The God Delusion

[Puppycow]

Before reading this book, I was already a nonreligious strong agnostic. I had already figured out on my own that organized religions had no good evidence to support their claims. I was agnostic about the possibility of a deist-type God (one which created the universe but does not interfere in human affairs). The only thing I was sure about was that those who claim to know anything specific about God were either lying or mistaken. But reading this book has inspired me to embrace the term ‘atheist’ instead of ‘agnostic’ or ‘nonreligious,’ which I had preferred in the past.

Dawkins offers a good argument for doubting even a deist-type God. He calls his argument ‘The Ultimate 747,’ which basically turns a creationist’s argument against evolution on its head. Creationists often argue that the odds of life just happening ‘by chance’ are like the odds of a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving in its wake a fully assembled 747. Of course, we all know that such an event is prohibitively unlikely. The earliest life forms are thought to have been much simpler than the complex organisms that dominate today. Evolution is a gradual, cumulative process, and no single evolutionary step is prohibitively unlikely.

‘The Ultimate 747’ argument basically says that any God that could create the universe in an intelligent way as a designer would be extremely complex. So the same logic that says that a tornado in a junkyard will never accidentally assemble a 747 means that such a complex God also could not have simply popped into existence out of the void. Dawkins argues that if a ‘God’ exists, he/she/it must have evolved in some way from something simpler. So, Dawkins argues, as a scientific hypothesis positing a God fails the Occam’s razor test: It raises more questions than it answers.

Dawkins also refutes many of the most famous ‘proofs’ of God’s existence that have been offered in the past, such as Thomas Aquinas’ ‘proofs’, the so-called ‘ontological argument’ and others.

So, is it worth reading if you are already an atheist? I think so. I enjoyed reading it, and I learned some useful arguments and facts. If you are not an atheist or close to being one already, I recommend it even more, as I think you will find it a good challenge for your worldview.

<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thejamesrandi-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0618680004&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=8D0007&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr&nou=1" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Puppycow]

By the way, at least in the UK (and in Japan where I am), this book is already available in paperback. This is the version I read:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/21HBd7eFJeL._AA115_.jpg
Amazon.com says that the paperback version is not available yet in the US, but you can preorder it.

[tracer]

I, too, read and enjoyed Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

However, there was one statement he made that gave me pause as to how thoroughly he'd looked into the relationship between religion and human psychology.


In one chapter, Dawkins notes that religion is at the heart of many of the wars that have been fought over the course of recorded history. However, he rightly notes that most so-called holy wars are actually initiated for reasons having nothing to do with religion. Religion is merely used as an excuse to fight the war. If religion did not exist, all -- or at least most -- of the wars in history that have been fought for religious reasons would probably have been fought anyway.

However, later, Dawkins completely fails to make the same leap of understanding when it comes to homophobia. He pins the dislike of homosexuals entirely on religion, with the clear implication that if religion didn't exist, homophobia wouldn't exist. Frankly, that's utter nonsense. I've known people who were not religious at all, but who still harbored a strong dislike for homosexuality. With these homophobic folks, there is a real emotional gut-reaction, almost at the level of an instinct, that kicks in whenever they think about homosexuals. Homosexuals cause genuine anxiety for them. They have to consciously fight this internal revulsion to carry on a normal conversation with someone who is "flagrantly" homosexual. It is very clear that here, as with wars, religion is merely the excuse, not the root cause.

[homerboo]

Tracer's point is thought provoking: Religion could be an excuse rather than the genesis of hate. In an otherwise homogeneous society (there's no pun there), one point of difference will be enough to cause disagreement, however, the difference seems to be based more on religion rather than anything else. Think Ireland, think Sunni-Shiite, even in Northern Ontario in the 50s, there were differences causing hatred - Catholic French and Protestant Irish.
There is enough religious indoctrination within society that even those who claim not to base hatred of homosexuals on religion, most likely still base their dislike on there being something "wrong" with homosexuality. It is not the advanced thought of humans (as homosexuality is not unknown in the remainder of the animal kingdom), it is the familiar religious component that society is built upon that dictates non-acceptance of homosexuals.

As for historical and current wars, if you look at enough of them, religion has been the catalyst and / or the ongoing reason to continue the war. Is the Iraq war wrong? Possibly, but without 9/11, Dubya would not have been able to generate support for it. The ongoing war in the Middle East - purely on religious basis for some soil of two different divine beings between religions.

