5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − Dawkins' main objectives are to convince his readers that the existence of [[God]] or any other [[deity]] is highly unlikely, that the Bible is incoherent, that [[morality]] does not come from [[religion]], and that if religion does effect morality, it only does so negatively.+ + − Critics have called the book "surprisingly intolerant".<ref>{{cite book | quote=For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. | publisher=Publishers Weekly | title=The God Delusion | year=2006 | month=August | url=http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004 | }}</ref>+ + + + + − + + − + − === Deeply Religious Non-Believer===+ − Dawkins attempts to establish [[Albert Einstein]] as an avowed atheist, and to prove that religion is unworthy of any respect.+ + + − + − + − ===Arguments for God's Existence===+ − Dawkins summarizes some common [[proof]]s for God and attempts to debunk them. − ===Why There Almost Certainly is No God===+ − + − ===The Roots of Religion===+ − − + − Dawkins explains why he believes that morality "evolved" from [[animal]]s. − + − − + − + + + + + + − ===Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion===+ − − + − + − + − + − + − + − "It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works."<ref>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803</ref>+ − + − Andrew Brown of Prospect Magazine was unimpressed by Dawkins' book. Brown calls atheism "unnatural" and points out that many atheists were violent in their belief (or lack thereof), citing Stalin killing members of the clergy.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − Brown also attacks Dawkins' argument that suicide bombers are caused by religious schools. While Dawkins states that if these children were not taught what he calls "faith without question", suicide bombings would not be an issue. Brown, however, says that religion is not a necessity in suicide bombings. He points out that it is a tactic used by Marxists in Sri Lankav.+ − ===Marilynne Robinson: Harper's Magazine===+ − − "There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: 'Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers.'"<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref> − </blockquote> − Robinson's major complaints about ''The God Delusion'' lie in how sheerly false the book is in many aspects. Although Dawkins claims that "the majority of us believe in free speech", she points out that most countries do not, pointing out that [[China]] (population 1.3 billion<ref>http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm</ref>) does not. In her review, Robinson basically says that Dawkins purposefully ignored important parts of history in his attempt to convince his readers. "It's a shame," she says, "to see him reduced to one long argument from professorial incredulity."+ − + − − "Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins [...] are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding." − − + − + + − + − "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, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." − ::-Chapter 2 − "I am one of an increasing number of biologists who see religion as a ''by-product'' of something else."+ − ::-Chapter 5 − "By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, [[evolution]]) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence... Books about evolution are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence."+ − ::-Chapter 8+ − "... [Moral absolutism] rules the minds of a great number of people in the world today, most dangerously so in the Muslim world and in the incipient American theocracy... Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith, and it constitutes a major reason for suggesting that religion can be a force for evil in the world." − ::-Chapter 8 − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − == External Links ==+ − *[http://www.richarddawkins.net RichardDawkins.net] + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
removing some too-obvious bias
'''''The God Delusion''''' is a book by the [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], in which he attempts to show that belief in [[God]] is irrational.
{{infobox Book
| image = [[Image:The God Delusion UK.jpg|200px]]
| author = [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, Richard]]
| name = ''The God Delusion''
| country = United Kingdom
| language = English
| subject = [[Religion]]
| genre = [[Science]]
| publisher = [[Bantam Books]]
| release_date = 2006
| media_type = [[Hardcover]], [[Paperback]], [[Audio book]]
| isbn = ISBN 0-618-68000-4
| preceded_by = [[The Ancestor's Tale]]
}}
'''''The God Delusion''''' is a 2006 bestselling non-fiction book by British biologist [[Richard Dawkins]], professorial fellow of [[New College, Oxford]],<ref> {{cite web |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml |title=The Simonyi Professorship Home Page |accessdate=2008-03-08 |publisher=The University of Oxford}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/dawkins.html |title=The Third Culture: Richard Dawkins |accessdate=2008-03-08 |publisher=Edge.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Staff|title=Who's Who|publisher=[[A & C Black]]|location=London|year=2008|chapter=(Clinton) Richard Dawkins|accessdate=2008-07-29}}</ref> and inaugural holder of the [[Charles Simonyi]] Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the [[University of Oxford]].
In ''The God Delusion'', Dawkins contends that a [[God|supernatural creator]] almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a [[personal god]] qualifies as a [[delusion]], which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory [[evidence]]. He is sympathetic to [[Robert Pirsig]]'s observation in ''[[Lila: An Inquiry into Morals|Lila]]'' that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."<ref name="preface">{{cite book |author=Dawkins, Richard |title=''The God Delusion'' |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |location=Boston |year=2006 |pages=406 |isbn=0-618-68000-4 |oclc= |doi=| authorlink = Richard Dawkins}}; {{PDF|[http://www.randomhouse.com.au/Downloads/News/GodDelusion_extract_revised.pdf on-line]|101 KB}} </ref>
As of November 2007, the English version of ''The God Delusion'' had sold over 1.5 million copies and had been translated to 31 other languages.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://media.libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/POI_2007_12_7_Richard_Dawkins.mp3 | publisher= Richard Dawkins at Point of Inquiry | title= Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism |accessdate= 8 December | accessyear= 2007 | date = 8 December 2007 }}</ref> It was ranked #2 on the [[Amazon.com]] bestsellers' list in November 2006.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0618680004/|title=Amazon.com book page - search for sales rank for current position}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | title=Atheists top book charts by deconstructing God | author=Jamie Doward | work=The Observer | url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1934353,00.html | date=2006-10-29 | accessdate=2006-11-25}}</ref> In early December 2006, it reached #4 in the [[New York Times Best Seller list|''New York Times'' Hardcover Nonfiction Best Seller]] list after nine weeks on the list.<ref>{{Cite web | title= Hardcover Nonfiction - New York Times |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/books/bestseller/1203besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin | accessdate=2006-12-02}}</ref> It remained on the list for 51 weeks until 30 September 2007.<ref>{{cite web |title=''The God Delusion'' One-Year Countdown |url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,1599,The-God-Delusion-One-Year-Countdown,RichardDawkinsnet |work=RichardDawkins.net |accessdate=2007-10-05}}</ref> It has attracted widespread commentary, with several books written in response.
