More delightful Dawkins
341440
This is a really enjoyable read - informative, entertaining and, as usual for Dawkins, combative.
2455425
In Dan Rhodes WHEN THE PROFESSOR GOT STUCK IN THE SNOW we meet Professor Richard Dawkins, a  biologist who spreads the gospel of atheism far and wide. Accompanied by his loyal and trusted male secretary Smee, he sets out to give a lecture on the subject of Science and the Non-existence of God to the All Bottoms Womens Institute. But a snow blizzard gets in the learned professors way. He then gets taken in by a good vicar and his welcoming wife.  In the rest of this short novel we learn of all the obstacles the professor runs into in his quest to point out to the stupid masses the idiocy of their belief in God. He likes to name-drop famous atheists too: Christopher Hitchens,  Ian McEwan et al.

The book is raucous, a tad bawdy; and the laughter builds up not unlike a snow bank. Mr. Rhodes uses the time-tested tricks of the comedic trade: mistaken identity, double entendres,  one person not knowing what others know. In short, nothing is quite like it appears. A lot happens: a cat gives birth to a litter of kittens, a helicopter or two flies overhead, a little nudity is thrown in as well as a camera shoot for a calendar.

I first learned of Mr. Rhodes on-so-funny novel when I read an interview of an author who named it as the last book that made him laugh. In this bleak December of both the temperature and the political climate, we all need a good laugh right now. Mr. Rhodes delivers.
1677689
Reviews like this are tough, because the people who agree with the contents of the book will appreciate how elegantly Dawkins frames the universe and our existence in the distinct absence of "God" as most people think of God today.  The people who disagree probably won't bother reading the book to begin with.  But if you are unsure of your faith, and why you believe what you do, and the inconsistencies and problems with religion that you've seen first-hand, this book is for you! You aren't alone, and for good reason.  Dawkins instills a humorous dry wit about this book, mixing facetious yet exacting commentary with indelible logic to produce something that truly appeals to the rational and reasonable human.  I could read it over and over again.
369885
In this fascinating series of interviews, former atheist Lee Strobel hits world-class scholars, recognized authorities in their fields, with the most common questions and objections to Christ's Person and divinity. Reads like a murder-mystery, police procedural, courtroom thriller, and logic/psychology/history/theology textbook, all in one; a joy to read over and over again (I'm re-reading it now!). Will be an intellectually stimulating delight for open-minded agnostics and believers alike.
We also get a glimpse into the spiritual journeys of these scholars, which is fascinating in itself, such as that of Dr. Lapides, a Jew who dabbled in drugs, Scientology, Eastern religions, and finally was confronted with the Jewishness of Jesus.
Other interesting conversions: Jewish doctors, etc. who were converted by reading books that argued against Jesus' Messiahship, or whose rabbis could not successfully argue that Jesus was not the Messiah. Reminds me of Phillip Johnson, who was converted from evolutionism after reading one of Dawkins' books and noting the poor quality of evidence and argument!
Along the way, these razor-sharp intellects tackle the historical record, archeological evidence, dating of the NT books, prochecies fulfilled by Jesus, Jesus' psychological profile, and the Resurrection, in an engaging dialogue. The media-savvy (but academically-challenged) Jesus Seminar, Karen Armstrong, the Gospel of Thomas, and other silly signs of our times are dealt with: succintly and impressively exposed as shoddy thinking for the desperately atheistic. ....
4418467
"Why is there something and not, nothing?"
"If God is completely good, why is there evil in the world?"
"Why do Wintergreen LifeSavers spark and flicker when you chew them
in the dark?"
Skeptics and cynics always pose the most stimulating questions.
You'd have to ask keen Christian philosophers about the first two.
And the reader came to the right place: "A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism:
God is Not Dead" by Peter Williams.

Williams' volume is both a readable and fascinating critique of the New Atheism.  Williams is a patient philosopher and he confronts the recent works of
present-day atheistic exhorters as he refutes their primary ideas,
analyses their assertions, and offers a potent and convincing refutation of atheism. Herein the reader finds an intellectually substantial rejoinder to skeptical thought.

Chapters include:

-  Long live the New Atheism
-  Is Faith the root of all evil?
-  Does science explain everything?
-  Natural Theology
-  Evidence for Christianity
-  Williams notes many, I mean many, helpful resources at the back of
each chapter.

