I agree with the sentiment - but this book is a bit too acedemic - Rated 
This book appealed to me as both an atheist and a former student of philosophy. Having finished at university and having a few weeks before starting work I thought this would be a good book to keep me occupied. Before reading this book I was aware of the philosophical `proofs' for God and arguments about his supposed existence. What I liked about this book is how Dawkins unapologetically argues against religion being true or being a good thing in society. It is true that even in Philosophy classes when we were supposed to be talking about Gods existence there was a large amount of having to be especially PC as to not offend any religious people. Since it is almost impossible to disprove that God exists we are taught that it is ok for people to believe in him if they wish and that we should go along with whatever crazy ideas they have about religion. What is refreshing about this book is that Dawkins gives rational agreements as to why this is not so.
The reason that I have given this book 4 stars instead of 5 is that some chapters are longer than the need to be, and contains a lot of science and biology that is of no real interest to me. Dawkins points out early in the book that just because there is no scientific explanation of something at the present time does not make it an argument in favour of it being down to a divine power. I would have been happy to leave it at this, so there was no need for Dawkins to go in to such depth as to why natural selection is such a good theory and the Darwinian explanations for the roots of religion would have been better left for another book.
Although this is a deep and interesting book, it is not a handbook for the atheist since it is too academic to appeal to everyone. Dawkins labours his points too much, anyone who needs this much evidence against the existence of a God has obviously already made up his mind to believe regardless of the evidence. Though I can't recommend any, I am sure there are books on the subject that are more concise and more entertaining to read.
Dawkins = King - Rated 
As a well known (slightly ranting) atheist in my group of friends, it seemed pretty fitting I was given this book for my last birthday. Its been 8 months, I've read it with relish dring that time.
Dawkins clearly presents himself as an intelligent and well taught biologist in this book. He referances constantly, refers to the books text itself (to prevent any repeats or conflicts) and always keeps an even and scientific attention to his studies.
The only downside to this book is that some people may find it a little dry, prehaps difficult to understand.
I didn't though, hence the 5 stars. Great stuff and if I wasn't an athiest already, this book would have changed my life. I urge all people of a religious persuasion to say no to the doctrin of never looking at percieved 'satans work' and read this on the sly.
Break free and all that.
What about spirituality? - Rated
By all orthodox standards I am an atheist - and happy to be regarded as such. But I am also a Quaker (if you find that a paradox, the only way you'll resolve it is to go to a Quaker Meeting). As a result I have mixed responses to Dawkins.
I agree entirely with what Dawkins says about God and applaud his demolition job on the absurd arguments that are advanced about his/her supposed existence. Nevertheless, when I finished the book, I felt a little let down because Dawkins focuses so heavily on religion while saying so little about spirituality.
Dawkins has missed, IMO, an opportunity to elucidate the distinction between religious doctrine and spiritual teaching - and they are certainly not the same thing. Spiritual teaching speaks to us about the experience of being among others of our kind and, while I could cheerfully ignore many religious works, I wouldn't discard them all for fear of throwing the spiritual baby out with the religious bath water.
It isn't that my atheism is uncertain. There's no way that I believe in anything that could sensibly be called God. What I have found, however, is that there is much of spiritual value to be found in religious writing, albeit in most cases heavily diluted with utter drivel. Thus, though I am far from Catholicism, I find much Franciscan teaching helpful. Though I was brought up in a (nominally) Christian culture, I find many Buddhist teachings helpful. I even find parts of the Quran uplifting.
After reading this book I was left feeling that Dawkins had spent so much time slagging off the absurdities of religion, that he had simply overlooked spirituality. Another thing that bothers me about it is that I suspect that Dawkins regards most uses of the word "God" as being essentially without referent. That, to my mind, is unfortunate because it tends to exlcude the notion that an atheist and a believer can have a sensible dialogue on spiritual matters.
I feel quite happy using the word "God" whe speaking to believers. If I am asked to say what I mean, the closest I can get is to say that when I say "God" I am referring to the workings of the universe (essentially the universalist position). If one is not prepared to speak of God in at least this sense, then one foregoes the opportunity of spiritual dialogue with decent people who happen to be believers. I for one would find that a great loss.
Without detracting from what Dawkins has accomplished in this book, I would venture to suggest that a demolition of religion is not that difficult. The real challenge, IMO, is to say something constructive about spirituality from an atheist's standpoint. Maybe Dawkins could try this in a future book?
unbalanced - Rated 
I'm surprised that an academic such as Richard Dawkins cannot understand conceptual truth. I'm sure that when in he first started his secondary education he learnt of solid nucleii and tiny electrons - then later he learnt of the particles inside the necleii and the strange "wavicle" nature of electrons. In fact, both of them are concepts of reality, whether they are true or not the point - whether they are useful is much more relevant. The same is true of the concept of God. Whether God exists or not is a stupid question not worthy of a professor - the concept of God IS useful even if only a stepping stone to another concept . . . which in turn . . . etc.
Very boring to read - could have been much more concise - Rated 
I bought this book and wished I didn't. This is very boring. Language is terse and convoluted. Writer mulled same concept over several pages using not so interesting anecdotes. I think this book could have been much more concise without losing the actual plot. I am an atheist, I just bought the book for an enjoyable reading, which it didn't offer. I don't see why there is so much hype about this book.
|
