After gobbling it up, it left a bitter taste., 02 Sep 2008
As an atheist myself, I relished the coming of Dawkins' take on atheist theory. I wondered how he would tackle it. I found myself enjoying the flow of the book and reached the end with a few new interesting arguments and ideas (hadn't heard of his meme idea before, sounds like a bit of a dangerous oversimplification to me and a bit of a slap in the face of anthropologists and developmental psychologists) BUT at the end something didn't sit right. A bit like that feeling a few hours before you realise you are about to be violently ill after eating something dodgy. You can't quite put your finger on it. I wasn't happy.

After reading it again, slower this time, I realised it was a combination of unsettling feelings - The feeling that I had just been yelled at for several hours by an angry, red-faced little man, the feeling that someone had just insulted the intelligence of some of my best friends, the feeling that I had just read an argument on the fundamentals of modern theology in the style of an impassioned Daily Mail columnist (OH WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) and the feeling that my own personal quest for some bloody answers and help with religious philosophy was no further forward.

From my own limited experience, I have seen science (especially medical science) is prone to fashions and fads. More often than not the fascinating ebb and flow of scientific development is driven by enthusiasts, and then substantiated or refuted by a collection of careful objective analyses drawn together from other parties. It has taught me to welcome the passionate argument (for without it we will never advance our way of thinking) but also to never trust anyone with unshakable strongly held convictions. There is something out there he just hasn't thought of.

Nietzsche said "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." But then again, Louisa May Alcott, who wrote Little Women, and was a transcendentalist, abolitionist feminist (now that's a lot of convictions!), apparently said; "He who believes is strong; he who doubts is weak. Strong convictions precede great actions." So maybe I'm wrong on the whole thing. Oh dash my weak doubting mind. Thanks a lot Dawkins, now look what you have done!

Anyway, to conclude my ramble, I would recommend that everyone should read this book, even though many won't like it. It is a very important book of our times and has really ruffled some feathers. It has generated such debate that you will feel academically redundant if you haven't read it and it comes up in conversation. It will not change your life as Dawkins hopes it will. If you have read it and you think it has changed your life, I would respond to the bitter taste in the back of your throat and read it again. And whatever you do, don't let it be the only book you ever read on the subject. He may now be the most well known author to write about atheism, it doesn't make him the best.

Enjoy the search.


Not wanting to start a debate here, but this is complete drivel., 02 Sep 2008
Attempting to look at this from a non-religious point of view (myself being a practicing high Anglican), I must say that having read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", I found the book to be poorly structured, rambling and incredibly one sided.

I had never read any of Professor Dawkins' books before this, but when I did I was not surprised to find that his written persona is almost as irritating as his television persona. When on telivision he will face his opponent in a debate and tell them (usually) that they are deluded, therefore wrong, therefore stupid, rather than explaining his own views to them. This book is no different; Professor Dawkins has formed no argument whatsoever and reaches no conclusion by the end of it. Whilst some may consider this book a "masterpiece", all it is effectively is a 400 page rant by one of the most egocentric scholars that the world has produced.

The book itself isn't even that interesting either. The first three chapters are littered with Professor Dawkins saying how "In this book I am going to disprove the existance of God", or variants thereof. From that it seems that instead of deciding on a question to answer and then gathering views to fuel a discussion, he seems to have decided upon the answer to the question before he has written the book, making it so incredibly one-sided that it is difficult to convince yourself that this is an Oxford Professor writing.

I say in this review that Professor Dawkins has formed no argument in this book. Some may disagree with me, however, but it is painfully obvious that he hasn't. Indeed, the entire book is riddled with quotes from other people that he has copied into his book. I can not honestly say that, having read this book, I feel Professor Dawkins has created a well-structured, "truthful" argument if he is using other people's words.

What I find most irritating about this book is the collection of theories by which Professor Dawkins attempts to disprove the existance of God. These theories seem to be none other than what he thinks is wrong with religion and those who practice them (or even just a few religious fanatics). He seems to think this is sufficient grounds for his views, and by these attempts to justifiy his outspoken hostility.

