Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Unavailable
    The God Delusion
    Unavailable
    The God Delusion
    Unavailable
    The God Delusion
    Ebook561 pages10 hours

    The God Delusion

    By Richard Dawkins

    4/5

    ()

    Currently unavailable

    Currently unavailable

    Listen to the audiobook instead

    About this ebook

    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.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherMariner Books
    Release dateJan 1, 1987
    ISBN9780547348667
    Author

    Richard Dawkins

    Richard Dawkins is a Fellow of the Royal Society and was the inaugural holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the acclaimed author of many books including The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Ancestor’s Tale, The God Delusion, and The Greatest Show on Earth. Visit him at RichardDawkins.net.

    Read more from Richard Dawkins

    Related to The God Delusion

    Related ebooks

    Atheism For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Independent Bookstore as Essential Political Act

      Mar 28, 2017

      I was recently in San Francisco’s Mission District with an hour to kill. In general I hate having to kill time—I never know what to do—and to make things worse I was tired and just wanted to be home with a good book. So I wandered along, trying to fi

      7 min read

    • Article

      Happy To Be A Heretic

      Nov 30, 2023

      Happy To Be A Heretic
      5 min read

    • Article

      Springtime for Introverts

      Mar 26, 2020

      Springtime for Introverts
      4 min read

    • Article

      Why 'The Guy' From The Office Wants A Spiritual Revolution

      Aug 13, 2023

      Rainn Wilson's book calls for a spiritual revolution in America. And even though he himself is a very funny guy, he is not joking about this at all.

      8 min read

    • Article

      The Dark Side of Awe

      Jan 29, 2024

      The Dark Side of Awe
      10 min read

    • Article

      Education And The Ego

      Jan 18, 2022

      Education And The Ego
      3 min read

    • Article

      Canary In The Cultural Coalmine

      Sep 30, 2021

      IT IS FIVE YEARS SINCE THE 2003 ORANGE-PRIZE WINNING NOVELIST, Lionel Shriver, delivered a speech at the Brisbane Literary Festival in which she argued against the concept of “cultural appropriation”, an expression that in 2016 was only beginning to

      9 min read

    • Article

      The Art of Reading James Baldwin

      Oct 11, 2017

      WILLIAM GIRALDI is the author of the novels Busy Monsters (Norton, 2011) and Hold the Dark (Norton, 2014), and a memoir, The Hero’s Body (Norton, 2016). A collection of criticism, American Audacity, is forthcoming from Norton in 2018. I WENT looking

      14 min read

    • Article

      ‘Religion Is Obsolete’

      Jul 11, 2020

      ‘Religion Is Obsolete’
      2 min read

    • Article

      Creating Wider, Deeper, Better Realities: The Millions Interviews Patrick Madden

      May 20, 2020

      I came to the conclusion that what I loved more than anything, and what I wanted to do for the rest of my life, was to think. Period. The post Creating Wider, Deeper, Better Realities: The Millions Interviews Patrick Madden appeared first on The Mill

      10 min read

    • Article

      A Fraternity of Dreamers

      Oct 9, 2020

      The anxiety that libraries can sometimes give me is of a cosmic nature, for something ineffable affects my sense of self when I realize that the majority of human interaction, expression, and creativity shall forever be unavailable to me. The post A

      16 min read

    • Article

      I Reserve The Right To Upset You

      Sep 29, 2022

      WHEN I WAS A child there were seven educational and pedagogic establishments in Salisbury Cathedral Close, all of them contaminated by Anglicanism which was in those days bellicose, harsh, punitive. As I dawdled on my way to school I would pass ordin

