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 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!
Part 2 is far more intersting than part 1, overall very thought provoking. Oh how man is often duped into believing 'The written word' must be the 'truth'
Most enjoyable and recommended reading for all broad minded people.
this book is a perfect example on comparing Apple to onion to prove that orange is not like tomato. don't get me wrong, the author is pretty talented and he puts his finger on a very critical and sensitive questions, but I don't trust his approach in convincing me. another thing I don't like about is how he quotes famous scientists when they make "somewhat" atheist statement, then he move on on putting words into their mouths. so you will hear things like " what Einstein really meant is.." or "perhaps what X wanted to say is.." . if that looked familiar to you then you guessed it right; that what most religions leaders do in order to convince their follower about the meaning behind saint's X action (s).
being a follower of Islamic religion, I can assure that the author knows little about Islam, and most of his knowledge based on what others wrote about it.
at the end; read the book, its amazing to see how people think.
This book addresses and answers nearly every argument the true believers of our world make to convince us that imaginary beings are in charge. Great ammunition when confronted with aggressive proselytizers.
Typically, it would be humorous to propose scientific evidence from a work of science fiction. In the same way, quoting Wikipedia in an academic paper produces a comedic effect, and to encounter a complicated philosophical issue with a piece of armchair philosophy is silly. However, this sort of thing is sometimes submitted with grave sincerity, and then it becomes something worse than an innocent jest. It turns into something of an insult to the intelligent men and women who do serious work in the field.
Richard Dawkins is undoubtedly an intelligent man, and like most intelligent people, it is equally clear that he holds his opinions on whatever subject to which he devotes his attentions to be rather important and insightful. He's a man who doesn't idly waste his own time. Unfortunately, professional philosophers have seen his work and some of them have even tried to correct him, saying with a unanimous conviction that "Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course." It really is quite bad. For instance, he makes strident declarations (twice, I believe) that lead to epistemological skepticism, but perhaps we've misunderstood his intentions.
It is questionable how seriously he expected anyone to treat this work. It is not written in his usual style, the first-person frame of reference gives away the fact that he is not speaking as a professional, but simply as someone with an opinion, like any of his readers. The book is not organized into an obvious progression but addresses a variety of topics of broadly varying quality and importance. He skips over rather controversial material without a word, neglects to define his terms, doesn't seem overly interested in engaging the arguments of those who intelligently disagree (I'm not even sure he believes they exist), and generally writes as though he is addressing those who already share his position. It seems that Dawkins intended the book simply to provide an outlet for expressing a collection of thoughts that he felt his more avid readers would enjoy perusing. In that case, unfortunately it acts merely as an artifact of belief perseverance for both sides.