The God Delusion: A Study of Religious Belief and Skepticism

It's doesn't matter if you are are a callous atheist, a mild believer, or a religious fundamentalist, you should read this book anyway. It will probably leave you with your own faith and beliefs, but enriched with many stimulating ideas. It will also make a perfect source of discussion subjects to liven up those boring dinner with your friends. The first part of the book is about refuting the so called "proofs" of God existence and pointing out the fact that a "God Hypothesis" is far for being useful to explain the universe , since it creates the biggest problems of explaining God. Not so interesting and new if you have done already a little thinking by yourself but still useful. One really good idea I found in the first part of the book was the the criticism of the "automatic respect for religion", that is the habit of according respect and tolerance to the weirdest behaviours if only they are a consequence of religious faith. The discussion that I found more interesting are about the morality of human beings and its possible origins and laws, and on the origin the seeminly universal religious sense in our race. The idea of religion as by-product of some other evolutionary useful mechanism like blind obedience to parents, or the ability to understand things through their real or imaginary "purpose" and "intentions" is really fascinating. So is the idea of religion as an extention of the psycological process that causes children to create imaginary friends. The chapter on the "evils" of religion and how , even in its "moderate" forms can harm the happiness of people is also definitely worth some pondering. Where this book falls a little short is in his analysis of the Bible and the New Testament. First, the real "sourcebook" for Christianity is the New Testament, it is not calle New for nothing... but this is not Dawkins's fault. In my deep ignorance about history I have alway wondered why Christianity in anglosaxon countries is so centered around the Bible instead of the New Testament, which, if believed is orders of magnitude more important than the Bible. And it seems to have deep consequences on the national characters, if one just looks at the cleverly organized by kinda business cold anglo-saxons compared with the warmth of latin people. Or maybe it's not a consequence but a cause... who knows? The most glaring gap though is a total failure in appreciating the geniality , the poetry and the depth of Jesus life and teachings. Considering the idea of God suffering and dying for the human race as a sadomasochist act is a superficial and silly idea. Even as a little child I noted that Christianity was the only religion I knew of where the founder had not used his cult to life a life of happiness power and domination but suffered and died miserably. That immediately rules out the scenario in which some smart guy uses religious sense in other people to reach wealth and power. It's also an highly poetic and genially crazy idea , the idea of a God suffering and dying like the human race has to suffer and die. I don't know about you, but I would not be able to feel much sympathy for a God that sits comfortably in his Paradise while man has to cope with the harshness of life down here... A subject that needs way more analysis and thinking is morality. It's often repeated that if there is no God to decide what's good and what's evil , than morality is necessarily bound to be subjective and arbitrary. I disagree with this. It would be like saying that without parental guide a kid would not have any idea of what is good and what is bad. What you see instead is a lot of kids who can do much better than their parents, even when they happen to have terrible parents. The objectivity of morality is rooted not in someone arbitrary decision, be him a parent or a god, but in understanding the objective consequences of an action. It would be quite depressing even for a religious person to believe that, for example, murder is evil not because of its evil consequences but because God doesn't like it. And that's also why religious people everywhere should have very clear that while reason cannot prove or disprove religion, any religious claim or behaviour must stand the test of reason. I would also object to Dawkins optimistic and naive idea of the moral standards improving with time. That's a very narrow point of view that surprises me in an intelligent man like Dawkins..yes, standards of life has improved , sure, in his little corner of the World.. most of Europe and US, but this is just a tiny bit of ur planet. Richard you should have the courage of giving a hard look at Africa, Asia and south America and realize that the only things that has improved is the economy of a minority of Earth nations, and this partly because of the advancement of science and technology but mostly because of the exploiting of the rest of the planet, like the Iraq war can easily remind us. The only thing that can provoke an improvement in morality is culture and knowledge. In that sense I see the metaphor of God as "The Verb" particularly striking. Intelligence, knowledge and culture can help us see through the consequences of our actions and give an objective , "scientific" foundation to make this planet a decent place to live in. Look around, and you will easily see that the persons responsible of selfish, brutal or irresponsible actions are very often persons who have little education and cultural background. And with culture I don't mean just the one you can get from books and university, but even the family traditions, as in this respect wisdom is more important than sheer knowledge. And finally about the inspiration that the authors tries to give in the final chapters, which should fill the gap left by the refutation of God.. well I have to say that Dawkins is am exceedingly brilliant science writer, extremely stimulating and fascinating as far as science is concerned, but as for inspiration and passion, well he's just a tiny bit to "technical" for that. And here comes my last critic to this nonetheless fascinating book. Religion can be dangerous, but so can be any kind of fixation, even an adoration for science that makes you look at everything through the same old glasses of science and analyze your life and reality just in those terms. If your life is centered only around one spot, be it religion, literature, science, sportsmanship or whatever else you might like, your life and your view of the cosmos is necessarily going to be narrow , rigid and ultimately boring. ps> and please, Richard, stop it with your meme theory, it's not a scientific theory, it's not needed to explain anything, it's just an analogy.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" is the book that raised consciousness about the "God" question. It takes a critical look at the belief of God and espouses a superior way of viewing the world. This book has inspired countless other books of this ilk and in many respects provided the inspiration for many people to "come out". The book holds up quite well after a third reading, biologist, best-selling author and icon of the atheist movement, Richard Dawkins takes the reader on a journey into the most fascinating topic of them all, religion. This captivating 464-page book is composed of the following ten chapters: 1. A Deeply Religious Non-Believer, 2. The God Hypothesis, 3. Arguments for God's Existence, 4. Why There Are Almost Certainly No God, 5. The Roots of Religion, 6. The Roots of Morality: Why are we Good?, 7. The `Good' Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist, 8. What's Wrong with Religion? Why be so Hostile? 9. Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion, and 10. A Much Needed Gap? Positives: 1. An influential book that inspired an intellectual movement. 2. The most interesting topic, religion, in the hands of a great, passionate thinker. 3. A thought-provoking book written with panache. 4. A book that focuses on raising consciousness on the "God" question, mission accomplished. 5. This book is a quote fest, "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." 6. A look at the many views of `God', "Of course, like any other word, the word `God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that `God' is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." 7. The author does a wonderful job of defining important terms. 8. Debunking misconceptions. Take Einstein for instance, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever." 9. The author does a wonderful job of supporting his arguments with case studies and sound logic. 