      3 min read

    Reviews for The God Delusion

    4/5

    4,206 ratings184 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      Makes you think.
    • 4/5
      Religion and Science The case against religion or religious beliefs is not an easy one. Richard Dawkins exposes it comparing religion with science. He also devotes some pages to elaborate on philosophical arguments about the existence of God, pretending to demonstrate their failures. At the end, the promise he makes in the book’s introduction - to guide the reader to an emancipation of religious beliefs - is not fulfilled. Williams James - The Varieties of Religious Experiences - knows better.
    • 4/5
      A really interesting read, although he does tend to go on a bit. Even as someone who shares his views on god I was starting to get fed up towards the end.
    • 4/5
      Very good, no doubt, but after all the hype, a little underwhelming, I felt. And frankly a bit too boring. I really think in this school of authors, Hitchens is more readable and generally better while I get a lot more out of Dan Barker even. Still, a good work.
    • 3/5
      Argh, accidentally removed this book from my shelf. I can't remember what I said about it to begin with: something about the value of taking a moment to consider what you believe from an outsiders' point of view, and probably some idea about Richard Dawkins' non-belief in God seeming rather like a belief to me.

      I know that view irritates many atheists a lot. I am a member of a faith which also welcomes atheists, although I don't know any UU atheists personally. I'll have to ask how they feel about it. It just seems silly to me to claim, when you have strong opinions like Dawkins, that you don't believe in anything -- you clearly do. Faith is the wrong word because of the connotations of religion, I'll agree that, but Dawkins definitely has a belief system, which he is more evangelistic about than any religious believer I know.

