the god delusion( book)

january SG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

He begins by noting that some commentators have found his enthusiasm for science to be almost religious, but he asks "is religion a good word" for it? This awe of nature's complexity is the core of what he calls Einsteinian religion, referring to Einstein's use of the word God as a metaphor for nature or the mysteries of the universe. However, he regrets that many scientists use the word God in this pantheistic and poetic sense[6] as it causes much confusion.

The roots of religion
Chapter 5 explores the roots of religion and why religion is so ubiquitous across all human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product a misfiring of something useful"[20] and asks[21] whether the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, might work to explain how religion might spread like a "mind" virus across societies.

The roots of morality: why are we good?
In chapter 6, Dawkins turns his attention to the subject of morality, arguing that we do not need religion in order to be good. Instead, he maintains that our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes have been selected through the process of our evolution, and we possess a natural empathy.

What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?
Dawkins turns to the question of why he feels so hostile towards religion in Chapter 8, arguing with examples that religion subverts science, fosters fanaticism, encourages bigotry towards homosexuals, and influences society in other negative ways. Southern preachers used the Bible to justify slavery by claiming Africans were descendants of Abraham's sinful son. During the Crusades, "pagans" and "heretics" who would not convert to Christianity were murdered.

A much needed gap?
The final chapter asks whether religion, despite its alleged problems, fills a much needed gap, giving consolation and inspiration to people who need it. According to Dawkins, these needs are much better filled by non-religious means such as philosophy and science. He argues that an atheistic worldview is life-affirming in a way that religion, with its unsatisfying answers to lifes mysteries, could never be.

january SG

Reviews by other commentators

Alister McGrath, a biochemist and Christian theologian, describes The God Delusion as "his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available". He suggests that "All ideals divine, transcendent, human, or invented are capable of being abused. Thats just the way human nature is. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it, rather than lashing out uncritically at religion."[36]

Daniel Dennett, a friend and "ally" of Dawkins's, wrote a review for Free Inquiry, where he states that they agree about most matters, except one central issue: "Dawkins is quite sure that the world would be a better place if religion were hastened to extinction and I am still agnostic about that." In Dennett's view many "avowedly religious people" are actually atheist, but find religious metaphors and rituals useful. However, he applauds Dawkins's effort to "raise consciousness in people who are trapped in a religion and cant even imagine life without it." In conclusion, he regrets that neither he himself nor Dawkins have the patience to deal with theist arguments properly, noting that "Serious argument depends on mutual respect, and this is often hard to engender when disagreements turn vehement."[37]

Peter S Williams, a Christian philosopher and author, in a review for the Christian charity Damaris International, says that while "The God Delusion is the work of a passionate and rhetorically savvy writer capable of making good points against religious fundamentalism," Dawkins "is out of his philosophical depth". Williams counters several of the book's arguments against the existence of God, including Dawkins' case against the anthropic principle, his "argument from improbability" and Dawkins' own God hypothesis.

sillyme SG

As mentioned in the EH guidelines, please clarify purpose of thread. Do not cut a paste without the intention of discussing as you did in another thread.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=226853.

Since this thread is also about the same author, please continue there.