10. The religious views of the Founding Fathers in perspective. Interesting stuff! 11. The spectrum of religious belief. 12. A look at prayer, "to pray: to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessed unworthy." The prayer case study. 13. A couple of chapters are dedicated to the most popular arguments for God's existence. 14. Natural selection as a conscious raiser. "Natural selection not only explains the whole of life; it also raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance." 15. Ideas of where religion came from. Many interesting ideas on why people are vulnerable to the charms of religion. Dawkins' specific hypothesis relates to the indoctrination of children. A partial list of religious memes. 16. The roots of morality. The four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be moral. 17. A great chapter on why people who claim to derive their morals from scripture do not really do so in practice. Biblical examples that illustrate that, "we don't get our morals from scripture." Dawkins takes off his gloves. 18. Debunking the notion that atheism is behind bad behaviour. "What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does." 19. The effects of religion, "one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." "As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect." 20. The dangers of indoctrination of children into religion. "Children should be taught not so much what to think as how to think." 21. I enjoyed reading the list of Bible-inspired phrases. 22. Debunks the notion of the necessity for a god. "Religion's power to console doesn't make it true". 23. An excellent appendix that provides resources for people trying to escape from religion. 24. Books cited. Negatives: 1. No links for Kindle. 2. Dawkins is unable to answer some questions in which I believe there are plausible answers. To the question of why religion has flourished in America, I would contend that the separation of Church and State has in combination with financial benefits (tax-free) and the open-market system has contributed greatly. In summary, I read this book years ago when it first came out and I must say it inspired me. I always felt that for the truth to have any value it would have to correspond to reality but never really had the courage to espouse my views openly. Thanks to people like the late Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris I was able to not only obtain the courage but the clarity of thought to be comfortable enough to be comfortable in my own skin. Is this book the best book out there on this topic? No. Is it the most theologically strident book? Hardly. Is it the most comprehensive book on the topic? Once again, no, but it may be the most important book on the topic because it caused an intellectual movement that is here to stay. Highly recommended! Further suggestions: " Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity " and " The End of Christianity " by John Loftus, " Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism " and "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Richard Carrier, " Natural Atheism " and " Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker " by Dr. David Eller, " Man Made God: A Collection of Essays " by Barbara G. Walker, " The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values " by Sam Harris, "The World Is Not as We Think It Is" by Dennis Littrell, " Immortality: The Quest to Live Forever and How It Drives Civilization " by Stephen Cave, , " God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist " by Victor J. Stenger, " Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists " by Dan Barker, "Christian No More: On Leaving Christianity, Debunking Christianity, And Embracing Atheism And Freethinking" by Jeffrey Mark, and "The Invention of God" by Bill Lauritzen.

Critics of Richard Dawkins' new book The God Delusion ultimately characterize his work as both angry and vitriolic, or more tamely, polemic. These are unhelpful descriptions as each fails to ask the question whether Dawkins has something to be angry, vitriolic or polemic about. Too many cultural commentators want to engender what they claim to be a thought process, but is in all actuality a feeling, that we should find a middle road between the mandates of science and the insights of spirituality. The bargain such people strike to make has value, but only where we can manage to clearly differentiate between those areas of life which science can and has spoken to, and those where it has not. A number of reviewers from prestigious newspapers, periodicals and journals have already commented on what they see as the merits and missteps of Dawkins' book; however, many of them have not wrestled with several of the critical insights in his work. To resort to the ambiguous but doubtlessly effective (at least as measured by persuading people not to be bothered with Dawkins) charge that his analysis is angry, is to be unwilling to meet Dawkins on the grounds of his arguments. It should be said that, in the interests of fairness, Dawkins is surprisingly willing not to resort to similar vagaries. While a portion of his book does deal with fundamentalism and its various confused pulpiteers such as Dobson, Falwell and their ilk, this is only a small section of his book. That he is willing to bear the responsibility for pointing out what these people actually believe, their hopes for reshaping American culture, and how their beliefs impact hard science should not mean that we relegate Dawkins to the same heap of exasperation we do fundamentalists. Perhaps it is the biologist within Dawkins that leads him to believe a parallel exists between biological cancer and similarly suspicious malignant ideological growths. While many of us wish to overlook fundamentalists with the hope they will simply go away, Dawkins fears this might not only be naïve, but irresponsible. History is full of moments when society has regressed, labeling dissent the path to eternal damnation instead of earthly wisdom. While it might be that the inherent practical nature of the American people will be offended by the objectives of religious fundamentalism, rebel and find our historical balance, we easily forget that this balance is many times found only because of the clarion call from those who see the creeping influence and suspicious agendas of fundamentalists and require that we respond. A certain shame should be accorded to those who view with equal exasperation the fundamentalist and those who believe they can not be dismissed, but must be responded to. As a scientist, Dawkins is privy to a particular question which contemporary culture largely believes remains unanswered, but science does not. This question is the hot-button issue of evolution. For many, belief in evolution is somehow inter-related with issues like abortion and homosexuality. No doubt, within the realm of ideological inquiry, we may successfully frame almost any issue in majestic terms that invoke non-quantitative words which have, at their core, the ability to project and then protect the idea that certain questions are unanswerable through rigorous scientific inquiry. At its base, the question of evolution echoing in the head of the average person probably has less to do with science and more to do with the implications from scientific inquiry and theory in general. People's intuition subconsciously registers the threat that evolution presents; namely, that naturalism may be a task master no less demanding than certain religious systems. The idea that we may have only one opportunity to experience life adds a certain intensity within it which many currently avoid by pushing their hopes, aspirations and expectations (of themselves and others) into an afterlife. Additionally, among profound thoughts, few exceed the evolutionary realization that life on this planet is precious, inter-related, and that the environment must be viewed as a holistic organism within which we individually and collectively play an important role. What scares Dawkins is probably the realization that for many people, the insights of evolutionary theory are believed to be inseparable from a descent into animalistic hedonism. Never mind that ideas like morality have equivalents in the animal kingdom, as do love, nurturing and protecting life. If one of the fundamental truths of the natural universe is Darwinism, we should share a certain amount of alarm with Dawkins that the implications to evolutionary science are being so poorly