      Another thing my faith welcomes is doubt. Reading The God Delusion, back in 2007 or so, was interesting in that sense, because for me it's okay to challenge my faith. I think Dawkins comes across as quite arrogant, in this book, and very confrontational, but it's worth listening to him rather than dismissing him on the basis of a tone argument.
    • 4/5
      Richard Dawkins sets out to convince the reader that the god hypothesis is highly unlikely. Whether many readers are persuaded is in doubt. Most, like me, probably came to the book as atheists or deists of some sort anyway. The arguments seem well-aimed to convince the reader with an unformed opinion, but in all honesty that's a bit hard for me to judge. As a nonscientist I found the first four chapters where Dawkins explains a bit about natural selection and a dash of physics to be useful, instructive, and supportive of his 'god is very unlikely' hypothesis. He does a fine job undermining any scientific basis for intelligent design. He quotes a description of intelligent design as 'creationism in a cheap tuxedo' - although I don't know how the tuxedo people feel about that. Dawkins then wanders off into an unconvincing discussion of the Darwinian roots of religion, but ends strongly in examining the ills that religion brings to humans. Dawkins also provides an appropriate modicum of footnoting and a useful bibliography. Dawkins' enthusiasm, while refreshing, leads to an unfortunate pedantic style. If it didn't open up a big can of epistemological worms I might even he says he's preachy! High literary value is notable by its absence, but nonetheless, Dawkins does make his topic accessible and fun at times for the general reader and it is a most important one.
    • 4/5
      This is one of those books that just got away from me. I was probably 70% of the way through it when I got distracted by other books (so many books, so little time) and set it aside. When I went to renew it from the library so I could finish it, someone else had placed a hold on it. So I returned it.But it was an interesting read. Or at least the portion that I read interested me.Dawkins is pretty much the poster child for what I think of as evangelical atheism. While I disagree with his fundamental premise, I wanted to see what he had to say. And one he got past his bashing of creationists and others who insist on a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, he raised some interesting points.Trained as an evolutionary biologist, he takes a scientific approach toward the question of whether or not some sort of supernatural higher power exists. And I appreciated that approach.His exploration of what Darwinian survival value the concept of religion provides was particularly intriguing. But that's when I permitted my attention to be diverted to different books.
    • 4/5
      A stimulating read from a master of his craft. His craft being logical argument backed by evidence.Prior to starting this review I glanced through the reviews already on LibraryThing and would recommend that you do the same - a wide range of dis/approval ratings are apparent. Some very eloquent reviewers seem completely blind to their own prejudices. While they happily agree that such and such a religion is bad and then go on to loftily point out that of course their own religion is not bad or at least not as bad and so Dawkins doesn't know what he is talking about.Personally I enjoy his science writing much, much more but that is because his usual subjects are set in a stimulating and fascinating world and I find that fact is always stranger and more interesting than fiction (religion).There are no mysterious atheist spells laid on this book - true believers will not be in danger from reading it - they are of course immune to logical evidence and conscience anyway. It is those that are not fully immersed in the non-logic and non-thought of faith who may be prompted to examine their own beliefs.Dawkins covers the subject matter methodically and with step by step sections which, while ultimately the only way to organise such a comprehensive case does prevent a real narrative/polemic flow from building up. His turn of phrase and gift for the English language are just as evident as usual but its just that pointing out the errors, inconsistencies and dangers of religion is not as inspiring as describing the intricacies of evolutionary theory. But then I have been an atheist for a long time so most of the arguments were familiar to me and I suppose that covering the dangers of unfounded belief is simply not as inspiring as understanding how the natural world developed.A must read for anybody.
    • 4/5
      I really enjoyed reading this. Sometimes I wanted to argue with him, sometimes I thought he made fascinating and relevant points. I love a book that pisses me off and makes me think! I did enjoy reading an atheist's point of view (this was the first of the new Atheism is Trendy! books I've read lately) though.
    • 3/5
      Dawkins' prose is exhilerating and persuasive, but i think he ought to stick to social biology. His understanding of the ineffable and esoteric is shallow and he is too dismissive of what is not (at least yet) explained by science.
    • 4/5
      Had Prof. Dawkins dropped the worst parts of this polemic he could have made a far better case for himself. There's also some rather iffy Biblical intepretation, verging on a "straw-man" type argument.But, having said that Dawkins makes a strong case for atheism, one that I suspect most theists will find difficult to rebut. If anyone is looking for a one volume coherent case for atheism, I think this is it.
    • 4/5
      Dawkins is quite convincing in revealing the hypocrisies and idiocies of organized religion, but not so much when it comes to arguing against the existence God. You cannot reasoably argue against the existence of God. You either believe or you don't. That's why it's called faith. Dawkins has a great wit and the book is quite insightful and entertaining.
    • 4/5
      This is a very good book. Filled with good info and fairly entertaining for non-fiction. I'd highly reccomned this book to anyone. The only problem I found was that Dawkins has made these arguments so often that occasionally he slips into a style that sounds like an old married couple having it out. "Now before you even bring up the argument about....just let me say...so there."