== Background ==
Dawkins had argued against [[Creationism|creationist]] explanations of life in his previous works on [[evolution]]. The theme of ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', published in 1986, is that evolution can explain the apparent design in nature. In ''The God Delusion'' he focuses directly on a wider range of arguments used for and against belief in the existence of God.
Dawkins had long wanted to write a book openly [[criticism of religion|criticising religion]], but his publisher had advised against it. By the year 2006, his publisher had warmed to the idea. Dawkins attributes this change of mind to "four years of [[George W. Bush|Bush]]".<ref>{{cite web |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |authorlink=Richard Dawkins |title=Richard Dawkins explains his latest book |work=RichardDawkins.net |url=http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=170 |accessdate=2007-09-14}}</ref>
By that time, a number of authors, including [[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]] and [[Christopher Hitchens]], who together with Dawkins were labelled "[[The Unholy Trinity]]" by Robert Weitzel, had already written books openly attacking religion.<ref>{{cite news |first=Robert |last=Weitzel |title=Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris: The Unholy Trinity... Thank God. |work=Atlantic Free Press |url=http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2112/1/ |accessdate=2007-09-14}}</ref>
These books did well on best-seller lists, and have spawned an industry of religious responses.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Fleas Are Multiplying! |work=RichardDawkins.net |url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,1617,The-Fleas-Are-Multiplying,RichardDawkinsnet |accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> According to the [[Amazon.com|Amazon.co.uk]] website, the book led to a 50% growth in their sales of books on religion and spirituality (including anti-religious books such as ''The God Delusion'' and ''[[God Is Not Great|God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything]]'') and a 120% increase in the sales of the [[Bible]].<ref>{{cite news |first=David |last=Smith |title=Believe it or not: the sceptics beat God in bestseller battle |work=The Observer |url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2147152,00.html |accessdate=2007-10-05}}</ref>
==Synopsis==
The book contains ten chapters. The first few build a case that there is probably no God, while the rest discuss religion and morality. It is dedicated to the memory of Dawkins' late friend [[Douglas Adams]],<ref>“Douglas, I miss you. You are my cleverest, funniest, most open-minded, wittiest, tallest and possibly only convert. I hope this book might have made you laugh - though not as much as you made me.” (''The God Delusion'', p. 117)</ref> accompanied by the quote "isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" (from ''[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book)|Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy]]'').
Dawkins writes that ''The God Delusion'' contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:
# [[Atheism|Atheists]] can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
# [[Natural selection]] and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis" — the illusion of [[intelligent design]] — in explaining the living world and the cosmos.
# Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people flinch.
# Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.<ref name="preface"/>
Dawkins also intends to teach that atheists can live happy, intelligent, lives—perhaps even happier lives than religious people. He asserts that atheists do not do evil things in the name of [[atheism]], while [[religion|religious]] people have been known to commit atrocities in the name of their religion.
=== The God Hypothesis ===
Since there are a number of different theistic ideas relating to the nature of God(s), Dawkins defines the concept of God that he wishes to address early in the book. He coins the term "Einsteinian religion", referring to [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] use of "God", as a metaphor for nature or the mysteries of the universe.<ref>{{cite news |first=James |last=Randerson |title=Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion/print |publisher=The Guardian |date=13 May 2008 |accessdate=2008-05-14 |language= |quote=In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." }}</ref> He makes a distinction between this "Einsteinian religion" and the general theistic idea of God as the [[Creator deity|creator]] of the universe who should be [[worship]]ped.<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 13</ref> This becomes an important theme in the book, which he calls the ''God Hypothesis''.<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 31</ref> He maintains that this idea of God is a valid hypothesis, having effects in the physical universe, and like any other hypothesis can be tested and falsified.<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 50.</ref> Thus, Dawkins rejects the common view that [[science and religion]] rule over [[Stephen Jay Gould#Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA)|''non-overlapping magisteria'']].
==Chapters==
Dawkins surveys briefly the main philosophical arguments in favour of [[Existence of God|God's existence]]. Of the many philosophical proofs that he discusses, he singles out the [[Argument from Design]] for lengthy consideration. Dawkins concludes that [[evolution by natural selection]] can explain apparent design in nature.<ref name=preface />
He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and argues that there are two competing explanations:
# A theory involving a designer, that is, postulating a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
# A theory that explains how from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.
This is the basic set-up of his argument against the existence of God, the [[Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit]],<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 114</ref> where he argues that the first attempt is self-refuting, and the second approach is the way forward.<ref>This interpretation of the argument is based on the reviews by [[Dan Dennett]] and [[PZ Myers]].</ref>
===The God Hypothesis===
=== Religion and morality ===
Dawkins explains the different kinds of religion, including the divide between [[Monotheism]] and [[Polytheism]]. He also asserts viciously that the founding fathers of the [[United States of America]] were nonreligious. He continues to explain [[Secularism]], [[Agnosticism]], and some basic assertions of the religious.
