Jump to content

The God Delusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Merovingian (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 9 January 2008 (rv; weasel words). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The God Delusion
AuthorDawkins, Richard
LanguageEnglish
SubjectReligion
GenreScience
PublisherBantam Books
Publication date
2006
Publication placeUnited Kingdom
Media typeHardcover, Paperback, Audio book
ISBNISBN 0-618-68000-4 Parameter error in {{ISBNT}}: invalid character
Preceded byThe Ancestor's Tale 

The God Delusion is a book by British biologist Richard Dawkins, holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's observation that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."[1]

As of November 2007, the English version of The God Delusion had sold over 1.5 million copies and been translated to 31 languages.[2] It was ranked #2 on the Amazon.com bestsellers' list in November 2006.[3][4] In early December 2006, it reached #4 in the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best Seller list after nine weeks on the list.[5] It remained on the list for 51 weeks until September 30, 2007.[6] It has attracted widespread commentary, with several books written in response.

Background

Dawkins had argued against creationist explanations of life in his previous works on evolution. The theme of The Blind Watchmaker, published in 1986, is that evolution can explain the apparent design in nature. In The God Delusion he expands upon this argument against the existence of God.

Dawkins had long wanted to write a book openly criticising religion, but his publisher had advised against it. By the year 2006, his publisher had warmed to the idea. Dawkins attributes this change of mind to "four years of Bush".[7] By that time, a number of authors, including Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, who together with Dawkins were labelled "The Unholy Trinity" by Robert Weitzel, had already written books openly attacking religion.[8] These books did well on best-seller lists, and have spawned an industry of religious responses.[9] According to the Amazon.co.uk website, the book led to a 50% growth in their sales of books on religion and spirituality (including anti-religious books such as The God Delusion and God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) and a 120 per cent increase in the sales of The Bible.[10]

Overview and main themes

Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:

  • Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
  • Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis" — the illusion of intelligent design — in explaining the living world and the cosmos.
  • Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people flinch.
  • Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.[1]

Science and religion: The God Hypothesis

Since there are a number of different theistic ideas relating to the nature of God(s), Dawkins early in the book defines the concept of God that he wishes to address. He coins the term "Einsteinian religion", referring to Einstein's use of "God", as a metaphor for nature or the mysteries of the universe. He makes a distinction between this "Einsteinian religion" and the general theistic idea of God as the creator of the universe who should be worshipped.[11] This becomes an important theme in the book, which he calls the God Hypothesis.[12] He maintains that this idea of God is a valid hypothesis, having effects in the physical universe, and like any other hypothesis can be tested and falsified.[13] Thus, Dawkins rejects the common view that science and religion rule over non-overlapping magisteria.

Existence of God

Dawkins also surveys briefly the main philosophical arguments in favour of God's existence. Of the many philosophical proofs that he discusses, he singles out the Argument from Design for lengthy consideration. Dawkins concludes that evolution by natural selection can explain apparent design in nature.[1]

He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and argues that there are two competing explanations:

  1. A theory involving a designer, that is, postulating a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
  2. A theory that explains how from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.

This is the basic set-up of his argument against the existence of God, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit,[14] where he argues that the first attempt is self-refuting, and the second approach is the way forward.

Roots of religion and morality

Chapter 5 explores the roots of religion and why religion is ubiquitous across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful"[15] as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests[16] that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

In chapter 6 the subject of morality is discussed, with Dawkins maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy. He asks, "would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?" He argues that very few people would answer "yes", undermining the claim that a God is needed to make us behave morally.

The following chapter continues the subject of morality, arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, despite opposition from religious morality, which Dawkins feels is often warped and brutish. He uses examples from the Old Testament in the Bible to illustrate what he sees as the barbarism of much religious "morality", morality that most modern Christians find embarrassing, while still maintaining that the Bible determines their morality.

Influence of religion

Dawkins turns to the question of why he feels so hostile towards religion in Chapter 8, arguing with examples that religion subverts science, fosters fanaticism, encourages bigotry against homosexuals, and influences society in other negative ways. He gives examples of cases where blasphemy laws have been used to sentence people to death, and when funerals of gays or gay sympathisers have been picketed. Dawkins states preachers in the southern portions of the United States used the Bible to justify slavery by claiming Africans were descendants of Noah's sinful son Ham. During the Crusades, "pagans" and "heretics" who would not convert to Christianity were murdered. In an extreme example from modern times, he cites the case of Reverend Paul Hill, who revelled in his self-styled martyrdom: "I expect a great reward in heaven...I am looking forward to glory" he announced as he faced execution for murdering a doctor who performed abortions in Florida, USA.

