The God Delusion
- Downloads：7276
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-10-14 09:54:35
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Richard Dawkins
- ISBN：1784161934
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
The God Delusion caused a sensation when it was published in 2006。 Within weeks it became the most hotly debated topic， with Dawkins himself branded as either saint or sinner for presenting his hard-hitting， impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types。
His argument could hardly be more topical。 While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized， the rise of religious fundamentalism， whether in the Middle East or Middle America， is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world。 In America， and elsewhere， a vigorous dispute between 'intelligent design' and Darwinism is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science。 In many countries religious dogma from medieval times still serves to abuse basic human rights such as women's and gay rights。 And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind。
Dawkins attacks God in all his forms。 He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being。 He shows how religion fuels war， foments bigotry and abuses children。
The God Delusion is a brilliantly argued， fascinating polemic that will be required reading for anyone interested in this most emotional and important subject。
His argument could hardly be more topical。 While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized， the rise of religious fundamentalism， whether in the Middle East or Middle America， is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world。 In America， and elsewhere， a vigorous dispute between 'intelligent design' and Darwinism is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science。 In many countries religious dogma from medieval times still serves to abuse basic human rights such as women's and gay rights。 And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind。
Dawkins attacks God in all his forms。 He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being。 He shows how religion fuels war， foments bigotry and abuses children。
The God Delusion is a brilliantly argued， fascinating polemic that will be required reading for anyone interested in this most emotional and important subject。
Reviews
Jacob
，
Makes interesting points。 Maybe this is the way of atheism when this book was written but didn't seem like it represented current atheism very well。 Makes interesting points。 Maybe this is the way of atheism when this book was written but didn't seem like it represented current atheism very well。 。。。more
Elizabeth
，
[Audio Book]
M
，
First things first， whatever side of the fence you are on， come into this with an open mind and you'll get much more from it。 If you open this bad boy with your Religiously affiliated eyes， your atheistic determination or even your agnostic uncertainty， you won't get nearly as much out if this。 I must say Dawkins is very thorough in his attempted take down。 In my opinion， he covers the gamut of our worlds most common takes on the reason God does exist。 The arguments seem to be targeting the Abr First things first， whatever side of the fence you are on， come into this with an open mind and you'll get much more from it。 If you open this bad boy with your Religiously affiliated eyes， your atheistic determination or even your agnostic uncertainty， you won't get nearly as much out if this。 I must say Dawkins is very thorough in his attempted take down。 In my opinion， he covers the gamut of our worlds most common takes on the reason God does exist。 The arguments seem to be targeting the Abrahamic religions specifically。 I liked that he basically painted them with the same brush to illustrate his larger points and didn't get bogged down by the differences between them。At the beginning he discusses a scientific God or Einsteinian God。 I would have liked this point to have been expanded。 Would have been interesting to hear his take on philosophies such as Taoism。The underlying points about the mysteries of the Universe and the Natural World are concepts that I think we can all get behind。 Religious affiliation （or non-affiliation） should not prevent any one from appreciating the "miracles" that surround us and that we witness every day。Remember， Open Mind！ Happy Reading！ 。。。more
Greg
，
Certainly 5 stars for the message and the approach to debunking religious arguments throughout the ages of all types; I only knock it down a bit for its length and dragging a bit in a couple of places。 Dawkins focuses on Christianity because this is his background， but his arguments are not confined to it。 He absolutely does not pull any punches， but at the same time writes in a thoughtful， humanizing， and playful way。 The book is also chock-full of quotes :）， starting with Douglas Adams， In Mem Certainly 5 stars for the message and the approach to debunking religious arguments throughout the ages of all types; I only knock it down a bit for its length and dragging a bit in a couple of places。 Dawkins focuses on Christianity because this is his background， but his arguments are not confined to it。 He absolutely does not pull any punches， but at the same time writes in a thoughtful， humanizing， and playful way。 The book is also chock-full of quotes :）， starting with Douglas Adams， In Memoriam， in the dedication: “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too？”