|
| The God Delusion | 
 enlarge | Author: Richard Dawkins
Publisher: Mariner Books
Category: Book
List Price: $15.95
Buy Used: $1.80
You Save: $14.15 (89%)
New (143) Used (50) Collectible (2) from $1.80
Avg. Customer Rating:  1266 reviews
Sales Rank: 211
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 464
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8 x 5.4 x 1.3
ISBN: 0618918248
Dewey Decimal Number: 211
EAN: 9780618918249
ASIN: 0618918248
Publication Date: January 16, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Book is Bent, Entirely Readable, Clean Text , Immediate Shipping, Email Notification, Professional Service, MILLIONS Served, SATISFACTION GUARANTEED!
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Dogma vs. Dogma October 23, 2006
147 out of 272 found this review helpful
The secular, objective study of religion has been pursued since the late nineteenth century by comparative scholars such as Friedrich Max Mueller, philosophers and psychologists including William James, and sociologists and other erudite scholars such as Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Joachim Wach. Over the past decade a new spate of books have been written by scientists and philosophers including Edward O. Wilson, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins who are approaching the topic as if they were inventing the scientific study of religion. None of these writers is professionally trained in the study of religion, but they all share a powerful bias against religion and a woefully inadequate knowledge of any of the world's spiritual traditions. In other words, for all their claims to be "scientific," their research into this field is unprofessional and their entire approach to the subject is one of extreme prejudice. It is as if these interlopers in the field of religious studies were treating this discipline as a public restroom in which they enter only in order to relieve themselves and write graffiti on the walls. For anyone who is already an atheist, their work will simply reaffirm their current beliefs; for anyone who is religious, their work is offensive and uninformative; and to those who are agnostic, such books are a mere distraction from serious critiques by reputable scientists and scholars. But for those who are fascinated by graffiti, read on!
Four-Star Average? Really? October 24, 2007
146 out of 226 found this review helpful
Richard Dawkins is a well-known and well-respected scientist, and obviously an intelligent man, so when I picked up "The God Delusion" I expected an intelligent, scientific, well-reasoned critique of religion. But that isn't what I got.
Instead, what I got was a surprisingly UNscientific montage of fiery rhetoric, dogmatism, counter-productive misrepresentation, and second-rate anthropology. What should have been the rational analysis of a scientist instead sounded like the embittered rantings of a fundamentalist, willing to pick and choose which science to use, willing to be selective about which history to remember, willing to take the worst possible aspects of religion and inflate them up to flawed generalizations, and willing to turn a blind eye to even the slightest hint of a dark side in those who share his own world-view. Evidence and logic, the very things he claims to champion, seem to be left out in the cold in this book.
No wonder so many scientists and atheists are critical of this book and its methods.
And yet, despite all this, this book is a best-seller and has somehow managed to attain a cult following in the world of dogmatic and sometimes militant anti-theists (the fundamentalists of the non-theist world).
And others, whether because they are gullible or just because they are starving for a book like this, readily snatch up every sentence as if it were "God's truth", so to speak.
Not that this book doesn't have some interesting ideas - because it does - and no one can deny that this is a forcefully conveyed book. It just has very little substance or depth, and, in the end, isn't half as convincing as Mr. Dawkins and his followers would like to think it is.
If you believe in God, then I wouldn't take this very seriously; it has less science than one might expect from such an illustrious scientist, and holes in its logic big enough to drive a truck through. If you're an atheist or agnostic, then your time would be better spent elsewhere, because this book is a discredit to your worldview and would probably insult your intelligence.
Nice try, Mr. Dawkins, but you're a much better and more convincing writer when you stick to what you know best: science. Religion and anthropology are out of the range of your expertise, and, quite frankly, it shows.
Dead wrong February 12, 2007
140 out of 322 found this review helpful
It should be stated from the beginning that Darwin cannot be credited with the idea of evolution since, surprise-surprise, it is first found in the first chapter of Genesis. There we see that earth brings forth the plants (Gen 1:12) on the third day, next the waters bring forth "the moving creature that have life" (Gen 1:20) on the fifth day and then again earth brings forth the "beasts of earth" (Gen 1:25) on the sixth day. The mistake made by creationists is the literal interpretation of the days of creation, which clearly ignores the words of Bible itself that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2Pet 3:8). This implies that the word "day" in Genesis is just a symbol for a long period of time, an epoch, and should not be taken literally as astronomical day. The general sequence of creation events - first plants, then fish, then beasts and finally humans - is in good agreement with modern science and is quite good for the text written several thousand years ago. It should be noted here that in Genesis it is the nature itself (water and earth), that actually brings forth the creatures, but this nature does it upon the word of God. Like the plant is produced by earth but without sun is dead, similarly the creation is brought to existence by creative nature, but through guidance of God. Thus, evolution as such does not contradict Bible. The question is, if it was not for God, why anything would even evolve contradicting all laws of enthropy. The fact is that bacteria are the most adapt organisms living in conditions that other species cannot. Perhaps in that respect humans are only the food for bacteria. Why should then bacteria evolve? Biologist would say because of changing environment. A simple thought experiment can be proposed to disprove that. Let us suppose that Nile river dries, what would happen to the fish? The obvious answer is it would die. If that happened thousand years ago, the answer would be the same, but when it comes to couple million years a biologist would say it will evolve into amphibian to survive. Here is the evolutionist leap of the faith. Now Dawkins when trying to demonstrate the evolution of the bird wing, would say for example that a quarter of a wing is better than no wing and would provide chances for survival from the fall off certain height. Now if the fall was higher would the species evolve to half wing or die? The latter is the answer based on everyday experience; the former is the leap of faith. The species can adapt but they do not cease to be themselves and become something else.
