The irrationality in religious arguments for the existence of God.
In this book and his related conferences around the world Richard Dawkins rightly demonstrates the irrationality in the arguments put forward for the existence of god. He also correctly analyzes the distorted thinking in major religions of the world and in Creationist dogma under the guise of "Intelligent Design" and how religions have been harming societies of the world throughout history. He refutes many religious allegations that claim to prove the existence of god one by one by showing the distorted and inconsistent thinking in them. For example, the religious reasoning that if science can not explain a natural event this is proof that the natural event is designed and caused by God and therefore God exists is ludicrous. The fact that something is not yet explained by science is no proof of the existence of God. Many natural events that have scientific explanations today could not be explained scientifically centuries ago. Dawkins gives the example that thousands of years ago humans could not explain the sunrise and concluded therefore that it was an event caused by a diety. Science does not claim to be able to explain everything. However, even if science can never explain a certain natural event this does not lead to the logical conclusion that God did it and that God exists.
Somethings can not be proved nor disproved scientifically. For something to constitute a scientific hypothesis it must be falsifiable either by observation and / or experimentation. I recommend that the reader refer to Karl Popper's books on the philosophy of science for details, although the subjectivity of observations has been brought as a counter argument by some people. When somebody makes a claim and says you can not disprove it by science that does not make the claim automatically true. Dawkins quotes the great philosopher Bertrand Russel on that : if somebody were to claim that a teapot was in orbit around the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter this claim could not be proved nor disproved scientifically because at present we don't have telescopes powerful enough to show such a small object so far away from Earth. However, the fact that science can not disprove it does not make the claim true. Dawkins states that similarly the existence of goblins, genies etc. could be, in fact are claimed and their existence can not be disproved scientifically. Using this as an argument that they must therefore exist is illogical and irrational. By the same reasoning, claiming that God exists because science can not prove its non - existence is also ridiculous. If we want to conclude that God exists this must be based on some strong evidence, not necessarily scientific evidence, but some evidence nevertheless. Religion states that creation as explained in the Holy books is evidence. Dawkins demonstrates that holy scripture is not evidence ; it is not based on any rational reasoning. Religious reasoning goes : " it is so because the Bible / Kuran say so. You can not question the Holy books because they are scripture downloaded from God. "
Dawkins reminds us that scientific reasoning is based on developing scientific hypothesis that can be tested against evidence. Science never claims to have found the ultimate truth, scientific explanations have been developing and changing for the past 400 years. By contrast, all the major religions claim to have the ultimate truth already. They are divine and written in the Bible, the Kuran etc. There is no need to test them because they are divine truths. And if science claims the contary regarding creation etc. it is science that is wrong, because the holy books are divine scripture and God can not be wrong. Dawkins reminds us that religion is based on faith resulting from indoctrination at childhood.
Is God a scientific hypothesis or not ?
I agree with all of Richard Dawkins' comments so far. But two of his statements in two different parts of his book / lectures seriously contradict one another. On the one hand he says that God should be a scientific hypothesis subject to proof or disproof like any scientific hypothesis. On the other hand he says that science can not disprove God. By themselves these statements are OK. But taken together they are mutually exclusive ; they can not both be true. If God is a scientific hypothesis we can not say science can not disprove God ; science may not yet have proved or disproved God. But as a scientific hypothesis it should eventually prove or disprove God. If on the other hand the statement that science can not disprove God is true then we can not say that God is or should be a scientifc hypothesis. Because something that can not be proved nor disproved scientifically, like the teapot in orbit around the sun, is not a scientific hypothesis. It seems that Richard Dawkins overlooked this contradiction in these two statements of his. He did not make these statements one after the other ; they are quite separate in his book / lecture. Put the two statements together and the contradiction is obvious. I think Mr. Dawkins needs to make up his mind about this; can the existence / non- existence of God be a scientific hypothesis or not ? If yes, then he should not say elsewhere in his book / lecture that science can not disprove God. He can say science has not yet disproved nor proved the existence of God. By contrast if he concludes that science can not disprove God then he should drop his other statement that God should be a scientific hypothesis. Both statements can be considered and discussed and perhaps accepted separately, but not together. It is obvious that Dawkins has been analyzing the subject of Religion and God for many years, has traveled the world, discussed with clergy of various religions etc. and is very knowledgeble about it on top of his expertise on biology. I am amazed that with so much knowledge he can fall into such a logical error.
