Elegant wit. Who else can credibly condescend to Richard Dawkins?
581453
This book is thoroughly entertaining, wonderful for broadening what an educated American considers an already broad vocabulary, and displays an encyclopedic knowledge of his extraordinarily broad subject matter.  In this instance the puffery on the book's dust jacket stands up. It is a wonderful read by almost every measure.

Ferdinand Mount distinguishes himself as a model British gentlemen, erudite, effortlessly witty, and amazingly well-informed. He has taken an almost impossibly broad topic, the history of morals and mores over the past three millennia, and made it hang together beautifully. You might call it the sandwich of Christianity, with the meat of two millennia during which man was regarded as primarily spiritual, bookended by the modern and classical eras during which the pleasures of this life have been the uppermost or even the only considerations.

He comments on many fascinating events in classical times of which us moderns, lacking  both education in the classics and sufficient interest to acquire same, are almost wholly ignorant.  He draws parallels between our own cults of the body, the bath and food and those of the Greeks and Romans, and even more interesting, on the parallels between the manner of thinking of moderns and ancients in the realms of science, religion, art, and celebrity. His treatments of the cults of Jade Goody and Hadrian's gay lover Antinous are absolutely engrossing.

Mount is that kind of old-school British writer who does not spare his reader a bit of work with the Oxford English Dictionary. Some small part of the difficulty is that usages vary across the Atlantic, but the larger issue is simply that he is extraordinarily facile with words. In every paragraph there is at least one sentence in which his unexpected but delicious selection of words stands out like the herb which you cannot identify in your souffl, but which makes all the difference.

My favorite part of the book concerns the "Anti-God Botherers" such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett who are so strident in their attacks on religion. Why? Mount suspects, as I do, that it is more than the litany of historical crimes which may be credited to various tyrants who called themselves believers. He notes that the bloodiest wars in history, those of the 20th century, had nothing to do with religion.

Mount asks for a more nuanced view than the anti-God botherers seem capable of sustaining, namely that religion and science belong to different realms. He points out that every science, including mathematics, the most pure, bases itself on a prioris, axioms which cannot be proven. In his closing chapter he cites, as is his wont, an obscure but highly pertinent philosopher, Vaihinger, an interpreter of Immanuel Kant who pursues the philosophy of "what if?" Given that the tools of logic cannot irrefutably establish anything, scientific or Christian or whatever, why not accept some credo which satisfies the needs of the individual for a foundation to order one's life, and which appears to satisfy Kant's criterion that it can be generalized without leading to contradictions?  Mount would advocate giving Christianity some consideration. The recent reissue of "Family and Civilization," by Prof. Carle Zimmerman, examines what happens when we don't.  Mount would (politely) advocate that you consider, if not believing, at least behaving as if you do.
4437678
This book contains a set of well thought out logical flaws in Richard Dawkins popular book.  The author puts these together in a very readable, yet equally well-documented format.  He backs up his claims with references.  When quoting Dawkins, he includes references to specific pages, so that the skeptical reader can check that quotes are not taken out of context.  He is not making a case for Christianity, but instead demonstrates Dawkins continual lack of scholarship in the book, which is surprising given Dawkins' credentials.  I would recommend this to anyone who has read Dawkins book and wants a quick summary of an opposing argument to Dawkins claims.
983984
Richard Dawkins tells it "like it is".  Dealing with and brilliantly refuting the ancient, yet still overbearing, concept of some "holy entity" (God?) is something Dawkins is extremely adept at.  His discussions on the history of life and natural selection should convince any reader of the true "creation."
3198124
While Dawkins and Hitchens are both authors with a neat style and acerbic wit, Stenger strikes to the heart of the matter. Is or isn't absence of evidence evidence of absence? Taking his forte, he wears away at the deliberately confusing arguments apologists use to dilute what cosmology really teaches.
833632
I read and love everything by Richard Dawkins.  Including this.  We may not have him around much longer.  He suffered a stroke and shortly afterward he and Lalla Ward split "amicably."  He's in his mid-70's.  He's a world treasure in my opinion.
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.
1780702
James Delingpole is a genius. So many books have been written about the groupthink disease known as Irrational Belief in "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" (CAGW) that it's somewhat difficult to find an original angle - and to be funny in the process. Well, James Delingpole has conquered these twin journalistic peaks and placed his standard proudly atop them. With dark humour and razor-sharp wit, he dissects the case for religious belief in CAGW, and exposes the dark underbelly of left-wing motivations. That is, misanthropy on a global scale.

This is not to say that James' book is frivolous for being very, very funny. Far from it. There is plenty of scientific meat in the book and lots of facts about which the CAGW catastrophists would rather you didn't hear. It's just that James has managed that difficult proposition: writing wittily about a deadly serious subject. James employs the fully armoury of the accomplished wit: irony, satire, faux self-deprecation and much else besides, as he takes you hurtling along on a rollicking ride through just about all you need to know to understand the motivations of the loony-left with respect to CAGW; and if you are a member of the loony left, to whip you into shape and shake you out of your groupthink trance (if you're open to that, that is).

