I havent read the book much though the first few pages i have read seems fascinating.... i intend to finish it as sooooooooooon as possible.......

Be sure to be critical. Think of alternative explanations to the ones that Dawkins proposes. Remember that there is no peer-reviewed scientific paper showing that diety is a delusion. Dawkins does some very bad science in the book.

Dawkins just says what he reckons, based on what he knows.

 

Which is all, anyone, does.

We're having quite a discussion about the same subject in another thread.

Be sure to be critical. Think of alternative explanations to the ones that Dawkins proposes. Remember that there is no peer-reviewed scientific paper showing that diety is a delusion. Dawkins does some very bad science in the book.

Dawkins doesn't do any science in the book. He expresses his opinions, one of which is that people should always be critical of everything they are presented with, rather than just accepting things without question. It's one of the main points of the book.

Dawkins doesn't do any science in the book. He expresses his opinions, one of which is that people should always be critical of everything they are presented with, rather than just accepting things without question. It's one of the main points of the book.

 

Well, he also does try to disprove God in the book too, and states that it is possible to use science to that end. I'm quite fond of his Ultimate Boeing 747 argument in particular.

 

 

But, to the OP, if you do want a book that presents much stronger scientific arguments against God's existence, try also reading God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger.

 

Remember that there is no peer-reviewed scientific paper showing that diety is a delusion.

 

There is no peer-reviewed scientific paper that disprove the existence of a deity, but there certainly is a crap-load of evidence that suggest that belief in a deity (or the supernatural in general) is probably due to the peculiarities of human cognition and the human brain rather than to any "effects" that a supposed deity might have.

 

Which, of course, makes the notion of the actual existence of a god(s), spirits, soul, etc., very questionable.

Well, he also does try to disprove God in the book too, and states that it is possible to use science to that end. I'm quite fond of his Ultimate Boeing 747 argument in particular.

The arguments Dawkins presents in chapter 4 are probabilistic arguments used to demontrate the staggering improbability of God. Dawkins is too much of a scientist ever to attempt to prove the non-existence of a thing. Even the chapter title he uses, 'Why there is almost certainly no God', acknowledges that limitation and residual uncertainty.

Agreed, great book!