    • 5/5
      Unless you teach in a religiously-sponsored school, religion probably plays little role in your teaching of science. However, the "prior knowledge" of your students includes some decidedly non-scientific, religion-inspired viewpoints that ought to be taken into account. Renowned evolutionist Richard Dawkins' best-selling atheist thesis, "The God Delusion", attacks faith of all kinds head-on, and challenges the beliefs of every reasoning person. While he points out that few distinguished scientists hold traditional religious values, that is not true of most teachers of science and is definitely not true of our students. I recommend that teachers read this book, but be cautious about how the material in it is used in the classroom. Even if you fully agree with his very skeptical view of religion, it does not serve our educational mission to confront students with ideas that they will reject out of hand because those concepts do not comport with previous religious training. On the other hand, I agree with Dawkins that religious ideas are given more deference than they deserve, just because they are "religious".
    • 3/5
      Dawkins pulls no punches in this comprehensive look at new and old arguments against the existence of god. He also makes a strong case for the damage religion can do. The author partners with his wife (actress Lala Ward of Doctor Who fame) to read the audiobook version. While very well written, The God Delusion is preaching to the choir (pardon the pun) if you're a non-theist, and probably won't convince any theists who dare to read it. Nonetheless, the bestseller status of this book gives me hope that society (especially American society) may be ready to turn its back on the increasingly political Religious Right.
    • 5/5
      This is the book that made me realize that I was an athiest. It is my favourite book written by Dawkins. In this book he describes how science can be used to prove or disprove god and how he is almost certain that there isn't one. He also takes on the events in the bible. It is very well written and he doesn't talk down to you at all. I am not college educated and I had no problems understanding the concepts that he wrote int his book. It will make those who are believers uncomfortable. You need to have an open mind to read this book as it will challenge some widely held belief systems.
    • 4/5
      Fabulous book, I read it in 3 days. Dawkins does justice to his greatest love--science--in EXPLAINing things about the universe and human nature to his readers, where we previously only had religion/God to write on the dotted line. As someone who grew up consistently discouraged to question or discover things for myself, I fully appreciated Dawkins for opening my eyes and giving me a window to crawl through, out into the realm of critical and rational thought. He supports everything he says with so many helpful citations, making him, in my opinion, a near-irreproachable author. (And I only say nearly because I know many people will doggedly invent reasons to find fault with him.) Though not one to enjoy slogging through scientific textbooks, I tolerated the textbook-like chapters in this book that left me feeling faintly dazed and disoriented, because the rest of them were easy to read, funny, and refreshingly BOLD in its denouncement of "delusions."
    • 4/5
      Being a proponent of Dawkins' views myself, I can't say I was blown away by the arguments he presents in this book, but it is wonderfully readable and at times effortlessly witty. Chapter four consists of the essentials of Dawkins' argument and the rest of the book deals with religion's historic and moral legacy in society, as well as some pertinant and interesting science on evolution and development. This is certainly worth a look for no other reason that it's one of those rare books that are hyped beyond all rationality and yet retains worth and readability.
    • 5/5
      Masterful. Just terrific. Humorous and deadly serious, all at the same time. Dawkins is calling on the atheists to stand up and be counted with this one. Count me in! As one would expect from 'Darwin's Rottweiler', there were countless interesting insights regarding natural selection and religion. I especially liked his point-by-point refutation of the most common arguments for a supreme being. The recitation of scary, evil, immoral things done by God (as described in the Bible) was hilarious, too. There were plenty of easy potshots at religion, some of which made me laugh so hard I wept. "There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting... But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true." Highly recommended.
    • 4/5
      I am reading Richard Dawkins's new book The God Delusion. Here are a couple of lines for you (not quoted exactly, mind you, but paraphrased:1) I don't know that theology should be considered a subject (for proper academic study.)2) And on Bertrand Russell being confronted by an angry God after death inquiring why Russell didn't believe: "Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence." To wit one would assume that God disappears in a blue puff of blue logic-smoke.Where I am at in The God Delusion, Dawkins is rather ably taking on various arguments for the existence of God (such as Thomas Aquinas's medieval hair-splitting or Pascal's Wager.) I think I like Dawkins's answer to Pascal's Wager (which runs surprisingly along the lines of a 100% theist's position): if your omniscient god sees that you are just bluffing you're going to hell anyway. Having disposed of the Wager rather quickly that way, Dawkins moves on to the the tougher question: why is god so desperate for us his supposed creation, to believe in him? Dawkins's point touches on something that has long bugged me about the normal cheese-headed view of theology--that God somehow needs us to believe in him. Of course Augustine, Calvin, and Luther all did away with that silly notion, but then opened up the whole problem of predestination and our (lack of) free will. Given the modern American-based penchant for personal freedom, the old-time religion answer (that you are not at all in control of any aspect of your existence) became a nasty burr under our collective saddle and was quickly kicked to the curb. One can hear the confused-religionist slobbering now: "WE'RE