Others:On atheism:“I have found it an amusing strategy， when asked whether I am an atheist， to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus， Apollo， Amon Ra， Mithras， Baal， Thor， Wotan， the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster。 I just go one god further。”On belief in the irrational， from Sam Harris:“We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification。 When their beliefs are extremely common we call them ‘religious’; otherwise， they are likely to be called ‘mad’， ‘psychotic’， or ‘delusional’ … Clearly there is a sanity in numbers。”On belief as a virtue:“But why， in any case， do we so readily accept the idea that the one thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him？ What’s so special about believing？ Isn’t it just as likely that God would reward kindness， or generosity， or humility？ Or sincerity？ What if God is a scientist who regards honest seeking after truth as the supreme virtue？ Indeed， wouldn’t the designer of the universe have to be a scientist？”On the Bible， the Old Testament:“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。”“The point is that， whether true or not， the Bible is held up to us as the source of our morality。 And the Bible story of Joshua’s destruction of Jericho， and the invasion of the Promised Land in general， is morally indistinguishable from Hitler’s invasion of Poland， or Saddam Hussein’s massacres of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs。”And this on the New Testament:“Robert Gillooly shows how all the essential features of the Jesus legend， including the star in the east， the virgin birth， the veneration of the baby by kings， the miracles， the execution， the resurrection and the ascension are borrowed – every last one of them – from other religions already in existence in the Mediterranean and Near East region。”“Well， there’s no denying that， from a moral point of view， Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament。 Indeed， Jesus， if he existed （or whoever wrote his script if he didn’t） was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history。 The Sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time。 His ‘turn the other cheek’ anticipated Gandhi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years。”Lastly this， on the Apocrypha:“The gospels that didn’t make it were omitted by those ecclesiastics perhaps because they included stories that were even more embarrassingly implausible than those in the four canonical ones。 The Infant Gospel of Thomas， for example， has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus abusing his magical powers in the manner of a mischievous fairy， impishly transforming his playmates into goats， or turning mud into sparrows， or giving his father a hand with the carpentry by miraculously lengthening a piece of wood。”Finally， from John Hartung:“The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality， complete with instructions for genocide， enslavement of out-groups， and world domination。 But the Bible is not evil by virtue of its objectives or even its glorification of murder， cruelty， and rape。 Many ancient words do that – the Iliad， the Icelandic Sagas， the tales of the ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the ancient Mayans， for example。 But no one is selling the Iliad as a foundation for morality。 Therein lies the problem。 The Bible is sold， and bought， as a guide to how people should live their lives。 And it is， by far， the world’s all-time best seller。”On death:“Why don’t all Christians and Muslims say something like the abbot [Congratulations！] when they hear that a friend is dying？ When a devout woman is told by a doctor that she has only months to live， why doesn’t she beam with excited anticipation， as if she has just won a holiday in the Seychelles？”On God:“Why is God considered an explanation for anything？ It’s not – it’s a failure to explain， a shrug of the shoulders， an ‘I dunno’ dressed up in spirituality and ritual。 If someone credits something to God， generally what it means is that they haven’t a clue， so they’re attributing it to an unreachable， unknowable sky-fairy。 Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from， and odds are you’ll get a vague， pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed， or being outside nature。 Which， of course， explains nothing。”On hell:“If hell were plausible， it would only have to be moderately unpleasant in order to deter。 Given that it is so unlikely to be true， it has to be advertised as very very scary indeed， to balance its implausibility and retain some deterrence value。”On love， hmm interesting this found its way in here:“The anthropologist Helen Fisher， in Why We Love， has beautifully expressed the insanity of romantic love， and how over-the-top it is compared with what might seem strictly necessary。 Look at it this way。 From the point of view of a man， say， it is unlikely that any one woman of his acquaintance is a hundred times more lovable than her nearest competitor， yet that is how he is likely to describe her when ‘in love’。 Rather than the fanatically monogamous devotion to which we are susceptible， some sort of ‘polyamory’ is on the face of it more rational。 （Polyamory is the belief that one can simultaneously love several members of the opposite sex， just as one can love more than one wine， composer， book， or sport。） We happily accept that we can love more than one child， parent， sibling， teacher， friend， or pet。 