762 of 877 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars 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...
Published on 14 Mar. 2009 by Mr Tea-Mole
2.0 out of 5 stars DAWKINS GOES MILITANT. AND FORGETS HIS EVOLUTION.
As a fellow scientist I have great respect for Dawkins ability to popularize complex ideas. Who can forget "THE SELFISH GENE"?! His ideas used to come across crystal clear and redolent with logical symmetry. And I think that he is long overdue for the Nobel Prize for his introduction of the notion of memes. I am afraid though that he bit the forbidden fruit for a...
Published on 26 Aug. 2007 by NeuroSplicer
Most Helpful First | Newest First
10 of 38 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars what a load of twaddle,
first things first there are three things which i feel i need to make clear. 1 i am a christian. 2 i believe like richard dawkins in evolution. 3 i have no problem with atheists or agnostics-i have many friends from outside the christian circle. richard dawkins attempts to use evolution vs creation to prove that there isn't a god and fails miserably. i gave this book a one start review, and believe me if i could have given it less i damn well would have. there is documentary evidence to prove that well before the days of darwin people within the church were looking for proper answers to the story of the human race as it has always been accepted within the christian community that the whole point of the genesis chapter in the bible was the moral of the story ie about disobeying the word of god. any one with any knowledge of the bible knows that. being a christian is about believing that jesus died on the cross for our sins, a concept that dawkins failed singularly to grasp. astonishingly he also fails to grasp the difference between believing in god and organised religion-something thats a massive difference tat even my two year old nephew can understand. richard dawkins has proven himself unworthy of his job title as professor in that he shows a clear lack of intellect or research in to the subject that he is writing about and worthy of it in that he demonstrates himself to be arrogant and unworldly. any one who admits that they don't read the work of chrisitan scientists because he beieves it to be prejudiced, well sorry mate, but an old expression about the pot and the kettle springs to mind. in doing that he has proven himself to be what he believes them to be-small minded and ignorant and add thick in to the bargain as well
11 of 41 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Mostly irrelevant to the debate!,
Dawkins obviously is good on the science, but some of the Biblical studies is simply pathetic, sometimes wrong and sometimes stupidly simplistic. He does not spend long with the teaching and life of Jesus, but claims Christianity is the one he is most familiar with. He does not explain why, for him, Thomas Jefferson is a strong voice of authority but George Bush isn't. His dwelling on what is authoritative should be central but isn't there.
Finally 80% of the book isn't about whether there is a God or gods, but that people of faith do stupid or dangerous things and cite their faith. Finally "Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism" So that's all right then!
23 of 81 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Atheism as a religion?,
So, religion is the root of all evil? Indeed this `love your enemy' and `forgive your neighbour' malarkey should have been banged on the head a long time ago. Dawkins seems to believe that if Britain abandoned faith overnight the entire population would give up watching East Enders and turn previously shackled minds to profound scientific considerations.
Provided it's the `right kind' of science.
My Oxford dictionary describes `science' as an `open minded study'. Dawkins' rationale throughout all his work is based on the theories of Charles Robert Darwin, a divinity student with no science degree or knowledge of microbiology. Darwin's theory of continental change has long been superseded by plate tectonics, and now an increasing number of open minded scientists are questioning his ideas on species transmutation (the biological equivalent of turning lead into gold). In blaming religion for the worlds ills, many secularists conveniently overlook the fact that Darwin's theories were used to justify colonial expansion and the subjugation of what were seen as `inferior' races. They also proved useful to members of society wishing to consolidate their position in the class system. No one would dream of blaming Darwin for this, so why blame God when mankind abuses Biblical - or other religious - ideals? Yes, the Old Testament is full of blood and thunder, but 300 years ago hanging someone for stealing apples was considered reasonable under English law.
Incidentally, Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey, a building dedicated to "the glorification of God".
Other problems lie in the style of this book. Witty as Dawkins certainly is, the same loaded words are trundled out: `reason', `superstition', `rational', etc, etc as if invoking them will cause believers to melt in a cloud of steam like the witch in the Wizard of Oz. Darwin didn't create atheism - like the cockroach it's always been with us, even to the extent of being gently lampooned in the Old Testament Book of Isaiah. Dawkins claims there's no proof for a creator, but you get the feeling that if the Almighty reached down and plucked the good professor off the face of the earth he'd convince himself it was an alien abduction.
Where `The God Delusion' becomes downright insidious, however is in the claim that religious teaching harms schoolchildren and holds back science. Surely if the science itself is flawed then it should be resisted at all levels, not just in the classroom? Religion teaches that man has a meaningful place in a planned world, that there is universal justice, that love is a power above everything else, that he is accountable for his actions and has a positive hope for the future. Adults and children alike are given a clear set of moral standards. Atheism by comparison offers absolutely nothing. And Dawkins wants that taught to our youngsters?
