About this title: Discovery" magazine has recently called Richard Dawkins "Darwins Rottweiler" for his fierce and effective defense of evolution. In his "New York Times" bestseller, Dawkins turns his considerable intellect on religion, denouncing its faulty logic and the suffering it causes.
Note: This is a general synopsis. Each listing is described below.
Binding: Paperback
Publisher: Mariner Books
Date Published: 2008-01-16
ISBN-13:9780618918249ISBN:0618918248
Description: Fair. Reading copy only-multiple flaws. Spine intact with a serious backward lean. Covers with moderate shelf wear and overall curving and slight residue of something front and back. Pages intact with no markings inside but bookstore stamps and scuffing along outside edges. read more
Description: Acceptable. Book is in good reading condition. Cover has wear at edges and corners, and may have creases. Spine has wear at edges and creases. read more
Binding: Hardcover
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Date Published: 2006
ISBN-13:9780618680009ISBN:0618680004
Description: Fair. Size: 8.42; 2006. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Hardcover. Edge and corner wear to cover, no jacket, ink marks inside front cover. Text is very good, no store stamps, owner names, or other writings. Good reading copy. read more
Description: Octavo, softcover, near fine in gray pictorial wraps. Advance Reading Copy. A preeminent scientist-and the world's most prominent atheist-asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11. 297 pp. including recommended books. read more
Binding: Trade Paperback
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York
Date Published: 2006
ISBN-13:9780739481325ISBN:0739481320
Description: Very Good. 8vo-over 7¾"-9¾" tall. x, 406 pp., biblio., index; 21 cm. Tight, clean copy. Moisture ripple/first few pages, lower right corner. "Discover magazine recently called Richard Dawkins 'Darwin's Rottweiler' for his fierce and effective defense of evolution. Prospect magazine voted him among the top three public intellectuals in the world (along with Umberto Eco and Noam Chomsky). Now Dawkins turns his considerable intellect on religion, denouncing its faulty logic and the suffering it ... read more
Binding: Hardcover
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Company 2006
Date Published: 2006
ISBN-13:9780618680009ISBN:0618680004
Description: ISBN 0618680004. Hardback. Later Printing. Very Good to Near Fine condition book in a Very Good condition dustjacket with minor rubs and creases around its edges. Tight, sound, unmarked copy. $27.00 original price is present and unclipped on front flap of dustjacket. Copy 1. read more
Binding: Hardcover
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Company 2006
Date Published: 2006
ISBN-13:9780618680009ISBN:0618680004
Description: ISBN 0618680004. Hardback. Later Printing. Very Good to Near Fine condition book in a Very Good condition dustjacket with minor rubs and creases around its edges. Tight, sound, unmarked copy. $27.00 original price is present and unclipped on front flap of dustjacket. Copy 2. read more
Edition: First edition.
Binding: Trade paperback
Publisher: Bantam Press, New York
Date Published: 2006
ISBN-13:9780739481325ISBN:0739481320
Description: Very good. No dust jacket as issued. Like new! ! minor dings on the front cover, and slight wearing on the edges. Glued binding. Cloth over boards. With dust jacket. 406 p. Audience: General/trade. read more
Binding: Softcover
Publisher: Mariner Books
Date Published: 2008-01-16
ISBN-13:9780618918249ISBN:0618918248
Description: NEW. Softcover. From an inventory that is 100% brand-new, 100% direct from the publishers' distribution channel. We carry NO pre-owned, NO remaindered. We pack in CARDBOARD to ensure the pristine quality is maintained. (Bubble-wrap alone is NOT sufficient to protect from USPS equipment. ) Guaranteed brand-NEW, protected with CARDBOARD, your satisfaction is guaranteed. BKLUVID: 9780618918249. read more
"I enjoyed this book although Dawkins does write a tad confusingly at times. He gives excellent reasons and information to contradict current reasons given for the existence of a "god". Overall I think his main point is how atrocious religion has been for the world overall....wars, deaths etc.."
"Many of the points Dawkins makes in this book I had already given thought to. But Dawkins provides ample background to these ideas and to both sides of any argument (and in some cases, the many sides). His primary arguments are against religion and the existence of God, however, as for God, he doesn't claim his non-existence. Rather, Dawkins builds an argument to support the probability of his non-existence. It is within this probability that Dawkins urges us to live better lives.