received. Man owes no duty to myth or to tradition, and finds progress only in those moments in time when verifiable truth is allowed to dictate how we engage reality. In this sense, Dawkins bears the vanguard of members of the natural sciences like Galileo who believed that any supposedly spiritual truth which could not bear the light of modernity was not worth protecting in the first place. For those who wish to somehow tiptoe around the theory of evolution, Dawkins is perceived as hostile. To those who believe something important might actually be at stake by understanding where life comes from and how it develops, Dawkins is fighting for a solitary focus on what we know, not what we wish to believe is true. This latter point has not only important philosophical, scientific and theological outcomes, it has immense practical value by freeing the abused spouse or child to realize that what they wish to be true - that the abuser loves them, but is unaware of how to show it - is simply a prison from which they can only escape by separating what they wish was true from what can be verified as loving. To his credit, Dawkins takes his scientific and philosophical critics seriously and responds assertively. Those who see his book as bracing are not being fair - if scientific inquiry is to mean anything it must not blanch at challenges which attempt and endlessly find some open hole through which they can see the shortcomings to a particular theory. Dawkins is never better than when defending the difference between science and theology, where one sees ignorance as limits to inquiry and knowledge versus the other as the gap only a creator god can fill. In a successful effort to be intellectually serious, Dawkins carefully uses examples of fundamentalists within hard science. This is probably because they are a rare species (perhaps his critics wish his biologist's sense of the need to protect endangered life was more acutely directed towards them), but more likely because he knows well they can create straw men which he does not appreciate being used on him. Dawkins' treatment of the classical arguments for intelligent design, Anselm and Aquinas' postulates for the proof of God are treated similarly respectfully, which is not to say they fare well in his hands. It would surprise me if this book did more than add fuel to the fire; however, if we wish to employ a literary euphemism such as this, it would be appropriate to state that sometimes fire is nature's way of regulating itself (as the blow-down effect in the northern woods suggests). If so, the fire Dawkins is building may be an important part of our growth in consciousness. People who look to Dawkins with a critical eye towards what he suggests about internal spirituality should be careful as this was not the primary, or even secondary, thrust of his analysis. The purpose of this book was to deal with a particular set of concerns which Dawkins believes represents a bulwark to the progress of humanity. In a hat-tip to this inevitable criticism, towards the end of his book Dawkins does present a middle way which suggests a vehicle for transitioning between where most humanity is and the implications of evolutionary biology. While well-intentioned and certainly not without its merits, I much prefer writers who consider evolution's insights fixed and have moved on to wrestle with how we reshape religion into conscious personal enlightenment. To be a spry debater is not to be mean. Many who mistake Dawkins' assertive and direct style for vitriol do so less because they believe his attitude prevents civil discourse, and more in the hopes that society can advance without calling ineptness for its inadequacies, and confusing current limits of human knowledge with the inevitability of supernatural explanations. At his base, Dawkins does not feel compelled to believe without proof, an attitude which some believe has value only within the sciences. Among the many insights to this book, perhaps the one which will stick with most is the simple realization that we have no need of beliefs which can not be tested or of ideas which give solace but wither under scrutiny. What we may hope for should not be what we believe, lest we give in to any number of delusions, only one of which is, as Dawkins describes, The God Delusion.

The irrationality in religious arguments for the existence of God. In this book and his related conferences around the world Richard Dawkins rightly demonstrates the irrationality in the arguments put forward for the existence of god. He also correctly analyzes the distorted thinking in major religions of the world and in Creationist dogma under the guise of "Intelligent Design" and how religions have been harming societies of the world throughout history. He refutes many religious allegations that claim to prove the existence of god one by one by showing the distorted and inconsistent thinking in them. For example, the religious reasoning that if science can not explain a natural event this is proof that the natural event is designed and caused by God and therefore God exists is ludicrous. The fact that something is not yet explained by science is no proof of the existence of God. Many natural events that have scientific explanations today could not be explained scientifically centuries ago. Dawkins gives the example that thousands of years ago humans could not explain the sunrise and concluded therefore that it was an event caused by a diety. Science does not claim to be able to explain everything. However, even if science can never explain a certain natural event this does not lead to the logical conclusion that God did it and that God exists. Somethings can not be proved nor disproved scientifically. For something to constitute a scientific hypothesis it must be falsifiable either by observation and / or experimentation. I recommend that the reader refer to Karl Popper's books on the philosophy of science for details, although the subjectivity of observations has been brought as a counter argument by some people. When somebody makes a claim and says you can not disprove it by science that does not make the claim automatically true. Dawkins quotes the great philosopher Bertrand Russel on that : if somebody were to claim that a teapot was in orbit around the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter this claim could not be proved nor disproved scientifically because at present we don't have telescopes powerful enough to show such a small object so far away from Earth. However, the fact that science can not disprove it does not make the claim true. Dawkins states that similarly the existence of goblins, genies etc. could be, in fact are claimed and their existence can not be disproved scientifically. Using this as an argument that they must therefore exist is illogical and irrational. By the same reasoning, claiming that God exists because science can not prove its non - existence is also ridiculous. If we want to conclude that God exists this must be based on some strong evidence, not necessarily scientific evidence, but some evidence nevertheless. Religion states that creation as explained in the Holy books is evidence. Dawkins demonstrates that holy scripture is not evidence ; it is not based on any rational reasoning. Religious reasoning goes : " it is so because the Bible / Kuran say so. You can not question the Holy books because they are scripture downloaded from God. " Dawkins reminds us that scientific reasoning is based on developing scientific hypothesis that can be tested against evidence. Science never claims to have found the ultimate truth, scientific explanations have been developing and changing for the past 400 years. By contrast, all the major religions claim to have the ultimate truth already. They are divine and written in the Bible, the Kuran etc. There is no need to test them because they are divine truths. And if science claims the contary regarding creation etc. it is science that is wrong, because the holy books are divine scripture and God can not be wrong. Dawkins reminds us that religion is based on faith resulting from indoctrination at childhood. Is God a scientific hypothesis or not ? I agree with all of Richard Dawkins' comments so far. But two of his statements in two different parts of his book / lectures seriously contradict one another. On the one hand he says that God should be a scientific hypothesis subject to proof or disproof like any scientific hypothesis. On the other hand he says that science can not disprove God. By themselves these statements are OK. But