I borrowed this book from a friend, and I must say I'm glad I did, as I would have regretted spending my own money on this rubbish. I'm not pretending I know all the answers, but it seems to me that Richard Dawkins generally feels that anything that rolls off his tongue is undeniable fact and that it is the be-all-and-end-all. This book is no exception to this.

Needless to say, I was not convinced.

A Tough, Controversial Subject Made Approachable and Digestable, 02 Sep 2008
No doubt, this is a controversial book. But, it is controversial only for those who disagree with Dawkins' explanations or do not have an open mind or both. What I enjoyed about the book is that Richard Dawkins is an excellent and very readable writer. He presents his ideas and explanations in a way that do not have to be offensive but can be stimulating if you are willing to accept that the true answers may not be known by anyone. I like how his style of writing creates almost a serenity in accepting the unknown. No one can stop you from finding joy in belief. But, it is important to understand what you believe and why. It is important to also understand where the pitfalls in those beliefs might be.

I think, for anyone who has a religion, it is important to not become complacent with your faith and accept everything at face value. Faith isn't faith if it is done by rote.

That Dawkins challenges these beliefs and gives explanations for where they originate and why people need religion can help people to be stronger in their faith, if that is what they choose. Or, if they choose, they can evaluate how they have come to believe what they believe and find out if it is really the truth for them? Or are they living someone else's lie?

Reading this book is a step towards authenticity in living and faith. If faith cannot stand up to examination and challenge and logic, then it is not really faith at all.

Excellent book! Highly recommended for those who have an open mind or are prepared to open their minds.

Must read, 01 Sep 2008
I have read several of Dawkins' books. I generally like them, and one of his great strengths is that he is capable of explaining complex concepts with great clarity. I fall short of calling myself a fan, but this is not the place to discuss the reasons for that.
I really enjoyed reading this book, and purchased multiple copies to give away as Christmas and birthday presents. I did not give copies to any of my Christian friends, and I can understand why Christians might be offended by it's tone, which is somewhat irreverant. However, I think that is what makes it so entertaining.

One of the main criticisms levelled at this book is that it is less scholarly than his earlier works. That is true, but again that is one of the reasons I like it so much. It does not attempt to be scholarly, which I find very refreshing. If I were to criticise, I would point out that it has nothing new to say. There is absolutely nothing here that has not been said before. In fact, one of the reasons I like this book so much is that many of the points raised are the kind of questions I put to my RE teachers when I was at school, XX years ago. These questions were never answered to my satisfaction, and I was dismissed as an impudent schoolboy (which I was). The whole point is that these long-standing issues have still not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner, and are continually ignored. However, when someone with the intellectual credibility of Richard Dawkins raises them, it is not so easy to ignore them.

I do not agree with every arguement in this book. I personally know people who take a great deal of comfort from their religious beliefs, and it is that comfort which is important rather than whether their beliefs are correct or not. I can think of nothing to be gained by trying to take that away from them. I would be happy to enter into a debate with Dawkins over whether religion is a bad thing, because I do think he is quite blinkered in this matter. However, if he moderated his views, it would make for a less interesting debate, and a less evocative read.

I am currently reading some of the books published in response to the God Delusion, none of which, so far, are significantly more scholarly than Dawkins book. But at least a debate is being had, and I am enjoying reading all sides of that debate.

Fantastic Read, 26 Aug 2008
This is one of Dawkins best books by far, and one which I have now read several times. I would highly recomend to anybody interested in clear logical arguments for the non existance of the supernatural god character.

After gobbling it up, it left a bitter taste., 02 Sep 2008
As an atheist myself, I relished the coming of Dawkins' take on atheist theory. I wondered how he would tackle it. I found myself enjoying the flow of the book and reached the end with a few new interesting arguments and ideas (hadn't heard of his meme idea before, sounds like a bit of a dangerous oversimplification to me and a bit of a slap in the face of anthropologists and developmental psychologists) BUT at the end something didn't sit right. A bit like that feeling a few hours before you realise you are about to be violently ill after eating something dodgy. You can't quite put your finger on it. I wasn't happy.

After reading it again, slower this time, I realised it was a combination of unsettling feelings - The feeling that I had just been yelled at for several hours by an angry, red-faced little man, the feeling that someone had just insulted the intelligence of some of my best friends, the feeling that I had just read an argument on the fundamentals of modern theology in the style of an impassioned Daily Mail columnist (OH WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) and the feeling that my own personal quest for some bloody answers and help with religious philosophy was no further forward.