There is one passage in Chapter Five where James, in hilarious self-deprecating style, compares his scientific `achievements' with those of The Royal Society. I haven't laughed so much at something written in a book since I read Steve Martin's send-up of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (The "Schrodinger's Cat" chapter) in his book "Pure Drivel". (That was pure genius).

I heartily recommend this book to all-comers. If you are a climate sceptic your understanding of the issues will be augmented and you'll have a load of fun as the book barrels along. If you are a "true believer" prepare to be challenged. Delingpole makes some killer points and leaves few exits for the cornered CAGW acolyte. Read his book if you dare. See how you come out the other side. If nothing else you will be mightily entertained; and, in an ideal world, you will come around to the view that facts and reproducible science trump how you may "feel" about this issue. No place for feelers here. Just the facts M'am: delivered with wit, panache and veracity rather than verisimilitude.
3535042
I found The God Delusion to be both pleasant and thought-provocative.  Its the second book on atheism that Ive actually read (the other being Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith).  The God Delusion is written from the perspective of a brilliant scientist who asks the question, Is the existence of God a scientifically testable question?  It quickly comes to the conclusion that it is, and then proceeds to analyze it scientifically.  Using really just one line of argument, he quickly concludes that Gods existence (however you may choose to define God) is highly improbable.  He finds his main argument quite convincing and doesnt go through the tedious exercise of going through other arguments and counterarguments, so if an exhaustive treatise on the existence of God is what you are looking for, this book isn't for you.

A main focus of the book is to examine and discuss the nature of belief in religion by humans the way a biologist would discuss the peculiarity of any given biological organism.  More broadly, he goes into some detail to explain his naturalistic view of the world (e.g. the beginning of the universe, abiogenesis and evolution), and explains why he finds this much more likely than the scientific theory that God must have done it.  Discussing the details of his scientific views on this is one of the main strength of the book.

Of course he finishes with the obligatory examination of whether religious belief is a net benefit to society, the psychological needs that religion fulfills, and whether those needs can be fulfilled without religion.  On several of these points, he takes a somewhat measured tone of a scientist speaking outside of his field of expertise.

I happened to listen to the audio version of the book rather than reading a paper copy.  The book was read by Richard Dawkins himself, along his wife Lalla Ward.  Hearing it in their own voices in their delightful British accents added depth and complexity to the tone.  Sometimes the actual words seem angry and mean, but hearing it in their own voices, it comes as warm, carrying, and humanistic, if not at times frank and impassioned.  I have a feeling that lots of people think and feel pretty-much the way he does on these topics, yet are too polite and timid to express it.
235248
A deep thinking mind, concerned with the misdirected folly of society. He uses the most subtle humor to expose the extreme foolishness of the anointed. Including, but not limited to politicians, media, and intellectuals.  .....perhaps even ourselves.
3202870
Richard Dawkins certainly won few friends among the zealous with his fiery attacks on religion of the past several years, and though he holds back from too much excoriation of those particular wounds, his masterfully argued case for the truth of evolution is little more likely to win any of them over.  Dawkins says he IS trying to reach the 'history-deniers' (shortly after a just but none-too-diplomatic comparison to holocaust denial): "But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some...and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case."  As a student of the physical sciences with a deep passion for truth and concern for the integrity of science education in our public schools, I find myself squarely in this category.  I have absorbed the science of evolution piecemeal over my life, but I had yet to make an effort to go over the evidence methodically.  This is just the book I had been waiting for a science writer as gifted as Dawkins to write.

Dawkins' literary talent shines through with excellent analogies and eccentric wit.  He puts to rest misconceptions as to the nature of scientific truth, the meaning of 'transitional forms', patterns of genetic inheritance, and the relation of 'micro' to 'macro' evolution.  I have encountered most of the major pieces before, but it was edifying to see them all lined up in logical succession and joined into a coherent whole.  Of particular value to me were detailed descriptions of the Lenski E.coli experiments as an example contrary to the notion of 'irreducible complexity' and a clarification of the genomic evidence on the relations between species.

I needed no convincing when I started reading, but I tried to be as skeptical as possible and try to think of alternate explanations as I went along.  By the end I had put to rest the nagging feeling that I hadn't really deliberated the evidence.  Admittedly, the exercise reminded me a bit of when I had to write a detailed proof that a + b = b + a.  I was also sobered by the sad reality that few, if any convinced creationists, would be persuaded.  For theirs is a theory that not only can explain the evidence as it actually exists, but also the evidence that doesn't exist, or anything at all, by rendering it unto the work of a God beyond all understanding.