taken together they are mutually exclusive ; they can not both be true. If God is a scientific hypothesis we can not say science can not disprove God ; science may not yet have proved or disproved God. But as a scientific hypothesis it should eventually prove or disprove God. If on the other hand the statement that science can not disprove God is true then we can not say that God is or should be a scientifc hypothesis. Because something that can not be proved nor disproved scientifically, like the teapot in orbit around the sun, is not a scientific hypothesis. It seems that Richard Dawkins overlooked this contradiction in these two statements of his. He did not make these statements one after the other ; they are quite separate in his book / lecture. Put the two statements together and the contradiction is obvious. I think Mr. Dawkins needs to make up his mind about this; can the existence / non- existence of God be a scientific hypothesis or not ? If yes, then he should not say elsewhere in his book / lecture that science can not disprove God. He can say science has not yet disproved nor proved the existence of God. By contrast if he concludes that science can not disprove God then he should drop his other statement that God should be a scientific hypothesis. Both statements can be considered and discussed and perhaps accepted separately, but not together. It is obvious that Dawkins has been analyzing the subject of Religion and God for many years, has traveled the world, discussed with clergy of various religions etc. and is very knowledgeble about it on top of his expertise on biology. I am amazed that with so much knowledge he can fall into such a logical error. Proof / disproof does not have to be scientific. Whether God should be a scientific hypothesis or not is a discussable issue. However, I wish to add that not everything need be a scientific hypothesis to be fasifiable and / or provable. For example a brilliant detective like Sherlock Holmes can prove who committed a murder by analyzing various evidence and making logical inferences that at the end prove the murder. The method used by the detective is not science no matter how analytical or brilliant it maybe. Yet the proposition of who committed the murder is falsifiable and provable. Likewise many analytical and logical thinking methods that lead to proofs / disproofs are not science. For example mathematics, logic, historical analysis etc. are not science. Mathematics is a tool used by science. Many theorems can be proved / disproved mathematically. Some scientifc propositions maybe analyzed and helped to be proved mathematically but mathematical propositions themselves, although provable mathematically, are not falsifiable by observation and therefore not science. If as a reader of this review you find it hard to accept that math is not a science I recommend that you read some material on what science is and is not. Math is a very valuable analytical tool of science, but is not science itself. My main point is that if it is concluded that God is a scientific hypothesis its existence / non-existence will eventually be proved or disproved, however long it may take. But it does not need to be a scientific hypothesis to be falsifiable or provable. On the other hand, if it is determined that God can not be a scientific hypothesis this does not mean that existence or non- existence of God can not be proved / disproved. It only means that the God proposition, although unscientific, has not yet been proved nor disproved but may be proved / disproved in the future by some other rational method that is not scientific. Or it may never be proved / disproved. What is certain is that irrational religious arguments have not proved the existence of God and never will. Any proof / disproof will come from some kind of rational method of reasoning. Are there any benefits of a religious life ? Among other subjects he mentions in his book Richard Dawkins says that religious ceremonies such as weddings in churches and the like should still be part of our culture and we should still learn about the Bible and other holy books like we learn about any work of literature. But that we should do these without indoctrination and dogma. When we study the Iliad and similar works as part of humankind's literature we don't necessarily believe in them. The study of Holy books should be no different. Do we need religion to have moral lives ? Dawkins also explains with examples that even though religious faith may sometimes provide psychological comfort, that does not make the religious claims true. The allegation that we must be religious to have moral and ethical lives is false. A person can be good without believing in God. Among religious people there are many good ones and many immoral ones. Some of the ethical teachings in the Holy books are good morality but many of them ( Dawkins gives many examples ) are immoral to common sense and downright detrimental to society. Who is the audience ? This book and Dawkins' lectures are very much needed in the contemporary world where religious polarization is on the rise. However, religious people will not read his book nor listen to his lectures. Even if they do they will not change their minds. Because minds that have been shaped by religious indoctrination since childhood can not be changed by logical arguments and presentation of scientific evidence. Were Galileo and Copernicus able to change the minds of the clergy by presenting scientific evidence of their theories ? Dawkins says that he received some messages from readers that they stopped believing in God and religion after having read his book. But I doubt that they were fundamental advocates of religion in the first place. This book is likely to ( in Dawkins terminology ) " raise the conciousness " of people who are moderately ( non - fanatic ) religious or non - religious. It has no chance of convincing the religious fanatic. Not because it is not a good book, but because dogmatic belief of any kind is not open to evidence of alternative opinions. In fact, we can see on Dawkins' videos on the internet how he has been insulted by religious leaders around the world when he went to discuss with them. I am sure Dawkins does not intend to convert them, perhaps he wants to expose their intolerance to the general public. What can we do ? I am writing this review from a country that has been a secular republic since its establishment in 1923 but has always been under threat of religious fundamentalism. In fact, access to Richard Dawkins' website is blocked by court decision from this country, no doubt as a result of religious fanatic initiative. I think the challenge facing the secular people in various countries in the world is keeping secular education alive and ensuring that children are brought up with secular - not necessarily atheist - methods of thinking. In his concluding remarks, Dawkins does not recommend parents to indoctrinate their children to become atheists, although he is an atheist himself. He says don't indoctrinate your children with religion and don't label them as catholic, protestant, moslem or jewish children. They ARE NOT catholic, protestant, moslem or jewish children. They are children of catholic, protestant,moslem or jewish parents. Labelling children as young as 4 years of age with religion is as ridiculous as labelling them as socialist, marxist, capitalist, keynesian, monetarist etc. Therefore Dawkins advises parents to let the children decide themselves when they become adults what they think of religion and of the holy books. Do not indoctrinate them to believe the Bible, the Kuran or atheism at a young age. This is very good advice, but unfortunately only a minority of the populations in many countries have the capability to provide a secular education for their children. I hope that secular education will become more widespread leaving the choice to be an aetheist or religious to the individual without indoctrinating him / her to be either. However, I am not too optimistic that this will ever be possible on a wide scale. Is Richard Dawkins taking security measures to protect himself ? I see on his videos on the internet that he goes around the world to discuss with leaders of militant Islam, with fundamentalist Christians and although he appears to be courteous on the videos he says that he is an atheist and is often insulted. His views are too extreme for religious people to tolerate and I am worried that he maybe attacked one day. It does not appear on the videos that he is taking any security measures.

