Warning: This post was published more than 10 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 10 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
Allow me to start by saying that I truly believe that Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest popular science writers around today (and, of course, one of the world’s leading thinkers and scientists). But he’s not so good as a writer on religion. And I’m saying this as someone sympathetic to his cause.
The points in his book are not bad per sé, it’s just that the book reads like 416 pages of obsessive rant rather than considered explanation. I don’t like being preached to, and (somewhat ironically) that’s how this book feels. He doesn’t really manage to say an awful lot more in 416 pages than he managed in a single article for Prospect.
That said, the book does provide some food for thought. But, when all is said and done, Dawkins claims his purpose for this book was to convince religious people that God didn’t exist. I don’t believe this book will achieve that aim. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s worth a read.