Eye-opening

Any additional comments?

The book is truly eye-opening to many problems with religions, claims of religious people and their leaders and to religious fallacies. The readers' voices are very pleasant to the ear and in some fragments dramatic and amusing to just the right extent. A real joy to listen!
But I have two issues with the book itself.
One, it does not address the role of religion in the third-world countries. When the standard of living is so low that only one in several of your children survives past the age of five, when the social sciences are not sufficiently developed to provide psychological support, not to mention that such support would not be affordable by those poor people, what else have they got to turn to? Religion, spiritual leaders support, fellow tribesmen prayers, holding onto the belief that their little angels went to a better place - are all these things inherently and unequivocally bad?
And two, in some places I find the tone of the author's anti-religious advocacy is verging on ferocious, so much so that it can almost be perceived as the author's own "religion". The way he speaks of deeply religious people is at times so condescending that it is comparable with the mocking way members of one religion speak of another religions, a practice the author seems to deplore. I'm surprised that despite author's apparent understanding for the mechanisms that drive the human mind to be susceptible to becoming religious, in some fragments he treats being religious in such a resentful way.
The book is good for atheists, as it provides us with good examples of how harmful religion can be. It is a good read and hopefully an eye-opener for people who are unsure about god and hold on to certain "proofs" of god's existence. But I don't think the author's main target audience - religious people whom, by his own admission, he hopes to turn atheist - will be able to read past the first few chapters, and this is because of author's tone, which I think they might find disrespectful or even insulting.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Food for thought on both sides.

I felt this book was very fair in presenting arguments for both sides and I liked the way it draws on some of the contradictions. A good book worth a listen.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

a true insight to how bad religion can be.

the author has put reason and science at the forefront of this book. truly showing the evils that religion can cause.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Overcoming my God delusion

This book helps me enormously articulate what i have been thinking for decades. I was brought up thro the church, the cathedral, primary and secondary school with Christ, God and the bible since a small child of five - i even went to an Alpha course to support my best friend when i was 30. I now feel confident and secure about holding my own against people with God-faiths and their mystical-deluded-stories, and that the wonder of the world, evolution and universe gives me a really faith to be an aware, conscientious, good, moral, alert, considerate, empathetic, a hard working erson. To love life and learn in the short time i have on this extraordinary earth is the point. Thank you Richard, your team and all the other sensible, well mannered scientists.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

A Curates Egg -Trapped in a Filter Bubble!

I love Dawkins writings on evolution, and The God Delusion has been a force for good in liberating many unhappy victims of religion and in fighting discrimination against atheism as a valid viewpoint, especially in the US. Perhaps most of all, TGD has stimulated huge debate, and hopefully a critical reexamination of religion and many unquestioned traditional beliefs and practices can only be beneficial.

However, just as Creationists misunderstand Evolutionary theory, to me the book is based on a profound misunderstanding of Religion. At times his polemic is reminiscent of those outraged tabloid headlines that deride all modern art as eg. a "Pile of Bricks" or rock music as "noise". The 'just so' evolutionary explanations of misfiring evolutionary strategies or replicating "viral memes" efface any inherent value, and at no point in the book is he curious as to the actual subjective reasons why anyone might commit themselves to any form of spirituality.

Compare Schleiermacher's definition of religion as "...affection, a revelation of the Infinite in the finite" with Dawkins definition as a "viral memeplex" and I hope the subjective importance of the project of religion becomes clear.

One example of this blinkered view is the central "Ultimate 747" argument in the chapter "Why God almost certainly does not exist". God's existence, Dawkins asserts, is a scientific question. If the universe is so unlikely as to require a Creator, then that Creator must be even more complex and therefore even more unlikely! Thus, who created the Creator becomes an infinite regress of ever increasing complexity and therefore improbability.

A simple refutation might be that given eternity, a Creator of almost infinite improbability is possible. Such is not unlike Nick Bostroms "simulation universe" argument.

For the believer however, Gods existence is NOT a scientific question about the existence of a supernatural being eg. an invisible pink spaghetti monster, but a shift in perspective to a different set of foundational assumptions. While Atheism (and Science) assumes the primordial nature of matter/space/time, Theism asserts the primordial nature of mind/thought (John 1:1-5) transcending space/time. A famous metaphor is "Plato's Cave", where prisoners in the dark stare at shadows. Only by turning around do they see (and approach) the light creating the shadow-play. Such pure awareness is not complex. Complexity arises only with many interacting parts/particles. Such may or may not be how things are, but the "ultimate 747" is a bad argument, because it conflates the methodological materialism of science with a presumption of materialism as the established ontology for both religion and science. It assumes God as one of the shadows on the cave wall, not the light creating them.