From my own limited experience, I have seen science (especially medical science) is prone to fashions and fads. More often than not the fascinating ebb and flow of scientific development is driven by enthusiasts, and then substantiated or refuted by a collection of careful objective analyses drawn together from other parties. It has taught me to welcome the passionate argument (for without it we will never advance our way of thinking) but also to never trust anyone with unshakable strongly held convictions. There is something out there he just hasn't thought of.

Nietzsche said "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." But then again, Louisa May Alcott, who wrote Little Women, and was a transcendentalist, abolitionist feminist (now that's a lot of convictions!), apparently said; "He who believes is strong; he who doubts is weak. Strong convictions precede great actions." So maybe I'm wrong on the whole thing. Oh dash my weak doubting mind. Thanks a lot Dawkins, now look what you have done!

Anyway, to conclude my ramble, I would recommend that everyone should read this book, even though many won't like it. It is a very important book of our times and has really ruffled some feathers. It has generated such debate that you will feel academically redundant if you haven't read it and it comes up in conversation. It will not change your life as Dawkins hopes it will. If you have read it and you think it has changed your life, I would respond to the bitter taste in the back of your throat and read it again. And whatever you do, don't let it be the only book you ever read on the subject. He may now be the most well known author to write about atheism, it doesn't make him the best.

Enjoy the search.


Not wanting to start a debate here, but this is complete drivel., 02 Sep 2008
Attempting to look at this from a non-religious point of view (myself being a practicing high Anglican), I must say that having read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", I found the book to be poorly structured, rambling and incredibly one sided.

I had never read any of Professor Dawkins' books before this, but when I did I was not surprised to find that his written persona is almost as irritating as his television persona. When on telivision he will face his opponent in a debate and tell them (usually) that they are deluded, therefore wrong, therefore stupid, rather than explaining his own views to them. This book is no different; Professor Dawkins has formed no argument whatsoever and reaches no conclusion by the end of it. Whilst some may consider this book a "masterpiece", all it is effectively is a 400 page rant by one of the most egocentric scholars that the world has produced.

The book itself isn't even that interesting either. The first three chapters are littered with Professor Dawkins saying how "In this book I am going to disprove the existance of God", or variants thereof. From that it seems that instead of deciding on a question to answer and then gathering views to fuel a discussion, he seems to have decided upon the answer to the question before he has written the book, making it so incredibly one-sided that it is difficult to convince yourself that this is an Oxford Professor writing.

I say in this review that Professor Dawkins has formed no argument in this book. Some may disagree with me, however, but it is painfully obvious that he hasn't. Indeed, the entire book is riddled with quotes from other people that he has copied into his book. I can not honestly say that, having read this book, I feel Professor Dawkins has created a well-structured, "truthful" argument if he is using other people's words.

What I find most irritating about this book is the collection of theories by which Professor Dawkins attempts to disprove the existance of God. These theories seem to be none other than what he thinks is wrong with religion and those who practice them (or even just a few religious fanatics). He seems to think this is sufficient grounds for his views, and by these attempts to justifiy his outspoken hostility.

I borrowed this book from a friend, and I must say I'm glad I did, as I would have regretted spending my own money on this rubbish. I'm not pretending I know all the answers, but it seems to me that Richard Dawkins generally feels that anything that rolls off his tongue is undeniable fact and that it is the be-all-and-end-all. This book is no exception to this.

Needless to say, I was not convinced.

A Tough, Controversial Subject Made Approachable and Digestable, 02 Sep 2008
No doubt, this is a controversial book. But, it is controversial only for those who disagree with Dawkins' explanations or do not have an open mind or both. What I enjoyed about the book is that Richard Dawkins is an excellent and very readable writer. He presents his ideas and explanations in a way that do not have to be offensive but can be stimulating if you are willing to accept that the true answers may not be known by anyone. I like how his style of writing creates almost a serenity in accepting the unknown. No one can stop you from finding joy in belief. But, it is important to understand what you believe and why. It is important to also understand where the pitfalls in those beliefs might be.

