eminent American scientists of which two of the most notable examples include evolutionary ecologist Michael Rosenzweig - an observant Conservative Jew - and cell biologist Kenneth Miller - a devout Roman Catholic; the latter's book, "Finding Darwin's God", receives enthusiastic praise from Dawkins, who notes that he has recommended it to those taken in by Behe's mendacious intellectual pornography.).
Without question, Dawkins' exploration of the key philosophical issues related to Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism, demonstrates not only his literary eloquence, but perhaps, more importantly, his exemplary skill in critical reasoning. Indeed, most readers may find this to be the most rewarding remarks stated by Dawkins in the entire book. However, unfortunately, there is also the Richard Dawkins best known for his harsh, often brutally effective, but sadly, most obnoxious, remarks aimed at religion. Especially in the latter half of the book, there is a pronounced tendency by him to get lost in the dire details, citing acts of ample cruelty and barbarous behavior committed by God's Chosen people in the Old Testament (Nor does the New Testament emerge unscathed either.); his litany of such unsavory deeds may, paradoxically, have the effect of forcing some readers to ignore both the power and persuasive logic of his thinking. They may reject Dawkins' arguments simply because he doesn't acknowledge the many uplifting, positive passages from both the Old and New Testaments, even though he does embrace the importance of studying Scripture as literature, because of its profoundly influential importance on modern Western literature. Fundamentalist Protestant Christian Americans will object to his term "American Taliban" to describe the acts of zealous fundamentalist Protestant Christian conservatives in influencing governmental policies on issues ranging from stem cell research to abortion and on respecting the civil rights of homosexuals. But it may be an accurate assessment, since Dawkins compares and contrasts their behavior with their Afghani counterparts - an unflattering but logically reasonable comparison - and mentions their ultimate aim of establishing an American theocracy.
So does God exist? Of course, for Richard Dawkins the answer is a most definite "No" for which he has amassed, especially in the book's middle section, an ample amount of philosophical, religious and scientific evidence that he believes does argue persuasively against God's existence. Indeed he asserts that if one takes the very notion of Natural Selection to its logical extreme, then God becomes not only a redundant, unnecessary, hypothesis (He refers often to the "God Hypothesis", the title of the book's second chapter.), but clearly doesn't exist at all, since he asserts that the only other alternative is that of an Intelligent Designer who, presumably, is God. Such assertions will be problematic to those who are religiously devout, but much less so than the litany of Biblical misdeeds that he refers to frequently towards the end of "The God Delusion". While my own personal religious sympathies lie elsewhere, closer in tone to those expressed by the likes of Michael Rosenzweig and Kenneth Miller, I, nonetheless, recognize that Dawkins has written an important contribution to this issue - and an elegant affirmation of Atheism - which deserves the wide readership it has earned thus far. Those who read "The God Delusion" may be as surprised as I was that it is far less polemical in tone, and more a well-considered, exceptionally well-written manifesto about God's existence from the foremost Atheist of our time, than yet another elegant, but offensive, diatribe against religion
 The God Delusion August 7, 2008
3 out of 9 found this review helpful
The God Delusion
I found this book rather dry and lacking in any philosophical insight. I was quite disappointed that with the numerous references to 'naturally' and 'nature' that Dawkins makes in the book, at no time does he explain what he perceives nature to mean or to be - perhaps that is what some call God?
Also, a more nuanced point - (for those familiar with Johnson Laird's mental models http://www.cs.umu.se/kurser/TDBC12/HT99/Laird.html) is that by talking about the subject of 'God', Dawkins must first create a mental model of the entity before refuting its existence. Supposing that JL is right, then it begs the question of whether the created mental model of 'God' exists to him or not? That is another paradox that Dawkings, rather furstratingly, fails to appreciate or address.
I give this book 2 stars as Dawkins forcefully highlights the madness and 'badness' that is all too prevalent in religion. Those points are well argued.
|