Dawkins devotes chapter 9 to the "indoctrination" of children. He equates the religious indoctrination of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins wants people to cringe every time somebody speaks of a "Muslim child" or a "Catholic child", wondering how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity's place within it. By contrast, Dawkins observes that no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child".

The final chapter asks whether religion, despite its alleged problems, fills a "much needed gap", giving consolation and inspiration to people who need it. According to Dawkins, these needs are much better filled by non-religious means such as philosophy and science. He argues that an atheistic worldview is life-affirming in a way that religion, with its unsatisfying "answers" to life's mysteries, could never be.

An appendix gives addresses for those "needing support in escaping religion".

Critical reception

The book was nominated for Best Book at the British Book Awards, where Richard Dawkins won the Author of the Year award.[17] It has been controversial, and has provoked responses from both religious and atheist commentators.[18] In the 2007 paperback edition, Dawkins responds to many of the criticisms that these reviewers raise.[19]

Philosophical objections

Main article: Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

Alvin Plantinga,[20] Anthony Kenny,[21] Thomas Nagel,[22] and other philosophers have responded to the arguments of the book about the existence of God. Richard Swinburne has responded to parts of "The God Delusion" that interact with Swinburne's writings.[23]

Alvin Plantinga, an analytic philosopher and author, has published a detailed review titled "The Dawkins Confusion". He says that Dawkins is a brilliant writer but that this book is nothing more than an "extended diatribe [...] and contains little science", claiming that "many of [Dawkins'] arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class." He concentrates on Chapter Four, "Why There Almost Certainly is No God", by saying that Dawkins' argument is that because the universe has so much information in it that a hypothetical creating God would have to be enormously complex and thus enormously improbable. Plantinga claims that Dawkins does not support this assertion and suggests that Dawkins is assuming materialism. Plantinga states that the book's argument "...really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a delusion".[24]

Dawkins' scholarship

Many reviewers were highly critical of Dawkins's lack of scholarship on theology and the philosophy of religion. Dawkins is explicitly dismissive of theology in the God Delusion, and in the words of John Cornwell "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography",[25] going so far as to suggest that "[Dawkins] would substitute a series of case-notes on senile dementia for King Lear."[26] This sentiment was echoed by many reviewers, from theologians, such as Alister McGrath,[27] to scientists otherwise sympathetic to Dawkins's position, such as H. Allen Orr.[28] One of the most emphatic formulation of this objection was by Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books:[29]

What, one wonders, are Dawkins's views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?

Some reviewers, however, praised Dawkins' argumentation. Australian philosopher Russell Blackford wrote that although the rebuttals of theistic arguments are not as extensive as those written by professional philosophers of religion, the book is far from dumbed down:[30]

Dawkins no doubt simplifies at times, or makes debatable points; importantly, however, he does not mislead the reader or commit any obvious blunders (at least, I could find none). This is extraordinarily impressive in a work of such vast ambition and interdisciplinary scope.

Dawkins himself replies to the charge of inadequate scholarship in the preface to the new edition of the book. He states that he only considered thinkers who actually argue for God's existence, rather than just assume it, and asks, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"[31] He endorses PZ Myers' analogy of the "Courtier's reply",[32] that being expected to debate the finer points of religious scholarship as an atheist is like having to have read learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear before claiming that the Emperor is, in fact, naked.[33]

Polemicism

The physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, writing in Nature, says that although a "fan" of Dawkins's science writing, he wishes that Dawkins "had continued to play to his strengths". Krauss suggests that an unrelenting attack upon people's beliefs might be less productive than "positively demonstrating how the wonders of nature can suggest a world without God that is nevertheless both complete and wonderful." Krauss is disappointed by the first part of the book, but quite positive about the latter part starting from Dawkins's discussion of morality. He remarks, "Perhaps there can be no higher praise than to say that I am certain I will remember and borrow many examples from this book in my own future discussions." In particular, he praises the treatment of religion and childhood, although refraining from using the term "child abuse" himself.[34]

Writing in the Guardian, Stephen D. Unwin, author of The Probability of God, which is the focus of Dawkins' criticisms of Bayesian methods for the proof of God's existence, notes that Dawkins' views are "hardly shocking as certainty is the position of almost all participants in the God debate."[35]

