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.
I wish I'd heard this earlier in my life. I spent a lot of time dabbling in various religions before rejecting them all. I downloaded out of curiosity this to listen to on a long car trip from New Mexico to Alabama, and it armed me against the army of well-meaning fundamentalists that I usually encounter in that part of the country. I suspect that those who gave this a low review are feeling the pangs of cognitive dissonance that occur when ones dearest-held idealogical views are well challenged.
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.
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.
To qoute a Amish cabinet maker working in my house-What came first the institution or the man?The answer is man.If this book doesnt at least cause society to question dogmatic norms society is doomed.This book is outstanding.
I rarely write a review, this is my 3rd after over 36 books. I am fairly spiritual and somewhat religious, but I listened to “God Delusion” primarily because of a friend who is analyzing his movement toward atheism.
I have listened to Sam Harris, C.W. Lewis, and Francis S. Collins and I have little prejudice about what can be a controversial subject. I accept Evolution and the “Big Bang” as givens. My judgment is that anyone who doesn’t have some inclination toward these facts would never buy this book or certainly not make it past the first hour.
I found Dawkin’s book is mostly full of information I already agreed with and was pointless to help me examine my religious direction. I feel the majority of his audience would have the same tendency. There was not any new or pertinent information he supplied to me in this 14 hour book, what I did value could have been presented in 2 hours or less.
I think Dawkins mentioned this in the book; and it appears to me he has replaced God with Darwin as his form of worship. His other area of worship must be his wife. Switching the narration between two people so often was bothersome. Having his wife do her parts like an English play was truly annoying to me.
Without my friend’s encouragement, I would have quit this book after the first 30 minutes. This is the most difficult listen I have ever finished. I can only recommend this book to someone truly dedicated to getting less than 10% of value out of an investment of 14 hours of hard time.
Geez, this book is more about how much Dawkins thinks everyone else is an idiot and he is brilliant, than it is about the empirical underpinnings of atheism. I kept trying to concentrate on the real arguements in favor of atheism, but the surfeit of invective Dawkins injects into the book finally overwhelmed me. This book felt like I was walking in on a couple of well educated school boys having a slanging match - there was so much animosity and name calling going on that the discussion lost all credibility. Too bad, because there is a good book out there using the material Dawkins collected. Frankly he really needs a tough editor to box his ears and get him to focus on the subject and not on his detractors.
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.