God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins Paperback – October 31, 2007

The logic is not very good and relies on feeling rather than thinking.

God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins
by Thomas Crean, O.P.
Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2007 160 pages
By: Samuel A. Nigro, M.D.
January, 2008

This short book is an incredibly erudite disquisition and then absolute discrediting of Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion. Reading this book took me back to the wonderful days at the University of Notre Dame when we students were treated to amazing academic presentations that I thought were no longer possible. What a treat this short book is! Father Crean is a scholar who dissects Richard Dawkins to the bone revealing him to be, if not brainless, then a fraud, liar, and, at best, a public relations expert. All must read this book!
I will not duplicate the truth and wisdom of the book encouraging you, the reader, to not miss it yourself. Instead, I will use this review to add my past efforts to deconstruct Richard Dawkins. My book review of The God Delusion focused on Dawkins imprecision and fraudulent refusal to use the accepted scientific definition of “delusion.”
A false belief of symptom of mental illness...delusions are distinct from cultural religious based beliefs and may be seen as untrue by outsiders. Encyclopedia of Medicine, 2006.

Dawkins admitted to ignoring severe objections and criticisms from three psychiatrists about his use of the word “delusion.” Second, in my book review of God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchins, I noticed Hitchins claiming that the evolution of the eye was accommodating by evolution – and the reference was a book by Richard Dawkins entitled “Climbing Mount Improbable.” So I got the latter book and found the reference used by Dawkins to claim “the central message of this chapter is that eyes evolve easily and fast, at the drop of a hat” (Pg 190). Dawkins’ referenced article was Proc. R. Sc. Lond. B (1994) 256 53-58. Dawkins’ description of this article in his book “Climbing Mount Improbable” is an academic crime. In psychiatric terms, Dawkins’ description of this article consists of multiple confabulations which made me think of brain damage because that is where most confabulations are regularly seen. All are encouraged to read his referenced article and compare it to what Dawkins has to say on it in his book pages 160-163.
Finally, I have yet to hear from the editors of Scientific American responding to my objection to Dawkins (along with Case Western Reserve Physicist Krauss) and their belief that “teaching is seduction.” This admission is an absolute proof of not only the incompetence of Richard Dawkins but of his own immorality. Just look up the contemporary and usual definition of “seduce,” and you will know what I mean.
I sent all my findings to the Chancellor of the University of Oxford as well as to all the major newspapers in the United States. Their protection of this proven liar, blow-hard and academic criminal is proof positive of the unreliability and dishonesty of the press and media in the United States.
I hope Thomas Crean’s God is No Delusion gets a more fair, honest, and forthright presentation to the public which has the right to know when someone of Richard Dawkins’ standing is proven to be a fraud and a fool.

I am very glad I read this work before I read the reviews here; in other words, I do not recognize the book from the reviews. You owe it to yourself to actually read the book; don't just take the word of the reviewers, who appear to comprise a local chapter of the Richard Dawkins Fan Club.

Crean is quite systematic, taking the reader step by step through the logical process of dismantling Dawkins' arguments in a relatively brief number of pages. Dawkins is quoted extensively; these are not "parodies" of Dawkins' arguments, except insofar as Dawkins continually parodies himself. The only other book on this subject I have read that is better is Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition"; Feser is more detailed on the philosophical points, but some readers may be put off by his polemical tone. Crean is comparatively gentle, yet still persistent--a dagger instead of a grenade.

p.s. I noticed in the comments below a fixation on the Catholic Church's condemnation of "curiosity." Before you get your knickers twisted any further, you need to look up the distinction in Latin between "studiosity" and "curiosity." The former is encouraged, but not the latter. Don't let it ruin your day.

As much as I love reading both sides of the argument, this book hardly poses an argument at all. What a waste of time. Not even worth flipping through, in my opinion.

There can never be an argument against mythological (religious) beliefs because there are three things that can never be accepted by the religious; logic, reason, and above all, facts. I think we must remember where religious (mythological) beliefs come from. The religious believe in their beliefs because they believe them. No other explanation needed or accepted.

Not sure if parody or fundie delusion. Read if you like a good laugh. On the plus side I'm now sure I'm an Atheist. I thought I'd read one last book to try to hold on to my beliefs.

They say that a million monkeys on a million typewriters given a million years will recreate the works of Shakespeare.
To recreate this book? Two monkeys, two typewriters, two hours.