I think, for anyone who has a religion, it is important to not become complacent with your faith and accept everything at face value. Faith isn't faith if it is done by rote.

That Dawkins challenges these beliefs and gives explanations for where they originate and why people need religion can help people to be stronger in their faith, if that is what they choose. Or, if they choose, they can evaluate how they have come to believe what they believe and find out if it is really the truth for them? Or are they living someone else's lie?

Reading this book is a step towards authenticity in living and faith. If faith cannot stand up to examination and challenge and logic, then it is not really faith at all.

Excellent book! Highly recommended for those who have an open mind or are prepared to open their minds.

Must read, 01 Sep 2008
I have read several of Dawkins' books. I generally like them, and one of his great strengths is that he is capable of explaining complex concepts with great clarity. I fall short of calling myself a fan, but this is not the place to discuss the reasons for that.
I really enjoyed reading this book, and purchased multiple copies to give away as Christmas and birthday presents. I did not give copies to any of my Christian friends, and I can understand why Christians might be offended by it's tone, which is somewhat irreverant. However, I think that is what makes it so entertaining.

One of the main criticisms levelled at this book is that it is less scholarly than his earlier works. That is true, but again that is one of the reasons I like it so much. It does not attempt to be scholarly, which I find very refreshing. If I were to criticise, I would point out that it has nothing new to say. There is absolutely nothing here that has not been said before. In fact, one of the reasons I like this book so much is that many of the points raised are the kind of questions I put to my RE teachers when I was at school, XX years ago. These questions were never answered to my satisfaction, and I was dismissed as an impudent schoolboy (which I was). The whole point is that these long-standing issues have still not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner, and are continually ignored. However, when someone with the intellectual credibility of Richard Dawkins raises them, it is not so easy to ignore them.

I do not agree with every arguement in this book. I personally know people who take a great deal of comfort from their religious beliefs, and it is that comfort which is important rather than whether their beliefs are correct or not. I can think of nothing to be gained by trying to take that away from them. I would be happy to enter into a debate with Dawkins over whether religion is a bad thing, because I do think he is quite blinkered in this matter. However, if he moderated his views, it would make for a less interesting debate, and a less evocative read.

I am currently reading some of the books published in response to the God Delusion, none of which, so far, are significantly more scholarly than Dawkins book. But at least a debate is being had, and I am enjoying reading all sides of that debate.

Fantastic Read, 26 Aug 2008
This is one of Dawkins best books by far, and one which I have now read several times. I would highly recomend to anybody interested in clear logical arguments for the non existance of the supernatural god character.

Broke the spell for me...., 17 Aug 2008
I've been a Daniel Dennett fan ever since The Mind's Eye, a mind-opening book he co-authored/edited with Douglas Hofstadter. In similar vein, I was enthralled by Kinds of Minds; and Darwin's Dangerous Idea showed just how extensive and versatile a thinker Dennett is.

So I was surprised to be disappointed by Breaking the Spell. Maybe it's because I'm older and wiser, or maybe I was expecting this book to be something that it wasn't, but it just seemed to lack substance. The essential thesis of the book is that religious belief is no sacred cow, and should be open to the same level of scientific and philosophical investigation as any other sphere of human activity. This much could have been said in less than a page; and Dennett is engaging and entertaining in outlining his arguments; but there is little more substance to the book than this.

For a book subtitled "Religion as a natural phenomenon", and promising on the back blurb "a truly original - and comprehensive - explanation for faith", such an explanation was conspicuous by its absence. Perhaps this is an unfair criticism - this book concentrates more on asking questions than answering them - but Lewis Wolpert's 'Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast' would have fit the cover of this book much better.

Although Dennett is a prominent atheist, he speaks as the very soul of reason, with courtesy and respect for theists, and a dispassionate open-mindedness. To his credit, he avoids the scathe and scorn employed by Dawkins, Sam Harris and others. But here and there his agenda slips through, as in the following quote (p24 of the paperback edition):

"This puts MY sacred values to work: I want the resolution to the world's problems to be as democratic and just as possible, and both democracy and justice depend on getting on the table for all to see as much of the truth as possible, bearing in mind that sometimes the truth hurts, and hence should sometimes be left uncovered, out of love for those who would suffer were it revealed."

