The God Delusion

Before reading The God Delusion (TGD), I had never read any books by Richard Dawkins. I did know about his research and his books but I hadn’t read any of them.

TGD is Dawkins’ attempt to deconstruct religion and God and is seemingly a manifesto for atheists. The trouble is that the language in the book is strangely similar to the language that you hear from the right-wing zealots or fundamentalists.

The tone of the book was disappointing, as was the way Dawkins constructed his arguments to forward his case. There are arguments which make sense and there are a few attempts to view both sides of the issue, but they are not presented in a frequency that I would’ve liked.

After putting the book down (having skimmed through the final chapters), I felt let down by the author. From what I’ve read about him, Richard Dawkins is quite the scientist, so it would’ve been nice to hear a lot more from Dawkins the scientist instead of Dawkins the atheist.

Not that there’s anything wrong with atheism, as they say in Seinfeld-speak.


6 thoughts on “The God Delusion

  1. You skimmed the first few chapters and feel “let down”? How do you know if Dawkins failed to present all of the important facts if you don’t read it. I encourage you to pick it back up, read it, and then comment.

    It is true though that this isn’t about science. If you want to read some great science by Dawkins, pick up The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker or Climbing Mount Improbable.

  2. I’ve been meaning to comment on this post!

    I really liked The God Delusion but I could sense that it was because of my atheist views. It really is a defence of atheism and is squarely aimed, not even at atheists, but atheism fencesitters. It answers their questions, clarifies niggling doubts, gives them tools to argue with, and, finally, smacks them on the head to convert them. :)

    The last is why it has that extreme tone. Dawkins seems to think moderates of any kind are dangerous, even atheist moderates. I think it’s an interesting view.

    I too thought his arguments were inconsistent. Some of them had substance, some were just pure rhetoric.

  3. Thanks for your thoughts Suchi. I think that makes things a bit clearer w.r.t. the book. I don’t agree with the whole “moderates are dangerous” opinion though.

    I find that extreme viewpoints are far more dangerous because they don’t allow space for other views. That’s a whole other discussion though. :-)

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s