Williams discusses the well-known professional atheists and reveals
that they are strict fundamentalists who are stuck in a self-stultifying
worldview. This skeptical worldview is one built upon shifting epistemic sand
and is propagated by inane and illogical argumentation. Williams
provides numerous quotes from the pens of the New Atheists to
demonstrate the weakness and incongruous structure of their
contentions.

He proves that the New Atheism doesn't "cut the philosophical
mustard." His analysis is lucid and powerful as he combats atheism at
its ground and fount. Since Williams reveals the numerous fallacies
that the New Atheists routinely fall into, this is one of the best
philosophical anti-atheist books written for popular readers.

Williams exposes the anti-logical works of:
-  Dennett
-  Hitchens
-  Dawkins
-  Harris and many other fashionable atheist fundamentalists.

In the section "Does Science Explain Everything?" Professor Williams
opposes the irrational notion that modern science can explain
everything. He helps the reader understand the significant distinction
between science and "Scientism." He then discusses teleology,
contingency, evolution, and chance. Can all the contingency and order
be explained by time and chance acting upon matter? Williams furnishes
compelling answers that point to the necessity of the Creator. He clearly argues that the thinking person should reject the "presumption of atheism."

This work is littered with interesting quotes and many compelling
arguments based on reason and the truth of the Christian worldview.
In Sceptic's Guide," Mr. Williams surveys a stunning amount of pertinent
literature and skillfully connects theistic truth to reason, common sense, and
everyday thinking. The lessons he draws are astute and intuitive, but
reader friendly. Unlike the pugnacious new atheists, Williams is
philosophically modest and gets a lot right. I recommend "A Sceptic's
Guide to Atheism" for all open skeptics as well as believers who
desire rightful arguments that roundly defeat the New Atheism.

Endorsed by William Dembski, Angus Menuge, and Gary Habermas.

Also see the New Apologetic book:
<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Truth-Knowledge-and-the-Reason-for-God-The-Defense-of-the-Rational-Assurance-of-Christianity/dp/1432765914/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Truth, Knowledge and the Reason for God: The Defense of the Rational Assurance of Christianity</a>
4644140
No, this isn't the next, lost Hitchhiker book. It does include about eighty pages of pieced together stories which the editor says fell easily into place. In my view, they seem to be pieces of at least three different books which don't go together at all. One is a Hitchhiker or Dirk Gently book in the making, one slips into the nihilism that is thankfully sparse in the other books. The rest of the volume is compiled, the notes say, from ephemera found on Doug's beloved Macs. This is also a bit misleading, as most of it has already been printed before, and his other books, notably Last Chance to See, tend to be expanded versions of the short bits.

The bits that most interest me include an interview with a magazine, or group, called American Atheists. Doug's tone is light and funny, but the interviewer is dour and somber as any cartoon Calvinist. "In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy- washy Anglicanism to vague wishy- washy Agnosticism," Doug notes, "--both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much." St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century said, in effect, "Is there a God? Apparently not," going on in his Summa to suggest that there after all was one. Doug takes the other tack, in "Is There An Artifical God?" suggesting that there looks like there is one, but there's not. Doug is nevertheless highly interested in religion, a subject that bores most people. He is a true believer (or rather non-believer) converted from reading Richard Dawkins. Thus it is appropriate that the book end with Dawkin's epilogue, a eulogy for his friend.

Despite the nihilism that creeps slowly into the Guide books-- they go slowly downhill from book one and perk up again at book five, Mostly Harmless-- Doug wrote the introduction for the final, unfinished novel by that most genial of authors, British humourist P.G. Wodehouse. Perhaps because, like many authors, he found that genial tone so difficult to sustain himself, he was unstinting in his praise of the Master, whose works are being daily discovered by more and more readers looking for something light and hopeful, yet skillfully written, being-- let's just say it-- bored by the nihilism and anti-philosophy of the Decadents, moderns, and now postmodern writers which currently makes up the bulk of bookstores. "Wodehouse is the greatest comic writer ever" reads his enthusiastic thumbs-up, now printed on all new Penguin paperback editions. In the view of many readers, however, Adams is himself a very near number two, even as he sticks up his sub-etha thumb, hitching to the great beyond.
3318891
Richard Dawkins, a leading biologist and Professor of Science Communication, is one of atheism's leading preachers in the modern world and has converted many to his faith.