I read this sentence several times, wondering whether he meant 'covered' instead of 'uncovered'. I decided not, for two reasons: firstly, Dennett is generally very precise about his choice of words, and secondly he claims in his preface to have 'shared drafts of this book with many readers', some of whom would surely have queried this odd statement. This statement appears to say that democracy and justice are sacred enough that they should be imposed on others 'out of love', even when it hurts them - a view not too dissimilar from that of the Inquisition. (All right, sorry, that was harsh - but it is telling that nowhere does Dennett propose subjecting his own 'sacred values' to the same kind of investigation that he proposes for religion, even though there are those who would question the benefits that democracy has brought to the world.)

Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed this book, and I agree with most of what Dennett has to say; I recommend it to any reader interested in questions of faith, religion and philosophy. But if you're looking for a book that will provide a Darwinian deconstruction of faith, this is not it; and for all his courteous objectivity, it is clear what Dennett hopes the answer to his investigation will be. I'm still a Daniel Dennett fan, but this book broke the spell for me.


Dennett's Gentle Attack on Religion, 10 Aug 2008
If you're looking at this review, you've probably already read (or are considering reading) End of Faith by Sam Harris and/or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. All three books state the case for reason and against religious faith. Breaking the Spell, however, takes a much softer approach. Harris and Dawkins do not care who they offend. Dennett tries to be gentle and polite. One would think that is a better approach, but that is not how it works out.

Perhaps Dennett is too gentle, or perhaps this argument is one that has to be made forcefully or not at all. In the end, Dennett's book has no audience. The religious won't read it, and won't be convinced. Harris and Dawkins may simply offend most religious people, but they may also convince a few. Atheists like me will prefer Harris and Dawkins.

In the end, this is probably Dennett's worst book. That is not an insult. Dennett is a brilliant philosopher and a wonderful writer. Consciouness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are two of the finest books ever written.

Old questions - still no answers , 30 May 2008
When I was reading the book from Daniel Dennett, a distinguished philosopher and director of Cambridge institute for cognitive studies, I was expecting to get some answers for questions why do humans believe in any deity or superstition.

Questions like:
- Why 80% of the world population so faithful to some kind of religion ?
- How can this be explained by psychology ?
- Is there a specific genetic predisposition for more religious behavior (nature not nurture) ?
- How is religion replacing the parental love with love for God from a specific age (7-years ?) on ?
- Why is rationality suppresses and what happens then in the brain ? (Like a scientists is writing his PhD for geology and study 500 million year old strata and is leaving his office/lab and *thinks* the earth is 6000 years old)

Dan Dennett is very carefully and `politically correct' talking around the problem to avoid offending anybody and is carefully considering the possibility to ask some of this old questions - unfortunately answers I had hoped for are not provided.


Philosophy at its best, 06 Apr 2008
How to break the spell? Dennett knows: don't pretend you have answers and instead ask good questions. Lots of them in sincere response to lots of supposed answers that don't seem like satisfying answers.

I've done this in a non-systematic way and I suspect you may have too but I have never seen it done so well as Dennett does in this book. In the chapter on "Morality and Religion", he even makes this approach explicit in a marvelous statement about what what he says some people have realized is "one of the best secrets of life: let your self go". By which he means, not into any kind of reckless behavior but with a "humble curiousity" in response to the "world's complexity". The paragraph in which he elaborates on that view is, for me, worth by itself reading the book for - but there is so much more insight in this book, it is really a treasure of showing you just how far someone can go if they adopt that attitude. Whether you or I can achieve Dennett's level of effective questioning I don't know but it certainly seems worth a try. In the following chapter "Now What Do We Do?", Dennett proposes alternative schooling for children that would not only address their real needs but also allow a questioning attitude that would challenge religious claims rather than waste student's time on any religious indoctrination.

There's a great deal more in this delightful book but hopefully the above alone will help you realize, as it has me, that Dennett represents cognitive studies at its best.

Takes to long to make points, 19 Mar 2008
Why is Religion here? Is it ever going to go away? This book isn't about answering these complicated questions, but more about why we should ask these questions and how we could go about getting reliable answers.