By the way, is the Brian Eno quoted on the hardcover version of this book the same man who once claimed to be an extraterrestrial?
8 of 32 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars An exercise in futility.,
This review is from: The God Delusion (Kindle Edition)
I am not going to write a long review of this book for three reasons; firstly, only those who already share the authors worldview and those who are ignorant of the counter argument will get anything out of it (a case of preaching to the choir); secondly, Dawkins has no understanding of the bible which he rants against. I don't believe he has ever studied it beyond a glance and knows little about theology; and finally, he lacks the ability to think logically: This is obvious when you read chapter 4 and its title: "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God." So, would it be fair for me to write, "Why Richard Dawkins is almost certainly not an atheist." Actually, from that chapter it would. How can any logical, intelligent person claim to be an atheist, which by definition says: "There is absolutely no God," and then say there is almost certainly no God without therefore being agnostic?
Also, I'm not convinced that Dawkins actually is a true atheist. If you believe someone does not exist, how could you speak about them with such vehemence? There should be no great emotion there at all. It should be merely based on logical, scientific evidence. And for those who will argue he's angry at religious people, I'd have to disagree. Look at his eyes and listen to the carefully (to an extent) chosen, spiteful words he uses. Either way, Richard Dawkins is an arrogant, vitriolic, hateful man.
Lastly, Dawkins is also a liar. I'm sorry to have to use such absolute terms; but he lies about evolution being proven fact. That is clearly not the case. Also, in his documentaries he uses tricks of editting to silence people he can not argue against. He will narrate over them and give his opinion on what they are saying, instead of letting the viewer make up their own mind.
Okay, perhaps this is longer than I intended, although it took no more than ten minutes.
I read the Kindle version and the formatting etc was pretty good. This is often not the case, so thought I'd add that.
2 of 11 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars My Bible,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This book does away with all doubt the idea of a God and reduces religion of all types to the equivalent of believing in leprechauns.
4 of 19 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Hollow, Hypocritical, Derisory,
Dawkins' book is brazenly hypocritical. For this reason alone I suggest you buy as many copies as you can afford and distribute them to friends. Take for example the thorny question of homosexuality and evolution. As an "enlightened" westerner Dawkins champions gay rights and falls over himself in his book trying to ingratiate himself with the gay community in their spat with conservative Christians. As a Darwinian evolutionist, however, Dawkins will have to concede that homosexuality is an unproductive, evolutionary dead end because gays don't pass on their DNA. Dawkins will never say this in public though - for obvious reasons. Rather he allows "morality" to creep in through the back door and confer on same sex relationships a "value" that contradicts the scientific theory of origins which he propounds. The fact is if evolution is the catalyst for the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens then there can be no room for "morality" of any kind whatsoever. Morality is pure illusion plucked from the sky. Terms like "value", "worth", "equality", etc., are metaphysical notions, and thus utterly meaningless in Darwin speak. Yet in the work-a-day world Dawkins still clings to these empty linguistic "ghosts", and urges us to resist strenuously with all our might the implications of Darwinian evolution. However because Dawkins cannot root or legitimate his moral altruism in Darwinian terms his savage attack on religious "values" is utterly derisory as well as hollow and hypocritical.
2 of 12 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Not just a book for atheism,
I think it's not worth repeating how great this book is because of its contents about atheism and religion.
What I wanted to add to these reviews is that after reading this book you will surely view the world differently, and this book will have an impact not just on your view of the church and religion but also on your every day life.
And if you do like this book, watch The Zeitgeist documentaries, you will find them very interesting too (at least "Zeitgeist: The Movie" if you are only interested in faith, religion etc. and not in social manipulation in a broader sense). zeitgeistmovie.com is the url
14 of 52 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Make your own mind up,
Oh dear. How sad that those of us who are open-minded about such things are berated by those who are not. Now I wonder why people think of Christians as forgiving and understanding when those who believe should simply be open-minded and forgiving to those who are as yet unconvinced?
Personally I do think there may be some influence on lives (call it nature, fate or God) but the real problem lies in the blind devotion of those who cannot see things such as the Vatican as not just a wonderful place of worship and faith, but also as an uber-rich palace of gross excesses which could actually be sold to end world starvation.
Read the book and make your own mind up about it's content; after all isn't that what 'God' intended men and women to be able to do?
5 of 22 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars What a rant!,
I tried to come to this with an open mind and on reading the introduction thought that I was going to be presented with some well written arguments which would make me sit up and think again. But as I progressed through the book, I became increasingly disappointed with Richard Dawkins' lack of tolerance for other people's beliefs.
When I was a child I was subjected to fundamental Christianity and after reading this book, I think Richard Dawkins shows himself up to be a atheist fundamentalist.
Whatever happened to the open mind of the scientist.
Most Helpful First | Newest First