He further shows how virtually no existing description of a god stands up to rational investigation. Atheism, then, becomes the non-acceptance of traditional and mythical descriptions of God adhered to through non-evidential blind faith.
While the term spiritual is somewhat inappropriate, I would use the term nevertheless to describe Dawkins, as anyone who questions, investigates, doubts, and proposes rational explanations as much as he is, in my view, a spiritual person. (Blind faith, in contrast, is not spiritual but is instead sentimental.)
In some ways, Dawkins does not go far enough in his criticism of religion. He gives it a very wide berth, perhaps because he is not willing to dismiss a counter argument without a thoughtful addressing of its underlying flaw in logic or intent. As a result, you will not find in this book rantings or unfounded criticisms. There were many times I had to put the book down and follow his argument in my mind, to see if it was indeed what he claims it to be. I was always satisfied that his words were true.
In one difficult chapter, near the end of the book, he addresses the topic of Mitochondrial Eve and discusses various pathways of genetic inheritance with respect to a common human ancestor. The lack of illustrations to convey these ideas is a drawback, but perhaps this was intentional. The purpose of the book is to make the reader think. This chapter places a demand on your mind's ability to visualize. His descriptions make sense when you can see in your mind what he is saying.
I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about the why and how of their own beliefs and where those beliefs came from. What Dawkins only touches upon in the beginning of the book, however--it seems to me--is the whole point of the exercise: namely, there is a measurable probability of a thing being true or of its being untrue. Of such seemingly untouchable subjects, such as the existence or non-existence of God, Dawkins gives us a wonderful collection of insights by which we can judge for ourselves the probability of the truthfulness of religion, irrespective of its usefulness, and of the truthfulness of there being a God, irrespective of what effect the belief in his existence has in people's lives. Dawkins seeks honesty, and I believe his honesty is well conveyed."
"I thought the very best point this book made came right at the beginning. Dawkins reports on surveys carried out in the US, where subjects received a description of an otherwise sympathetic political candidate, and were asked whether they would still vote for them if one extra feature were added. Would it still be OK if they were a woman? 90% or so say yes. Black? Yes. (Well, we have hard evidence on that now!) Gay? Most people still say yes. Atheist? Half the population says no! Considering that many of the Founding Fathers had deep reservations about religion, this should sound warning bells. If we going to claim we believe in religious tolerance, surely that should include tolerance for people who don't belong to any religion and think it's all nonsense? Everyone bends over backwards to show understanding towards Christians, Muslims, Jews and what have you. Why not atheists? Dawkins just says what he honestly thinks, and doesn't see why he needs to be ashamed of it. Why should he?
I didn't like this book as much as The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor's Tale, but that's more because they are positive books celebrating the amazing beauty of the new universe that science, and in particular evolutionary theory, have opened up to us; this is a negative one, attacking the ugly and constricted world that many self-described "religious" people still choose to live in. Sometimes you need to be negative, though, and many deeply respected figures in the history of religion were negative about the prevailing orthodoxy. If Martin Luther had been a nicer guy, he'd probably never have offended so many good Catholics with all those unpleasant theses, and I bet the money-changers weren't particularly thrilled when Jesus threw them out of the Temple. As far as I'm concerned, Dawkins is in pretty good company.
There has been so much discussion on this page that I am getting slightly lost. I'd love to think that I'd started it, but of course Dawkins gets all the credit. Still, I would like to expand on my initial review, and clarify my own position.
I admire this book, and Dawkins's stand in general, because I think he is being decisive about pointing out a very serious problem in the world today. Religion is in a state of crisis. Once upon a time, its job was both to explain to people how the world is, and also to tell them how to live in it. The first part of that mission has now been taken over by science. Dawkins is a scientist, and if you have scientific training it is impossible to take creationism and similar ideas seriously. It's very tiring even to discuss them. If someone told you the Moon was made of cheese, you wouldn't want to endlessly go back and forth over whether or not you'd thought about the fact that it could be Mozzarella, or possibly Vacherin, and that maybe that would solve the technical problems. The Moon obviously isn't made of any kind of cheese. Similar arguments apply to creationism. Religion has to get its act together and acknowledge that, on this particular ground, it has been supplanted by science.