2/8/08 Amazon Book Review by Donald A. Collins, a free lance writer living in Washington, DC TITLE: The God Delusion: A handbook for lifting our religion disease TEXT: Having read several of his books, when Richard Dawkins, on his American book tour for his latest book , "The God Delusion" arrived at Politics and Prose, an independent bookseller in NW Washington, DC, I eagerly attended his lecture there and had him sign a copy of his book. His talk was enthusiastically embraced by the overflow crowd, many of whom confessed to leaving various faiths for atheism. As I prepare to enter my 78th year, I find numerous obituaries of people who didn't make that milestone and feel sublimely lucky to have done so in relatively good health. Philosophers of every stripe have enjoyed giving counsel on how to prepare for death. Books are rife and varied, so one has enough choices. In fact even if you started reading these tracts early in life you likely wouldn't cover them all. One major source of such advice of course is the world's plethora of religions. These diverse sects stress "Getting right with God". So I went to my search engine using that phrase and WOW, the list was long and detailed. One fella named James Petzold has been at it since he was 22 in 1972, when his girl friend rejected him. Hey, that's when he got serious, no screwing around with eternity which he describes in a turgid litany of his path to Jesus and God. Happy ending? You betcha: His group, "Precious Testimonies is supported financially by those God directs to sow into this ministry. We ask each person reading this to please ask God on an on-going basis if He would have you sow a financial gift to this evangelistic outreach of His - trust that He will clearly communicate His will to you in the matter - then simply be obedient. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about the current financial needs of this outreach, or any other questions you may have. For convenience, you can simply click on the secure Pay Pal donate button below if you want to donate by credit card. Otherwise, you can send your precious gift to: Precious Testimonies, P.O. Box 516, Jenison, MI 49429. Well, folks, to each his own. If the psycho babble of the religious fantasy mongers pleases you, then stop reading this right now and certainly don't buy Dawkins' book as it will frighten you.. For many years I have been "unchurched" although when, as a widower, I remarried 14 years ago my bride and I were delighted to call upon a clergyman relative from each of our families to bless our union. These two are wonderful people, each with a sincere and abiding faith in their religion, whose moral compasses come not from their religious beliefs but from the intrinsic goodness of some humans as compared with the intrinsic evil in others. Moral codes come not from religion but from the transactional experience of human evolution, despite the claims of the faithful. I have been a practicing atheist for years. Just what are the standard religious options? As Oxford Don and Darwinian exponent, Dawkins writes in "The God Delusion", "A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation.... He answers prayers, forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think about doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the world God as a non supernatural synonym for nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. ....Pantheism is sexed up atheism. Deism is watered down theism." I evolved from being a "reverent agnostic" as I became aware of these various standard gradations of belief. So where is agnosticism? Again Dawkins comes to our rescue by describing that position as "fence sitting". Any doubts about the fact that no God exists, he says, have been reconfirmed by the advance of scientific knowledge and overall human experience. In fact, Dawkins has provided us with a jaunty, yet scholarly, credible textbook which will allow thinking people of any age to throw off the bonds of Original Sin, everlasting life, and the obtuse visions of the various hucksters whose religions' divine origins he thoroughly demolishes. More importantly, looking at the inevitable end of our life on Earth, it has become very possible for me to be buoyant in the knowledge that I have done my best and that whatever happens to my molecular leavings will be followed by some human beings who will likewise try to help the world be better. However, I am definitely in the minority, but proud to be there. Dawkins reports that polls show that 95% of US citizens believe they will survive their own death. To me that is the ultimate act of human cowardice. I would add an 11th to the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt Not Believe In the Afterlife", as belief in eternal life or heaven (or hell) is akin to taking LSD or some other life threatening drug. Dawkins' comprehensive look at its history shows conclusively that religion has done enormous harm and possibly will lead us all to the ultimate downfall of life on this planet. As the several major, powerful, equally evil sects collide, the chance of our failing to allocate resources, trim pollution and curb population growth to a level of long term sustain ability dims daily. Avoiding this pending apocalypse will involve outgrowing the sway of organized, corrupt secular religious power. I encourage a simple, but decisive first step: Become an agnostic, which would be like taking the 2nd of the 12 steps in the Alcoholics Anonymous recovery program with a new twist: Come to believe that there is no power greater than other human helpers that can restore us to sanity.

One will readily expect the perceptions and reviews of Richard Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION to fall along what might euphemistically be called "party lines." Blue Staters, rationalists, and the college educated (especially in mathematics, engineering, the sciences, and technology) will find it thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating even if they disagree with the author's views. Red Staters, religious fundamentalists, and readers (if any) with less than a college education will be repulsed, likely to pit it against the Bible and regard Mr. Dawkins' as already marked for hellfire and eternal damnation. In the broad sweep that is religion, few minds will be changed, but was that really the author's objective? I think not. Mr. Dawkins offers clues to his game plan fairly early on, arguing that atheists have no reason to be apologetic. He argues vigorously against the, "I'm an atheist, but..." position offered by many, treating it as an unnecessary concession to the forces of blind, irrational faith who would never reciprocate. Mr. Dawkins sets out as well to convince agnostics (among whom I've long considered myself) that their position is an unfounded hedge, hoping to convince them that outright atheism is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from so many arguments. His arguments are direct and persuasive, and I for one will confess to being swayed far closer to his position than previously. THE GOD DELUSION is thorough in its approach and exceedingly well structured. Presenting his case like a lawyer in an extended closing argument, Dawkins moves from chapter to chapter setting up his opponents' many historical arguments for the existence of God and religion and then demolishing each of them by force of reason and scientific argument. He does this in a direct and highly readable, almost colloquial style, while injecting a sense of wry humor throughout that serves admirably to lighten the discussion. Dawkins demonstrates a remarkable scientific, philosophical, and even pop cultural range, with multiple references to the incomparable, much missed Douglas Adams. To my great surprise, he draws as well on theories from Lee Smolin (multiple universes emerging from black holes in a Darwinian, evolutionary style) and Julian Jaynes (theories of the origins of human consciousness in the bicameral mind), both of whose books I read some years ago and had thought long since forgotten by most. Equally enlightening for me were Dawkins extensive quotes from America's Founding Fathers, making it eminently clear (despite so many right wing conservative statements to the contrary) that the United States was not formed as a Christian state, nor that of any other religion. To the contrary, the Founding Fathers appear, by their own words, largely to have been atheists, or at least atheistic leaning agnostics. Review readers should note that Dawkins does not simply confine himself to the question of existence of a higher being. He addresses issues of altruistic behavior and morality from an evolutionary perspective, debates the relative merits of religion over the course of human history, and presents (in Chapter 9) a devastating argument against the worldwide forced inculcation of children into religious belief by their parents. Quoting Victor Hugo at the opening of that chapter, "There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the clergyman." From my own life experience, seldom have truer words been spoken. With well over a thousand reviews posted on Amazon alone, I see no reason to summarize the book's content or arguments. In fact, the only way to do real justice to the author's positions is to read it in its entirety - no summary can adequately convey Dawkins' step-by-step demolition of those who argue on behalf of God, faith, or religion. For those who have doubts in these areas and those who are left queasy over the clear and present danger religious fundamentalism poses to democratic American institutions and its role in international terrorism and the threat of broad scale war, THE GOD DELUSION is an excellent palliative. Large swaths of post-millennial America are moving increasingly toward theocracy, a trend viewed with alarm by most of the rest of the educated, Western world. One need only look at the disturbing comments from Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin (expecting to see the Messiah return in her lifetime and incorporating the end of days into her admittedly limited foreign policy views) to see just how close to reality this is becoming. For those who consider themselves even minimally open-minded on the subject of religion and the existence of an all-powerful being ("whatever you conceive him to be, hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin" in the immortal words of the National Lampoon), THE GOD DELUSION is a book well worth reading and contemplating.

