The God Delusion: A Study of Religious Belief and Skepticism
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER
INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER
In the seminal text on atheism in the twenty-first centuy, renowned scientist Richard Dawkins examines the irrationality of believing in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society.
From the sex-obsessed tyrant in the Old Testament to the more benign Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers, Dawkins rigorously analyzes God in all his forms, eviscerating the major arguments for religion and demonstrating the supreme improbability of a supreme being. His argument steeped in impressive historical and contemporary evidence, spanning from the Crusades to 9/11, Dawkins shows how religion fuels war and foments bigotry, and makes the compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. As a solution, Dawkins offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism for the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe's wonders than any faith could ever muster.
INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER
In the seminal text on atheism in the twenty-first centuy, renowned scientist Richard Dawkins examines the irrationality of believing in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society.
From the sex-obsessed tyrant in the Old Testament to the more benign Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers, Dawkins rigorously analyzes God in all his forms, eviscerating the major arguments for religion and demonstrating the supreme improbability of a supreme being. His argument steeped in impressive historical and contemporary evidence, spanning from the Crusades to 9/11, Dawkins shows how religion fuels war and foments bigotry, and makes the compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. As a solution, Dawkins offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism for the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe's wonders than any faith could ever muster.
BUY THE BOOK
Community Reviews
There are any number of things I could criticize about the book, and it really does seem like one that wants lots of specific rebuttals. But I simply don't have that kind of time. Overall, let me say that Dawkins takes a remarkably narrow view of religion, and—I think—of human nature itself. I think he's also a bit too quick to overlook the shortcomings of rationality, but that's not as critical to my dislike of the book. It's worth reading, in order to engage with this important conversation (and because he does make a few good points). But the fundamental flaw underlying it makes it a much less worthy book than another author might have produced from roughly the same standpoint.
I was raised Roman Catholic and attended Roman Catholic school my entire life. I deeply questioned my faith growing up and left the church behind in adulthood. I found this book to be informative, eye opening, affirming and comforting.
Dawkins is mad as hell and he isn’t going to take it anymore. (Can an atheist be mad as hell? Don’t they have to believe in heaven and hell first?) He starts off stating that he intends to use this book to convert Christians to Atheism then proceeds to tell the reader what is wrong with Christianity, Judaism, and other religions.
Being raised Catholic and now on a different journey in Christianity I have had the same questions that Dawkins poses. Such as – why does a football team pray before a game? Is God really going to allow the team with the best prayer win? Or why does Christianity have so many denominations, why can’t we all get along?
Most of the book is him posing all the problems with believing in a God but not many solutions are given or what his vision is for a God Free world looks like. He talks about how 9/11 was due to religious intolerance but doesn’t tell the reader what he thinks would happen if we do follow his dream of not believing. Does he really think tragedies like 9/11 would have never happened?
He states that it is wrong to raise a child in a specific faith because they should be able to make that decision on their own. But he doesn’t say at what age that child should make that decision.
One big God issue that he left out either intentionally or he didn’t research completely is the idea of having a concept of a higher power, not in any religious sense but in the sense there is something greater than us. I am talking about 12 step support groups whose millions of members use their own concept of a God to keep them sober. According to Dawkins it is delusional to think that there is a higher power. So what would he rather have? A sober delusional person. Or a drunken atheist reeking havoc in the lives of others.
I would have liked to give this book 4 stars but it just poses way too many questions. He focuses on the negativity of the church (yes we know about the crusades and how wrong they were) but what about churches that take mission trips to help poverty stricken villages in Africa or for earthquake relief in Haiti? Is it delusional to believe in a God that calls his people to help one another?
I am left wondering what has happened to Dawkins to cause him to rally against believing? This book is far from the final word in Atheism, but it will make you think and hopefully have further discussions on belief or disbelief in God.
Being raised Catholic and now on a different journey in Christianity I have had the same questions that Dawkins poses. Such as – why does a football team pray before a game? Is God really going to allow the team with the best prayer win? Or why does Christianity have so many denominations, why can’t we all get along?
Most of the book is him posing all the problems with believing in a God but not many solutions are given or what his vision is for a God Free world looks like. He talks about how 9/11 was due to religious intolerance but doesn’t tell the reader what he thinks would happen if we do follow his dream of not believing. Does he really think tragedies like 9/11 would have never happened?
He states that it is wrong to raise a child in a specific faith because they should be able to make that decision on their own. But he doesn’t say at what age that child should make that decision.
One big God issue that he left out either intentionally or he didn’t research completely is the idea of having a concept of a higher power, not in any religious sense but in the sense there is something greater than us. I am talking about 12 step support groups whose millions of members use their own concept of a God to keep them sober. According to Dawkins it is delusional to think that there is a higher power. So what would he rather have? A sober delusional person. Or a drunken atheist reeking havoc in the lives of others.
I would have liked to give this book 4 stars but it just poses way too many questions. He focuses on the negativity of the church (yes we know about the crusades and how wrong they were) but what about churches that take mission trips to help poverty stricken villages in Africa or for earthquake relief in Haiti? Is it delusional to believe in a God that calls his people to help one another?
I am left wondering what has happened to Dawkins to cause him to rally against believing? This book is far from the final word in Atheism, but it will make you think and hopefully have further discussions on belief or disbelief in God.
Dawkins comes down hard on religion in this. There were a few good points and some novel ideas in this hence the three stars.
My main problem with it is that he's very heavy-handed in not differentiating between religion and fanatical religions and even defending his failure to differentiate. In this, Karen Armstrong's In Defense of God was way more sophisticated, which makes sense because Armstrong is an expert in religion. (Dawkins dismisses expertise in religion as nonsense basically.) Even if, as he claims, fanatical Christians are more numerous than liberal Christians in the US, this doesn't excuse his conflation of the two groups to make his arguments more palatable. Yes, evolution means the Bible isn't literally true regarding the age of the Earth or the timeline in Genesis, but that doesn't disprove God or the value of any and all religions.
Dawkins discusses some physics, but these arguments also left me a little cold possibly because he's not a physicist but an evolutionary biologist. Physics is so deeply weird that nothing has persuaded me more of the possibility of things I might otherwise assume are impossible.
My main problem with it is that he's very heavy-handed in not differentiating between religion and fanatical religions and even defending his failure to differentiate. In this, Karen Armstrong's In Defense of God was way more sophisticated, which makes sense because Armstrong is an expert in religion. (Dawkins dismisses expertise in religion as nonsense basically.) Even if, as he claims, fanatical Christians are more numerous than liberal Christians in the US, this doesn't excuse his conflation of the two groups to make his arguments more palatable. Yes, evolution means the Bible isn't literally true regarding the age of the Earth or the timeline in Genesis, but that doesn't disprove God or the value of any and all religions.
Dawkins discusses some physics, but these arguments also left me a little cold possibly because he's not a physicist but an evolutionary biologist. Physics is so deeply weird that nothing has persuaded me more of the possibility of things I might otherwise assume are impossible.
See why thousands of readers are using Bookclubs to stay connected.