The second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful"<ref>"The general theory of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful – is the one I wish to advocate" ''The God Delusion'', p. 188</ref> as for example the mind's employment of [[intentional stance]]. Dawkins suggests that the theory of [[memes]], and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.<ref>"the purpose of this section is to ''ask'' whether meme theory might work for the special case of religion" (italics in original, referring to one of the five sections of Chapter 5), ''The God Delusion'', p. 191</ref>
He then turns to the subject of [[morality]], maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a [[Darwinism|Darwinian]] explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy. He asks, "would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?" He argues that very few people would answer "yes", undermining the claim that religion is needed to make us behave morally. In support of this view, he surveys the history of morality, arguing that there is a [[moral Zeitgeist]] that continually evolves in society. As it progresses, this moral consensus influences how religious leaders interpret their holy writings. Thus, Dawkins states, morality does not originate from the Bible, rather our moral progress informs what part of the Bible Christians accept and what they now dismiss.<ref>Having given some examples of the brutish morality in the Old Testament, he writes, "Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols and allegories." ''The God Delusion'', p. 238.</ref>
''The God Delusion'' is not just a defence of atheism, but also goes on the offensive against religion. Dawkins considers this hostility justified because he sees religion as subverting science, fostering [[religious fanaticism|fanaticism]], encouraging bigotry against [[homosexual]]s, and influencing society in other negative ways.<ref> He gives examples of cases where [[Blasphemy#Blasphemy Laws|blasphemy laws]] have been used to sentence people to death, and when funerals of gays or gay sympathisers have been picketed. Dawkins states preachers in the southern portions of the United States used the Bible to justify slavery by claiming Africans were descendants of [[Noah]]'s sinful son [[Ham (son of Noah)|Ham]]. During the [[Crusades]], pagans and heretics who would not convert to Christianity were murdered. In an extreme example from modern times, he cites the case of Reverend [[Paul Jennings Hill|Paul Hill]], who revelled in his self-styled martyrdom: "I expect a great reward in heaven… I am looking forward to glory," he announced as he faced execution for murdering a doctor who performed abortions in Florida, USA.</ref>
Dawkins gives his reasons for believing that God is about as likely as "[[fairy|fairies]] living under his garden", and asks the fallacious question of where God came from.
He is most outraged about the indoctrination of children. He equates the [[religion and children|religious indoctrination of children]] by parents and teachers in [[faith school]]s to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins considers the labels "[[Muslim]] child" or a "[[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] child" equally misapplied as the descriptions "[[Marxism|Marxist]] child" or a "[[Tory]] child", as he wonders how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity's place within it.
The book concludes with the question 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 life's mysteries, could never be. An appendix gives addresses for those "needing support in escaping religion".
Dawkins gives and explains some thoughts about the origins of religion that have been proposed by atheists, trying to undermine the [[Christianity|church]].
===The Roots of Morality: Why are We Good?===
==Critical reception ==
===The 'Good' Book and the Changing [[Moral Zeitgeist]]===
While the book was published with endorsements from notable intellectuals, such as Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA [[James D. Watson]], Harvard psychologist [[Steven Pinker]], as well as popular writers of fiction and the illusionists [[Penn and Teller]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusionReviews |title=''The God Delusion'' - Reviews |accessdate=2008-04-08 |author= |date= |work= |publisher=RichardDawkins.net }}</ref> it received mixed reviews from critics. The review aggregator [[Metacritic]] reported the book had an average score of 59 out of 100, based on 22 reviews.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/books/authors/dawkinsrichard/goddelusion |title=''The God Delusion'' by Richard Dawkins: Reviews |accessdate=2008-03-13 |publisher=[[Metacritic]]}}</ref> The book was nominated for Best Book at the [[British Book Awards]], where Richard Dawkins won the Author of the Year award.<ref>{{cite web |title=Winners & Shortlists 2007 |url=http://www.britishbookawards.co.uk/pnbb_winners2007.asp |work=Galaxy British Book Awards |accessdate=2007-09-12}}</ref> It has been controversial, and has provoked responses from both religious and atheist commentators.<ref> also (Wilson 2007 http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html#feature). This latter kind of criticism, Dawkins has called "I'm an atheist buttery". {{cite web |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |title=I'm an atheist, BUT... |url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,Im-an-atheist-BUT---,Richard-Dawkins |work=RichardDawkins.net |accessdate=2007-09-12}}</ref> In the 2007 paperback edition, Dawkins responds to many of the criticisms that these reviewers raise.<ref name=resp>Richard Dawkins, ''The God Delusion'', Black Swan, London, 2007. p.13-22</ref>
Dawkins suggests that morality does not come from religion, but rather a changing moral ''Zeitgeist''.
===What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?===
=== Philosophy and theology ===
Dawkins shows why he believes that religion is [[evil]] and repressive, and must be stopped.
