First things first I'd like you all to know that I've observed the usual requirements - read the forum rules and searched for threads on this book, so apologies if I'm doing anything wrong. I'm not usually a thread-poster but I thought some discussion on this book would be interesting.
I'm about a third of the way into this book and it's already showing itself to be as thought provoking - and controversial - as the title might suggest. Richard Dawkins is an author and biologist, and one of this country's most high-profile Atheists, who strongly believes that religion and theistic belief is irrational and harmful. The book is one I've been hoping to read for some time, as I've always been something of a fence-sitter in terms of religion. I first heard about Dawkins when reading "The Salmon Of Doubt" by Douglas Adams (author of the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy) and how Dawkins' book 'The Blind Watchmaker' opened his eyes to the elegance of natural selection - and sealed his status as an atheist.
Anyway, this book is effectively Dawkins' own opinions and arguments for the non-existence of God. It's dangerous theological ground and to be honest I find myself being uncomfortable sometimes reading it. His attitudes, in my opinion, are sometimes verging on condescending and arrogant but a lot of what he says makes sense to me. If anything the book so far has helped kickstart my brain - I'm thinking, finally, about what should be a very important issue for all of us. I'm endeavouring to keep an open mind, of course, but the book is revealing to me, just as it did with the late Adams, the beauty and elegance of Darwinian natural selection, and the unexpected fallibility of many pro-religious arguments. I shall endeavour to keep an open mind as I continue reading, and to think for myself rather than simply letting Dawkins' opinions replace my own: also, I aim to read counter-arguments from theistic perspectives at some point in the future, but so far the eloquence and pervasive logic of this book is speaking volumes to me.
I'd love to hear the opinions of anyone who has read this book, or in fact any of Dawkins' other works, and welcome healthy, flame-free discussion. And once again, apologies if this thread is inappropriate or misjudged.
I started reading a friends copy when we were driving through france, but didn't get very far into it. What I did find surprising was the amount if passion he put into his arguments, on a subject not often discussed. I'll probably get my own copy and finish it off.
Huh, I've started it too. I'm on Page 28. But I'm afraid 28 pages of being told I'm a colossal idiot and must be three sandwiches short of a picnic was about all I could hack at the time. The sentence that REALLY got me was the one that went something along the lines of: "No educated, intelligent person could believe in the existence of God." To which my knee-jerk response was: "And what am I? A duck?"
And this was in the PREFACE. THE PREFACE for crying out loud. I hadn't even STARTED the book!
I would have kept going, but I ran out of holiday, and I really wanted to make a present of it to my best friend in Lebanon, so I left it with her. I always felt she wasn't sure about what she believed, and I'd heard so much about Dawkins, and even from the preface I'd figured that he was a highly intelligent, well-read man who'd put a lot of research in to the book. Don't get me wrong, I totally respect what he's doing and the aim he states for his book (to tell atheists that it's all right to 'come out of the closet', so to speak). My friend loved the book, and I know for a fact she's really intelligent and wouldn't just take it at face value.
But I am approaching it from a very set belief in God. I'm ok with other people not sharing that belief, but if people want me to respect their beliefs (or lack thereof), then I expect the same respect in return. And I'm afraid 28 pages of indirectly calling me an idiot is just not cutting it.
But I will finish the book eventually, and get back to you about it!
Yes, his attitude in the introduction riled me a little as well. Though I do have respect for anyone with his strength of conviction, and reading later anecdotes - especially some of the surprisingly anti-atheist attitudes he's come across - I can see where his vehemence comes from.
Still, sticking with it. It's definitely interesting, and I'm loving some of the concepts I'm getting out of it!
In all honesty, it's Dawkins and his ilk that often keeps me from telling people I'm an atheist at the appropriate times or outright lying about it. I have a great respect for religion and faith, and I hate being seen as some cross burning dick who thinks having faith means you've got a mental handicap. I would much prefer atheists put their energy to keeping public sectors secular and also doing more work , say charity-wise, to gain respect and not be seen as attackers on the religious.
Virtually all of Dawkin's arguments have been used in atheist literature for the last thirty years. There's virtually nothing that Dawkins adds to the subject. All he does is rehash the same die-hard atheist stances that have been around for years, throws in some humor, and waters the content down so that the average non-philosophy layman can understand it. He adds nothing new.
The only books by him that I thought were any good: "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker." Mostly because he refrains from his normal outright hostility towards religion, while focusing on Biology (which is his only trained field of Specialty).
Dawkins is great at rephrasing the same tired positions that have been beaten into the dirt since people came up with the infinitely lame concept that science equals no God.