When you think of it like that， isn’t the total exclusiveness that we expect of spousal love positively weird？”On misogyny， from Gore Vidal:“The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism。 From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament， three anti-human religions have evolved – Judaism， Christianity， and Islam。 These are sky-god religions。 They are， literally， patriarchal – God is the Omnipotent Father – hence the loathing of women for 2，000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates。”On prayer， from Ambrose Bierce:“（The definition of to pray is） to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner， confessedly unworthy。”On religion’s use of science， and the double standard:“…imagine， by some remarkable set of circumstances， that forensic archaeologists unearthed DNA evidence to show that Jesus really did lack a biological father。 Can you imagine religious apologists shrugging their shoulders and saying anything remotely like the following？ ‘Who cares？ Scientific evidence is completely irrelevant to theological questions。 Wrong magisterium！ We’re concerned only with ultimate questions and with moral values。 Neither DNA nor any other scientific evidence could ever have any bearing on the matter， one way or the other。’ The very idea is a joke。”More on religion， from Thomas Jefferson:“The priests of the different religious sects … dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight， and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live。”Also from Thomas Jefferson:“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus， by the Supreme Being as his father， in the womb of a virgin， will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter。”From Steven Weinberg:“Religion is an insult to human dignity。 With or without it， you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things。 But for good people to do evil things， it takes religion。”From Seneca the Younger:“Religion is regarded by the common people as true， by the wise as false， and by the rulers as useful。”From Victor Hugo:“There is in every village a torch – the teacher: and an extinguisher – the clergyman。”From Muriel Gray， on the terrorism of the London bombings:“Everyone is being blamed， from the obvious villainous duo of George W。 Bush and Tony Blair， to the inaction of Muslim ‘communities’。 But it has never been clearer that there is only one place to lay the blame and it has ever been thus。 The cause of all this misery， mayhem， violence， terror， and ignorance is of course religion itself， and if it seems ludicrous to have to state such an obvious reality， the fact is that the government and the media are doing a pretty good job of pretending that it isn’t so。”And:“Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word （religion）， and instead characterize their battle as a war against ‘terror’， as though terror were a kind of spirit or force， with a will and a mind of its own。 Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure ‘evil’。 But they are not motivated by evil。 However misguided we may think them， they are motivated， like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors， by what they perceive to be righteousness， faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them。 They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists， who， by their own lights， are rational。”On being a spiritual nonbeliever， something I have always felt:From Einstein:“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever。 This is a somewhat new kind of religion。”Also from Einstein:“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal， or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic。 What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly， and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility。 This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism。”Lastly， this little bit of levity， from Lord Justice Bowen， a play of course on Matthew 5:45:“The rain it raineth on the just，And also on the unjust fella。But chiefly on the just， becauseThe unjust hath the just’s umbrella。” 。。。more
Jake Smith
，
4。0 stars。 I guess it is appropriate to preface the review by stating I am an atheist。 I always have been and this book certainly reenforces this。 The beginning few chapters of this book have r/atheist vibes to them。 Dawkins mentions a meta analysis about the relationship between IQ， an arbitrary and useless measurement， to the likelihood of religiosity。 This feels 。 。 。 Bad。 It is ultimately useless and makes it seem as though Dawkins is grasping and lacks real reasoning for non-belief。 Luckily 4。0 stars。 I guess it is appropriate to preface the review by stating I am an atheist。 I always have been and this book certainly reenforces this。 The beginning few chapters of this book have r/atheist vibes to them。 Dawkins mentions a meta analysis about the relationship between IQ， an arbitrary and useless measurement， to the likelihood of religiosity。 This feels 。 。 。 Bad。 It is ultimately useless and makes it seem as though Dawkins is grasping and lacks real reasoning for non-belief。 Luckily this is remedied throughout the rest of the text。 It is a scathing indictment on religion as a whole and one I mostly agree with。 Worth a read for those who do and do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster。 。。。more
Mughees
，
Read it for a second time。 Amazing！
Michaela May
，
I‘m sure there is a lot of discussion around this book。 But I hope someday it’s just common knowledge。
Avijit Sarker
，