{{main|Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit#Assessment and criticism of the argument}}
[[Alvin Plantinga]],<ref name='Plantinga'>{{cite web |url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html | title=The Dawkins Confusion - Naturalism ad absurdum | work=Books & Culture, a Christian Review | author = [[Alvin Plantinga]] | year=2007 | accessdate=2007-03-02}}</ref>
[[Anthony Kenny]],<ref>{{cite journal |first=Anthony |last=Kenny |authorlink=Anthony Kenny |title=Knowledge, Belief, and Faith |journal=Philosophy |volume=82 |issue=03 |pages=381–397 |month=July | year=2007}}</ref>
[[Thomas Nagel]],<ref>{{cite news |first=Thomas |last=Nagel |authorlink=Thomas Nagel |title=The Fear of Religion |work=[[The New Republic]] |url=https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20061023&s=nagel102306 |accessdate=2007-09-12}}</ref>,
[[Michael Ruse]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/529280 | title=Richard Dawkins: ''The God Delusion'' | work=Chicago Journals | author = [[Michael Ruse]] | month=December | year=2007 | accessdate=2008-05-31}}</ref>
and other philosophers have responded to the arguments of the book about the existence of God, especially Dawkins' argument that God almost certainly does not exist, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. [[Richard Swinburne]] has responded to parts of ''The God Delusion'' that interact with Swinburne's writings.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/pdf_files/Responses%20to%20Controversies/Response%20to%20Dawkins'%20The%20God%20Delusion.pdf|title=Response to Richard Dawkins' comments on my writings in his book ''The God Delusion'' | accessdate = 2007-07-23|last=Swinburne|first=Richard| format = PDF}}</ref>
Plantinga writes that Dawkins' argument is that because the Universe has so much information in it, a hypothetical creating God would have to be enormously complex and thus enormously improbable. He states that Dawkins does not support this assertion without already assuming [[materialism]]. Plantinga concludes that the book's argument "really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a ''delusion''".<ref name='Plantinga'/>
Dawkins explains why he believes that religion is a form of "[[child abuse]]", and that the scars from the "indoctrination" last into [[adult]]hood and even the child's entire life.
===A Much Needed Gap?===
Some reviewers were highly critical of Dawkins' lack of scholarship on theology and the [[philosophy of religion]]. Dawkins is explicitly dismissive of theology in ''The God Delusion'', and in the words of [[John Cornwell (writer)|John Cornwell]] "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2375182.html | title=A question of respect. |work=Times Online | author = John Cornwell | accessdate=2006-11-06}}</ref> This sentiment was echoed by other reviewers, from theologians, such as [[Alister McGrath]],<ref>{{cite book |first=Alister |last=McGrath |authorlink=Alister McGrath |title=[[The Dawkins Delusion?]] |pages=p. 20 |publisher=[[SPCK]] |year=2007}} Also expressed in his review [http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11 "The Dawkins Delusion"].</ref> to scientists otherwise sympathetic to Dawkins' position, such as [[H. Allen Orr]].<ref>{{Cite journal | title=A Mission to Convert | author=H. Allen Orr | issue=54.1 | month=January | year=2007 | journal=New York Review of Books | url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775 | accessdate=2007-03-03}}</ref> One of the most emphatic formulations of this objection was by Marxist literary critic [[Terry Eagleton]] in the ''[[London Review of Books]]'':<ref name=eagleton>{{Cite journal | title=Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching | author=Terry Eagleton | journal=London Review of Books | url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html | volume=28 | issue=20 | date=2006-10-19 | accessdate=2006-11-26}}</ref>
Dawkins concludes his book on a more positive level, giving inspiration to those whom he may have convinced to "de-convert" from their religion.
{{quote|What, one wonders, are Dawkins's <!-- this is a direct quote - please do not delete the final S from Dawkins's --> views on the [[Epistemology|epistemological]] differences between [[Aquinas]] and [[Duns Scotus]]? Has he read [[Eriugena]] on subjectivity, [[Rahner]] on grace or [[Jürgen Moltmann|Moltmann]] on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?}}
==Criticism==
Other reviewers, however, praised Dawkins' argumentation. Australian philosopher [[Russell Blackford]] wrote that although the rebuttals of theistic arguments are not as extensive as those written by professional philosophers of religion, the book is far from dumbed down:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1250 | title=''The God Delusion'' (Review) | work=[[Cosmos Magazine]] | author = [[Russell Blackford]] | year=2007 | accessdate=2007-05-08}}</ref>
''The God Delusion'' has been subject to a great deal of criticisms from the religious and the non-religious alike.