Dawkins is an eloquent and talented writer and uses every weapon in his arsenal to try and show religion is a delusion, in fact, a delusion caused by viruses which infect the human mind.  We need to 'inoculate' ourself against this pernicious virus and free ourselves from our superstitious bonds, to see reality as it truely is (which is the world as revealed by science).

Alister McGrath is in many ways Dawkin's opposite, but is also very similar.  He also trained as a Biologist at Cambridge (in the field of molecular biology) and in his earlier years was a fervent atheist and Marxist.  He can readily appreciate and understand where Dawkins is coming from, and also graps the heart of the science Dawkins is talking about.  (If only more evangelical Christians would be like this).

McGrath however converted to Anglican Christianity and is also an evangelical, probably the leading evangelical thinker in the UK.  In this work and others, he excellently demonstrates how bankrupt many of Dawkin's arguments are, as are their pretensions to demonstrate religion to be false.  However, he also is always willing to give Dawkins credit where it is due (and given his multiple talents it is due often).

McGrath's best insight is that is still rational to believe in God while also being a scientist, or an admirer of the universe as revealed by science.  While evolution may not be conducive to some of the past theistic understandings of God, this does not mean we have to become an atheist overnight.

This book is worth reading for any Christian concerned to defend his or her faith against scientific skepticism or atheism.
690499
Let me begin by saying that this book is an extremely good read. It is written by the now uber famous biologist Richard Dawkins, writer of the best-sellers `The Selfish Gene' and `The Blind Watchmaker'. What I will say though, is this: Don't read it thinking it is the definitive volume on Atheism, that it will answer all your questions. Think of it as a fantastic Atheism 101.

Dawkins' main justification for the book is that religion has the potential to be very, very dangerous. This is mainly because religion confers virtue on people who believe without evidence. This in itself is o.k. for the majority, but has the potential to cause great harm, since someone who believes without evidence can be compelled to do a great many irrational things given the right environment e.g. become a suicide bomber.

He also gives the very interesting insight that religion is a virus of the mind (a meme) and that it has probably come about due to an offshoot of something else, something that probably has some value in natural selection. He guesses the pervasiveness of religion comes from the valuable quality of being nave and gullible as a child and therefore believing everything your parents say e.g. a child that believes its parents when they say that if they keep on walking they will fall off a cliff and die, has a higher chance of survival than a child that doesn't believe his/her parents. This however, leaves us open to believing nonsensical things our parents say, like 'god exists'.

Another example of Dawkins' points is that that children should not be labelled as having a religious denomination, claiming that it is similar to calling a child a `Marxist child.'

Some of the book's detractors claim that it doesn't delve enough into the scriptures, I myself don't believe it delves enough into concept of human nature, but that's not the point of the book. This is a book written primarily to raise consciousness about atheism, and to lay out the broad ill-effects of religion on humanity. In my opinion, Dawkins doesn't need to waste time analysing all the scriptures to get his point across ' that Christians and Jews cherry pick the `nice' passages and stories from the Bible. He doesn't need to because it become quite clear that the criteria upon which they cherry pick is something that both religious and non-religious people possess. Therefore, to say that we get our morals and values from religion is simply wrong.

This book is not written with the same eloquence of The Selfish Gene or the comprehensive analysis of the Blind Watchmaker, rather, it broadly tackles the overwhelming topic of religion, specifically Christianity and Islam. It is written primarily for the American audience, which means (and I don't mean this arrogantly) that some detail probably had to be forgone in favour of more punchy prose.

 This is a tome that should interest any thinking person and propel them into more in-depth study. Books I further recommend to enhance understanding on the topics of evolution and `god' are Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" and Karen Armstrong's very in-depth (but perhaps not user-friendly) "The History of God" respectively.

<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Blind-Watchmaker-Why-the-Evidence-of-Evolution-Reveals-a-Universe-Without-Design/dp/0393315703/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design</a>

<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/A-History-of-God-The-4-000-Year-Quest-of-Judaism-Christianity-and-Islam/dp/0345384563/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam</a>
192604
Though he has received highly virulent criticism for his books and opinions, (I think) Dawkins does a remarkably fair job of presenting his views on religion and god(s).  It is simply a result of the fact that the issue itself causes a great deal of argument and disagreement that it can be difficult to discuss.  Dawkins, however, does a wonderful job in being non-offensive in his remarks - if the evidence requires it, sometimes one cannot avoid being rather blunt in showing it.