Pantheism is sexed-up atheism， deism is watered-down theism。。 A smart book from a smart author。。loved it。。
Greg
，
Oh my God！ That was a hard read！
Ericson Rosario
，
I'm non-religious and not even confirmation bias could make me take this book seriously。 I'm non-religious and not even confirmation bias could make me take this book seriously。 。。。more
Vic Allen
，
A biologist's look at religion。 Religion does not come off well in the encounter。 A biologist's look at religion。 Religion does not come off well in the encounter。 。。。more
Ryan Trzeciak
，
The book was well written， very thought provoking， and the author made some statements that I would agree with， although I disagree with his conclusions。
William
，
Dawkins seems to be proving the evolutionary basis for religious impulse in chapter 5， in that we have a human-centric conception of reality。 So for example， our ancestors who thought the world didn't revolve around us （the world and things in it designed for us） wouldn't have been so loathe to run away from a tornado， because maybe it's interesting。 Our ancestors who survived/spread their genes on are the ones that see the world as revolving around us， things being designed for us。 My issue is Dawkins seems to be proving the evolutionary basis for religious impulse in chapter 5， in that we have a human-centric conception of reality。 So for example， our ancestors who thought the world didn't revolve around us （the world and things in it designed for us） wouldn't have been so loathe to run away from a tornado， because maybe it's interesting。 Our ancestors who survived/spread their genes on are the ones that see the world as revolving around us， things being designed for us。 My issue is that Dawkins seems to think that science exists on a plane above this religious impulse， but I disagree。 I think if you just look at some of the presuppositions science relies on， like this notion of an external reality （does a tree make a noise in a forest， ofc if you're a biologist！）， language being transparent （otherwise how could any scientific thesis be expounded upon/explained？） and us being separate individuals， you can see that science is reliant on a very human-centric conception of reality。 。。。more
Sinemosi
，
Richard Dawkins genel olarak dinin modern dünyada çok da gerekli olmadığını ve safsatalarla insanları kandırdığını anlatırken çoğunlukla aşina olduğu Hristiyanlık öğretilerini örnek olarak kullanmış。 Bu kitabı okuduktan sonraki en büyük dileğim Türkiye'den bir biliminsanının -tercihen evrim biyoloğu， kimyager veya hayvanbilimci olabilir- çıkıp İslam öğretilerinin bilimle çelişen kısımlarını eleştirel bakış açısıyla anlatması; Müslüman/ateist fark etmeden herkesin de bunu okumasi 😅 Richard Dawkins genel olarak dinin modern dünyada çok da gerekli olmadığını ve safsatalarla insanları kandırdığını anlatırken çoğunlukla aşina olduğu Hristiyanlık öğretilerini örnek olarak kullanmış。 Bu kitabı okuduktan sonraki en büyük dileğim Türkiye'den bir biliminsanının -tercihen evrim biyoloğu， kimyager veya hayvanbilimci olabilir- çıkıp İslam öğretilerinin bilimle çelişen kısımlarını eleştirel bakış açısıyla anlatması; Müslüman/ateist fark etmeden herkesin de bunu okumasi 😅 。。。more
COLE OTT
，
Completely oxymoronic in almost every possible way。 "Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time。" - Richard Dawkins， Thanks for describing your career lol。 On a serious note however， has genuinely made his own religion， all he did was replace "God" with science。 Leaving your echo chamber once in and while might be good for you if you like this book！ Completely oxymoronic in almost every possible way。 "Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time。" - Richard Dawkins， Thanks for describing your career lol。 On a serious note however， has genuinely made his own religion， all he did was replace "God" with science。 Leaving your echo chamber once in and while might be good for you if you like this book！ 。。。more
Guven Bolukbasi
，
This is probably one of the first books I have read （and yes I have started reading when I was 27 years old :） ）。 It did influence my perception of religion and helped me to let go of any attachment to God; so it did its job well。 Looking at it now though， it has a slightly aggressive tone; I guess that is usually the case with Richard Dawkins。 In any case， if you are in a stage in life where you start questioning your belief system， this book will help。
Gautam Nirtesh
，
I don't know what I think about this book。 I don't know what I think about this book。 。。。more
Kaja Folga
，
Otwierające oczy。 Odświeżające。 Dawkins jest dobitny i nie bawi się w półśrodki。 Warto znać "Boga urojonego" - chociażby， żeby inteligentnie widać się z autorem w polemikę。 Otwierające oczy。 Odświeżające。 Dawkins jest dobitny i nie bawi się w półśrodki。 Warto znać "Boga urojonego" - chociażby， żeby inteligentnie widać się z autorem w polemikę。 。。。more
Ryan Impink
，
"The best books， he perceived， are those that tell you what you know already。" 1984 This quote is a perfect way to describe how I felt reading most of it。 I say most of it because I did not know much about the science expounded in this tome。This book spoke to me！ Dawkins is a treasure to humanity。 I cannot recommend this book enough if you are into spiritual， religious or supernatural matters。 I read this as a recovering Christian。 Thank God （Einstein's God ie。 the universe） I was able to break "The best books， he perceived， are those that tell you what you know already。" 1984 This quote is a perfect way to describe how I felt reading most of it。 I say most of it because I did not know much about the science expounded in this tome。This book spoke to me！ Dawkins is a treasure to humanity。 I cannot recommend this book enough if you are into spiritual， religious or supernatural matters。 I read this as a recovering Christian。 Thank God （Einstein's God ie。 the universe） I was able to break those mental shackles and rid myself of that spiritual cancer。 A book such as this can do so much good in our awakening world。 。。。more