Proof / disproof does not have to be scientific.
Whether God should be a scientific hypothesis or not is a discussable issue. However, I wish to add that not everything need be a scientific hypothesis to be fasifiable and / or provable. For example a brilliant detective like Sherlock Holmes can prove who committed a murder by analyzing various evidence and making logical inferences that at the end prove the murder. The method used by the detective is not science no matter how analytical or brilliant it maybe. Yet the proposition of who committed the murder is falsifiable and provable.
Likewise many analytical and logical thinking methods that lead to proofs / disproofs are not science. For example mathematics, logic, historical analysis etc. are not science. Mathematics is a tool used by science. Many theorems can be proved / disproved mathematically. Some scientifc propositions maybe analyzed and helped to be proved mathematically but mathematical propositions themselves, although provable mathematically, are not falsifiable by observation and therefore not science. If as a reader of this review you find it hard to accept that math is not a science I recommend that you read some material on what science is and is not. Math is a very valuable analytical tool of science, but is not science itself.
My main point is that if it is concluded that God is a scientific hypothesis its existence / non-existence will eventually be proved or disproved, however long it may take. But it does not need to be a scientific hypothesis to be falsifiable or provable. On the other hand, if it is determined that God can not be a scientific hypothesis this does not mean that existence or non- existence of God can not be proved / disproved. It only means that the God proposition, although unscientific, has not yet been proved nor disproved but may be proved / disproved in the future by some other rational method that is not scientific. Or it may never be proved / disproved. What is certain is that irrational religious arguments have not proved the existence of God and never will. Any proof / disproof will come from some kind of rational method of reasoning.
Are there any benefits of a religious life ?
Among other subjects he mentions in his book Richard Dawkins says that religious ceremonies such as weddings in churches and the like should still be part of our culture and we should still learn about the Bible and other holy books like we learn about any work of literature. But that we should do these without indoctrination and dogma. When we study the Iliad and similar works as part of humankind's literature we don't necessarily believe in them. The study of Holy books should be no different.
Do we need religion to have moral lives ?
Dawkins also explains with examples that even though religious faith may sometimes provide psychological comfort, that does not make the religious claims true. The allegation that we must be religious to have moral and ethical lives is false. A person can be good without believing in God. Among religious people there are many good ones and many immoral ones. Some of the ethical teachings in the Holy books are good morality but many of them ( Dawkins gives many examples ) are immoral to common sense and downright detrimental to society.
Who is the audience ?
This book and Dawkins' lectures are very much needed in the contemporary world where religious polarization is on the rise. However, religious people will not read his book nor listen to his lectures. Even if they do they will not change their minds. Because minds that have been shaped by religious indoctrination since childhood can not be changed by logical arguments and presentation of scientific evidence. Were Galileo and Copernicus able to change the minds of the clergy by presenting scientific evidence of their theories ? Dawkins says that he received some messages from readers that they stopped believing in God and religion after having read his book. But I doubt that they were fundamental advocates of religion in the first place. This book is likely to ( in Dawkins terminology ) " raise the conciousness " of people who are moderately ( non - fanatic ) religious or non - religious. It has no chance of convincing the religious fanatic. Not because it is not a good book, but because dogmatic belief of any kind is not open to evidence of alternative opinions. In fact, we can see on Dawkins' videos on the internet how he has been insulted by religious leaders around the world when he went to discuss with them. I am sure Dawkins does not intend to convert them, perhaps he wants to expose their intolerance to the general public.
What can we do ?
I am writing this review from a country that has been a secular republic since its establishment in 1923 but has always been under threat of religious fundamentalism. In fact, access to Richard Dawkins' website is blocked by court decision from this country, no doubt as a result of religious fanatic initiative.