AMERICANS, DAMNIT AND WE ARE FREE. WE'LL HAVE NONE OF YOUR PREDESTINATION JUNK, OLD EUROPE! WE'RE FREE! WE'RE FREE! BUT GOD IS ALL POWERFUL BUT WE'RE STILL FREE TO MAKE OUR OWN MISTAKES! IF WE ARE GOOD AND BELIEVE IN GOD HE WILL FAVOR US!"I think part of the problem with the fundamentalist, Americanized version of God is that that God needs worshipers like a co-dependent husband. No doubt this is based out of their zealous reading of the Old Testament where Yahweh sometimes is portrayed as such. The Old Testament God, however, wasn't always a very savory character, and sometimes just acted out on his worshipers even more than on their enemies (Job.)The New Testament kind of resolves that tension by showing a loving Jesus who forgives all sins and, in fact, is willing to die for humans. Moderns, nevertheless, have polished Jesus all up. A personal Jesus, in other words, really becomes YOUR OWN PERSONAL JESUS, your BUDDY JESUS and works directly for you, so long as you do your part and believe that he 1) existed, 2) was crucified, 3) arose on the third day, 4) is really one aspect of a 3-faced God (of equal co-substation, co-harmonnious, co-spiritenatious, blah bloo blee), 5) will do you favors like saving you a parking spot when necessary. OK #5 is a snarky example of the case, but I've witnessed plenty of contemporary Christians or quasi-Christians relate such outlandish and childish fantasies to me. The fact is that their Jesus, like his Old Testament Daddy seems to need desperately for people to recognize him and BELIEVE.Ultimately, however, I see the hand of man at work in this: it is not Jesus or God that needs us to believe in him but the preacher-man or the CLERGY (to use an old-fashioned term ) or, more likely, the people who belong to specific religious group who need US to believe in THEM or their particular brand of religion. They are the one's who are desperately in need of recognition. They are the ones who, say, like some religions and religious people need their belief-mates to CONSTANTLY confirm that the CHURCH is TRUE (with all the requisite sobbing.)Frankly neither God nor man needs them.-------------------------->UPDATEThe Theologian responds: I can't disagree with any of your comments (this is obviously a preface to a potentially long conversation)--I too have seen the evangelical "Jesus as my best girlfriend," the "God's got me taking a shit" Jesus, or the "puppet show Jesus/God/Spirit" of Calvin(ists). The Catholics have their own problems (don't we all), but the text-focused protestants are a great experiment in hermeneutics for five centuries... The point about the clergy--at least some of them--is quite accurate as well. It has been disturbing to me to see that even many of the 'good' clergy (or seminarians) tend to be quite ignorant about their own narcissistic fantasies (some of this must be true for most anyone who seeks such a central, public and powerful position over others). I actually wrote a fairly scathing article in the [A. S.] publication about this my first year (which contributed to my decreasing popularity among many of the 'true' Christians). We narcissists need not be necessarily destructive in endeavors such as these, but Nietzche's warning in this regard (though I do not agree with his venomous atheistic conclusions) is well taken. People with (religious) power who do not consider their own motivations can be scary as hell (as if this were news!). Daniel Dennett has a great new anti-God book too...can't remember the title, but, like Freud, they are a) interesting anyway in a variety of ways, and b) helpful to believers who want to be rid of their bullshit theology (I recently did that lecture on Frued and Bonhoeffer addressing this...). What remains of our 'house of cards' theology is either nothing...or, the numinous, mysterious, ungraspable, uncomprehensible, (etc.) "G*d." Dawkins said it well at the end of a Time magazine interview when he stated that IF there was some sort of God, it would be a hell of a lot more amazing than any of the theologians have been able to come up with. I don't disagree. Though I doubt he has done much study in the apophatic theologies, or the via negativa... I like the comment on Pascal too (though Pascal has much more to say in his prayer than the putative 'wager'). ANY theology that reduces faith to a whimsical 'assent' to a set of propositions is at best immature, and at worst a tool of hate. Again, Bonhoeffer is a nice contrast. Well, much more for later--I do love this shit though...To wit, I respond:Is Nietzsche or Dennet's positon anti-God or is it anti-religion? Is it impossible to separate God from religion? Is the fetish of the Church so exemplified in Paul? The Church! The Church! I hear them cry. Sounds like a bunch of freaks trying to tell everyone else that they are fucked up to me. That they have the rules of how to get in and how to be and how they and only they have the answer. It still makes me laugh about how much they need to continually reassert their fare by making others agree with them.Of course, one cannot seperate easily the God from the religion. Dawkins is clearly focussed on doing away with the Western concept of God altogether as a ludicrous, over-complicated construct. In the book he focuses specifically on the problem of such a complicated God (who his critic theologians proclaim must be simple and yet complex at the same time.) I admire his steadfastness to the principal of simplicity and the principal that natural selection itself is, in fact, a counter-action to the rule of simplicity. Natural selection, or Darwinism, as he admits, is a response to the Universe's trenchant ability to try to make everything simple.Owwee!
    • 3/5
      Dawkins has so many strong points to make, but is so dull in making them that at times drool pooled on the page as I plowed through. Read Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything if you want to learn about science, without the militant atheism. Then make up your mind.
    • 5/5