Skeptic Michael Shermer, describes the book as "a powerful polemic against the infusion of religion into nearly every nook and cranny of public life." But Shermer considers The God Delusion much more than a polemic. He stresses the consciousness raising messages of the book, and praises its latter part, describing the closing chapter as "a tribute to the power and beauty of science, which no living writer does better." However, he was put off by the provocative title and Dawkins' derogatory references to religious believers. Also, he is not convinced by Dawkins' argument that without religion, there would be "no suicide bombings, no 9/11, ...", suggesting that many of the evils that atheists attribute to religion alone are primarily driven by political motives. Nevertheless, he concludes that the book "deserves multiple readings, not just as an important work of science, but as a great work of literature."[36]

Joan Bakewell reviewed the book for The Guardian, stating "Dawkins comes roaring forth in the full vigour of his powerful arguments, laying into fallacies and false doctrines", and suggesting that it is a timely book: "These are now political matters. Around the world communities are increasingly defined as Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and living peaceably together is ever harder to sustain....Dawkins is right to be not only angry but alarmed. Religions have the secular world running scared. This book is a clarion call to cower no longer."[37]

Michael Skapinker in the Financial Times, while finding that "Dawkins' attack on the creationists is devastatingly effective", considers him "maddeningly inconsistent." He argues that, since Dawkins accepts that current theories about the universe (such as quantum theory) may be "already knocking at the door of the unfathomable" and that the universe may be "not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose", "the thought of how limited our comprehension is should introduce a certain diffidence into our attempted refutations of those who think they have the answer".[38]

Mary Wakefield writes in the Daily Telegraph that Dawkins fails to understand why people believe in God, adding, "I'll eat my Sunday hat if this book persuades even the most hesitant half-believer to renounce religion".[39]

To the claim that the book is written as a polemic, and that Dawkins is being shrill and intolerant, he argues that this only seems to be so in comparison with most discussions on the subject of religion. Religion is traditionally seen as a subject that should be discussed in extremely polite terms, but Dawkins does not understand why it should receive such a special status. He compares his work with restaurant reviews to show that his writing is not rude in comparison.[19]

Over the charge that his book is only likely to be read by atheists and is unlikely to convince anyone to change their mind, Dawkins says that many people are secretly interested in atheism but are worried about admitting to this and discussing it. He also says that, even if his book were only to be read by atheists, it could still provide for an exchange of ideas.[19]

Religion as consolation or source of evil

Andrew Brown writes a critical review titled "Dawkins the dogmatist" in Prospect in which he considers that "In his broad thesis, Dawkins is right. Religions are potentially dangerous, and in their popular forms profoundly irrational". He criticises, however, the assertion that "atheists ... don't do evil things in the name of atheism" and notes that "under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood were exterminated simply for being priests." Furthermore, he cites Robert Pape[40] that religious zealotry is neither necessary nor sufficient for suicide bombers, and concludes that the book is "one long argument from professorial incredulity."[41]

Nobel-prize winning biologist David Baltimore welcomes the book in American Scientist as a reaction to the irrationality that he sees in US social and political life. Religion dominates the news, he writes, be it jihad, opposition to stem-cell research, or teaching intelligent design. He finds the title of The God Delusion worth savoring as it conveys the core of Dawkins' argument, and the book worth reading for its wide-ranging discussion of religion. However, he states that while Dawkins' arguments against religion are much based on evolution, Dawkins doesn't come to terms with the "many scientists who believe both that evolution is a natural process over billions of years and that there is a God". Thus, Baltimore maintains that the focus of the book is on those who disbelieve evolution and are therefore fundamentalists. In conclusion, he says he is glad that Dawkins wrote this book at a time when religious tolerance is giving way to an increasingly pervasive assumption that Christianity is the state religion of the United States.[42]

Marek Kohn in The Independent suggests that in this book "passions are running high, arguments are compressed and rhetoric inflated. The allusion to Chamberlain, implicitly comparing religion to the Nazi regime, is par for the course." He also argues that "another, perhaps simpler, explanation for the universality and antiquity of religion is that it has conferred evolutionary benefits on its practitioners that outweigh the costs. Without more discussion, it is not clear that Dawkins's account should be preferred to the hypothesis that religion may have been adaptive in the same way that making stone tools was."[43]

