Cautious, meticulous…every aspect covered from every angle. If you could memorize this book, you could crush the delusions of all the ‘believers’ in the world; all faiths, all delusions. I suppose you could specialize down to sentence fragments, like our religious friends do with their heavily edited, intentionally misinterpreted bibles, korans, and other such books of fiction.
It's just great. I'm listening a second time.
Once again, Dawkins writes a coherent and logical book that manages to change my mind about the out look with which I view the world. Chapter by chapter he reviews the arguments for the existence of God and offers simple and powerful counterarguments. He then ventures into the reasons why the 'God Idea' may be so pervasive in society.
My only negative comment is his repetition (He must have said "who created the creater?" almost 100 times!) His overuses 'the anthropic principle', a concept that is not all that clear to begin with. Overall, though, it was a good read.
I found the book to be full of good information. However, it was also a bit irritating due to the fact that the author rarely speaks his own mind. It was one reference after another to this and that scholar, writer, philosopher, etc. Maybe, it was the way they sounded when they attempted humor. I kept getting a feeling that Mr. Dawkins considers himself to be higher on the evolutionary scale than most of us. I was hoping for more original thoughts and ideas that I can pass on to others when I talk to them about the subject. Also, I don't believe that there is anything wrong with being an agnostic. People should be allowed to believe in any degree they wish.
I felt Richard Dawkins could have gotten to his point a lot faster rather than quoting everyone under the sun. It is not their opinion that matters or that will sway me one way or the other but rather his arguments and scientific explanations. The opinions of others carry very little weight. Book ran on too long as a result of unnecessary opinions.
Quite interesting, but in my view it failed to deliver on the promise to prove the absence of a deity. I was really looking forward to more on that point, rather than a systematic dismantling of the arguments for. On the other hand the dismantling was done with spirit and humor. This program is not for people who cannot enjoy a logical exposition of an emotional subject! Personally, I enjoyed the numerous discussions of historical and theoretical arguments for and against, as well as the manner in which it was presented. The readers were both excellent. I would certainly recommend this program and look forward to others by this author.
I didn’t really need another snobby “intellectual” smacking the face of anyone that doesn’t believe his/her way. The hypocrisy of this man was too much for me. I listened to most of it but finally gave up. I’ll probably try again some other time because he had some very good arguments. But his attitude gets in the way of his message. He rants on and on just like my fundamentalist father, using most every opportunity to denigrate non-atheists and portraying extremist’s activities as the norm. I guess I finally had enough when he equated parents bringing up their children in a religious home to child abuse. How absurd.
I like Jack Reacher style characters regardless of setting. Put them in outer space, in modern America, in a military setting, on an alien planet... no worries. Book has non moralistic vigilante-justice? Sign me up! (oh, I read urban fantasy, soft and hard sci-fi, trashy vampire and zombie novels too)
I normally like (written) non-fiction but this is the second audio non-fiction that I've listened to and I think that it does not translate to audio as well as fiction does.
It was very hard to stay focused on what the narrators were saying, my mind kept drifting but I'm not sure why. They aren't bad narrators and the content is (or should be) interesting... and yet...
I caught myself asking several times "who did Dawkins write this book for"? Christians certainly wouldn't appreciate it (since he is attempting to disprove God), and if you're not a believer, why would you listen to a book telling you why you shouldn't be a believer - since you aren't one anyway?
Ultimately, the book seems rather pointless: he can spend years trying to disprove God but there's not much point in trying to do so because (as he openly admits in the book) the very people he's trying to disprove God to are the ones who won't believe his "evidence" anyway. Huh? So, does this mean he's trying to disprove God to people who don't believe in God?
See my point?
I think, perhaps, the purpose of this book is to "stir the pot" - create a point where Christians and atheists can meet for the sole purpose of arguing - because the only reason to read this book is to get your mind ready to argue (either for or against the author).
There are better things to be doing with our time than seeking an argument: loving, laughing, living...
As a Christian, I began listening to The God Delusion with a certain amount of trepidation that my faith might be substantively challenged. I have concluded the book with the contrary perspective that my faith has been substantively strengthened. If this book represents the best arguments from one of the brightest minds, then Christianity has nothing to fear from atheistic secular humanism. Dawkins has been referred to as Darwin's bulldog, but Darwin's pussy cat might be a more accurate appellation - for his arguments lack any teeth. I expected a scientist like Dawkins to provide conclusive facts and proofs in support of his position. Instead, what I encountered were a slew of opinions, theories, and fallacious arguments. By fallacious arguments, I mean that virtually all of his arguments exhibited one or more fallacies in structure or content - fallacies that almost anyone could spot. The worst fallacies in the book are in the categories of faulty generalizations (cherry picking, composition, false analogy, circular reasoning and hasty generalization), red herring fallacies (including straw man, argument from silence, association fallacy, and chronological snobbery), propositional fallacies (existential fallacy and proof by example) and most commonly, the fallacy of judgmental language. (You can look at the list of fallacies in wikipedia and find a good number of them represented in Dawkins' book). Dawkins argues religion against science and uses specific instances from not only across all of Christendom, but across all religions in the world and generalizes the specific instances to be representative of religion in general. He refers to anyone who agrees with him as enlightened, intelligent, thinking, reasonable, etc., and all (including some specific distinguished scientists) who disagree with him as ignorant, delusional, unreasonable, unthinking, abusive, etc. etc. Regardless, Dawkins has been rendered irrelevant by fellow atheists Foucault, Derrida and Rorty.