{{quote|Dawkins no doubt simplifies at times, or makes debatable points; importantly, however, he does not mislead the reader or commit any obvious blunders (at least, I could find none). This is extraordinarily impressive in a work of such vast ambition and interdisciplinary scope.}}
===Andrew Brown: Prospect Magazine===
Murrough O'Brien of [[The Independent]] gave the book a mixed review, saying that while "mostly tendentious tosh" it "forces the reader to ardent thought." He criticizes several specifics of Dawkins' arguments, including his use of the "Who made God" argument and [[Russell's teapot]] analogy, but says that "as the bard of materialist myth, [Dawkins'] only rival is Philip Pullman."<ref>Murrough O'Brien, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20061126/ai_n16876402/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 "Our Teapot, which art in heaven,"] [[The Independent]], November 26, 2006</ref>
{{Cquote|
Dawkins himself replies to the charge of inadequate scholarship in the preface to the new edition of the book. He states that he only considered thinkers who actually argue for God's existence, rather than just assume it, and asks, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in [[leprechaun]]s?"<ref name='Dawkins 2007-09-17'> {{cite web|url=http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent,page27 |title=Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them? |accessdate=2007-11-14 |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=2007-09-17 |work=RichardDawkins.net }}</ref> He thereby endorses [[PZ Myers]]<nowiki>'</nowiki> analogy of the "Courtier's reply",<ref>{{cite web | url = http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php | title = The Courtier's Reply | author = Myers, PZ | date = 2006-12-24 | accessdate = 2007-07-17}}</ref> that being expected to debate the finer points of religious scholarship as an atheist is like having to have read "learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear" before claiming that the [[The Emperor's New Clothes|Emperor is, in fact, naked]].<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece
}}
| title = How dare you call me a fundamentalist | author = [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, Richard]]
| date = 2007-05-12 | accessdate = 2007-07-18}}</ref>
=== Polemicism ===
American physicist [[Lawrence M. Krauss]], writing in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', says that although a "fan" of Dawkins' science writing, he wishes that Dawkins "had continued to play to his strengths". Krauss suggests that an unrelenting attack upon people's beliefs might be less productive than "positively demonstrating how the wonders of nature can suggest a world without God that is nevertheless both complete and wonderful." Krauss is disappointed by the first part of the book, but quite positive about the latter part starting from Dawkins' discussion of morality. He remarks, "Perhaps there can be no higher praise than to say that I am certain I will remember and borrow many examples from this book in my own future discussions." In particular, he praises the treatment of [[Criticism of religion#Ideological indoctrination of children|religion and childhood]], although refraining from using the term "child abuse" himself.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,238,n,n | title=Sermons and straw men. | work=The Official Richard Dawkins Website | author = Lawrence M. Krauss | accessdate=2006-11-06}}</ref>
Writing in the Guardian, [[Stephen D. Unwin]], author of ''The Probability of God'', which is the focus of Dawkins' criticisms of Bayesian methods for the proof of God's existence, notes that Dawkins' views are "hardly shocking as certainty is the position of almost all participants in the God debate."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1883586,00.html Dawkins Needs to Show Some Doubt], Stephen D. Unwin, The Guardian, 9/29/2006</ref>
Skeptic [[Michael Shermer]] describes the book as "a powerful polemic against the infusion of religion into nearly every nook and cranny of public life." But Shermer considers ''The God Delusion'' much more than a polemic. He stresses the consciousness-raising messages of the book, and praises its latter part, describing the closing chapter as "a tribute to the power and beauty of science, which no living writer does better." However, he was put off by the provocative title and Dawkins' derogatory references to religious believers. Also, he is not convinced by Dawkins' argument that without religion, there would be "no suicide bombings, no 9/11, ...", suggesting that many of the evils that some atheists attribute to religion alone are primarily driven by political motives. Nevertheless, he concludes that the book "deserves multiple readings, not just as an important work of science, but as a great work of literature."<ref>{{Cite journal | title=Arguing for Atheism | author=Michael Shermer | journal=Science | url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5811/463 | volume=315 |issue=5811 |date=2007-01-26 | accessdate=2007-03-15 | doi=10.1126/science.1138989 | pages=463}} Also available [http://www.screaming-penguin.com/node/6988 here], second review on page.</ref>
[[Joan Bakewell]] reviewed the book for ''[[The Guardian]]'', stating "Dawkins comes roaring forth in the full vigour of his powerful arguments, laying into fallacies and false doctrines", and suggesting that it is a timely book: "These are now political matters. Around the world communities are increasingly defined as Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and living peaceably together is ever harder to sustain....Dawkins is right to be not only angry but alarmed. Religions have the [[secularism|secular]] world running scared. This book is a clarion call to cower no longer."<ref>{{Cite news | title=Judgement day | author=Joan Bakewell | url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1878706,00.html | work=The Guardian | date=2006-09-23 | accessdate=2006-11-26}}</ref>
Michael Skapinker in the ''[[Financial Times]]'', while finding that "Dawkins' attack on the creationists is devastatingly effective", considers him "maddeningly inconsistent". He argues that, since Dawkins accepts that current theories about the universe (such as [[Introduction to quantum mechanics|quantum theory]]) may be "already knocking at the door of the unfathomable" and that the universe may be "not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose", "the thought of how limited our comprehension is should introduce a certain diffidence into our attempted refutations of those who think they have the answer".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/69554d74-76a9-11db-8284-0000779e2340.html | title=Matter and Faith |work=Financial Times| author = Michael Skapinker | accessdate=2006-11-18}}</ref>