Emat1+6
，
This is the book， that when you read it， all HElL+BReAkS！LOOsE， meaning， it is complete nonsense camouflaged as profound TRUTH， as the saying goes， Enough is surely， ENough， age5t6y
Caleb Jore
，
"In this book， Dawkins throws the conventions of academic scholarship to the winds; he wants to write a work of propaganda， and consequently treats the accurate rendition of religion as an inconvenient impediment to his chief agenda， which is the intellectual and cultural destruction of religion。 It's an unpleasant characteristic that he shares with other fundamentalists。"-Alister McGrath， The Dawkins DelusionI once thought this book represented the crowning gem of rigorous atheistic worldview d "In this book， Dawkins throws the conventions of academic scholarship to the winds; he wants to write a work of propaganda， and consequently treats the accurate rendition of religion as an inconvenient impediment to his chief agenda， which is the intellectual and cultural destruction of religion。 It's an unpleasant characteristic that he shares with other fundamentalists。"-Alister McGrath， The Dawkins DelusionI once thought this book represented the crowning gem of rigorous atheistic worldview defense， a devastating collation of the strongest intellectual obstacles to theistic belief。I was wrong。Terribly wrong， in fact！ This book was one of the worst critiques of theism I've ever seen。 To be fair， Dawkins is a brilliant writer， and I more than once found myself marveling at his word choices and rhetorical soundbites， despite their philosophical bankruptcy。 Sadly， for an uninformed reader， his clarity and confidence might be enough to mask his non-starter critiques。Atheists， I recognize that this does not represent the best defense of your worldview （if it did， atheism would be dead）。 I fully acknowledge that there are more cogent works out there that need to be dealt with on their own merits。 What follows are my comments/criticisms on each chapter。Chapter 1: A Deeply Religious Non-believerIn this chapter Dawkins focuses mainly on talking about different scientists who held almost "religious" beliefs when confronted with something like the universe （Einstein， Sagan， etc。）。 He then complains about how religion is always a forbidden topic and governments tend to be more lenient when people claim they're doing something for "religious freedom"。 In so doing， he asserts that he should be allowed to speak harshly of religion during the book。Chapter 2: The God HypothesisThis chapter consists of a lot more rhetoric。 Dawkins analyzes the different forms of God-belief （theism， deism， polytheism） and spends some pages arguing that the Founding Fathers might have been atheists if they had lived today。 His criticisms are at times quite misrepresentative （"Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus"）。 There's not much to critique in this chapter， as it was mainly informative （albeit in a biased way）。Chapter 3: Arguments for God's ExistenceHere is where we start to get to the good stuff。 Renowned philosopher of religion Richard Dawkins turns to dissecting the "spectacularly weak" classical arguments for God's existence。 He fails， miserably。 When he does succeed， it's because he attacked a straw man; otherwise， his criticism just makes the argument look stronger。 For example， in response to arguments from a First Cause， he says "Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name， there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence， omniscience， goodness， creativity of design， to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers， forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts。" Quite the concession。 First Cause arguments don't seek to prove any of these attributes—you'd have to go to a contingency or ontological argument for that—but a terminator to an infinite regress could certainly be problematic for atheism。Dawkins also attacks the ontological argument （straw man）， the fine-tuning argument （weakly）， the argument from religious experience （also weakly）， and a few others。 I won't bother refuting all of his criticisms。 William Lane Craig has already done so， here: https://www。reasonablefaith。org/writi。。。In summary， then， Dawkins' criticisms amount to nothing。 He attacks straw men， and often doesn't defeat them。Chapter 4: Why There Almost Certainly Is No GodThis chapter is basically dedicated to arguing that "Who made God？" is a viable objection。 Dawkins argues that any god capable of explaining something as complex as the universe must be at least as complex， and thus need an explanation itself。 The flaw in Dawkins' reasoning is quite clearly pointed out by William Lane Craig， in the article linked above: "Dawkins is plainly mistaken anyway in his assumption that a divine Designer is just as complex an entity as the universe。 As a pure mind or consciousness without a body， God is a remarkably simple entity。 