I have no problem conceding that most American wars were not started on religious grounds, however, I cannot take the North-American-centric view of catalysts for war. Dawkins addresses the wars that have gone on throughout time and throughout the world. Most of these would not have been started and continued without the prevalence of religious ideals. It is simply the greatest generation of spirit for non-real differences.

[BillyJoe]

By the way, at least in the UK (and in Japan where I am), this book is already available in paperback. This is the version I read:
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/21HBd7eFJeL._AA115_.jpg
Amazon.com says that the paperback version is not available yet in the US, but you can preorder it.


My father-in-law got the paperback as well - and then passed it in to me - but it has the same cover as the original, and it was already for sale at half price.

[NeilC]

I enjoyed reading this book but didn't feel I learned a whole lot. Most of the arguments have been presented before elsewhere and with greater depth. It's pop theology and philsophy.

I liked how he countered the idea that morals come from religion by pointing out how immoral many of the stories are in today's terms, and how morals have changed but the bible hasn't and the act of selecting stories to suit the morals of the day negates the need for the bible in the first place (so he agrees with religious fundamentalist about this!). But attempts to paint Christ as inherently immoral were, not surprisingly I suppose, less sucessful.

[Island Skeptic]

However, later, Dawkins completely fails to make the same leap of understanding when it comes to homophobia. He pins the dislike of homosexuals entirely on religion, with the clear implication that if religion didn't exist, homophobia wouldn't exist. Frankly, that's utter nonsense. I've known people who were not religious at all, but who still harbored a strong dislike for homosexuality. With these homophobic folks, there is a real emotional gut-reaction, almost at the level of an instinct, that kicks in whenever they think about homosexuals. Homosexuals cause genuine anxiety for them. They have to consciously fight this internal revulsion to carry on a normal conversation with someone who is "flagrantly" homosexual.


Where else do you think this distaste for homosexuals might have originated from, if not either directly or indirectly from religion? I am not trying to be confrontational, but just curious of how else you rationalize it.

As for the book: Although I agree that of course much of the information contained in Dawkin's book is not "news," his writing style and the way he compiled such a vast amount of information so neatly & fluidly is absolutely brilliant! It is an easy read for those (like myself) who might struggle through the more complex and scientific texts ...and the added humour made the book even all the more enjoyable.

The only thing I wished Dawkins had done was to go into greater detail of the many theologies & myths that preceded Christianity: those that have identical stories (virgin birth, northern star, resurrection, Noah's ark, etc.) because i feel it is a very strong and vital point to bring up; that the biblical story is nothing but a repeat/copy of numerous older stories that were recorded for ages before the Christ story!

I LOVE this book and recommend it to everyone i know!

Aloha!

[Puppycow]

I enjoyed reading this book but didn't feel I learned a whole lot. Most of the arguments have been presented before elsewhere and with greater depth. It's pop theology and philsophy.

I have to take issue with the adjective "pop" you use there. This is a word used by the obscurantists and those who mistake obscurantism for profundity to denigrate those who write and speak clearly. To me, speaking clearly is always a good thing, and I have little patience for those mistake big words, rare words, foreign words and difficult and confusing construtions for intellect. One of my favorite quotes on this subject is from James Burke: "If you can say anything at all, you can say it clearly." There is no concept (that humans can understand) that cannot be expressed clearly. Which is not to say that it's easy to express difficult concepts clearly. It takes a certain way with words, which is why I appreciate people like Dawkins, Sagan and Burke all the more.

As for the book: Although I agree that of course much of the information contained in Dawkin's book is not "news," his writing style and the way he compiled such a vast amount of information so neatly & fluidly is absolutely brilliant! It is an easy read for those (like myself) who might struggle through the more complex and scientific texts ...and the added humour made the book even all the more enjoyable.I totally agree there.

[NeilC]

I'd like to think I'm not an obscurantist. By "pop" I do mean a relatively shallow and therefore somewhat unsatisfying to me personally, in parts at least. If I compare it to Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian" I find, for instance, the philosophical arguments more fundamentally addressed there.

When writing a pop book (one intended for a popular audience - a wide audience including a greater number of people with non-specialist interest) it is usually necessary to present a broad but relatively shallow depth of information and reasoning lest one loses the audiences interest. This is not a criticism of Dawkins or pop literature in general but merely an opinion on the nature of the beast.

