Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:12, 13 September 2007

The God Delusion

Author	Dawkins, Richard
Language	English
Subject	Religion
Genre	Science
Publisher	Bantam Books
Publication date	2006
Publication place	United Kingdom
Media type	Hardcover, Paperback, Audio book
ISBN	ISBN 0-618-68000-4 Parameter error in {{ISBNT}}: invalid character
Preceded by	The Ancestor's Tale

The God Delusion is an anti-theistic book by British ethologist Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

In the book, Dawkins contends that belief in a supernatural creator 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 that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

The God Delusion was ranked #2 on the Amazon.com bestsellers' list in November 2006. In early December 2006, it reached #4 in the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best Seller list after nine weeks on the list. As of August 5, 2007, it is listed at #29, after 43 weeks on the list.

Background

Richard Dawkins had in his previous books on evolution often argued against Creationist explanations of life. The Blind Watchmaker, published in 1986, is one of his earliest books with explicitly religious motives. Having shown how evolution can explain the apparent design in nature, he presents the same argument against the existence of God that is expanded in The God Delusion.

Dawkins had long wanted to write a book openly criticizing religion, but his publisher had advised against it. By the year 2006, his publisher had warmed to the idea. In interviews, Dawkins attributes this change of mind to "6 years of Bush" and the 9/11 attacks. By that time, a number of American authors, including Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, who together with Dawkins are often referred to as the "Unholy Trinity", had already written books openly attacking religion. All these books did very well on best-seller lists, and have spawned an industry of religious responses.

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

Overview and main themes

Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:

• 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.

Science and religion: The God Hypothesis

Dawkins begins by defining the notion of God that he wishes to address. Distinct from what he calls “Einsteinian religion”, referring to Einstein's use of the word “God” as a metaphor for nature or the mysteries of the universe, his criticism is focused on belief in a creator, for whom worship, salvation, incarnation, and other central themes of major religions are meaningful.

An important theme in the book is that the God Hypothesis — the idea that "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" — is a statement about the physical universe, and as such, a scientific hypothesis like any other. Thus, Dawkins rejects the common view that science and religion rule over non-overlapping magisteria.

The Existence of God

Dawkins then turns his attention to the main philosophical arguments in favour of God’s existence. Of the many philosophical proofs that he briefly discusses, he only finds the Argument from Design worthy of lengthy consideration. Dawkins main thesis is that evolution by natural selection can raise our consciousness so as to resist the temptation of postulating a designer whenever we see traces of apparent design in nature.

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". In his opinion, there are two competing explanations:

1. A theory involving a designer, that is, postulating a complex Being to account for the complexity that we see.
2. 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, where he argues that the first attempt is self-refuting, and the second approach is the way forward.

The roots of religion and morality

Chapter 5 explores the roots of religion and why religion is so ubiquitous across all human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful" and asks whether the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, might work to explain how religion might spread like a "mind virus" across societies.

In chapter 6, Dawkins turns his attention to the subject of morality, arguing that we do not need religion in order to be good. Instead, he maintains that our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes have been selected through the process of our evolution, and we possess a natural empathy.

The following chapter continues the theme of morality, arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, often in opposition to religious morality, which Dawkins feels is often warped and brutish. He uses examples of religious morality from the Bible to illustrate what he sees as the barbarism of much religious morality.

The influence of religion

Dawkins turns to the question of why he feels so hostile towards religion in Chapter 8, arguing with examples that religion subverts science, fosters fanaticism, encourages bigotry against homosexuals, and influences society in other negative ways. He gives examples of cases where 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 Abraham's sinful son. 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 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 family planning doctor in Florida, USA.

Dawkins devotes chapter 9 to the "indoctrination" of children. He equates the religious indoctrination of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins wants people to cringe every time somebody speaks of a “Muslim child” or a “Catholic child”, wondering how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins observes that no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child".

The final chapter asks 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".

Publishing and promoting the book

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

Critical reception

The book was nominated for Best Book at the British Book Awards, where Richard Dawkins won the Author of the Year award. It has been extremely controversial, and received much criticism from both religious and atheist commentators. In the 2007 paperback edition, Dawkins responds to many of the criticisms that these reviewers raise.

Dawkins' scholarship and disrespect for theology

Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books argues that Dawkins has insufficient understanding of the religious concepts he is attacking to engage with them effectively. He comments, "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." He questions whether Dawkins has read or heard of Christian thinkers like Eriugena, Rahner or Moltmann. He denies that all faith is blind faith, suggests that "while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it". He claims that "Critics of the most enduring form of popular culture in human history have a moral obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive". He adds, however, that Dawkins is effective in attacking "that particular strain of psychopathology known as fundamentalism, whether Texan or Taliban".