Mary Wakefield writes in the ''[[The Daily Telegraph|Daily Telegraph]]'' that Dawkins fails to understand why people believe in God, adding, "I'll eat my Sunday hat if this book persuades even the most hesitant half-believer to renounce religion".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/10/22/bodaw14.xml | title= God only knows who's right or wrong |work=Daily Telegraph| author = Mary Wakefield | date= 2006-10-22 | accessdate=2006-12-03}}</ref>
To the claim that the book is written as a [[polemic]], and that Dawkins is being shrill and intolerant, he argues that this only seems to be so in comparison with most discussions on the subject of religion. Religion is traditionally seen as a subject that should be discussed in extremely polite terms, but Dawkins does not understand why it should receive such a special status. He compares his work with restaurant reviews to show that his writing is not rude in comparison.<ref name=resp />
Over the charge that his book is only likely to be read by atheists and is unlikely to convince anyone to change his or her mind, Dawkins says that many people are secretly interested in atheism but are worried about admitting to this and discussing it. He also says that, even if his book were only to be read by atheists, it could still provide for an exchange of ideas.<ref name=resp />
=== Religion as consolation or source of evil ===
Andrew Brown writes a critical review titled "Dawkins the dogmatist" in ''[[Prospect (magazine)|Prospect]]'' in which he considers that "In his broad thesis, Dawkins is right. Religions are potentially dangerous, and in their popular forms profoundly irrational". He criticises, however, the assertion that "atheists ... don't do evil things in the name of atheism" and notes that "under [[Stalin]] almost the entire [[Russian Orthodox Church|Orthodox]] priesthood were exterminated simply for being priests." Furthermore, he cites Robert Pape<ref>''Dying to Win'' by [[Robert Pape]]</ref> that religious zealotry is neither necessary nor sufficient for [[suicide bomber]]s, and concludes that the book is "one long [[argument from incredulity|argument from professorial incredulity]]."<ref>{{Cite journal | title=Dawkins the dogmatist | author=Andrew Brown | issue=127 | month=October | year=2006 | journal=Prospect | url=http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803 | accessdate=2006-11-26}}</ref>
Nobel-prize winning biologist [[David Baltimore]] welcomes the book in ''[[American Scientist]]'' as a reaction to the irrationality that he sees in US social and political life. Religion dominates the news, he writes, be it [[jihad]], opposition to [[Stem cell controversy|stem-cell research]], or teaching [[intelligent design]]. He finds the title of ''The God Delusion'' worth savoring as it conveys the core of Dawkins' argument, and the book worth reading for its wide-ranging discussion of religion. However, he states that while Dawkins' arguments against religion are much based on evolution, Dawkins does not come to terms with the "many scientists who believe both that evolution is a natural process over billions of years and that there is a God". Thus, Baltimore maintains that the focus of the book is on those who disbelieve evolution and are therefore fundamentalists. In conclusion, he says he is glad that Dawkins wrote this book at a time when, as he opines, "In the United States, there is an increasingly pervasive assumption that Christianity is our [[state religion]]."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/54417|title=''A Defense of Atheism''}}</ref>
[[Marek Kohn]] in ''[[The Independent]]'' suggests that in this book "passions are running high, arguments are compressed and rhetoric inflated. The allusion to [[Neville Chamberlain|Chamberlain]], implicitly comparing religion to the Nazi regime, is par for the course." He also argues that "another, perhaps simpler, explanation for the universality and antiquity of religion is that it has conferred evolutionary benefits on its practitioners that outweigh the costs. Without more discussion, it is not clear that [[#The roots of religion|Dawkins' account]] should be preferred to the hypothesis that religion may have been adaptive in the same way that making stone tools was."<ref>{{Cite news | title=Smashing the sacred teapot | url=http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/article1769749.ece | author=Marek Kohn | date=2006-09-29 | accessdate=2006-11-26}}</ref>
In the ''Daily Telegraph'', [[Kenan Malik]] commends Dawkins' intellectual case for atheism, but believes that Dawkins misunderstands what makes religion attractive to believers, and exaggerates its role in modern conflicts. Malik is skeptical that a world without religion, as [[John Lennon]] asks us to imagine, would be as utopian as Dawkins paints it. He concludes by stating "if you want an understanding of evolution or an argument for atheism, there are few better guides than Richard Dawkins. But treat with extreme caution the pronouncements of any one who takes his political cue from an ex-Beatle."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/10/08/bodaw01.xml | title= I don't believe in Richard Dawkins |work=Daily Telegraph| author = Kenan Malik | date= 2006-10-08 | accessdate=2006-12-03}}</ref>
[[Daniel Dennett]], a prominent American philosopher and author, wrote a review for ''[[Free Inquiry]],'' where he states that he and Dawkins agree about most matters, "but on one central issue we are not (yet) of one mind: 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' effort to "raise consciousness in people who are trapped in a religion and can't even imagine life without it." He continues by stating his regret that neither he himself nor Dawkins deal with theist arguments as patiently as they might, noting that "Serious argument depends on mutual respect, and this is often hard to engender when disagreements turn vehement", but concludes by suggesting that "Perhaps some claims should just be laughed out of court."<ref>{{cite journal | title=Review of Richard Dawkins, ''The God Delusion'' | author=Daniel Dennett | authorlink=Daniel Dennett | journal=Free Inquiry | volume=27 | issue=1 | date=2006-10-16 | url=http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/dawkinsreview.pdf | accessdate=2006-12-05|format=PDF}}</ref>
Dawkins repeats his long-standing opposition to the argument that the masses need religion. He considers it to be patronising and elitist to hold that intellectuals can be trusted with atheism but the majority of people need to believe in religion. Dawkins has been involved in the popularisation of science, and he believes that this is a much better support for society than religion.<ref name=resp />
=== Moderate religion and fundamentalism ===