A mind （or soul） is not [a] physical object composed of parts。 In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable constants and quantities， a divine mind is amazingly simple。"A necessarily existent mind is quite a simple entity， and postulating that as a brute fact is a much more elegant explanation of reality than postulating， say， a set of arbitrarily existent laws of physics。 The intuitive pull of theism is much better than Dawkins makes it out to be， and thus， this section was unconvincing。Chapter 5: The Roots of ReligionHaving completed his "critique" of theism， Dawkins turns to discussing the origins of religion。 Basically， he argues that due to the survival advantage of tribalism， humans have evolved to follow whatever an authority tells them。 Thus， in the evolutionary process of Homo sapiens， young children adopted the spiritual beliefs of their parents because it was most beneficial to their survival。 Of course， this says nothing about the truth of religion， and risks committing the genetic fallacy。 Dawkins tried and failed to critique religion， so anything he says about the origins of religion is superfluous at best。Chapter 6: The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good？Chapter 6 is an analysis of the evolutionary reasons for morality。 It was interesting reading an evolutionary perspective on the issue， and some of the moral dilemmas presented in the chapter were quite fascinating。 That's all there really is to say about this chapter， so I will be moving on。Chapter 7: The 'Good' Book and the Changing Moral ZeitgestDawkins devotes this chapter to arguing that the Bible should not be used as a source for morality。 He argues that we could either obtain morality from a role model （God， Moses） or direct decree （the Ten Commandments）。 In arguing against the former， he spends an unnecessary amount of time pointing to immoral actions of biblical characters and saying that this poses a problem for biblical morality。 Congratulations， Dawkins！ You've figured out why we don't pick random people from the Bible to serve as role models。 He then spends a lot of rhetorical effort slamming the moral character of God as revealed in the Old Testament。 I didn't find the critiques very convincing （though they would doubtless be unsettling for unestablished Christians）， but for readers looking for some responses I would recommend Paul Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster？ Making Sense of the Old Testament God。Dawkins then argues that the Ten Commandments are a bad source for morality。 He lists a few examples of "New Ten Commandments" （written by atheists）， but I think he's missing the point that the New Testament ushered in the One Commandment （technically two） and thus the Ten Commandments are not the ultimate source for morality anymore。 To be fair， Dawkins does say that Jesus was （generally） a good moral teacher。 He wraps up the chapter by arguing that our sense of morality changes over time， along with the flow of culture。Chapter 8: What's Wrong with Religion？ Why Be So Hostile？This chapter argues for what the title indicates。 Dawkins relates the story of Kurt Wise， a geologist who gave up science for a young-earth reading of Scripture， and argues that fundamentalism subverts science。 Fundamentalism， maybe， but Christianity as a whole is not anti-science （https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=XnSWL。。。）。 The chapter then continued to critiques of common Christian positions on abortion， homosexuality， and other political issues。 The thrust of Dawkins' argument is that religion is a force for evil。 Now it is true that if you rely on the incessant cherry-picking of data that Dawkins uses throughout the book， you could come to any conclusion about religion that you want。 But the thrust of the evidence suggests that religion is， overall， a force for good。 Another unsuccessful chapter。Chapter 9: Childhood， Abuse and the Escape from ReligionThis chapter argues that children should be allowed to follow the evidence for themselves and not be forced to follow their parents' religion。 It seems logical， but if a religious couple sincerely believes that their child will miss out on eternal life if she doesn't follow their religion， how unloving would it be for the parents to not teach her！ There were a variety of talking points here， from child abuse by Catholic priests to traumatizing children with hellfire preaching。 Some good points on the ways that religion can be misused， but like the rest of the book， there was little substance。Chapter 10: A Much Needed Gap？The final chapter of The God Delusion discusses the idea that religion fills "a much needed gap"。 Dawkins admits that God plays a role in consoling people （which he mockingly compares to the concept of an imaginary friend）。 I agree completely with Dawkins when he says that "Religion's power to console doesn't make it true。" He argues that we shouldn't need religion to console us。After dropping some comments about purgatory， Dawkins concludes the book by arguing that science expands the horizons of the world around us and leads to a much more fulfilling life。 ConclusionThis is a good book with which to start if you want to read atheist literature， but don't go in expecting a rigorous critique of theism。 Be sure to read Alister McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion for a balanced response （my review of that book is here）。 I definitely intend to read more Richard Dawkins in the future， but he should stick to what he is good at—science。 His lack of training in philosophy was painfully evident throughout The God Delusion。 。。。more
