Review - The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is one of the most popular - and controversial - living advocates of atheism. Today we review his 2006 book, "The God Delusion" and reveal why you simply must have this book within your possession. If you're looking for an atheist's go-to guide that refutes almost any argument you'll routinely hear promoting God's existence -- then Richard Dawkins has exactly what you're looking for.

Dawkins is truly a champion of reason. Reading him gives one a sense of Sagan and Russell combined - but with even more entertainment and wit.
His arguments are mostly bulletproof.
Very clear, concise, and exhaustive in its approach for refuting God.
Argues two steps ahead. Not only does Dawkins provide compelling arguments, but even more compelling arguments against the simple rebuttals his points usually generate.

Some may find his cutting comments a little too indignant. I, however, see this as part of his charm.

Will the people that truly need to read this...ever actually read it?

So what does Dawkins mean by the God "delusion"? He's working off of a motif championed by the author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," Robert Pirsig: 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.'

Not that this is entirely new, or that refuting Christian logic is all that difficult, but Dawkins does it with the flair and bulletproof logic that leaves you smiling inside and waiting to bait the next theologian into an oral bombardment. You see, when it comes to arguing with theists, reading The God Delusion is like getting a high-powered, fully-automatic rifle just before clay-shooting.

Basically, Dawkins' The God Delusion states the premise that Christians are oft-to-miss: he's not saying that there's absolutely, positively no God - simply that it's much more likely that there isn't. It's really a matter of probability. Given the lopsided number of arguments against "his" existence, there is simply more evidence that suggests nonexistence than existence. This simple argument has usually been glossed over in so-called refuations against Richard Dawkins by Christian scholars, who aim to trap him in wordplay or by vigorously-constructed straw men with long white beards.

Not that the book isn't without its flaws. Dawkins will bounce from refutation to refutation, leaving someone that wants a logical roadmap a little bewildered - and aside from that, Richard sometimes comes off as very tongue-in-cheek and definitely pulls no punches. I find all of the above to simply be more strengths, but obviously they may not be everyone's style.

The difference between God Delusion and other atheist tomes with an arsenal of wit and logic - is that with every page you read, you get a sense that Dawkins is on a personal mission. He's on a personal mission to save mankind from the ravages of mass-produced religious nonsense (which exist in both the physcal and mental realm).

"Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honour killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it" (p. 10).

Quite literally, you get the sense that Dawkins can still imagine a better world that's simply better because religious nonsense isn't in it. He cannot accept the meagre list of positive aspects God can bring to the world, but rather shows us the unfortunate rapsheet of negatives plaguing God's ideological presence.

So aside from tearing down the evidence supporting a God with human characteristics like that of the Christian faith and others, Dawkins does us one better by also attacking arguments from those who simply, as Dan Dennett once wrote, "believe in belief". It's the last in a long line of apologist statements to claim that while the belief-system of a religion like Christianity may be quite insane, that belief brings morality and good-will. The truth, as Dawkins will argue, is that it doesn't.

The numerous ways in which organized religion can supposedly improve life plays second-fiddle to the abundant means through which it can presecute, marginalize, stunt and murder. Or, as Dawkins would say, religion simply makes an scared man happy in the same way that alcohol makes a drunk man smile.

Besides, are Christian apologists really on the level when they claim the Bible can instill great virtues?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodshirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror." (p. 36)

Now, what I enjoy about Dawkins is that he not only goes on to lay down his argument with traits from the source material - but quotes other famous figures from history who have expressed the same sentiments:

"Thomas Jefferson -- better read -- was of a similar opinion: 'The Christian God is a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust'." (p. 36)

Sometimes you'll hear apologists for the Bible claiming that it provides a sound grounding in morality -- and have either not read it or have cherry-picked what they feel are just the right quotes.

"How many literalists have read enough of the Bible to know that the death penalty is prescribed for adulter, for gathering sticks on the sabbath and for cheeking your parents? If we reject Deuteronomy and Leviticus (as all enlightened moderns do), by what criteria do we then decide which of religion's moral values to accept? Or should we pick and choose among all the world's religions until we find one whose moral teaching suits us? If so, again we must ask, by what criterion do we choose? And if we have independent criteria for choosing among religious moralities, why not cut out the middle man and go straight for the moral choice without the religion?" (p. 62)

And then later:

"Once again, modern theologians will protest that the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac should not be taken as literal fact. And, once again, the appropriate response is twofold. First, many many people, even to this day, do take the whole of their scripture to be literal fact, and they have a great deal of political power over the rest of us, especially in the United States and in the Islamic world. Second, if not as ltieral fact, how should we take the story? As an allegory? Then an allegory for what? Surely nothing praiseworthy. As a moral lesson? But what kind of morals could one derive from this apalling story? Remember, all I am trying to establish for the moment is that we do not, as a matter of fact, derive our morals from scripture. Or, if we do, we pick and choose among the scriptures for the nice bits and reject the nasty. But then we must have some independent criterion for deciding which are the moral bits: a criterion which, wherever it comes from, cannot come from scripture itself and is presumably available to all of us whether we are religious or not." (p. 242-243).

Aside from his own personal dedication to the subject-matter, you can also get a sense that Dawkins has argued with some thick, cutting individuals. I don't mean to suggest that Christian scholars are all of that nature -- far from it -- but when Dawkins begins to not only offer his arguments, but then their Christian counter-arguments -- and then his rebuttal to those counter-arguments -- you know he's waded through the tedium of some tense religious debates.

The mouse-trap of cherry-picking moralities from scripture is that, while there must also be some other mechanism aside from the source material governing this selection process, but that it's been done before -- I mean, that other civilizations have had zealous doctrines with only a few tidbits of sound moral advice. Biblical supporters sometimes forget that figures from other societies in the past have done just that, and sometimes forget that they also had random and ridiculous Gods to support a colorful pantheon of since-forgotten deities. Dawkins is no stranger to this:

"I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithra, Baal, Thor, Woltan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further." (p. 58)