Verified answer

Dawkin's biggest problem is that he's an evolutionary biologist trying to argue in the realms of philosophy, psychology etc, and while he argues fairly convincingly against a typical layman's interpretation of an Abrahamic creator-God-concept he fails abysmally at it philosophically.

For example all naturalism fails in these kinds of arguments to deal with the philosophical problem of Solipsism. Scientists ignore this problem by making a set of assumptions upon which naturalism is based - eg: "matter is real and independent from our collective perception thereof". Now this is not a problem in the realm of science and for purposes of studying "matter" however it IS an assumption and needs to be dealt with parsimoniously when dealing with other disciplines. For example taking the attitude of Transcendental Idealism, we simply say that we have knowledge of "x" (with regards to our assumptions) but then we do not imply that that automatically implies knowledge of "y" (which might fall outside the ambit of those assumptions). Now it's not the scientific method at fault but the conclusions about what scientific studies say about Nature under the pretense of their assumptions that are flawed. It not the data that's flawed, its the conclusions about what that data says about reality that needs sobering up in terms of the assumptions under which the data was acquired.

Take for example the Boeing 747 argument. A brilliant argument against a complex divine being (a typical modern idea of God) but totally irrelevant to say esoteric or Buddhist or Hindu concepts which actually tend towards a "Nihilistic God-concept". Even Stephen Hawkins recently announced that he had solved the physics behind the Big Bang and that it indicated that everything arose from Nothing. This has always been the "ultimate" esoteric, Buddhist, Hindu God-concept.

Only "Nothing" can be Omnipotent through it's ability to contain any and every potential. If it becomes "something" then it has boundaries and therefore cannot be Omnipotent. There's a more parsimonious argument against a complex and omnipotent deity. So, no points there for Dawkins on that one. As for "lesser" gods we must look to the discipline of psychology but thats a whole thesis.

All in all I generally like his arguments because they're at least putting to sleep some of those irrational ideas about God(s) and Religion that are based on misinterpretation and misunderstanding but he will never be able to put up convincing arguments against those "deeper" and more esoteric philosophies. Nobody really can because they're completely "solid".

Great Book. I Loved It. Even For Being Catholic I Recommend Everyone To Read It. And If You Can Still Claim A Religion Then Good For You, It Shows Some Real Good Faith.

What It Think About It Is Some Guy Trying To Destroy Faith, Seems To me He Hates God... Yes It Did Make Me Question My Faith, However I Was Already Thinking Twice About It, The Only Problem Is The Translation From 1000's Of Years, But Thats An Answer For Another Question.

Logical? Yes, Provoking/Offensive? Yes. How Can You Claim Something Exists If You Can't Even Experience All The Senses? I Mean There Is Proof Of God Then There Is No Proof Of God. By Not Being Able To Experience All The Senses, Can It Entirely Disprove God? Yes, Or Rather Possibly.

Seems To Me It Was Written By A Fundamentalist Anti-Christian Atheist Who Thinks Science Has All The Answers.

Good Book, Thats What Im Saying. Makes You Think, Perfect If Your On The Debate Team Or In A Logic Class Or Something To Make You Think.

As Far As Facts Go, Its Just An Atheist Going Way To Far. If People Want To Believe In God, Let Them, You Have no Proof Your Right, At The Same Time They Have No Proof Their Right. If Religion Makes Them Happy Let Em Be, And Stop Trying To Destroy Their Religion Because Honestly, Atheism Looks Like A Godless Religion To Me Now, I Wounder How He Would Feel If God Relieved Himself To Him, Of The World Was Really Going To End In 2012 And he Saw The Souls Leaving.

As a scientist I've read a few of Dawkins' books - The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor's Tale. These are informative and as one of the living leading evolutionists in the world his books are informative.

I tried reading "The God Delusion" and couldn't finish it, it was too much like preaching and not enough argument, I don't like his style of evangelical atheism nor his militancy. If he doesn't believe in God, fine, but to try and make everyone atheist is ridiculous.

BTW I am an atheist myself, I believe the existence of a God is illogical. However, I don't try and persuade others that I'm right and they're wrong.

Out of curiosity I watched him on youtube yesterday. I really feel sorry for him. I hear the voice of a spirit that claims to be God. I listen to Him complain about human behavior and He has told me what is in store for people when they die. Poor Richard Dawkins. Poor, poor Richard Dawkins. I am not a Christian, btw.

as a religious biologist i have read the selfish gene by dawkins Brilliant piece of work.

i have also read the god delusion and atheist philosophy has been done far better.

the problem is a lot of rabid fundamentalists went for him because of his genius teaching of evolution. soured by this the man has had a rant and this is how it reads.

I've got 'The god delusion' haven't read it yet I'm reading 'The end of faith ' by Sam Harris and 'The universe in a nutshell' by Stephen Hawking and a book about writing at the moment, it will get its turn

I read 3 of his books on evolution - and enjoyed them very much. I was not surprised to hear that he had some kind of mystical experience when he was young, which related to his love of biology.

I started 'The God Delusion', but got bored. He examined in great detail the so called 'proofs' of the existence of God - I could not see the point. These silly arguments have nothing to do with why people believe in God, in fact many believers have acknowledged that these proofs are nonsense.

I don't know if there is anything more interesting later on in the book - I did not get that far.

I've read parts of the God Delusion. I think it was moronic.

We should never listen to what a Creationist has to say about evolution because they're not experts on evolution. So why should anyone listen to what Dawkins has to say about God?

And why is he calling some of it a scientific argument against God? I thought the supernatural couldn't be studied by science.

And why is this great scientist and experienced researcher making the rookie mistake of arguing against the extremely abridged versions of the "5 proofs"?

It could have been a great book if Dawkins had taken a step back and thought a little more about what he was doing. I get the impression that he just got a little too overzealous in his opposition to God and didn't think things through as well as he could have.

Oddly enough, that's pretty much exactly how my atheist friend feels about the book too.

I find Richard Dawkins to be a bit of a prick despite some good points he makes and the fact that I too am an atheist.

TEH DEADLY KITTEH HAZ SPOKANE!

I'm not religious or an atheist but I think "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens is a better read.