Ananthakumar
，
Though it mostly uses the points about the Abrahamic religions， the author succeeds in passing his views on why and how religions are working against humanity and why having an atheistic moral principle is important for better human society
Pavan Kumar Ramakrishna
，
A brave attempt to scientifically reason out the fallacies of religious beliefs and it's psychology under the purview of Darwinism。 A brave attempt to scientifically reason out the fallacies of religious beliefs and it's psychology under the purview of Darwinism。 。。。more
Cesar
，
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins argues for the case that there is no god in this book。 An author known for other titles such as The Selfish Gene （1982）， and the blindwatchmaker （1986）。 Adored by some and detested by others， Dawkins vigorously defends the position that religion has no place in our modern world of science and technology。 Before trekking my way through the pages of this book I skeptically viewed Dawkins as a militant atheist who often reduced the functions of religion as poi Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins argues for the case that there is no god in this book。 An author known for other titles such as The Selfish Gene （1982）， and the blindwatchmaker （1986）。 Adored by some and detested by others， Dawkins vigorously defends the position that religion has no place in our modern world of science and technology。 Before trekking my way through the pages of this book I skeptically viewed Dawkins as a militant atheist who often reduced the functions of religion as pointless， meaningless and of no use。 Although my opinion on this matter goes unchanged， I have a much better understanding of his intentions and objectives。 Most Atheists and agnostics would probably say something along these lines， “There is nothing wrong in letting people believe what they want to believe。 If a person finds consolation believing in god/s then why would it concern me。 Live and let live right？” I agree with John Stuart Mill and his harm principle when it comes to what people should be allowed to do。 Everyone should be allowed in a free society to make the decision they see fit， as long as one does not harm others。 Towards the end of the book Dawkins makes the case that religion can cause both physical and psychological harm to disenfranchised groups such as children， women， and homosexuals。 In the first part of the book Dawkins uses philosophical arguments to disprove the god hypothesis， while also using his field of expertise of evolutionary biology to prove that all the evidence of evolution by natural selection points in the direction that it is extremely likely that there is a god。 Afterward， Dawkins seeks to explain the existence of morality without the need for a god。 This is the part of the book that I disagreed with the most as he makes a lot of hypotheses based on claims that have not been scientifically proven。 Such as the notion that the need for religion in the human experience has evolved as an accidental by-product of another trait necessary in the survival of our ancestors。Up until this point Dawkins has been trying to convince the reader why there is no god and why there is no need for a god。 He finishes the by taking the offence instead。 Directly attacking a lot of religious practices that abuse and take advantage of children， women， and the uneducated。 Retelling heartbreaking stories of people’s lives that have been negatively impacted by religion。 In conclusion I learned a bit more about the influence that religion has in the world and how one must not stay complacent on the sidelines， instead take an active role advocating for more critical thinking and letting people think for themselves。 I was also surprised by how funny the author was at presenting information and trying not to take himself too seriously。 In the end I am giving The God Delusion 3 out of 5。 Not a bad book by no stretch of the imagination but not a work of art I will come back to every year。 A valuable piece of contemporary writing that I would recommend to anyone trying to understand the evils of religion in the 21st century。 。。。more
Gokhan
，
Kitap sanki tanrı fikrini çürütmek için değil de， insanlara bilim sevgisi aşılamak için yazılmış。 Bu fikir， kitapta tek tek tartışılan onca teolojik argümandan sonra （ ki hepsinde esas olarak bir şekilde bilimsel bir karşıtlıkla konu ele alınıyor） kitabın sonlarına doğru farkedilebilir。 Dawkins aslında kitap boyunca ateist bir fikri savunmuyor， hatta tanrı fikriyle ilgilenmiyor bile。 Kurmaya çalıştığı ana fikir; dinsel öğretilerin yy。lardır tembelleştirdiği， dogmalar ve tartışmaya açık iyi-kötü Kitap sanki tanrı fikrini çürütmek için değil de， insanlara bilim sevgisi aşılamak için yazılmış。 Bu fikir， kitapta tek tek tartışılan onca teolojik argümandan sonra （ ki hepsinde esas olarak bir şekilde bilimsel bir karşıtlıkla konu ele alınıyor） kitabın sonlarına doğru farkedilebilir。 Dawkins aslında kitap boyunca ateist bir fikri savunmuyor， hatta tanrı fikriyle ilgilenmiyor bile。 Kurmaya çalıştığı ana fikir; dinsel öğretilerin yy。lardır tembelleştirdiği， dogmalar ve tartışmaya açık iyi-kötü kalıpların içinde yaşamaya alışagelmiş zihinlerin özgürleşmesi fikri biraz。 Sanırım bir bilim insanı olarak bu， kendi felsefesinin ciddi bir kısmını açıklıyor。 