Since God is not the object of science He is ruled out, which is the mistake made by evolutionists. Although science cannot prove the existence of God it can still allude to His existence. One such allusion is the "Schroedinger's cat" thought experiment, where it is supposed that the cat is shut up in a box with a killing mechanism triggered by a quantum-mechanical event. The actual occurrence of the event would kill the cat, but it cannot be known until the box is open. Based on the so called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, we have to say that there is a 50% probability that cat is alive and 50% probability that cat is dead, so that cat exists as a probability. When we open the box the probability disappears and cat is either dead or alive. Now, quantum mechanical wave function provides the complete description of an atom, and the square of the wave function is the probability of finding its electron at a certain state. The "Schroedinger's cat" experiment thus implies that when we observe the atomic system during the experiment we get only one real value (cat is either dead or alive) of electron position out of multiplicity of all the potential values. This is the collapse of wave function multiple potential states of electron to one real observed state. Since this can be any random value, Einstein said his famous phrase that "God is playing dice". When we don't look at the system, then the system exists only potentially as a probability (cat is 50% dead and 50% alive). This thought experiment is not about the fate of cat, but about the role observer in the fate of cat. It is during the process of observation that probability becomes real, which brings us to the main question, who looks at the Universe in order for it to be real. The obvious answer is that it is possible only for GOD. But scientists, like Dawkins who by all means try to avoid this answer, created "many worlds" interpretation, which states that other potential values actually exist in many other worlds. It is clearly a more complicated hypothesis and as such should be eliminated based on the principle of Occam's razor. On that answer though Mr Dawkins objects:" A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple". For that reason, God must be a very complicated being in order to receive simultaneously prayers of everybody else in the world, and that according to Dawkins, contradicts the idea that God is a Simple Being. This is easily refuted from the simple analysis of the concentric circles, which is done for illustration purposes only. Imagine two concentric circles with common center, one circle is relatively small, the other with indefinite radius. Now from every point of that indefinite circumference we can draw a radius through that small circumference straight to the center. This first of all suggests that a small circumference has the same number of points as indefinite one and also that all these points are contained in the center, which is just a single point. By analogy this demonstrates how God being Simple, like that center, can monitor indefinite number of things. Now as the center, being a principle of circumference, which is defined with respect to this center as equidistant points, does not belong to the circumference, similarly, God as a principle of the world does not belong to it, and for that reason cannot be proved by science. But as the center through its radii so to speak controls every point, similarly God through his energies controls every aspect of nature, without ceasing to be Simple Being. For that reason, NOMA hypothesis (Non Overlapping Magisterial), where world and God are deemed to be two separate non-interacting areas, has nothing to do with true Christianity.