Writing in ''[[Harper's]]'', [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning novelist and essayist [[Marilynne Robinson]] criticises the "pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's <!-- this is a direct quote - please do not delete the final S from Dawkins's --> view of science," with particular reference to scientific [[eugenic]] theories and practices. She argues that Dawkins has a superficial knowledge of the [[Bible]] and accuses him of comparing only the best of science with the worst of religion: "if religion is to be blamed for the fraud done in its name, then what of science? Is it to be blamed for the [[Piltdown hoax]], for the long-credited deceptions having to do with [[Hwang Woo-Suk#Controversies|cloning in South Korea]]? If by 'science' is meant authentic science, then 'religion' must mean authentic religion, granting the difficulties in arriving at these definitions." Robinson suggests that Dawkins' arguments are not properly called scientific but are reminiscent of [[logical positivism]], notwithstanding Dawkins' "simple-as-that, plain-as-day approach to the grandest questions, unencumbered by doubt, consistency, or countervailing information."<ref>[[Marilynne Robinson]] [http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20 ''The God Delusion''] Harper's Magazine, November, 2006</ref>
''[[The Economist]]'' praised the book: "Everyone should read it. Atheists will love Mr Dawkins's <!-- this is a direct quote - please do not delete the final S from Dawkins's --> incisive logic and rapier wit and theists will find few better tests of the robustness of their faith. Even agnostics, who claim to have no opinion on God, may be persuaded that their position is an untenable waffle." The review focuses on Dawkins' critiques of the influence of religion upon politics and the use of religion to insulate political positions from criticism. "The problem, as Mr. Dawkins sees it, is that religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion."<ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7939629 | work=The Economist | title=Misbegotten sons | date=2006-09-21 | accessdate=2006-11-26}}</ref>
<blockquote>
To those who claim that Dawkins misrepresents religious people and argue that fanatics are a small minority, Dawkins replies that this is not true, and that intolerant fanatics have huge influence in the world.<ref name=resp />
===Terry Eagleton: London Review of Books===
Dawkins has been described as an "atheist fundamentalist".<ref name="McGrath 2007">[[Alister McGrath]] and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, ''The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine'', [[Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge|Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK)]], February 15, 2007, ISBN 978-0-281-05927-0</ref> He rejects this label, saying [[fundamentalism]] implies a belief system that is impervious to change, while his atheism is based on the [[scientific method]] of reasoning. He says that if new scientific evidence were found that disproved [[evolution]], then he would willingly give up his belief in evolution and [[natural selection]], whilst a genuine fundamentalist would remain firm in his/her belief no matter how much opposing evidence came to light.<ref name=resp />
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
===Alister McGrath: The Dawkins Delusion?===
==Legal repercussions in Turkey==
''The Dawkins Delusion?'' is a response to Dawkins' ''The God Delusion'' by [[Alister McGrath]].
[[Image:DawkinsTYsmall.jpg|thumb|right|100px|The Turkish edition of the book, published by Kuzey Yayınları]]
In [[Turkey]], where the book has sold at least 6000 copies,<ref name='Turkish Daily'>{{cite news | first=Sylvia | last=Tiryaki | title=''The God Delusion'' in Turkey | date= 3 December 2007 | publisher= [[Turkish Daily News]]| url =http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=90179 | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2008-02-18 | language = }}</ref> a prosecutor launched a probe into whether ''The God Delusion'' is "an attack on holy values" following a complaint in November 2007. The Turkish publisher and translator, Erol Karaaslan, faced a prison sentence if convicted of inciting religious hatred and insulting religious values.<ref name='CNN 2007-11-28'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book | date= 28 November 2007 | publisher=AP, CNN | url =http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/28/dawkins.turkey.ap/index.html | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2007-11-28 | language = }}</ref> As is also the case for other controversies in Turkey, such as that involving [[Orhan Pamuk]]'s statement on the [[Armenian Genocide]], Sylvia Tiryaki points out that "an investigation of this kind on behalf of a claim from a citizen can be opened – but also closed as fast as possible – in any other country."<ref name='Turkish Daily' />
== Quotes from ''The God Delusion'' ==
In April 2008, the court acquitted the defendant. In ruling out the need to confiscate copies of the book, the presiding judge stated that banning it "would fundamentally limit the freedom of thought".<ref name='NTVMSNBC 2008-04-02'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title='Tanrı Yanılgısı' kitabı beraat etti | date= 2 April 2008 | publisher=AA | url =http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/441428.asp | accessdate = 2008-04-02 | language = Turkish}}</ref>
== Responses ==
A number of books have been published in response to ''The God Delusion''.<ref>{{cite web |title=Flea of the week |url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,2482,Flea-of-the-week,RichardDawkinsnet |work=RichardDawkins.net |accessdate=2008-08-12}}</ref> These include ''[[The Dawkins Delusion?]]'', by [[Alister McGrath]] and Joanna Collicutt McGrath; ''God is No Delusion'', by [[Thomas Crean]]; ''Dawkins' Dilemmas'', by [[Michael Austin]]; ''Why There Almost Certainly Is a God'', by [[Keith Ward]]; ''The Devil's Delusion'', by [[David Berlinski]]; and ''God, Doubt and Dawkins: Reform Rabbis Respond to the God Delusion'', by Jonathan A Romain.
Evolutionary biologist [[David Sloan Wilson]] also has responded overtly in his article ''Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion''.<ref>[http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html#feature Skeptic.com: eSkeptic] - Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion. Wednesday, July 4, 2007.</ref>
==See also==
==See also==
*[[Atheism]]
{{col-begin}}
{{Nb Atheism}}
{{col-2}}
*[[Anthropic principle]]
*[[Argument from beauty]]
*[[Argument from religious experience]]
*''[[Breaking the Spell]],'' a similar book by [[Daniel Dennett]] also published in 2006
*[[Cargo cult]]
*[[Efficacy of prayer]]
*[[Founding Fathers of the United States]]
*[[God of the gaps]]
*[[Group selection]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Agent detection]]
{{col-2}}
*[[Irreducible complexity]]
*[[Morality without religion]]
*[[Ontological argument]]
*[[Evolutionary psychology of religion]]
*[[Pascal's Wager]]
*[[Religion and abortion]]
*[[Religion and homosexuality]]
*[[Religion in the United States]]
*[[Religious education]]
*[[Russell's teapot]]
*[[Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?]]
