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 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...
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.
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.
I am amazed at the number of readers who applaud this book. It is, in my mind, one of the clearest examples of the "straw man" logical fallacy I have read in many years. Dawkins arrogantly creates the illusion of refuting ostensible positions which are really just figments of his own creation. I laughed at many of his examples. If I could have rated this book lower than an one, I would have. I don't recommend it at all.
Jed M. Merrill
Mr. Dawkins goes to great lengths to teach people how to close their religious eyes and minds, as if it would help them see the world more clearly with their physical. Half the time I felt I was reading The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, a better intentioned book that I recommend to all. A fascinating study of how willfully blind one can become, The God Delusion is either a masterwork of self-delusion or sophistry. Those who have had real spiritual experiences will find this book shallow, manipulative, scornful, and it's author at best spiritually naive and inexperienced, at worst an unwitting spokesman for the enemy of God. A poor, unfortunate soul! As for atheists, they'll probably make a prophet out of him, but "Will the blind lead the blind? Both shall fall into the ditch." ~ Jesus A word to the wise: Keep BOTH eyes open! The spiritual and the physical, science AND religion. God did not send us here to rely solely on our senses. He also does not ask us to ignore them.
If you want a book that helps you decide if you are a believer, or if you are an atheist then The God Delusion is not the right book for you, Its more like a debate book, Dawkins speaks about earlier discussions between him and various religious believers, however in part 2 there are a some helpful facts for the recovering religious addict, But it is more like a handbook for the already established atheists, I would recommend Sam Harris The end of Faith for the addict, and once you break free of religion and start to enjoy life for what it is, then you are ready to read The God Delusion
By anticipating criticism of his points, Dawkins was able to construct coherent and convincing arguments. Given the topic of the book one probably shouldn't listen while driving - it can elicit strong reactions - both positive and negative!