It is obvious that immaterial God cannot be proved by material means, how then can the existence of God be demonstrated? The difference between the atheist and the believer is essentially the difference between blind and seeing person. How can we show the blind what is a red color? He must open the eyes. Similarly, the person has to open the eye of the heart in order to see God. "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." (Matt 5:8) - this is the way to go. Christianity provides a clear method how through repentance, overcoming passions and prayer to purify heart, which will lead to vision of God. This method is expounded in the works of Holy Fathers, like St. John Climacus, Abba Dorotheus, etc. The real scientist searching for the truth should thus follow this method and only after that based on the experience he had from it, he can say if God exists or not. This has not been done by Dawkins who claims to be a scientist, so in fact he has no right even to speak about God, as the blind has no right to talk about red color. We just said that religion has a way to experience God, and then the opposite must be true - if God does not exist, atheism must have a way to demonstrate it. Well, there is no such way, whole history of humankind says otherwise. Clearly, it can be objected that this personal experience is subjective, but it does not stop to be real nonetheless. I would rather doubt that milk is white, than my own pain, and the martyrs doubted their pain and the world, rather than the existence of God. What could be easier, just deny God in words, you can think as you want, but you will save your life, yet they chose death and many of them were highly educated people, no fools. Millions of martyrs were killed for Christ - can we say then that Christ does not exist? If yes, then from millions of Jews who died during World War, we can say that Holocaust did not exist. Interestingly, the word martyr is translated from Greek as "witness", martyrs are witnesses for the existence of God. Rephrasing Dostoevsky, we can say that in order to have ketchup we need to have tomatoes, and in order to believe in God we need to have God. For example, how can a piece of wood know that the magnet exists? It can only know that from the movement of metal that is susceptible to magnet's influence. In the absence of metal, wood will have no idea of a magnet existence. Similarly, from the actions of saints and martyrs ("metal") we ("wood") can infer the existence of God ("magnet") and Christianity provides the means to change that wood into metal, transform the "old man" into "new man". The opposite is also true, atheists by there own existence prove the being of God, because some of them like Dawkins dedicate their whole life to prove otherwise, which would be foolish to do so for the sake of something that does not exist. Would a smart person waste his life to prove that something does not exist? Either the person is not smart or God exists. This is just another way of putting the ontological argument. This argument, which first had been proposed by Anselm, was formalized in the XXth century by mathematician Kurt Godel. This is the same Godel about whom Einstein said that "his (Einstein) own work no longer meant much, that he came to the Institute merely...to have the privilege of walking home with Goedel". (Rebecca Goldstein, Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel, p 33). The gist of the argument is that God by definition is the sum of all positive properties, now being is the positive property hence God exists. Some people can object that being is not necessarily a positive property, but if that was the case why wouldn't they just shoot themselves to prove that. In fact that is what one of the heroes of Dostoevsky "Demons" just did trying to be true to the idea.
What can be a possible reason for denial of God? According to Freud, the idea of God is the projection of our intense subconscious childish desires for protection by a loving Father. In that case the rejection of God is just an expression of Oedipus complex, which is the desire to kill the father and replace him to be with the mother. For example, Voltaire, the avid atheist, hated his father so much that his debut play was "Oedipe". We can say that atheism is nothing more than a product of Oedipus complex. In his hatred for religion Dawkins makes a gross mistake in the logic, which is judging the religion by its representatives. As an example, he mentions all the killings done by crusaders in the Middle Ages, inferring from that how bad Christianity is. The truth is that, crusaders being western Christians as a result of their campaign murdered thousands of orthodox Christians, which only shows that something is wrong with their idea of Christianity. Lots of people come to Christ with the baggage of their passions and mistakes and instead of transforming this old man into a "new man" that corresponds to Christian ideals, those people just stay the same way, they view Christianity through the prism of this baggage and their actions come from their own nature and have nothing to do with Christianity. It is a gross mistake done by Dawkins, but its correction will destroy the major part of his book.
Now all the wars and other things described in the Bible should be interpreted spiritually. For example, the last phrase of the Psalm 137 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" obviously cannot have literal interpretation, which by the way is the protestant mistake. The person who does that must be a fool, but how then should it be interpreted? St Basil offers the following explanation, those will be happy who destroy their evil thoughts over the stone, which in the Gospel is a symbol of Christ, when they are still in the beginning ("little ones"). The same is the meaning of Psalm 101 words "I will early destroy all the wicked of the land (passions when they are still in the beginning); that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the Lord (the heart)". This is the way to heart purification and the way to experience God. This book, "God Delusion", written to convince people of God's inexistence in reality only reveals ignorance of Dawkins in the matters that he should not speak of. "The fool said in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14).
BASICALLY, WHAT DAWKINS DID - HE REVEALED TO EVERYBODY HIS OWN IDEA OF GOD (WHICH IS QUITE PRIMITIVE) AND THEN HE WAS FIGHTING WITH HIS OWN MISUNDERSTANDINGS FOR THE REST OF HIS BOOK.
Well, here goes nothing... September 21, 2006
136 out of 231 found this review helpful
I suppose this review is all in vain, since, after all, I am a just one voice among 713 others (and counting), but here goes nothing:
While I suppose critical discussion of religion is somewhat lacking in contemporary ages, what Scientist-turned-know-it-all Richard Dawkins offers up is a vociferous screed, resorting not to logic and clarity of thought, but to rhetorical cliches, paternalistic condescension, invocations of cultural icons (why should I care what Jefferson or Franklin thought about the church? I am not a member of the cult of the Founding Fathers...), and the most monumental straw-man argument I have ever seen launched - against "God" no less (whomever that might be...).