As a comprehensive introduction to the evidence of evolution, I suggest reading this book along with Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True".  If you only have time for one, then Dawkins' book is better for the depth of explanation and clarification of common confusions, while Coyne's is more concise and is particularly illuminating on the crucial point of speciation.
3069285
This book is very well written, pithy and ironic, obviously well informed in a variety of subjects, The author presents himself as a secular Jew considering the arguments of the present atheists, particularly Dawkins.
139777
Richard Dawkins is brilliant.  Because he writes so clearly, his colleagues and students learn from him with ease; because he writes so entertainingly, they thoroughly enjoy the learning process.  In Grafen and Ridley's compendium, other scientists who have benefited from Dawkins' brilliance build on his work, and provide important commentary and instruction on how to think and reason.
1085594
This book easily Destroys Dawkins and makes him look like a silly fool. A MUST READ!
2123164
I'd like to point out a new book that I think is interesting and worth a look.  It is called "The Insulted Trilobite: some helpful objections to the God Delusion" and it is by the pseudonymous J. A. Posner, and obviously the intended audience is the Atheist and Skeptics community.

Simply put, Poster Fisked Dawkins, and produced this book.  Not exactly that, but close.  I think there should be more books like this out there.  You read a book, make a detailed response as you go along, and publish it as another book.  I look forward to Dawkins' counter-Fisk.

Posner embodies in this work a lot of objections to The God Delusion that we find in the part of the Atheist and Skeptics community that aligns with the social sciences and humanities, but that are often not developed, I think partly because people are happy to have a big famous scientist write a big famous book supporting their overall belief system.  Also, if you say something like "belief is a thing humans do, deal with it" many Dawkins-symps will yell at you, even though this is something Dawkins Himself has said.

When you read The Insulted Trilobite you'll want to have a copy of The God Delusion handy unless you've just read it.  It might have been nicer to have the original text being critiques IN the book but copyright laws may have made that difficult.

I especially enjoyed the discussion of religion as a side effect of the evolution of the human mind during the Paleolithic.  Dawkins clearly got that wrong, and though I'm not sure I'm in agreement with Posner, his critique of Dawkins is refreshing.  (Page 70 and beyond in my copy, and extensive discussion in the last chapter, especially.)  I also enjoyed Posner's discussion of belief.  Very anthropological.
266282
Professor Grene is a charming companion, witty, clear and unassuming in her prose. This is quite an achievement when her subject matter concerns nothing less than the most intractable epistemological and metaphysical issues in the history of Western thought and such figures as Kant, Heidegger (with whom she studied as a very young woman), and Jaspers (with whom she also studied). Her life stories are cleverly woven into this highly abstruse discussion.
Her book is an attempt to say "where we are and where we should be" in epistemology and what might be called the theory of the person. Logic chopping, analytical philosophers searching for intellectual figure eights will be disappointed, the rest of us are heartened by her chastisement of the empiricist tradition, her fresh readings of Kant and Heidegger, and her adoption of an unflinching attitude of "confrontation" with regard to the knowledge question. There is no attempt to evade the real difficulties of her subject.
Read this book and you will learn a lot about epistemology -- and you will also smile a great deal.
2962711
This is the first part of Richard Dawkins' memoir which initially takes us through his early years with his loving family in Africa. When he is eight, an unlikely inheritance sees them the owners of a farm in England and the family returns to the UK where his education continues with boarding school, Oundle (chosen, oddly, for its workshop) and then scraping into Balliol (to which he fails to win a scholarship). After two years in California at the height of 'flower-power', he returns to Oxford as a lecturer in zoology. Much of his educational life will be familiar territory to anyone who has read about prominent well-educated Englishmen of a certain age.

During his happy boyhood years, there were no particular signs of genius - as Richard Dawkins himself would be the first to admit - though he was clearly a clever boy. There is also little in this period to point to the controversial figure he was to become, other than a refusal in his mid-teens to kneel in chapel. The author comes across as a remarkably modest and considerate man (American readers may appreciate his thoughtful explanations of English colloquialisms). Also a generous one: he is magnanimous in his praise of his tutors and colleagues. He explains some of his research work and tries to make it understandable for his audience but it is largely incomprehensible to the lay reader - or at least to this one! His personal life and his innermost feelings are hardly touched upon which will doubtless leave readers feeling a little short-changed. This is more of a memoir about the work than the man.

The book finishes with the publication of&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Selfish-Gene/dp/0192860925/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Selfish Gene</a>&nbsp;and I do hope we will not have to wait too long to discover the life-changing effect this book was to have on him.
2533152
Like the Dawkins book I read and reviewed, Hitchens makes a lot of good points, but has even more venom for religion that Dawkins!  Atheists will love the book, religious people will be insulted.  He is not kind to religion at all.