Anyone who has read Prof. Dawkins knows that he is concise and articulate, but there is more to say about his extraordinary writing skill. He consistently succeeds in adding uniquely fresh and inventive touches to nearly any subject, from the most esoteric to the most mundane. This extra quality is sufficient to place "The God Delusion" pretty much in a class by itself among works aimed at helping the general reader understand how normal scientific progress has, over time, inexorably revealed fatal weaknesses in virtually all religious claims which specify some sort of observable effects or outcomes. Prominent among those claims, of course, are the ones establishing a class of supernatural creators and supervisors affectionately known as "gods." In the book's initial 160 pages, Dawkins builds a devastating case against the existence of any kind of personal, interactive, creator god. Enormous consequences ride on this case because the world's three "great" monotheistic religions have always, despite their occasionally murderous disagreements, had the same ultrapersonal god (Yahweh/Allah) in mind. In Judaism, Yahweh is the undisputed main man. Although Christianity is centered on the kinder and gentler persona of Jesus, loss of confidence in the father's existence would also extinguish the sole source of the son's divinity. The core principles of Islam make it perfectly clear that Muhammad completes the line of prophets from Abraham through Moses to Jesus, so Muslims are, regardless of any delusions of independence, firmly welded by their own doctrine to the Old Testament deity. Such admirable unity among billions of big-three believers makes Yahweh/Allah an exceptionally large and well-delineated target for rational analysis. Regarding Y/A's character, chances are Dawkins' frank appraisal of him as a "...megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" will ring true to every thoughtful person who has read the Bible without spin from an "interpreter." Dawkins doesn't ignore the classic philosophical "proofs" of god's existence; in fact he devotes all of Chapter 3 to their strengths and weaknesses. But his main thesis, delivered in Chapter 4, is pragmatic and firmly grounded in science. The author picks two potent and practical grenades to toss at the glass houses in which personal gods so precariously dwell. First, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god suffers severely from a simple lack of evidence because a) events and conditions in the observable world do not suggest the presence of an omniscient, all-powerful overseer, and b) the consistently successful explanations and predictions of modern cosmology and evolutionary biology reveal no scientifically credible requirement for any kind of conscious, sentient creator/designer. The second grenade contains a challenge to the very idea that calling up supreme beings serves any logically valid purpose, or (as a lawyer might put it) has any probative value in solving the mysteries of the universe and our place in it. Here Dawkins evokes an ingenious and powerful metaphor -- god as the "ultimate Boeing 747." To set the stage, he cites British astronomer Fred Hoyle's attempt to refute evolution by charging that the prospect of living things being formed by random processes is as unlikely as a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and fortuitously assembling a jetliner. (Hoyle's misunderstanding here seems monumental, since evolution teaches the GRADUAL accumulation of small, initially random changes in germ cell genomes via the decidedly NON-RANDOM process of natural selection.) The author then picks up Hoyle's logically misdirected cudgel and, this time with valid premises, swings it back at the defenders of supernatural design. Dawkins' point is that if creationists can't explain where the designer came from and how it acquired its abilities (which do, after all, massively interact with the natural world), then their god is even more far fetched and intellectually useless than Hoyle's accidentally blown-together airplane. The author rightly charges that preferential coddling of religion is neither justifiable nor beneficial to society -- in fact quite the opposite. In no way does he advocate censoring beliefs, but instead supports the reasonable view that supernatural claims belong on the level playing field where all other ideas, including scientific ones, fairly compete. Related to this issue are the sometimes unhelpful contributions of scientists themselves. For example, in Chapter 2 Dawkins explains how the NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) slogan, coined by paleontologist Steven Jay Gould, has been used to promote the dubious notion that some sort of uncrossable barrier divides science from religion. In the interest of avoiding controversy (and preserving grants?), NOMA enthusiasts somehow manage to ignore the constant stream of readily checkable claims emanating from religious sources. When someone confidently claims the Earth is only a few thousand years old, or prayer works, or guilt transfers across generations, or the Bible originated morality, or evolution fails to account for the full variety of living things, Dawkins asks us to remember that the resources and methods of science can and should be used routinely to help decide whether such assertions are credible. Dawkins' discussion of the changing moral zeitgeist (Chapter 7) is particularly interesting and, I believe, significant. "Zeitgeist" is a German term meaning "spirit of the times," an index of people's collective attitudes through history. In addition to many depressing examples of morally brain-dead attitudes in the Bible, Dawkins provides striking reminders of how recently our current views on such issues as universal suffrage and racial equality were formed. He supports his case with some absolutely appalling quotes from T.H. Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog"), Abraham Lincoln and H.G. Wells. On the other hand, the positive side of zeitgeist drift is the rapidity with which social attitudes can change for the better when, after long stagnation, a tipping point is finally reached. A prime example is the drastic rejection of smoking which is happening today in response to overwhelming medical evidence. Perhaps it is not futile to hope that the words of Prof. Dawkins and many other voices of reason are, even now, stirring the wave of understanding which will eventually free billions of basically kind and intelligent people from the tragically false and harmful grip of supernatural pipe dreams.