In "An Exercise in Contempt", a review in The American Spectator, Richard Kirk contrasts Alfred North Whitehead’s willingness to look at the big picture and give historical players their due credit with what he calls "the scattershot pettiness that pervades Richard Dawkins’ book." “Far from being a serious philosophical book, this ill-edited and garrulous diatribe contains just about anything that crosses the author's mind" with “page after sarcastic page of attacks against any foe Dawkins considers an easy target.” Dawkins avoids the “real question" of "whether one's explanation terminates with a meaningless cosmos or with a being who provides a reason for things.”

H. Allen Orr in The New York Review of Books suggests that "Dawkins is on a mission to convert" but fails "to engage with religious thought in any serious way" relying instead on "extraneous quotation" and "anecdote after anecdote". He asserts that Dawkins "suffers from several problems when he tries to reason philosophically" and complains of "exercises in double standards" He says "we all agree: religion can be bad. But the critical question is: compared to what? And here Dawkins is less convincing because he fails to examine the question in a systematic way." and that if discussions about disagreements between science and religion "are to be worthwhile, they will have to take place at a far higher level of sophistication than Richard Dawkins seems either willing or able to muster." Daniel Dennett objected to this review and an exchange of letters ensued.

John Cornwell states in The Sunday Times "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography, save for Richard Swinburne – himself an oddity among orthodox theologians". He also complains that "Dawkins sees no point in discussing the critical borders where religion morphs from benign phenomenon into malefic basket case. This is a pity, since his entire thesis becomes a counsel of despair rather than a quest for solutions." Cornwell also penned a letter from God to Dawkins in The Sunday Times suggesting that "Mendel was living proof that faith in Me and knowledge of science are not in competition...while science and religion are two very different discourses, they can coexist in harmony."

Alister McGrath, author of Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, describes The God Delusion as Dawkins' "weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available". He suggests that "All ideals – divine, transcendent, human, or invented – are capable of being abused. That’s just the way human nature is. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it, rather than lashing out uncritically at religion." One of McGrath's main points is that "Dawkins’ assertion that science disproves God is not right". He has subsequently produced a book-length critique of The God Delusion called The Dawkins Delusion?.

Peter S Williams, a Christian philosopher and author, in a review for the Christian charity Damaris International, says that while "The God Delusion is the work of a passionate and rhetorically savvy writer capable of making good points against religious fundamentalism," Dawkins "is out of his philosophical depth". Williams proposes rebuttals to two of the book's arguments against the existence of God: Dawkins' use of the anthropic principle and the "who designed the designer?" objection that according to Williams is at the heart of the 747 Gambit.

Russell Blackford, writer and philosopher, has written a positive review of The God Delusion for Cosmos Magazine in which he states that "Dawkins strides adroitly and confidently" across his areas of discussion, with a style of discussion which is "extraordinarily impressive in a work of such vast ambition and interdisciplinary scope".

John Cornwell in his book Darwin's Angel and elsewhere suggests that there are several lapses of understanding in Dawkins's positions, and that the "religion as a virus" ideas have disturbing precedents.

To the charge that he has not surveyed theology adequately, Dawkins replies that he only considered theologians and others who actually argue for God's existence--rather than just assume it. Dawkins endorses University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myers' "Courtier's reply" that being expected to debate the finer points of religious scholarship as an atheist is like having to discuss the finer points of the Emperor's wardrobe while arguing that the great man is, in fact, naked.

Unhelpful polemic?

The physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, writing in Nature, says that although a "fan" of Dawkins's 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's 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 religion and childhood, although refraining from using the term "child abuse" himself.

Skeptic Michael Shermer, writing in Science, stresses the consciousness raising messages of the book, in particular, he cites Dawkins's message that atheism can be healthy and intellectually fulfilling. He briefly outlines the book and praises the latter part, saying the closing chapter is a tribute to the power and beauty of science, which no living writer does better. Shermer is, however, critical of the book's polemic tone, he "cringed" at the title of the book and "winced" at Dawkins's derogatory references to religious individuals because he has religious friends and colleagues that do not meet these descriptions. Shermer is not convinced by Dawkins's argument that without religion there would be "no suicide bombers...(etc.)" suggesting that many of these events were less religiously motivated than politically driven. But he concludes that "Dawkins's latest book deserves multiple readings, not just as an important work of science, but as a great work of literature."

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 secular world running scared. This book is a clarion call to cower no longer."

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 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".

Mary Wakefield writes in the 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".

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.

Over the charge that his book is only likely to be read by atheists and is unlikely to convince anyone to change their 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.

Religion: consolation or source of evil

Andrew Brown in Prospect 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 Orthodox priesthood were exterminated simply for being priests." Furthermore, he cites Robert Pape that religious zealotry is neither necessary nor sufficient for suicide bombers, and concludes that the book is "one long argument from professorial incredulity."