[Island Skeptic]

The prolonged application of a polysyllabic vocabulary infallibly exercises a deleterious influence on the fecundity of expression, rendering the ultimate tendency apocryphal.

:)

[maddog]

The prolonged application of a polysyllabic vocabulary infallibly exercises a deleterious influence on the fecundity of expression, rendering the ultimate tendency apocryphal.

:)

Um... what? :p

[qayak]

One of my favorite quotes on this subject is from James Burke: "If you can say anything at all, you can say it clearly." There is no concept (that humans can understand) that cannot be expressed clearly. Which is not to say that it's easy to express difficult concepts clearly. It takes a certain way with words, which is why I appreciate people like Dawkins, Sagan and Burke all the more.

Richard Feynman had these same thoughts in mind when he said something to the effect of, "If you can't explain it to a layperson, you do not understand the subject."

Of course, people look for any reason to attack Dawkins. I think stating that his book was easy to understand, clear, and with a vast area of knowledge is a very high compliment.

[BillyJoe]

"If you can say anything at all, you can say it clearly."


This applies to writing as well.
What's the point of writing anything unless you write it clearly so that it can be read.

[patrick767]

This applies to writing as well.
What's the point of writing anything unless you write it clearly so that it can be read.

I don't know. Ask Thomas Pynchon if you can find him.

[BillyJoe]

I don't know. Ask Thomas Pynchon if you can find him.


:D

I see your misunderstanding, and it was my fault.
I meant the actual writing.
You know, someone wants to communicate something really important and they send you a letter that is so badly written that it simply cannot be read.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I always felt a review for this book in this forum is long overdue. That being said, I feel most of the members (at least the cogent ones) of JREF have already read this book.

Charlie (I heart Dawkins) Monoxide

[BillyJoe]

I feel most of the members (at least the cogent ones) of JREF have already read this book.


My father-in law shoved it in my hands at a funeral recently and said read this.
Does that count for "cogent"?

[shadron]

The prolonged application of a polysyllabic vocabulary infallibly exercises a deleterious influence on the fecundity of expression, rendering the ultimate tendency apocryphal.

:)

While it is true that there is something to be said for clear, simple language, there is also the fact that the richness of the English language is a jewel, and to avoid using it is to slight the people who made it so, from Shakespeare to Tom Clancy (pardon the contrast there!). If you only want to appeal to the newspaper's "apocryphal" 6th grade average, then welcome, but don't call down those who like to aim higher.

[Island Skeptic]

While it is true that there is something to be said for clear, simple language, there is also the fact that the richness of the English language is a jewel, and to avoid using it is to slight the people who made it so, from Shakespeare to Tom Clancy (pardon the contrast there!). If you only want to appeal to the newspaper's "apocryphal" 6th grade average, then welcome, but don't call down those who like to aim higher.



That comment was a little joke. :-) I agree with you and feel that writing is an art form that I take great pleasure in (Mark Twain's work, in particular, I am most fond of).

However, I do feel that, with all important subject matters, it is important that some materials are written in layman's terms for the whole literate public to read and understand. Dawkins does just that in his book "The God Delusion," and I am glad for that.

[iantresman]

Even as a confirmed atheist, one should know that you can't argue for or against the existence of a god. There are certainly arguments for, and arguments against, but if mother nature, or god, has made the universe this way, how can I argue?

[EvilEye]

You can't prove the non-existence of a god, but you can deconstruct all the evidence they use for one to show how low the true likelyhood of one is.

[Cincinnatus]

I thought this book was rather good, but his account of Einstein was completely wrong.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God that is ture, however Einstein was agnostic about a cosmological God. Nevertheless, Dawkins made me love science again.

[BillyJoe]

All the evidence tends to suggest that Einstein used the word "god" as pure metaphor.

[Olowkow]

I found "Delusion" to be the best yet of his books, though I am partial to Harris for his style.

[LilaMae]

Loved it. Loved it. Loved it. Dawkins style is so sharp and clever and funny. It's incisive without being gratuitously berating. You cannot read this book without having it change the way you think.

[deRoy]

Good book.

A bit redundant at a times, but overall a very easy and informative read.

[TheDaver]

A nice feature of the paperback edition is Mr. Dawkins’ response to some of the criticism he received for the book after its hardcover printing.