Dennet's view is that we could examine Religion empiraclly and scientifically. By having some reliable data we would then understand the paradigm more and approach reliable answers to these questions. Religious people should not have a fear about this as if they wish to understand their Religion they should be prepared to examine it. We should then present all findings and not hide anything.

I felt that this honest and objective approach was Dennet's political correct and sensitive way of saying we must really look at Religion more critically. He is certainly not as caustic as Dawkins or Hitchens
and an approach of critizing something that people hold sacred with sensitivity is to be welcomed.

That said, I found that Dennet spent too long making some of his points. Sometimes, I felt he would take 5 pages to make a point that could have been made in half a page. This was either because Dennet was trying to convey to the reader he was being as objective as possible or it was because he needs to hire himself a good editor. Probably a bit of both.

I am not sure if Dennet pushed the buttons in this book. Who is it meant to appeal to? Most atheists I am sure will have already questioned Religion. Intelligent Religious people who don't like to be offended but who are open minded about their beliefs might like it - but how many of them are there? What about someone doing some sociology research and needs some ideas? Perhaps.

I didn't get much of it anyway. A book that described results of some of the studies and experiments Dennet's suggest would certainly be very interesting. But I was kind of hoping this book would be that, not simply saying what we could do and why we should do it. That to me is too obvious.

I also found the writing style too cumbersome. I think Dennet is a far better speaker than writer.

After gobbling it up, it left a bitter taste., 02 Sep 2008
As an atheist myself, I relished the coming of Dawkins' take on atheist theory. I wondered how he would tackle it. I found myself enjoying the flow of the book and reached the end with a few new interesting arguments and ideas (hadn't heard of his meme idea before, sounds like a bit of a dangerous oversimplification to me and a bit of a slap in the face of anthropologists and developmental psychologists) BUT at the end something didn't sit right. A bit like that feeling a few hours before you realise you are about to be violently ill after eating something dodgy. You can't quite put your finger on it. I wasn't happy.

After reading it again, slower this time, I realised it was a combination of unsettling feelings - The feeling that I had just been yelled at for several hours by an angry, red-faced little man, the feeling that someone had just insulted the intelligence of some of my best friends, the feeling that I had just read an argument on the fundamentals of modern theology in the style of an impassioned Daily Mail columnist (OH WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) and the feeling that my own personal quest for some bloody answers and help with religious philosophy was no further forward.

From my own limited experience, I have seen science (especially medical science) is prone to fashions and fads. More often than not the fascinating ebb and flow of scientific development is driven by enthusiasts, and then substantiated or refuted by a collection of careful objective analyses drawn together from other parties. It has taught me to welcome the passionate argument (for without it we will never advance our way of thinking) but also to never trust anyone with unshakable strongly held convictions. There is something out there he just hasn't thought of.

Nietzsche said "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." But then again, Louisa May Alcott, who wrote Little Women, and was a transcendentalist, abolitionist feminist (now that's a lot of convictions!), apparently said; "He who believes is strong; he who doubts is weak. Strong convictions precede great actions." So maybe I'm wrong on the whole thing. Oh dash my weak doubting mind. Thanks a lot Dawkins, now look what you have done!

Anyway, to conclude my ramble, I would recommend that everyone should read this book, even though many won't like it. It is a very important book of our times and has really ruffled some feathers. It has generated such debate that you will feel academically redundant if you haven't read it and it comes up in conversation. It will not change your life as Dawkins hopes it will. If you have read it and you think it has changed your life, I would respond to the bitter taste in the back of your throat and read it again. And whatever you do, don't let it be the only book you ever read on the subject. He may now be the most well known author to write about atheism, it doesn't make him the best.

Enjoy the search.


Not wanting to start a debate here, but this is complete drivel., 02 Sep 2008
Attempting to look at this from a non-religious point of view (myself being a practicing high Anglican), I must say that having read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", I found the book to be poorly structured, rambling and incredibly one sided.

I had never read any of Professor Dawkins' books before this, but when I did I was not surprised to find that his written persona is almost as irritating as his television persona. When on telivision he will face his opponent in a debate and tell them (usually) that they are deluded, therefore wrong, therefore stupid, rather than explaining his own views to them. This book is no different; Professor Dawkins has formed no argument whatsoever and reaches no conclusion by the end of it. Whilst some may consider this book a "masterpiece", all it is effectively is a 400 page rant by one of the most egocentric scholars that the world has produced.