As far as proving a position, science and faith are mutually exclusive. It's not going to happen, nor will it ever. I will say that the one thing I do feel for Dawkins over is the fact that the imbeciles in our ranks (Christians, Muslims, etc...) are the ones that speak the loudest. They'll also invariably get the attention they want. Those attitudes and positions are the cause of many negative events and feelings through history. That being said, there are a growing number of us that completely agree with the prevailing theories on evolution, are not afraid of, nor willing to condemn the sexual behavior of others (within reason, of course), and I myself do not think that a serene afterlife is only available to people that identify Christ as their savior.
The problem with Dawkins, however, is that the concept of God does not simply not make sense to him....but rather, causes him to behave at times like the people he so loathes. In short, he turns into an obnoxious bully, and it stops being about a chance at a healthy dialogue and more like a verbal wrestling match.
EDIT: In the end, his book is a carbon copy of a pointless number of concepts that do nothing to derail Christianity, or any other religion...but serves only to create a more vitriolic rift. Science can't touch faith, nor is it designed to. You'd think an intelligent man such as he would have realized this by now......
I'd suggest when reading anything of theistic nature, you should read from a more philosphical author. Nietzche perhaps, just because they tend to make a separate set of points not diluded by the Atheistic religion. But I will give this a look, because I personally find the subject interesting.
Well I have now (as of about ten minutes ago) finished The God Delusion. It's taken me longer than a book of its size would as I've only really been reading it on the journey to and from work - probably a good thing, as rushing a book usually stops me digesting the material properly.
I've got to say, although I agree with the points some of you have made abuot Dawkins' style, this book is very intelligently written and rather persuasive. TexanMarine mentioned that it rehashes a lot of Dawkins' other ideas: as I haven't read his other works this wasn't an issue for me! As for his somewhat aggressive tone, agreed - it is not a good way to win over a reader. But to some extent it's understandable: it demonstrates the author's frustration with the world as he sees it, and I can sympathise, even if the folly of such an approach is obvious.
If nothing else it has helped me clarify a few of the ideas I'd been toying with but have never been able to put a clear structure to: the idea that a world which, by a process of natural selection has created the diverse life forms and ecosystems that we see today without the assistance of a creator, is no less elegant or breathtaking than one that has been 'intelligently designed'. I can't say it has made an atheist out of me (though I'm not sure how far from being one I was to begin with), but I found myself agreeing with far more of the book's content than than I disagreed with. I'd reccommend this to pretty much anyone. If you've started and have been put off by the seemingly condescending tone, please stick with it. It's worth it.
I have read some of Dawkins writing before, but have not read his latest, Right now i'm reading Micheal Behe's "edge of evolution". I'm only a quarter of a through it, but so far it has some interesting info. I'm not trying to start a Religious/philosophical debate here. just wanted to post about the other books on this subject.
I'm a self confesses atheist and all my friends know my position on religion. For me The God Delusion was a breath of fresh air. Clarifying some terms I had been struggling with to really come to grip with. I knew there was something wrong with how the world worked and Dawkins put those feelings into words for me.
I watched the TV series which was based on The God Delusion. And I agree with everyone here. Watching him made me feel really awkward because he can't keep his temper in check. For someone that intelligent he sure lets his anger get the better of him which makes him look pathetic. He is much better when he keeps to words but even in writing he can seem very aggressive. I believe a good argument does not need to turn to aggression so the fact that Dawkins does is a bit of a pity.
Otherwise everything he says is quite solid.
The thing I found most poignant was the chapter devoted to the children. I have always felt that children are being brainwashed and shaped, especially where religion is concerned. I loved that Dawkins actually logically constructed why this occurs in an evolutionary sense. It was like a light bulb finally went on in my head. Kids listening to authoritative figures because it is vital to survival. It's so simple! The whole thing with kids and religion is something I feel is the most dangerous thing that religion exercises upon the world population. I got the impression that Dawkins was also very passionate about this subject. I fully agree with him that kids should not be taught to believe religion. Religion is a vital part of our existence and history so I think kids should be exposed to all religions. Told about everything. Told about science too. When you close a childs mind to all other possibilities it will lead to disaster. It will lead to the world we live in today. Full of fear, anger and misunderstanding.
I think it's a pretty important book for people not familiar with the running arguments. Yes, all the things Dawkins writes about don't bring anything new into the topic. But he says that in the book. The God Delusion is a book which is supposed to bring all these arguments into one place once and for all. It is his response to religious people. Of course he goes over old material because nothing new is ever brought to the stale argument of religion.
But it is a fascinating read once you get over being offended.