I read the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a British biologist and well-known atheist. The book was published in 2006 and was supposedly Dawkins' response to the mass murder committed on 9/11 in the name of religion. Dawkins contends that there is no evidence for the existence of God; and, therefore faith in him (or her or it) is delusional. Overall, I enjoyed the book. However, I do have some critical comments and observations. First, in view of his reason for writing the book, I found it ironic that Dawkins had very little to say about Islam. Other than a short attack on blasphemy and apostate laws in Pakistan and Afghanistan in Chapter 8, criticism of the Burkha (while using it as an analogy for something else) and a few other comments here and there, he never really takes direct aim at Islam, as he does with Christianity and Judaism (see examples below). Was this omission an act of "self-censorship?" Did it have anything to do with his country's colonial past and historical sympathies for the Arab World? Did he wish to avoid offending British Muslims? Did he purposely limit his pointed barbs to the faiths of those he knew wouldn't respond violently? In any event, all three monotheistic faiths should be subjected to critical analysis, not the least of which is one where a 40 something year-old illiterate man receives instructions from an angel to begin reciting verses--which verses are initially memorized by his followers, passed down to others, and eventually placed into a written form that we now call the Koran. And, what about all of the "kill commands" that appear in the Koran? Dr. Dawkins doesn't hesitate to point out the "kill commands" appearing in the Bible. Has Dr. Dawkins ever calculated the life expectancy of an atheist residing in a Muslim country? Why the reticence about Islam, Dr. Dawkins? And, since Dr. Dawkins is a man of hard evidence, 9/11 was not carried out in the generic name of religion; rather, it was carried out by 19 members of the Islamic faith, who hijacked four airliners, crashing them into three buildings and a field and murdering almost 3,000 innocent people. They did it in the name of Islam, not in the name of generic religion. These are the hard facts, Dr. Dawkins. You shouldn't point the finger at anyone else. For these omissions, I deducted one star from the rating system. As an example of his criticism of Christianity, Dawkins states that Pope John Paul II created more saints than all of his predecessors combined and that his "polytheistic hankerings were dramatically demonstrated in 1981 when he suffered an assassination attempt in Rome, and attributed his survival to intervention by Our Lady of Fatima: 'A maternal hand guided the bullet.' One cannot help wondering why she didn't guide it to miss him altogether. Others might think the team of surgeons who operated on him for six hours deserved at least a share of the credit. . ." Another example is the following statement, "It is, when you think about it, remarkable that a religion should adopt an instrument of torture and execution as its sacred symbol, often worn around the neck. Lenny Bruce rightly quipped that 'If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.'" And, his oft-quoted passage at the beginning of Chapter two, is an example of his criticism of Judaism: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." And, as you can see, if you want to improve your English vocabulary, this book is for you! Luckily, I read the Kindle version and was able to look up words with a couple of screen touches. For your information, the word "filicidal" is the adjective for "filicide," meaning the killing of one's own son or daughter. Of course, Dawkins fails to tell the reader that for the past 2,000 years, the stern and angry God of judgment depicted in the Bible has become a loving and caring deity, whose essence is ethical concern and ethical behavior. If humans can evolve, why can't their religions do the same? Moreover, other than for fundamentalists, does the theology of any organized religion, in this modern-day and age, really matter? Doesn't behavior matter more? In his book "Kosher Jesus," Rabbi Shmuley Boteach writes, "The merit of any religion is established not by a test of its theological claims but by the goodness of its followers. Therefore, any religion that leads to a good and Godly life has authenticity and truth, even if we cannot embrace all of its theological claims." For example, I find Mormon theology to be absurd on its face. Yet, the Mormons that I've met have been nice, respectful and honorable people. I would happily have them as neighbors. Isn't behavior the only thing we should care about? After all, it wasn't two Mormons who planted bombs at the recent Boston Marathon. Dawkins' book shines when he is writing about the Bible and religion. I agree that religion has been opposed to scientific advancement, because science challenges religion's absolutist truths. And, I also agree that we cannot govern ourselves, in this modern day and age, by an absolutist moral system written during the Bronze Age. The teaching of Creationism is best left to parochial schools; whereas, the teaching of Evolution (and other sciences) is best left to Science Class. However, at times, Dawkins' book becomes tedious, ponderous, and textbook-like. This is especially true when he's writing about natural selection, cosmology and science. I was bored stiff while reading some portions of the book and wondered if Dawkins was writing for his science colleagues, rather than the general public. Often times, I yearned for him to "get to the point already." I much prefer a straight forward, fluid and easy to follow writing style. For this reason, I deducted another star from the rating system. More importantly, I think it's possible to over-analyze things, as Dawkins does. Sometimes the answer is staring you right in the face and you choose to ignore it. For example, why does religion exist and why is it ubiquitous (meaning present everywhere) in most of human culture? Why? Despite the author's discussion of human dualism (the human tendency to separate matter and mind), child teleology (everything has a purpose), his connection of all human traits (such as morality) to a time predating religion, and numerous other things, the answer to the existence of religion and its prevalence in human society (at least for me) is a very simple one: death. Darwin's natural selection depends on survival. Only when a species survives can it reproduce and pass on its genes. The opposite of survival is death. Death is a common denominator for all humans, regardless of geography, time period, culture, occupation, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, socio-economic class (whatever category you choose)--the so called, "great equalizer." And, death is something that we humans still do NOT understand. We cannot comprehend our own non-existence. I have heard it said many times before that a person will not die in his or her dreams; and, that before such a thing happens, the dreamer will awaken. Wasn't religion created, albeit in its initial form, when our earliest ancestors (Australopithecus Afarensis or Africanus, or take your pick) saw a neighbor lying dead in a field (either by age, accident, disease, combat or war etc) and came up with an explanation other than non-existence? So, what did we humans do in order to survive, to continue reproducing, and to put off death to the latest possible date? We ascribed death (and its opposite form, life) to a higher force and engaged in prayers, incantations, rituals, and group accepted lifestyles to appease the higher force in keeping us alive and preventing death from visiting too early. And, in order to cope with the death of loved ones, we created an afterlife--where our loved ones are not really considered to be dead; and where they (and eventually, us) are rewarded for obedient and good behavior. This allows the survivors (the ones still presently alive) to continue living and reproducing the species without anger and/or rejection of the higher force that caused or allowed the death to occur in the first place. How many funerals have you been to where a decedent's family member exclaims, "he [the decedent] is in a better place." Often times I have thought, "if it's a better place, why isn't everyone rushing to get there?" Of course, religious fanaticism can have the opposite effect of terminating life earlier than expected; but doing so comes with the "martyrdom bonus" of certain faiths and the begetting a better afterlife. One subject that Dawkins does not address is the "near death experience." For example, neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, M.D., recently wrote about his own near death experience in a book entitled, "Proof of Heaven." Of course, the Alexander book was published after Dawkins' book; but, there have been numerous reports of such experiences and it would have been interesting to read Dawkins' analysis. Is our belief in God irrational? Since there is no evidence to suggest that God actually exists, the answer is an unequivocal yes! On the other hand, is our belief in God rational? Incredibly, the answer to that question is also yes. Since our species' greatest desire is to survive, to reproduce and to pass on its genes, it is rational for human beings to do whatever they believe is necessary to live, even if those beliefs -- and the actions resulting from those beliefs -- are based on something completely and totally irrational. Obviously, the human trait for irrationality has not been "selected out" by natural selection. As Francois-Marie Arouet, known to history as Voltaire, said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." And, guess what? We did!