In the Daily Telegraph, Kenan Malik commends Dawkins' intellectual case for atheism, but believes that Dawkins misunderstands what makes religion attractive to believers, and exaggerates its role in modern conflicts. Malik is skeptical that a world without religion, as John Lennon asks us to imagine, would be as utopian as Dawkins paints it. He concludes by stating "if you want an understanding of evolution or an argument for atheism, there are few better guides than Richard Dawkins. But treat with extreme caution the pronouncements of any one who takes his political cue from an ex-Beatle."[44]

Daniel Dennett, a prominent American philosopher and author, wrote a review for Free Inquiry, where he states that he and Dawkins agree about most matters, "but on one central issue we are not (yet) of one mind: Dawkins is quite sure that the world would be a better place if religion were hastened to extinction and I am still agnostic about that." In Dennett's view many "avowedly religious people" are actually atheist, but find religious metaphors and rituals useful. However, he applauds Dawkins's effort to "raise consciousness in people who are trapped in a religion and can't even imagine life without it." He continues by stating his regret that neither he himself nor Dawkins deal with theist arguments as patiently as they might, noting that "Serious argument depends on mutual respect, and this is often hard to engender when disagreements turn vehement", but concludes by suggesting that "Perhaps some claims should just be laughed out of court."[45]

Dawkins repeats his long-standing opposition to the argument that the masses need religion. He considers it to be patronising and elitist to hold that intellectuals can be trusted with atheism but the majority of people need to believe in religion. Dawkins has been involved in the popularisation of science, and he believes that this is a much better support for society than religion.[19]

Moderate religion and fundamentalism

Writing in Harper's, Pulitzer Prize winning novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson criticises the "pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's view of science," with particular reference to scientific eugenic theories and practices. She argues that Dawkins has a superficial knowledge of the Bible and accuses him of comparing only the best of science with the worst of religion: "if religion is to be blamed for the fraud done in its name, then what of science? Is it to be blamed for the Piltdown hoax, for the long-credited deceptions having to do with cloning in South Korea? If by 'science' is meant authentic science, then 'religion' must mean authentic religion, granting the difficulties in arriving at these definitions." Robinson suggests that Dawkins' arguments are not properly called scientific but are reminiscent of logical positivism, notwithstanding Dawkins' "simple-as-that, plain-as-day approach to the grandest questions, unencumbered by doubt, consistency, or countervailing information."[46]

The Economist praised the book: "Everyone should read it. Atheists will love Mr Dawkins's incisive logic and rapier wit and theists will find few better tests of the robustness of their faith. Even agnostics, who claim to have no opinion on God, may be persuaded that their position is an untenable waffle." The review focuses on Dawkins's critiques of the influence of religion upon politics and the use of religion to insulate political positions from criticism. "The problem, as Mr. Dawkins sees it, is that religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion."[47]

To those who claim that Dawkins misrepresents religious people and argue that fanatics are a small minority, Dawkins replies that this is not true, and that intolerant fanatics have huge influence in the world.[19]

Dawkins has been described as an "atheist fundamentalist". He rejects this label, saying fundamentalism implies a belief system that is impervious to change, while his atheism is based on the scientific method of reasoning. He says that if new scientific evidence were found that disproved evolution, then he would willingly give up his belief in evolution and natural selection.[19]

In Turkey, as of late November 2007, a prosecutor has launched a probe into whether The God Delusion is "an attack on religious values". The Turkish publisher and translator, Erol Karaaslan, has said he would be questioned by an Istanbul prosecutor as part of the official investigation into the book. Karaaslan could face trial and up to one year in prison if the prosecutor concludes that the book "incites religious hatred" and insults religious values.[48]

See also

Related work — sharing Dawkins' view
Related work — responding to the God Delusion