Bunun yolunun da her insanın aldığı eğitim veya imkanları ölçeğinde mutlaka bilimin ışığında ve bakış açısına sahip bireyler olmasından geçtiğini söylemeye çalışıyor。 Özetle kitapta; bireyin， inanç merkezini， şimdiye dek hiç değişmeyen ve asla da değişmeyecek olan dinsel öğretiler merkezinde konumlandırmaktansa， sürekli gelişen， hareket eden， canlı ve değişime mahkum bir noktaya， bilimin her türlüsüne çekilmesinin， bireyin kendine ve insanlığa sağlayacağı faydalarına değiniliyor。 Açıkcası en azından kendi adına bu noktayı yakalamayı başarmış gibi görünen Dawkins ve benzeri bilim insanları için de， artık çok-tanrıcılık， tek tanrıcılık， deizm， panteizm， ateizm ve türev kavramların çok da büyük bir önemi olduğu söylenemez。 Onlar için sadece， en fazla bir kitap yazıp bunun önemsizliğini herkese anlatmanın gerekliliği kadar bir önemi olabilir belki。 Bu kitap da， gayet tabi onlardan biri ve hatta en iyilerinden biri olabilir。 。。。more
Robert Reisman
，
Important topic but Dawkins is not an enchanting writer。 Due to cumbersome style I was constantly finding myself laboring through the book。
Abigail
，
It literally took me forever to finish this book。 Not because it was bad or uninteresting。 It's just very dense and a lot to absorb。 It literally took me forever to finish this book。 Not because it was bad or uninteresting。 It's just very dense and a lot to absorb。 。。。more
Nakein Liard
，
3，5*Sempre quis ler este livro e finalmente tive tempo。 Primeiramente， queria dizer que se eu tivesse pegado esse livro nos "anos iniciais do meu ateísmo" teria gostado muito mais。 Ele traz uns conceitos/argumentos básicos que apoiam o ateísmo （os quais já estou acostumado há muito tempo）。 Também esperava um livro mais "leve" ， um que desse para você ler sem muita preocupação， mas há várias partes que você realmente tem que parar para ler de novo ou anotar alguma coisa para poder continuar （um c 3，5*Sempre quis ler este livro e finalmente tive tempo。 Primeiramente， queria dizer que se eu tivesse pegado esse livro nos "anos iniciais do meu ateísmo" teria gostado muito mais。 Ele traz uns conceitos/argumentos básicos que apoiam o ateísmo （os quais já estou acostumado há muito tempo）。 Também esperava um livro mais "leve" ， um que desse para você ler sem muita preocupação， mas há várias partes que você realmente tem que parar para ler de novo ou anotar alguma coisa para poder continuar （um caráter mais científico/didático）。 Apesar disso， o livro é muito bom， consigo compreender muito bem sua importância para o movimento。 Espero um dia poder lê-lo de novo de uma forma mais séria， sinto que não aproveitei algumas ideias que estavam sendo expostas。。。 。。。more
Nicholas Luecking
，
I'm not the biggest fan of Dawkins' writing style， which I felt had the tendency to underscore some of his arguments。 I'm an atheist and not particularly shy about proclaiming it， so naturally I agree with most of the assertions Dawkins makes about religion in this book。 However there are several points he makes regarding oppression and violence that seem to ignore the nature of the ways in which power hierarchies maintain themselves。 He also insists that atheists are oppressed and persecuted ju I'm not the biggest fan of Dawkins' writing style， which I felt had the tendency to underscore some of his arguments。 I'm an atheist and not particularly shy about proclaiming it， so naturally I agree with most of the assertions Dawkins makes about religion in this book。 However there are several points he makes regarding oppression and violence that seem to ignore the nature of the ways in which power hierarchies maintain themselves。 He also insists that atheists are oppressed and persecuted just as heavily as LGBTQIA+ people， and again as an outspoken atheist: lol， no。 This book was sold to me as the definitive argument for atheism， but I have to imagine a better one exists out there。 。。。more
Guido Calderini
，
Better than I thought it would be。 Even if Dawkins is a bit snobbish and smug， I must admit that he is perfectly fair and really tries to engage with the strongest versions of the opposing arguments。 He's position is also very reasonable。 I thought he would make the case against religion， but it is most about making a case against religious exceptionalism （he doesn't call it like this， but I am talking about the widespread attitude that we should treat religious belief differently from other bel Better than I thought it would be。 Even if Dawkins is a bit snobbish and smug， I must admit that he is perfectly fair and really tries to engage with the strongest versions of the opposing arguments。 He's position is also very reasonable。 I thought he would make the case against religion， but it is most about making a case against religious exceptionalism （he doesn't call it like this， but I am talking about the widespread attitude that we should treat religious belief differently from other beliefs） and shooting down arguments against atheism。 There is also some good introductory discussions on evolution that could be interesting to those that haven't read about evolution and the evolution of altruism in humans。Overall， good non-fiction book。 Clear， enjoyable and very easy to read。 。。。more
Reference
google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The God Delusion
hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The God Delusion&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft
The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The God Delusion&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0