David Baltimore in American Scientist praises the book as "A Defense of Atheism ... quite extensive and erudite ... full of pithy statements that skewer religion by substituting a rational approach to questions" while noting that "Dawkins doesn't ever come to terms with the large number of scientists who are comfortable believing both evolution ... and that there is a God." He suggests that Dawkins's "core reason for writing: that 'The status of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago,' and he wants to help change that status to tolerance, if not acceptance." "Dawkins does talk about the possibility that religion fills a deep-seated need in people, and he tries to dismiss it. But the evidence that this is the case is so strong, and the train of belief stretches so far back into human history, that the theory deserves more respect."

Marek Kohn in The Independent suggests that in this book "passions are running high, arguments are compressed and rhetoric inflated. The allusion to 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 Dawkins's account should be preferred to the hypothesis that religion may have been adaptive in the same way that making stone tools was."

In the Daily Telegraph, Kenan Malik commends Dawkins' intellectual case for atheism, but believes that he misunderstands what makes religion attractive to believers, and exaggerates its role in modern conflicts. Malik concludes: "if you want an understanding of evolution or an argument for atheism, there are few better guides than Richard Dawkins" but "so great is his loathing for religion that it sometimes overwhelms his reasoned argument...The result, ironically, is that he ends up sounding as naive and unworldly as any happy clappy believer.".

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's 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."

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.

Moderate religion and fundamentalism

Writing in Harper's, Pulitzer Prize winning novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson criticizes the "pervasive exclusion of historical memory in 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 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."

The Economist praised the book: "Everyone should read it. Atheists will love Mr 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 rest of the review essentially outlines Dawkins's arguments without much commentary of its own, focusing on Dawkins's 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."

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.

Dawkins has been described as an "atheist fundamentalist". He says that fundamentalism is defined by a refusal to acknowledge facts whilst his atheism is entirely based on the facts. He says that, if all of the facts pointed to creationism, then he would believe in creationism.

Philosophical objections

Alvin Plantinga, Anthony Kenny, Thomas Nagel, and other philosophers have responded to the arguments of the book about the existence of God. Richard Swinburne has responded to parts of "The God Delusion" that interact with Swinburne's writings.

References

1. ^ Dawkins, Richard. Preface The God Delusion.
2. Amazon.com book page - search for sales rank for current position
3. Jamie Doward (2006-10-29). "Atheists top book charts by deconstructing God". The Observer. Retrieved 2006-11-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Ruth Gledhill (2006-10-14). "What I want for Christmas is...an anti-religion rant". The Times. Retrieved 2006-11-26. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. "Hardcover Nonfiction - New York Times". Retrieved 2006-12-02.
6. "Hardcover Nonfiction - New York Times". Retrieved 2007-04-18.
7. "The Fleas Are Multiplying!". RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-09-11.
8. The God Delusion, page 13
9. The God Delusion, page 31
10. The God Delusion, page 50.
11. The God Delusion, page 114
12. "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, page 188
13. "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 5 sections of Chapter 5), The God Delusion, page 191
14. "Winners & Shortlists 2007". Galaxy British Book Awards. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
15. This latter kind of criticism, Dawkins has called "I'm an atheist buttery". Dawkins, Richard. "I'm an atheist, BUT..." RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
16. ^ Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion", Black Swan, London, 2007. p.13-22
17. Terry Eagleton (2006-10-19). "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching". London Review of Books. 28 (20). Retrieved 2006-11-26.
18. An Exercise in Contempt, Richard Kirk, The American Spectator, 12/8/2006
19. H. Allen Orr (January 2007). "A Mission to Convert". New York Review of Books (54.1). Retrieved 2007-03-03.
20. op. cit. specifically he suggests that objections of the kind Dawkins raises to the "proofs" of the existence of God apply to his "Ultimate Boeing 747 argument" and that he uses statistics against religion but will not consider statistics about Stalin
21. Letters between Orr and Dennett
22. Swinburne has published his response to Dawkins's criticisms of his ideas here
23. John Cornwell. "A question of respect". Times Online. Retrieved 2006-11-06.
24. John Cornwell. "A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion". Times Online. Retrieved 2007-02-27.
25. Alister McGrath Review called "The Dawkins Delusion" - not to be confused with the book of almost the same name (the book has a ?)
26. Baptist Press, Dawkins’ atheistic arguments are weak, Oxford prof says
27. see also his critiques in The Mail on Sunday and The Times
28. Peter S Williams Who's afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf? a review of The God Delusion, Damaris.org CultureWatch
29. Russell Blackford (2007). "The God Delusion (Review)". Cosmos Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-08.
30. John Cornwell The importance of doubt, The Guardian 30-Aug-2007
31. Myers, PZ (2006-12-24). "The Courtier's Reply". Retrieved 2007-07-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
32. Myers, PZ (2007-03-28). "The "magnificent P-Zed"?". Retrieved 2007-07-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
33. Dawkins, Richard (2007-05-12). "How dare you call me a fundamentalist". Retrieved 2007-07-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
34. "Richard Dawkins reads the new preface to The God Delusion (paperback)". 2007-06-20. Retrieved 2007-07-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
35. Lawrence M. Krauss. "Sermons and straw men". The Official Richard Dawkins Website. Retrieved 2006-11-06.
36. Michael Shermer (2007-01-26). "Arguing for Atheism". Science. 315 (5811). Retrieved 2007-03-15. Also available here, second review on page.
37. Joan Bakewell (2006-09-23). "Judgement day". The Guardian. Retrieved 2006-11-26. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
38. Michael Skapinker. "Matter and Faith". Financial Times. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
39. Mary Wakefield (2006-10-22). "God only knows who's right or wrong". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2006-12-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
40. Dying to Win by Robert Pape
41. Andrew Brown (October 2006). "Dawkins the dogmatist". Prospect (127). Retrieved 2006-11-26.
42. A Defense of Atheism
43. Marek Kohn (2006-09-29). "Smashing the sacred teapot". Retrieved 2006-11-26.
44. Kenan Malik (2006-10-08). "I don't believe in Richard Dawkins". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2006-12-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
45. Daniel Dennett (2006-10-16). "Review of Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion" (PDF). Free Inquiry. 27 (1). Retrieved 2006-12-05. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
46. Marilynne Robinson The God Delusion Harper's Magazine, November, 2006
47. "Misbegotten sons". The Economist. 2006-09-21. Retrieved 2006-11-26. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
48. Alvin Plantinga (2007). "The Dawkins Confusion - Naturalism ad absurdum". Books & Culture, a Christian Review. Retrieved 2007-03-02.
49. 2007 Presidential Royal Institute of Philosophy Annual Lecture. Published in Philosophy Volume 82 number 321 July 2007 pp381-397
50. Nagel, Thomas. "The Fear of Religion". The New Republic. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |acessdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
51. Richard Swinburne. Response to Richard Dawkins's comments on my writings in his book The God Delusion. Accessed 23 July 2007.