This book is definitely a milestone in my life and it has been a great help on becoming a real humanist.

The problem for anyone with questions about faith, that has been brought up in a religious society, is knowing where to look for answers. Well there is no longer any need to fret. Thanks to Richard Dawkins we now have a comprehensive and exhaustive review or gods, religions, their ideals and their right to our reasoning minds. And when I say comprehensive, we really are talking no stone left unturned. Dawkins starts apace in his preface, setting the scene for his approach and really doesn't relent until we head into the final few chapters. This book is probably not going to be something that will be read by devout followers of religion but it is the type of book I wish had been available to me, as I began to question the religious doctrine that was pervasive during my childhood and adolescent years. If you are asking yourself questions like; what right does religion have over my conscious mind, could there be a Christian or Islamic god? If Adam and Eve are not real, who were they? If the stories in the Bible are not 'real' what are they? And what other foundations than the Bible are religions built upon, what makes them 'true'; and if there is no god, hell, heaven, afterlife and morality as defined by faith religions - what is there? If these are the sort of questions you are asking yourself, then this book is a great place to begin answering those questions and forming your own opinions. There has been a considerable amount of vitriol directed towards Dawkins approach in this book, it would appear from both science and religious communities. I do not understand why. It is balanced, honest and thoughtful. Just because his argument is compelling does not mean that it is aggressive, it is not. Throughout the text various quotes from great thinkers from both ancient and modern times are used to substantiate his arguments, as well as the clever analogies he uses in his other books about Evolution and Natural Selection. Which by the way, if your worried about being deluged with science, there is very little of here. Pro: A great place to begin answering those questions any reasoning adult mind must come to, it really does cover every angle. A book so layered, you will likely come back to it on many occasions to substantiate your own evolving thoughts on the 'Why are we here?' level. Cons: The sheer depth of the content can make this a philosophical challenge, especially if it is your first stop to answering questions. For my mind I wanted greater coverage on the frailties of the Bible. It gets descent coverage, but it is the very foundation upon which modern religions are based (Old Testament) and which Christianity has shaped western civilisations (New Testament). Even people that don't have faith still often see the Bible as being a religious document that has somehow been derived through the word of god. If the truth of this were better explained, the arguments against religion would be a lot easier for the masses to understand. Recommendations: Dawkins quotes and references Professor Bart D. Ehrman, one of the foremost Bible historians of our time. Ehrman has written several books on the New Testament, Jesus, his teachings and the origin of orthodox Christianity which are compelling reading in themselves.

"The God Delusion" resurfaces like a philosophical comet, leaving a trail of fiery discussions and sparking fresh constellations of thought in its wake. Richard Dawkins' magnum opus continues to electrify minds, and this edition, adorned with new insights, feels like an awakening of intellectual exploration. Dawkins' prose is a symphony of eloquence and persuasion, orchestrating an ardent critique of religious dogma with a precision that is both awe-inspiring and disruptive. Like a master sculptor, he carves through the marble of faith, revealing the contours of reason that lay hidden beneath. The verve of his writing isn't just for show; it is the rallying cry of rationality that ignites minds and challenges them to dare question centuries-old beliefs. In this iteration, the book boasts an updated prelude and a concluding reflection by the author. These additions serve as a bridge between past and present, giving readers a compass to navigate the evolution of debates this book has instigated. Dawkins acknowledges the counterarguments his work has faced while steadfastly reaffirming his position—a gesture that is intellectually honest and encouraging of robust discourse. Dawkins' analogies are the torchlights guiding us through the labyrinth of theology. He compares belief without evidence to a spectrum of possibilities, from leprechauns to Zeus, forcing us to confront the arbitrary nature of our convictions. His poignant parables highlight the delusionary nature of faith and invite readers to break free from the chains of inherited beliefs. However, even in its brilliance, the book can be an acquired taste. Dawkins' unwavering conviction can occasionally feel like an unyielding wave crashing against differing shores, potentially alienating those who stand in the intersection of faith and skepticism. The book's focus on fundamentalist aspects of religion, while driving its point home, might not fully encapsulate the entirety of religious experience and expression. "The God Delusion" is a phoenix, reborn from the flames of debate, its feathers now glistening with a decade's worth of insights. Dawkins' words aren't merely text on paper; they are the spark that lights the tinder of contemplation. This edition compels readers to reckon with their beliefs and explore the borders of human knowledge and understanding. In closing, the Edition remains a beacon of intellectual audacity, beckoning readers to dance on the edge of enlightenment. Dawkins' magisterial work remains an essential read for the curious, the daring, and the truth-seekers among us. If you're prepared to embark on a voyage that challenges your convictions, this book will be your compass to navigate the uncharted waters of belief and reason.

Didn’t start yet but I’m very excited

Wonderful