There are so many ways to respond, and I promised myself I would be brief. There are four lines of argument that Dawkins makes in attacking "God": he attacks particular cultural icons that we come to call deities, like the Yahweh of the old testament Jews and Allah (and, Dawkins seems to have overlooked Zeus, Gaia, Odin, and who knows how many other culture-specific personifications of Big-Fundamental-Cosmic-Forces people have imagined and invented); he attacks the idea of belief itself; he attacks (or at least tries to) philosophical arguments in defense of "god" and he attacks the specific cultural dogmas that are associated with the culture-specific personifications referenced above (such as the ideas of Noah's flood, garden of Eden... although he skipped over the house on top Mt. Olympus for some reason).
The problem with Dawkins' attack on specific cultural icons such as Yahweh and Allah is just embarrassing and a bit silly. Does Dawkins really believe that sophisticated, intelligent folks in 2007 who have the money, time, and educational levels to read his book think the Yahweh of the Old Testament is anything but a sometimes strange deity? He might as well be attacking the absurdities of Zeus and his gang atop Mt. Olympus. Mark that down as an argument sent to the wrong audience. But to attack any particular culture-specific deity icon is not to attack God. It is to attack someone's idea of God. Is the God of Whitehead and Hartshorne also as psychotic and objectionable to Dawkins? Does a sound criticism of communism or fascism convince anyone that we shouldn't have government at all? The problem is, Dawkins and others sit around using this word "God" as if we all know and agree on the meaning - the presupposition that is fundamental to Dawkins' arguments.
The same could be said of Dawkins' attack on the supposed absurdities of the Bible. No serious, intelligent, educated Christians are out there wringing their hands whether to believe that the universe exploded in a big bang or was made by Yahweh in 6 days. Dawkins spends an awful long time attacking Creationism, and assumes that Creationism is somehow a fundamental belief of all Christians. To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is as official a statement of what Catholics believe as any: "283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers." In other words, God bless the scientists (when they are doing science, not theology). (OK, granted, the Church uses the word "Creator" but that is just a plug for the idea that the Church believes that if the universe is the object of the ver "to create" there must also be a subject to the verb. It does not mean that you must accept the whole package of 6-day light from darkness, man made whole and complete and woman to accompany him...
Then there is Dawkins' attack on specific religions. More power to him, I say. What we need is more critical discussion of religion from within religion itself. I think there are people in this world today who claim to be Christians but who are doing harm to Christianity. Somehow, out of fear of breaking some sort of "I'm OK, You're ok" taboo we Christians refrain from debating what it means to be a Christian any more and we leave it up to those boring Atheists to criticize those we oppose (and criticize us in the process). But to show that any particular religion is silly or wrong hardly fulfills the promise of the book's title - that God itself is s delusion.
Finally, there is Dawkins' attack on belief itself, the idea that belief is foolishness, a delusion. Here is where Dawkins emerges as the theological equivalent of an anarchist: all government is bad government, all belief that is not scientific is bad. In response, I again resort to the Catechism of Catholicism: "2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits." Science cannot replace belief about moral existence and progress - rather, scientists take to their work the beliefs they already have formed. Science itself doesn't provide a moral compass. For that, you need to go into philosophy, which is a terrain upon which Dawkins is not very well-prepared to walk compared to many of us with less-scientific, more-humanist backgrounds.
Strawman argument at its best September 27, 2006
131 out of 282 found this review helpful
Richard Dawkins is an incredibly intelligent man. His arguments for genes, evolution, and a logical and rational-based approach to understanding the universe are convincing, well documented, and eloquent. When he approaches the concept of god, however, he falls uncharacteristically flat, and reveals that he is completely out of his element. The problem we have is with Dawkins's own concept of god: a Santa Claus in the sky, trapped in time and space, and ultimately confined to Dawkins's own imagination.
His argument that a god cannot exist because one would have to explain where he came from is clearly a thought process trapped in the confines of creature time, revealing the fact that Dawkins, despite his excelling intellect, cannot conceive of anything which exists outside of the five senses. God, which is argued in the Islamic tradition, is outside of creation and thus, not subject to time, space, or matter. He, we are told, is the creator of these things and therefore not subject to the questions of when (time), where (space), or matter (what). For how can the one who created time be subject to it? How can the one who created space be confined to it? This is quite logical, which surprises me that Dawkins would argue against such a flawed concept of God. It is often said to atheists who hold such views: "Which 'god' don't you believe in, because I probably don't believe in that 'god' either."
By creating a hypothesis of a god trapped in six directions and then demolishing that hypothesis, Mr. Dawkins is doing nothing more than demolishing his own understanding of god, which needless to say is not accomplishing much. Whereas many may find this book riviting, it is a strawman argument if there ever were one and a break in the armor, exposing the inadequacy of this previously-perceived invincible warrior of militant atheism.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
