Product Description

"The God Delusion" caused a sensation when it was published in 2006. Within weeks it became the most hotly debated topic, with Dawkins himself branded as either saint or sinner for presenting his hard-hitting, impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types. His argument could hardly be more topical. While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized, the rise of religious fundamentalism, whether in the Middle East or Middle America, is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world. In America, and elsewhere, a vigorous dispute between 'intelligent design' and Darwinism is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science. In many countries religious dogma from medieval times still serves to abuse basic human rights such as women's and gay rights. And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind. Dawkins attacks God in all his forms. 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. "The God Delusion" is a brilliantly argued, fascinating polemic that will be required reading for anyone interested in this most emotional and important subject.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #228 in Books
• Published on: 2007-05-21
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 464 pages

Joan Bakewell, Guardian
'A spirited and exhilarating read...Dawkins comes roaring forth in
the full vigour of his powerful arguments...'

Economist
'Everyone should read it. Aethists will love Mr Dawkins's incisive
logic and rapier wit...'

Desmond Morris
'This is a brave and important book.'

Customer Reviews

Awesome book, but unfortunately titled
The book is excellent. The subject matter is controversial. The point of this book is to show how the belief in any god can be a delusion. Unfortunately, the title of the book will put off the people it is generally aimed toward, as it's pretty obvious the kind of person who will buy this is the kind of person who doesn't already believe in any god. A religious person picking this book up will likely approach it with a biased mind, based on years of teachings from scripture. A non-religious person picking it up will approach it with an open mind. It will give you more reasons for continuing your (non-)belief.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god, but if all religions claim to be true, and all religions follow various different gods, then not all of them are correct. However, this is the problem with many religions today - they all claim to be true.

Richard Dawkins explains clearly how the arguments of the religious can be deflated, by using reason, logic and thought. For example, because science cannot prove or disprove god, you can't leap from "I don't know" to "God did it". We simply don't know *yet*.

Dawkins also refutes the suggestions that Hitler was an atheist (he wasn't). Stalin *was* an atheist, but did he really kill anyone *because* of his atheism?

He also goes into plenty of detail on the various levels of religiosity of certain countries, and how their religious dogma has caused suffering and inhumane treatment for the merest aberration from scripture: stoning of adulterers etc.

All in all, this book is a must read for anyone with an interest in religion and where its place lies in today's world. If you've never read Dawkins before, start here.

By a practising Muslim...
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.

not as good as some make out, nor as bad!
It seems to me that your own world view will very much influence your reading of this book. That may seem obvious but we explain why some think this book is nearly perfect, and others think it is dreadful. So let me say from the start that I am a practicing Christian who does believe in God.

The merits of this books are that it is relatively easy to read, and whilst you really need to read it all to get a full picture of what is being said, nevertheless the chapter headings could direct you should you want to concentrate on a particular aspect. Whilst he does not expand the area as fully as he might (there is a whole book to be written on the idea of meme and why religion actually is so successful) he does try and explore why religion exists at all. Richard Dawkins seeks to address many different arguments, and no one could accuse him from shying away from the debate!

The downsides are there too. Is this a science book? If we think it may be we have to define science, and presume this is academic science, from an academic scientist. To this end the book is weak. For example the famous opening of Chapter 2 about how awful the God of the Old Testament is has no footnotes or indication where Richard Dawkins got this from. Thomas Jefferson gets quoted several times. but why? That is not explained. Randolph Churchill is quoted about his view of the Bible, but why him and not someone else. It is not stated! In the paperback edition Richard Dawkins effectively says that if religious people were like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and less like Osama Bin Laden then the God Delusion would be a different book - but what evidence does he offer to show that this is not the case? None!

I want to conclude with a quote from an interview with Richard Dawkins in the Times (22nd August 2009) "I think we all think that there's something else out there. I do, certainly. But it's not supernatural. It's...I think there's a lot science doesn't know and indeed may never know, and that's exciting"

How I wish he'd defined that more!