|
The God Delusion | 
| Author: Richard Dawkins
Publisher: Mariner Books
Category: Book
List Price: CDN$ 18.95
Buy New: CDN$ 13.83
You Save: CDN$ 5.12 (27%)
Rating:  52 reviews
Sales Rank: 268
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1
Pages: 464
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8 x 5.4 x 1.3
ISBN: 0618918248
Dewey Decimal Number: 211
EAN: 9780618918249
ASIN: 0618918248
Publication Date: December 19, 2007
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 47 more reviews...
 An interesting read March 20, 2008
Behelum (Calgary, Canada)
4 out of 6 found this review helpful
As a person of faith, i did find this book interesting to read and i would encourage other believers to do the same. (i'm sure that most people who follow a religion or believe in a God will not) It's always important to hear other peoples ideas when they are different from yours and also question your own beliefs in the process. Dawkins has some interesting points on morality, how the universe was created, and the affect that religion has on society and children. I guess when your a scientist, there has to be some proof or validity to claims that their is a God and i guess faith just doesnt cut it. I contemplated giving this book 4 stars. For me, I wanted to be convinced that Atheism was a stronger position to have than having a belief in a creator. I still believe that their is a creator of the universe. Atheist will say that if God created the universe, then who created God? Maybe a being that created the universe and the understanding of what a God is is too hard for our minds to comprehend. And the debate continues........
 The Probability that Life Evolved by Random Chance is Zero February 21, 2008
Sports Car Enthusiast
2 out of 24 found this review helpful
If it's 99% certain that an organism will survive after each single mutation, then the probability that it will survive just the first one thousand mutations is (0.99)^1000 = 0.000043 or about one in twenty-five thousand. Scientists like Dawkins know that the odds of a complex molecule like RNA just spontaneously coming into existence is astronomically low so they try to get around the improbability of this by saying that there are countless billions of planets in the universe and earth just happens to be one where pure random chance created our complex ecosystem. Other scientists say that in order for random chance to have created the right combination of physical laws that exist here on earth for sustaining life there would actually need to be an infinite number of universes to produce one planet with just the right combination of laws.
---
"There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe `fine-tuned' for our existence."
"'It's not a testable idea,' says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University. Because the different universes would not be detectable by one another, he says, 'You can't really prove it exists or doesn't exist.' When you talk about multiple universes, Steinhardt says, you're not talking about science anymore. 'In my view, you're into metaphysics.'"
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/dest_pb_test.html
 A Little Strident February 14, 2008
bookweasel (Calgary AB)
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
Dawkins has written a thought provoking and well thought out challenge to religious views. The assembled references and the quoted material are excellent and will drive the reader out to find the referred to works.
My only problem with the book is that its tone of denigration and scorn in some areas is annoying and detracts from the point. Why criticise the evangelical tone of the religious in a similar tone. It is unnecessary.
The humour can be quite good and I believe is the best weapon against the more humourless religions but again the tone detracts.
You do not need a shotgun to deal with the mouse in your kitchen. Or, as Dawkins would no doubt state, do you.
Old Whine - New Bottle January 30, 2008
S. Bowie (Canada)
4 out of 24 found this review helpful
Big hairy deal for Dawkins or is that Darwin? His organization of facile scientifically predicated arguments for the "no God" viewpoint is merely the latest reconstituted philosophical argument for us "moderns" now drawing breath in the 21st century (the vast majority born since the beginning of the last century) and for which ever increasingly do not take Philosophy courses [elective?] in post-secondary schools. His vectored arguments in trying to navigate the currents of complex human psychology and his criticisms of the role capital R - Religions assume in creating a world of turmoil seems to try and engender the same kind of Guilt in religious devotees that he criticizes religion for in the first place. And so it goes. Another spin of the wheel....another circle within a circle. Religious thoughts and beliefs in ALL religions have as their ultimate goal to GET OFF THE WHEEL - of life and death - and are matters of faith impervious to scientific rationalism as presented by any and all Darwins no matter the age. Psych 101 curriculum...Delusions...been there, took that. Spiritual convictions that transcend matter even when encapsulated in the human condition of organizing into "Religion" are always a matter of faith. No argument that the subject of religion as INTERPRETATION of enlightened teachings causes oceans of bloodshed throughout human history - but that is the interpreters problem not the teachers. There's more to meaning than the construction of letters into words. If you want a MUCH better read from a similar "scientific" perspective on the spiritual (God) try: E.F. Schumachers brilliant "A Guide for the Perplexed." By extension of Dawkins soon to be period piece, consider that Science is yet to adequately explain how or why electrons go around a nucleus in the atom...and that in the final analysis they do so because they WANT to. The WANT is the issue and (contrary to Dawkin's position) doesn't deny the underlying fact.
 Outstanding January 18, 2008
Anthony Moss (Ajax, Ontario)
5 out of 7 found this review helpful
An outstanding and thought provoking missive. Dawkins is typically thorough and scientific in his approach, covering all the major counter-arguments to his position.
|
|
|
| |