References

  1. ^ a b c Dawkins, Richard. Preface The God Delusion.
  2. ^ "Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism". Richard Dawkins at Point of Inquiry. 8 December, 2007. Retrieved 8 December. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Amazon.com book page - search for sales rank for current position
  4. ^ Jamie Doward (2006-10-29). "Atheists top book charts by deconstructing God". The Observer. Retrieved 2006-11-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ "Hardcover Nonfiction - New York Times". Retrieved 2006-12-02.
  6. ^ "The God Delusion One-Year Countdown". RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
  7. ^ Dawkins, Richard. "Richard Dawkins explains his latest book". RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-09-14.
  8. ^ Weitzel, Robert. "Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris: The Unholy Trinity... Thank God". Atlantic Free Press. Retrieved 2007-09-14.
  9. ^ "The Fleas Are Multiplying!". RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-09-11.
  10. ^ Smith, David. "Believe it or not: the sceptics beat God in bestseller battle". The Observer. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
  11. ^ The God Delusion, page 13
  12. ^ The God Delusion, page 31
  13. ^ The God Delusion, page 50.
  14. ^ The God Delusion, page 114
  15. ^ "The general theory of religion as an accidental by-product - a misfiring of something useful - is the one I wish to advocate", The God Delusion, page 188
  16. ^ "the purpose of this section is to ask whether meme theory might work for the special case of religion" (italics in original, referring to one of the 5 sections of Chapter 5), The God Delusion, page 191
  17. ^ "Winners & Shortlists 2007". Galaxy British Book Awards. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  18. ^ This latter kind of criticism, Dawkins has called "I'm an atheist buttery". Dawkins, Richard. "I'm an atheist, BUT..." RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  19. ^ a b c d e f Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion", Black Swan, London, 2007. p.13-22
  20. ^ Alvin Plantinga (2007). "The Dawkins Confusion - Naturalism ad absurdum". Books & Culture, a Christian Review. Retrieved 2007-03-02.
  21. ^ Kenny, Anthony (July 2007). "Knowledge, Belief, and Faith". Philosophy. 82 (03): 381–397.
  22. ^ Nagel, Thomas. "The Fear of Religion". The New Republic. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  23. ^ Richard Swinburne. Response to Richard Dawkins's comments on my writings in his book The God Delusion. Accessed 23 July 2007.
  24. ^ Alvin Plantinga (2007). "The Dawkins Confusion - Naturalism ad absurdum". Books & Culture, a Christian Review. Retrieved 2007-03-02.
  25. ^ John Cornwell. "A question of respect". Times Online. Retrieved 2006-11-06.
  26. ^ John Polkinghorne. "The truth in religion". The Times Literary Supplement. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
  27. ^ Alister McGrath Review called "The Dawkins Delusion"
  28. ^ H. Allen Orr (January 2007). "A Mission to Convert". New York Review of Books (54.1). Retrieved 2007-03-03.
  29. ^ Terry Eagleton (2006-10-19). "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching". London Review of Books. 28 (20). Retrieved 2006-11-26.
  30. ^ Russell Blackford (2007). "The God Delusion (Review)". Cosmos Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-08.
  31. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2007-09-17). "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?". RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
  32. ^ Myers, PZ (2006-12-24). "The Courtier's Reply". Retrieved 2007-07-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  33. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2007-05-12). "How dare you call me a fundamentalist". Retrieved 2007-07-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  34. ^ Lawrence M. Krauss. "Sermons and straw men". The Official Richard Dawkins Website. Retrieved 2006-11-06.
  35. ^ Dawkins Needs to Show Some Doubt, Stephen D. Unwin, The Guardian, 9/29/2006
  36. ^ Michael Shermer (2007-01-26). "Arguing for Atheism". Science. 315 (5811). Retrieved 2007-03-15. Also available here, second review on page.
  37. ^ Joan Bakewell (2006-09-23). "Judgement day". The Guardian. Retrieved 2006-11-26. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  38. ^ Michael Skapinker. "Matter and Faith". Financial Times. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
  39. ^ Mary Wakefield (2006-10-22). "God only knows who's right or wrong". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2006-12-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  40. ^ Dying to Win by Robert Pape
  41. ^ Andrew Brown (October 2006). "Dawkins the dogmatist". Prospect (127). Retrieved 2006-11-26.
  42. ^ A Defense of Atheism
  43. ^ Marek Kohn (2006-09-29). "Smashing the sacred teapot". Retrieved 2006-11-26.
  44. ^ Kenan Malik (2006-10-08). "I don't believe in Richard Dawkins". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2006-12-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  45. ^ Daniel Dennett (2006-10-16). "Review of Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion" (PDF). Free Inquiry. 27 (1). Retrieved 2006-12-05. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  46. ^ Marilynne Robinson The God Delusion Harper's Magazine, November, 2006
  47. ^ "Misbegotten sons". The Economist. 2006-09-21. Retrieved 2006-11-26. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  48. ^ "Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book". AP, CNN. 28 November 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-28. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_God_Delusion&oldid=183092933"