The God Delusion
- A Deeply Religious Non-Believer sets up some basic premises for the rest of the book:
- It is not talking about Einsteinian religion
- Religion gets undeserved respect, e.g. unspecified "religious reasons" will trump rational argument every time in a legal setting, even to the point of allowing otherwise illegal activities such as consumption of controlled substances "needed" for a religious ceremony; religious conflicts are often re-branded as "ethnic cleansing" or "inter-community warfare"; etc. Dawkins makes the case that respect for "freedom of religion" is being taken too far.
- The God Hypothesis argues that God's purported existence is a scientific hypothesis about the universe which should be analyzed as skeptically as any other scientific claim.
- Arguments for God's Existence delves into the many arguments for the existence of God advanced throughout the ages, and finds them wanting.
- Why There Almost Certainly Is No God explains how the "design" apparent in the natural world is explained much better by Darwinian natural selection.
- The Roots of Religion explains why religious belief is so ubiquitous.
- The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?
- The 'Good' Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist
- What's Wrong with Religion? Why Be So Hostile? invites the reader "to think about ways in which religion is not such a good thing for the world."
- Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion attempts to raise consciousness about indoctrination of children who are too young to make up their own minds about their beliefs.
- A Much Needed Gap?
- 2009-07-12 [Talk|Index] An annoyed query § “Then the commenter asks, "My question is, did you in fact say that Dawkins uses science to 'entirely preclude God's existence?'"”
- 2009-07-09 [Talk|Index] ''[[Unscientific America]]'' and those awful atheists § “We atheists and scientists have ideas that we are expected to explain and support with evidence, and we are accustomed to being jumped on with sadistic vigor if we fail to provide it. We merely apply the same methodological standards to religion.”
- 2007-03-20 [Talk|Index] Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins § “I know it is the nature of religion that everyone who believes will automatically state that their god sure isn't the complicated caricature of the Bible or the Torah or the Koran and will retreat to the safety of the Ineffable (but Simple) Cosmic Muffin until the bad ol' atheist is out of sight, and then they will pray to Fickle Magic Man for the new raise or that their favorite football team will win, and they will wonder if Righteous Bastard will torture them for eternity if they masturbate. Until that atheist glances their way again... then once more, God is Love, can't get much simpler than that, man, your arguments against that silly version can't touch my faith. It's familiar territory. Get into an argument with someone over Christianity or Islam or any of these dominant faiths, and you'll see them flicker back and forth between the abstract and the real god of their religion â€” their only defense is to present a moving target.”
- 2006-10-19 [Talk|Index] Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching § “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.”
- 2007-03-15 Science, religion and society: Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion: a rather detailed and well-informed exploration
- 2006-10-19 Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching (Terry Eagleton): link to review, plus response to review
- detailed review and summary by Robert Stewart on The Journal of Evolutionary Philosophy web site:
Links cited within the book
- (p215) 2006-05-27 Animal instincts by Richard Conniff