If this were the only problem religion was facing, it wouldn't be so bad. Mainstream religion is, however, also being hijacked by some very unpleasant characters. I've been brought up in the Christian tradition, so it's easiest for me to talk about Christianity. I'm no theologian, but it is impossible for me to believe that most of the things you regularly hear from spokespeople of the Christian Right follow from the teachings of Jesus. For example, I once spent 30 unpleasant minutes leafing though Ann Coulter's Godless at a bookstore. This hysterical, bigoted stream of hatred has nothing to do with Christianity as it was conceived by its founder. Indeed, in most respects it is diametrically opposed to it. The scary thing is that the book was a major bestseller. I don't know Islam at all, but every now and then I chat with a moderate Muslim. It sounds like they are even more concerned with what's being done in the name of Mohammed.
So, it would be easy to conclude that religion is obsolete, and we should only rely on the teachings of science. I don't think that's correct. Science is only designed to tell us objective truths about the world; it doesn't have a conceptual apparatus for determining what we ought to do, as opposed to what is. I've been working in science for over 25 years, and most years I write at least a couple of grant proposals. If I were asked to write a grant proposal for a project that would use scientific techniques to compare the value of moral frameworks, I don't see how I could even get started. One of the key questions the funding authorities always ask is what objective metrics you will use. Where would these metrics come from? It's no use waving your hands and saying "philosophy". Which philosophy? For example, given that the Nazis were rather fond of him, I'm guessing that most people would prefer not to get Nietzche involved. But what objective reasons do we have for excluding Nietzche, rather than other philosophers?
I think most people who've read him would agree that Dawkins is a very moral person, and he isn't averse to moral principles that derive from traditional religion. He doesn't think this conflicts with being an atheist. (As he says, "Atheists for Jesus!"). My interpretation of all this is that it adds up to arguing for a massive reform in the way mainstream religion is organized; that's why I'm comparing him with other religious reformers like Martin Luther and Jesus. He'd probably find this annoying. But, if I may criticize him for just a moment, what goes around comes around :)"
"This book was a dramatic disappointment that did not live up to the "finally someone has proven religion is poppycock" hype it received. Dawkins fails utterly to tear down any meaningful experience of religion, instead he merely reinforces the petty grudges that some atheists have against religion, grudges that betray one's own lack of spiritual maturity and suggest a deeper ailment at work.
It's a shame. I saved up my energy to read the radical atheism espoused in Richard Dawkins' The GOD Delusion. As a man of faith with a passionate interest in science, I understand -- and personally experience -- both sides of the God vs. science debate. Dawkins' book was such a smash hit that I anticipated it would contain some powerful new arguments that would lead me to days or even weeks worth of pondering. Sadly, it did not. The bulk of his attack centers on disproving the arguments that religious apologists have offered to justify God's existence. But those arguments were never very satisfying to believers, much less nonbelievers, so seeing them dismantled triggers a yawn instead of thoughtful introspection.
His arguments lack imagination and often fall into cheap mockery rather than intelligent reasoning. (Note: it's amusing to see how a man who triumphs rationality would resort to so many tawdry taunts to make his point. If God can be disproven rationally, why must he fall to such ad hominem rhetorical tactics? Methinks he doth mock too much.)
Most disappointing, Dawkins attempts to discredit the subjective experience of God by asserting that there are lots of crazy people out there, and the religious must simply be afflicted with a form of mental illness. He does this in a single paragraph, even tossing in a sentence linking personal religious experience to epilepsy. This is not just lack of imagination, it's intellectual dishonesty. Either he is simply not smart enough to parse the difference between real spiritual experience and mental illness, or, more likely, he has chosen to lump all subjective experience of the divine in with insantiy as a cheap way to escape grappling with the amazing variety of spiritual experience average believers have on a regular basis.
Admittedly, there is a third alternative. Maybe religious experience is simply outside of his capability to perceive it. Like a person born without the ability to taste, Dawkins is unable to relate to religious experiences because he can't savor them himself. As a result, he can't understand why so many around him are enraptured by the delights of the present feast because sample as he might, he cannot taste a thing. That's why it's so easy for him to dismiss subjective experience -- because he doesn't have any.
The book is worth the read just so you know what all the hubub is about and so you can understand that modern atheism as represented by Dawkins is a bland meal. Perhaps a little "salt of the earth" would help?"
We guarantee every item's condition, as described on Alibris. If you are not satisfied that an item is as described, return your purchase for a refund.
rating