See also

• Criticism of religion
• Relationship between religion and science
• Spectrum of Theistic Probability – a way of categorizing one's belief about the existence of a deity, first formulated in "The God Delusion"

Related work — sharing Dawkins' view

• The Root of All Evil? — Dawkins' TV documentary on the same subject
• Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett
• The End of Faith by Sam Harris
• God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
• The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan

Related work — responding to the God Delusion

• Is Religion Dangerous? by Keith Ward
• The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath, published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
• When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball

External links

• Description of The God Delusion at the official website of the Richard Dawkins Foundation
• Newsnight Book Club – Extracts from The God Delusion
• Dawkins' reading from The God Delusion at Randolph-Macon Woman's College – including the Question-and-Answer afterwards.
• Richard Dawkins interviewed on The Panel (RTÉ, Ireland)
• Richard Dawkins interviewed by Brian Lehrer
• Richard Dawkins interviewed by Laurie Taylor in New Humanist magazine

Links to reviews

• Terry Eagleton, "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching", LRB, Vol.28, No.20,19 October 2006
• Michael Fitzpatrick " The Dawkins delusion: 'Catholic atheist' Michael Fitzpatrick finds himself repelled by Richard Dawkins' crass and prejudiced polemic against religion., Spiked 18 December 2006
• Jim Holt: Beyond belief, The New York Times
• Eric W. Lin: Dawkins Says God Is Not Dead, But He Should Be, The Harvard Crimson
• Mary Midgley: review, New Scientist (requires subscription)
• Bill Muehlenberg, A Review of The God Delusion Part 1, Part 2, on the Australian commentator's CultureWatch blog
• PZ Myers: Bad Religion, Seed magazine
• Thomas Nagel: The Fear of Religion, The New Republic
• H. Allen Orr. "A Mission to Convert", in The New York Review of Books, January 11, 2007
• Paul Riddell: Did Man really create God?, The Scotsman
• Andrew Rilstone A Sceptics Guide to Dawkins May 2007
• Crispin Tickell: Heaven can wait, The Financial Times
• Robert Stewart: A detailed summary and review of The God Delusion, The Journal of Evolutionary Philosophy
• Steven Weinberg: "A deadly certitude", the The Times Literary Supplement, January 17, 2007

• 2006 books
• Books critical of religion
• Books critical of Christianity
• Books by Richard Dawkins
• Books about atheism
• Criticism of religion