{{Col-end}}
==References==
==References==
<references/>
{{reflist|3}}
==Interviews==
*[http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/index.html "The flying spaghetti monster"], interview with Steve Paulson, ''[[Salon.com]]'', October 13, 2006
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html "God vs. Science"], discussion with [[Francis Collins]], ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', November 13, 2006
*[http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1563 "''The God Delusion''"], interview with ''[[George Stroumboulopoulos]]'', ''[[The Hour]]'', May 5, 2007
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1767506.ece "God . . . in other words"], interview with [[Ruth Gledhill]], ''[[The Times]]'', May 10, 2007
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87949769 "Richard Dawkins: An Argument for Atheism"], interview with [[Terry Gross]], [[Fresh Air]], March 7, 2008
==Further reading==
<small>Chronological order of publication (oldest first)</small>
* [[Stephen D. Unwin]]: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1883586,00.html ''Dawkins needs to show some doubt''], The Guardian, 29 September 2006
* [[Crispin Tickell]]: [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/824a87e6-501f-11db-9d85-0000779e2340.html ''Heaven can wait''], [[The Financial Times]], 30 September 2006
* Paul Riddell: [http://living.scotsman.com/books.cfm?id=1483032006 ''Did Man really create God?''], [[The Scotsman]], 6 October 2006
* [[Mary Midgley]]: [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225721.600-review-ithe-god-delusioni-by-richard-dawkins.html review], [[New Scientist]] (requires subscription). October 7, 2006
* Troy Jollimore: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/15/RVGH2LN2021.DTL ''Better Living Without God?''], [[San Francisco Chronicle]]. October 15, 2006
* [[PZ Myers]]: [http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/10/bad_religion.php ''Bad Religion''], [[Seed magazine]]. October 22, 2006
* Jim Holt: [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Beyond belief''], [[The New York Times]], 22 October 2006
* [[Terry Eagleton]], [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching", LRB, Vol.28, No.20,19 October 2006]
* [[Marilynne Robinson]], [http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20 ''The God Delusion'', Harper's Magazine, November, 2006]
* Eric W. Lin: [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515434 ''Dawkins Says God Is Not Dead, But He Should Be''], [[The Harvard Crimson]], 1 November 2006
* [[James Wood (critic)|James Wood]], [http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-celestial-teapot/ "The Celestial Teapot", The New Republic, December, 2006]
* Michael Fitzpatrick [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2503/ " The Dawkins delusion: 'Catholic atheist' Michael Fitzpatrick finds himself repelled by Richard Dawkins' crass and prejudiced polemic against religion.], [[Spiked (magazine)|Spiked]] 18 December 2006
* Bill Muehlenberg, ''A Review of The God Delusion'' [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/ Part 1], [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-2/ Part 2], on the Australian commentator's CultureWatch blog
* Robert Stewart: [http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/review_god_delusion.html ''A detailed summary and review of The God Delusion''], The Journal of Evolutionary Philosophy. 2006
* H. Allen Orr. [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775 "A Mission to Convert"], in [[The New York Review of Books]], 11 January 2007
* [[Steven Weinberg]]: [http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2552017,00.html "A deadly certitude"], the [[The Times Literary Supplement]], 17 January 2007
* [[Alister McGrath]]: ''[[The Dawkins Delusion]]'', 15 February 2007
* [[Scott Hahn]]: [http://www.amazon.com/dp/1931018480/ "Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God"], 2008
==External links==
*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=godDelusion.php Description of ''The God Delusion''] at the official website of the Richard Dawkins Foundation
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5372458.stm Newsnight Book Club] – Extracts from ''The God Delusion''
* [http://newhumanist.org.uk/1521 Richard Dawkins interviewed by Laurie Taylor in New Humanist magazine]
*[http://richarddawkins.net/article,303,Reading-of-The-God-Delusion-in-Lynchburg-VA,Richard-Dawkins--C-SPAN2 Video: Dawkins' reading from ''The God Delusion'' at Randolph-Macon Woman's College] – including the Question-and-Answer afterwards. Oct. 23, 2006
* [http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/04/23 Audio]: Richard Dawkins interviewed by [[Brian Lehrer]]
{{Dawkins}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:God Delusion, The}}
[[Category:2006 books]]
[[Category:Criticism of monotheism]]
[[Category:Criticism of religion]]
[[Category:Books critical of religion]]
[[Category:Books critical of Christianity]]
[[Category:Books critical of Islam]]
[[Category:Books by Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category:Books about atheism]]
[[Category:Cognitive science literature]]
[[Category:Books|God Delusion, The]]
[[de:Der Gotteswahn]]
[[et:The God Delusion]]
[[es:El espejismo de Dios]]
[[eo:The God Delusion]]
[[fa:توهم خدا]]
[[fr:Pour en finir avec Dieu]]
[[ko:만들어진 신]]
[[it:L'illusione di Dio]]
[[lt:Dievo iliuzija]]
[[nl:God als misvatting]]
[[ja:神は妄想である]]
[[no:Gud – en vrangforestilling]]
[[pl:Bóg urojony]]
[[pt:The God Delusion]]
[[ru:Бог как иллюзия]]
[[fi:Jumalharha]]
[[sv:Illusionen om Gud]]
[[tr:Tanrı Yanılgısı]]
[[zh-yue:The God Delusion]]