      Dawkins is in top form, refuting all of the common (and not so common) justifications people make to reconcile a believe in god in spite of evidence that challenges the plausibility of it all. Particularly funny is how he uses their own weapons against them. In challenging the argument that morality is impossible without the structure of religion, Dawkins reminds the reader that the coveted "10 Commandments" applied only to Jews. It was perfectly fine to kill your neighbor if he wasn't one of the "chosen people", and in fact, there was much encouragement to do so. Dawkins also reports on studies that show a highly negative reaction to some of the events in the bible when the perpetrators were not disclosed -- most, for instance, found Joshua's campaign of genocide reprehensible. However, when the biblical characters were identified, suddenly, the story met with much approval. Society has a seemingly infinite capacity to accept hypocrisy when it comes to religion.Dawkins overall point is that while one might certain concessions to logic to accommodate their religious indoctrination, in all cases, this represents nothing more than a willing delusion. The lengths some will go to are comical to behold -- all the way up to urban legends with no factual basis cited by religious apologists as canonical truth. The God Delusion is a terrific read and will buttress any lingering disregard one has for "the word" regardless of who is delivering it.
    • 4/5
      This is a good book – though admittedly as a long time atheist, much of it was preaching to the converted. Since I have moved to the US (from Canada), I found myself becoming more and more quiet about my objections to religion and my personal beliefs (or lack there of…) and reading the book has reminded me of the importance of publicly speaking out about athesism.There was something in it, however, that was a little unnerving to me. One thing that has always bothered me about religion is that it becomes a singular way of viewing the world. However, I start to hesitate when anyone adopts this religious-like singularity in their world view, even it is devoid of the supernatural. Throughout the book, Dawkins, tends to apply Darwinism in every possible area and this continued to the extent that I though he was getting religious-like in his world view. Obviously I am not implying I don’t believe in the origin of the species – rather I am stating that there is no inherent reason whatsoever that the species and the cosmos need to use a similar mechanism to develop. So on when he started favoring cosmology models based loosely on Darwin, I was quite bothered. Astrophysics does not need to fit into the confines evolution theory. As these similar Darwin like comments continued into the realm of psychology and neuroscience I began to feel like the author was guilty of (supernatural free) religious zealotry. Every scientific endeavor has its own paradigm – that they do not easy fit into a Darwinian paradigm (we not talking about species evolution and thereby do not contradict evolution itself) does not render them superior or inferior (or more or less valid) as scientific descriptions of our world.That said I still gave him four stars - a good read on a important topic that was released in a timely manner.
    • 4/5
      It took a bit to slog through it at times, but in the end I'm glad I took the time to read it.
    • 3/5
      Dawkins does what he sets out to do: to lay out the logical arguments against religion. Unfortunately religious belief is anything but logical and so I rather doubt if too many positions will have changed as a result of reading this book.I think the book is more significant in pushing the idea of active atheism, and Dawkins' celebrity has helped to provoke the debate, but his good arguments will only convince those who already share his point of view.Dawkins is highly intelligent and most people are not, and that's not a situation that is likely to change because of this book.
    • 3/5
      Very interesting book, if you're interested in one way or the other on the debate of god. If you're against, you'll probably agree with the book; if you're for, you'll probably disagree with the book; and if you're a fence sitter, it's food for thought.One main thing I didn't like was that he's as much against the idea of god as others are for it, therefore, I felt the book was biased, though no more so than others that are on the other side.All in all, worth reading.
    • 3/5
      Following the reading of Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great, Dawkin's atheistic tome comes up short. Whereas Hitchens is forcible and, above all, witty in his argument against religion, Dawkins gets bogged down in trying to be too much to too many.The book begins with the claim that the intended audience is believers with a wavering faith. While keeping an eye to this goal, Dawkins seems distracted by the thought that fellow atheists and, more importantly, fellow scientists may also peruse his work. The first half of the book, then, particularly chapters 2, 3, and 4, requires a concerted effort to plod through. Dawkins is too often answering questions that would be posed by a colleague in the field of science rather than the questioning believer.Throughout the book, Dawkins also suffers from the desire to respond to every foreseeable riposte that may be proffered by a believer, without regard to validity or interest. The tediousness of this goal challenges the reader to stay Dawkins's course.Dawkins finds his voice, however, in chapter 6, when he commences his discussion of morality. The question of the source of morality can be a difficult one for any atheist to answer. Here, Dawkins gives an credible answer, which is an enjoyable read. He maintains a more interesting, more colorful, more flowing style throughout the succeeding three chapters, although he falters once again in the tenth.Striking a balance between these critiques and praises, then, I recommend that a prospective reader pick up The God Delusion and reduce her commitment to chapters 6 through 9. Or, even better, read Hitchens's God is Not Great.
    • 2/5
      Unfortunately Dawkins taints an otherwise good book with much (perhaps deserved) hatred of the Catholic church (in particular). One doesn't come away with the feeling that Dawkins is the unbiased scientific thinker that he may otherwise want to portray himself as.
    • 4/5
      Dawkins unfortunately can't turn down his snarky tone until the middle of the book, when his very interesting arguments about the biological roots of religious belief begin. While I am already predisposed to his argument, the people he wants to reach aren't going to make it very far into the text thanks to his dismissive prose.