I think the challenge facing the secular people in various countries in the world is keeping secular education alive and ensuring that children are brought up with secular - not necessarily atheist - methods of thinking.
In his concluding remarks, Dawkins does not recommend parents to indoctrinate their children to become atheists, although he is an atheist himself. He says don't indoctrinate your children with religion and don't label them as catholic, protestant, moslem or jewish children. They ARE NOT catholic, protestant, moslem or jewish children. They are children of catholic, protestant,moslem or jewish parents. Labelling children as young as 4 years of age with religion is as ridiculous as labelling them as socialist, marxist, capitalist, keynesian, monetarist etc. Therefore Dawkins advises parents to let the children decide themselves when they become adults what they think of religion and of the holy books. Do not indoctrinate them to believe the Bible, the Kuran or atheism at a young age. This is very good advice, but unfortunately only a minority of the populations in many countries have the capability to provide a secular education for their children. I hope that secular education will become more widespread leaving the choice to be an aetheist or religious to the individual without indoctrinating him / her to be either. However, I am not too optimistic that this will ever be possible on a wide scale.
Is Richard Dawkins taking security measures to protect himself ?
I see on his videos on the internet that he goes around the world to discuss with leaders of militant Islam, with fundamentalist Christians and although he appears to be courteous on the videos he says that he is an atheist and is often insulted. His views are too extreme for religious people to tolerate and I am worried that he maybe attacked one day. It does not appear on the videos that he is taking any security measures.
Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
The God Delusion has been added to your Cart
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Audio CD, MP3 Audio, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $27.29 | — |
- Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 4 million more titles
-
Audiobook
$0.00 - 229 Used from $1.35 32 New from $10.80 11 Collectible from $10.00
- 4 Used from $17.06 9 New from $11.97
- 1 New from $27.29
Frequently bought together
$25.49
Get it as soon as Saturday, May 27
In Stock.
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Popular Highlights in this book
A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation.Highlighted by 5,044 Kindle readers- Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.Highlighted by 4,956 Kindle readers
- 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.'Highlighted by 3,598 Kindle readers
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Thought provoking but does not establish a firm enough case to show belief in God is delusional
Reviewed in the United States on December 29, 2014
A very enjoyable and thought provoking book. Certainly a lot to think about but I didn't think Professor Dawkins provides enough evidence to establish that belief in God is delusional. I did enjoy reading the Darwinian explanations for things such as religion but I think this revealed that you can come up with a Darwinian explanation for just about anything - Professor Dawkins did a thorough job explaining how and why we do not get morals from the Old and New Testament but glaringly avoided the Quran in this analysis. Also, I think the title - the God Delusion - isn't correct especially how Professor Dawkins seems to understand a belief in a Einsteinian God (who made the laws of physics) and how he mentions that intuitively humans are predisposed to believe in God. I was amused how Professor Dawkins explained that because of the ubiquitous nature of religion there must be a Dawrwinian benefit / reason for it and I thought that if we assume this to be the case it is then futile to try and argue against such belief because following the Darwinian logic if the belief loses its benefit /reason then such belief will become extinct. In conclusion I think that the book will certainly invite Christians to re-examine their beliefs (because of Professor Dawkins' analysis of the Old Testament and New Testament) for Muslims I would say that there wasn't enough analysis of Islam to build a platform for re-examination. I have much more to say about this book on my blog http://paullifeafterdeath.blogspot.com
Reviewed in the United States on December 29, 2014
Images in this review
Top reviews from other countries
Simranjeet Singh
This should be mandatory reading.
Reviewed in India 🇮🇳 on October 19, 2018Dmitry Usenco
evolutionist's nightmare
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on May 10, 2019
Donald MacKenzie
Not Dawkins' best subject
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on August 19, 2019Blah de Blah de Blah
Condescending, sarcastic, arrogant - and well written
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on October 6, 2021iglooo
Evolution of The God Delusion
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on October 7, 2018