At times I think the book deliberately misleads, such as with the chapter on ethics in the Bible. Of course, as the book argues, no modern person takes their ethical values from the examples of Yahweh's various atrocities, the actions of Moses or Abraham, or even from the rules in Leviticus. However, to generalise that to the whole Bible is a fallacy. People may still be challenged by "love your enemies" or "that which you do to the least of my brothers, so you do to me" or the parable of the Good Samaritan. For many it is the contemplation of these, sometimes interpreted within a religious community, that can drive positive change and ethical action. How do you decide what to ignore? Newtons writings on Alchemy are ignored in contrast to his Principia. Why not use similar discernment with the Bible?

Social reformers like William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu or Mahatma Gandhi were clearly inspired by their faith, and while atheists are no less ethical, religion provides a powerful motivation to take action as dedicated service or ethical reform, as the many religiously inspired charities bear witness.

One final bugbear for me was the frequent conflation of faith as "blind faith". Look it up in the OED, and faith is "belief in the absence of PROOF", not the absence of evidence. Thus the theists "leap of faith" into uncertainty, need not be blind, but from the best evidence available. Only fundamentalists seem to share the atheists concept of faith as "blind".

In summary then, "The God Delusion" is a great polemic, but misleading if listened to uncritically. Dawkins is astute in highlighting the backwardness of many religious beliefs (such as the literal truth of the Bible) and he does an excellent job pointing out their irrational absurdities, superstitions and oppressive cruelties. As with all his audiobooks it is also very engagingly read both by the author, and in contrapuntal style by his wife, Lalla Ward.

However, his contempt for religion distorts his judgement, and the book suffers from a blinding confirmation bias, and a failure to think beyond a strictly scientific paradigm. Many of his arguments on close examination turn out to be misleading or based on false assumptions, and explanations based on his own pet theories (e.g. memetics), are not widely accepted as mainstream science. Most importantly, the book fails to even acknowledge, let alone explain as motivation, any inherent subjective spiritual experience, insight or motivation gained through religion.

It's a powerful book, and potentially a persuasive one, but keep your head with you -don't take the validity of any argument simply on "blind faith".

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

12 people found this helpful

the answer to life the universe and eveything

I had been thinking of downloading this book for some time, but as a committed atheist, I wasn?t sure if it would be for me ? I don?t need convincing. I also thought it would be dry. How wrong could I be. I love this book, and the narrative with Richard Dawkins and Lalla Ward is very entertaining. I was reminded of the wonderful writing of Douglas Adams with both readers narrative ? appropriately enough, the book is dedicated to Douglas Adams, a good friend of Dawkins (who met his wife and fellow narrator, Lalla Ward though Douglas Adams).

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

11 people found this helpful

Intelligent and Persuasive

Although I am already an atheist, I wanted to get this book due to its notoriety. I wasn't disappointed!

The book is broken down into basic arguments (or rather, statements of facts) each taking a single chapter. The narration is by Dawkins and his wife. It's clear and concise, each point of fact followed to its natural conclusion. It's almost clinical in its approach ensuring that there can be no misunderstandings.

I loved it. As an atheist I found it compelling and the dry humour and sarcasm made me laugh out loud. I cannot fault the research and conclusions. Dawkins is a professional and respected scientist and this book is akin to a research thesis, clinical, to the point and (naturally) derisive in that there is no logical reason to believe in a God so why do it!

Maybe this should become the atheists equivalent of the bible except it's based on fact not ancient fiction. For those of you that are hovering between belief and atheism then this book should make things clearer. If you are a true believer, this book will either upset you or make you begin to question your faith.

The only criticism that I have is the use of 'difficult' words. Fine for someone who has a good grasp of the English language but would be a little difficult to follow for those that aren't.

Overall a great book. Good facts, good humour and good listening.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

Beautifully narrated, written and edited.

Where does The God Delusion rank among all the audiobooks you’ve listened to so far?

A real treat to get involved with.

What other book might you compare The God Delusion to, and why?

Nothing i have read thus far.

What does Richard Dawkins and Lalla Ward bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you had only read the book?

An involved emotion, their truth and belief pour from every word.

Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

Each and every chapter was enlightening and belief affirming.

Any additional comments?

Whether you 'believe' or not this book is an eye opening journey,

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

Great book. A must hear

Great book a must hear. Will change your life if you’re struggling due to religious upbringing

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

If every Christian could read without prejudice...

This is an incredible book, written with compassion and humour, although totally unapologetic in its argument. As a formally "religious" person, I believe it will not convert many fundamentalist believers (they will only experience it as attack on their unassailable belief fortresses) but its value is not as an evangelical atheist text, but as an accessible, coherent and enjoyable affirmation of the power of reason, and the wonder and meaning to be found by looking at the universe with open eyes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!