[JonathanQuick]

The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist... - Michael Ruse, a professor and colleague of Richard Dawkins

[CarriePoppy]

I was a Christian when I opened this book, and an atheist when I closed it. If there's any doubt that this book changes lives, I'm walking evidence.

[Bilbo]

It's an OK book. Unfortunately the people that need to read it, never will.

[CarriePoppy]

Bilbo, please see my comment above. I needed to read it, and did, and it had the desired effect. I really feel like Richard Dawkins saved my life, and told him as much when I met him. I know I could be in the minority, but from this vantage point, if I'm the only one, it was all worth it for me.

[SqueakGeek]

I read this book about a year ago. Very much enjoyed it especially the discussion of the cargo cults. This was much to the annoyance of my neo-pagan and unitarian friends who embrace the "all religions have truth" view.

[Driftwood]

By the time I read this book, I was already tiptoeing on the line between faith and reason. This book gave me a quick shove and I've never looked back in anything other than relief. Richard Dawkins is very good at reaching deep down inside and connecting with your inner rational being, cutting through all the woo woo, and reaching a part of your mind that knows what you believe makes no sense, and drags it out of you and puts it at the forefront.

Excellent book. Highly Recommended.

[Almo]

So the same logic that says that a tornado in a junkyard will never accidentally assemble a 747 means that such a complex God also could not have simply popped into existence out of the void. Dawkins argues that if a ‘God’ exists, he/she/it must have evolved in some way from something simpler.

I don't buy this argument. Saying God must have come from something simpler is applying the wrong rules. God has always been, and always will be, by definition. Changing the definition of God and refuting that is useless.

I think it's pointless to try to refute the idea of God using reason, since it is inherently an unreasonable idea. People who cling to the idea aren't using reason; if they were, there would be no need for such a complex way of convincing them.

For reference, I'm a strong atheist.

[phelix]

I'm really not a big fan of this book, or Dawkins' arguments. He made being atheist ok though, which is always good, but still.
The 747 gambit is a great big nothing of an argument. Why would God have to be more complex? What does "complex" mean? Why does appealing to a more complex solution have to be a bad step?
As far as I've always thought of God, he would be someone far less complex than the universe. He's about 7 or 8 ultimate superpowers, and that's it. There's no real variation, so he isn't as complicated as the universe, whatever that means. But supposing we do consider that to be more complicated. Maybe to be omnipotent requires some sort of power level not found in the natural universe, so we can consider him more complicated. What then?
The argument seems to be that, because we are left with something more complicated to explain, we must dismiss it, but this isn't so. We believed in atoms because they explained the behaviour of matter. We couldn't explain atoms, and it would have been easier not to believe in them, but wrong. We then believed in subatomic particles. Also adding complexity. Also unexplained. Also true. Same now for quarks...
If something is unexplained, that isn't a good reason to dismiss it as an explanation.

God is actually a very bad explanation, but Dawkins never seems to touch on that, and for that, I am a bit upset with this book. It has left atheists feeling confident, but without any sound logical backing.

[JippyJay]

I liked how he countered the idea that morals come from religion by pointing out how immoral many of the stories are in today's terms, and how morals have changed but the bible hasn't...


NeilC, that's a bit of a tricky claim that everyone has to look out for and it's claims like that that made me really lose respect towards Dawkins some time ago. Making illogical claims in the name of logic tends to hurt your argument (or Dawkin's argument in this case). Our understanding of the Bible has actually changed drastically over the years, much like our understanding of any ancient text, which is what would really have the most impact on someone's morals.

Our understanding changed largely due to correcting errors in translations and forming a more solid knowledge base concerning the historical context within the Bible. If someone bases their morals on an incorrect translation on a text, then of course those morals will change a bit as the correct translations come to light. In many cases the simple nature of the English language caused the confusion, since many terms from Greek and Hebrew have no real equivalent in English.

Furthermore, Dawkin's is failing to address a key aspect of Christianity when he makes such statements. That aspect being that the Bible directs a specific nation to behave within certain morals in the Old Testament, and then the New Testament directs followers of Christ to do their best to follow some morals. What it doesn't really do is say these morals will be obeyed by the entire world, during all times. So pointing out how morals change over time, when the Bible never said they wouldn't, isn't proof morals don't come from religion.

Don't get me wrong, I think morals are formed from many sources. I just hate when a speaker/author uses faulty logic like that.