      I do agree, though, with his defense that researching religion in the depth that his critics seem to demand is unnecessary considering his approach. He does a good job pointing out the logical inconsistencies of religious arguments (and arguments for God); he does a decent job summarizing the problems with Judeo-Christian morality as presented in the holy books. Then again, isn't Dawkins equally upset with Creationists & ID people who fail to study Darwin before making their critiques? I suspect his defense would be that at least he's using reason to determine why god and religion are faulty. Reason without intense research, that is.

      I'm not sure Dawkins wants this book to stand by itself. He continually references other works that deal with ideas he admits are tangential. It seems that readers and critics believe Dawkins should be handling everything himself, but he's part of the scientific community, which bases much of it's research on collaborative efforts. Perhaps with that in mind, his research-shortcomings make more sense.

      In the end, the book makes compelling arguments against the necessity of religion and bolsters, in my view, the idea that humans are moral beings without outdated texts to guide them. That, if anything, is the most important topic of discussion and not whether there really is a flying spaghetti monster.
    • 3/5
      A monster of a read, with tons of huge ideas, some of which are almost impossible to wrap your head around. Which is not to say that Dawkins isn't presumptuous; one of the first things he claims is that if you're on the fence about God, reading this book will most likely "convert" you over to atheism. I'm on the fence, and after finishing, I'm more confused than ever. Still, like the book that inspired me to read this one(Godless by Ann Coulter), Dawkins presents his material in a way that makes you question the established reasons of the world.