If anyone actually takes the time to understand/read his work, one can clearly find a well-reasoned and thoroughly researched argument.  Indeed, in this book, Dawkins continues to present the case in such a way that I am constantly amazed that anyone can persist in disbelieving in evolution.

I find, more often than not, that Dawkins has the ability to present evidence, logic, and (quite simply) common sense in ways that make me say, "yes!  that is exactly how I feel!"
763476
not your ordinary book about atheism. Dawkin's arguments are better than the overrated 5 proofs of Aquinas.
1019897
It is a testament to Richard Dawkin's impecable selection of writings that I ploughed through nearly four-hundred pages of isolated essays and extracts in about a week. His introductions are suitably brief and he understands that a short passage on context and some obligatory praise for the author is enough as these writings largely speak for themselves. Although it is (as has already been mentioned in a few other reviews) a bit heavy on evolutionary biology there is enough variety to keep one happily reading. I should note that another big plus for anyone with a budding interest in science is that Dawkins has put together something of a tasting plate of authors and styles. This book has lead me to the works of Richard Feynman, Daniel Dennett and the heroic Carl Sagan and there are no doubt more to come.
4186368
David Robertson has done a fine job of honing in on the most glaring weaknesses in Richard Dawkins's book THE GOD DELUSION, and subjecting them to the light of reason and logic. It's all done in a non-vitriolic, even light-hearted fashion, but it's very effective. You can tell its significance by the hate mail it has received from Dawkins's disciples.
1664081
I've been rereading Richard Dawkins' books and this one does not disappoint.  It covers a subject very similar to his previous book The Blind Watchmaker about how evolution gradually designs complex creatures.  I would consider this book a supplement to that book.  While this is an excellent book that deserves five stars I give it 4.5 only in relation to The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene.  It doesn't quite rise to the level of those books, but I do highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how evolution can slowly build such complex creatures as ourselves.  The metaphor of Mount Improbable works well.
2658005
Pinker is even more eloquent than Dawkins. This book is written in a style that the average person would found entertaining. For those well versed in evolutionary biology and psychology, this book can be used as a refence book which includes almost all topics in these fields.
938284
This book was fun to read and full of interesting insights.  I've already read it twice and even underlined favorite quotes.  The quotations collected in this book are in fact short arguments in favor of the atheistic perspective, so reading them is an easy way to absorb a great number of pertinent points.  I would highly recommend this as companion reading for anyone who has read and appreciated The God Delusion, Letter To A Christian Nation, or God Is Not Great.  It fills in many of the cracks by providing more historical background and a wider range of arguments for atheism and freethought.
4288445
I am not a scientist, but I am a fan of Dawkins. I think he is one of the most gifted thinkers of our time. I struggled with parts of the book due to my unscientific bent, but overall, I found it an enjoyable read. Dawkins can be really funny and engaging. I would definitely recommend this book.
3709243
This is a must-read book for people like me, non-scientists who might hope there is something more to life than the material world but are baffled (if not downright disheartened) by the atheistic assertions espoused by people like Richard Dawkins.  The problem with issues like the existence of the soul beyond the chemical functions of the brain, or of mankind having a purpose on earth, is that while these are fascinating topics to discuss, you can never really get anywhere as they inevitably end up being purely philosophical.  No matter how eloquently one might speak on man's higher consciousness, the proofs of Aquinas blah blah blah, there will always be a Richard Dawkins in the room sniggering at you and saying "Prove it".  This book really does change that.  In easy, clear, but evidential science, Bruce Lipton takes you with contagious enthusiasm through his own discoveries as a PhD researching in cell biology -- which unexpectedly for him, resulted in his discovery of the energy field holding us all in being.  We don't exist; we are 'existed'.  Furthermore, Lipton proposes that the survival-of-the-fittest model of evolution is, on evidence, flawed; that life evolved because of cooperation between cells, not as a battle for dominance, and that these same principles of cooperation between cells and communities of cells are vital for the health of each individual body.

This is a book I plan to read again, because it has given me enormous confidence to know that there is more and more evidence in science that reveals what I always hoped was not just a silly emotional instinct - that there is a God, even if we don't quite know what that means, and that we are all part of a universal spirit.  In fact, after reading this book, the rantings of the scientific materialists seem silly and old-fashioned.  They won't be able to dishearten me any more.