The book itself isn't even that interesting either. The first three chapters are littered with Professor Dawkins saying how "In this book I am going to disprove the existance of God", or variants thereof. From that it seems that instead of deciding on a question to answer and then gathering views to fuel a discussion, he seems to have decided upon the answer to the question before he has written the book, making it so incredibly one-sided that it is difficult to convince yourself that this is an Oxford Professor writing.

I say in this review that Professor Dawkins has formed no argument in this book. Some may disagree with me, however, but it is painfully obvious that he hasn't. Indeed, the entire book is riddled with quotes from other people that he has copied into his book. I can not honestly say that, having read this book, I feel Professor Dawkins has created a well-structured, "truthful" argument if he is using other people's words.

What I find most irritating about this book is the collection of theories by which Professor Dawkins attempts to disprove the existance of God. These theories seem to be none other than what he thinks is wrong with religion and those who practice them (or even just a few religious fanatics). He seems to think this is sufficient grounds for his views, and by these attempts to justifiy his outspoken hostility.

I borrowed this book from a friend, and I must say I'm glad I did, as I would have regretted spending my own money on this rubbish. I'm not pretending I know all the answers, but it seems to me that Richard Dawkins generally feels that anything that rolls off his tongue is undeniable fact and that it is the be-all-and-end-all. This book is no exception to this.

Needless to say, I was not convinced.

A Tough, Controversial Subject Made Approachable and Digestable, 02 Sep 2008
No doubt, this is a controversial book. But, it is controversial only for those who disagree with Dawkins' explanations or do not have an open mind or both. What I enjoyed about the book is that Richard Dawkins is an excellent and very readable writer. He presents his ideas and explanations in a way that do not have to be offensive but can be stimulating if you are willing to accept that the true answers may not be known by anyone. I like how his style of writing creates almost a serenity in accepting the unknown. No one can stop you from finding joy in belief. But, it is important to understand what you believe and why. It is important to also understand where the pitfalls in those beliefs might be.

I think, for anyone who has a religion, it is important to not become complacent with your faith and accept everything at face value. Faith isn't faith if it is done by rote.

That Dawkins challenges these beliefs and gives explanations for where they originate and why people need religion can help people to be stronger in their faith, if that is what they choose. Or, if they choose, they can evaluate how they have come to believe what they believe and find out if it is really the truth for them? Or are they living someone else's lie?

Reading this book is a step towards authenticity in living and faith. If faith cannot stand up to examination and challenge and logic, then it is not really faith at all.

Excellent book! Highly recommended for those who have an open mind or are prepared to open their minds.

Must read, 01 Sep 2008
I have read several of Dawkins' books. I generally like them, and one of his great strengths is that he is capable of explaining complex concepts with great clarity. I fall short of calling myself a fan, but this is not the place to discuss the reasons for that.
I really enjoyed reading this book, and purchased multiple copies to give away as Christmas and birthday presents. I did not give copies to any of my Christian friends, and I can understand why Christians might be offended by it's tone, which is somewhat irreverant. However, I think that is what makes it so entertaining.

One of the main criticisms levelled at this book is that it is less scholarly than his earlier works. That is true, but again that is one of the reasons I like it so much. It does not attempt to be scholarly, which I find very refreshing. If I were to criticise, I would point out that it has nothing new to say. There is absolutely nothing here that has not been said before. In fact, one of the reasons I like this book so much is that many of the points raised are the kind of questions I put to my RE teachers when I was at school, XX years ago. These questions were never answered to my satisfaction, and I was dismissed as an impudent schoolboy (which I was). The whole point is that these long-standing issues have still not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner, and are continually ignored. However, when someone with the intellectual credibility of Richard Dawkins raises them, it is not so easy to ignore them.

I do not agree with every arguement in this book. I personally know people who take a great deal of comfort from their religious beliefs, and it is that comfort which is important rather than whether their beliefs are correct or not. I can think of nothing to be gained by trying to take that away from them. I would be happy to enter into a debate with Dawkins over whether religion is a bad thing, because I do think he is quite blinkered in this matter. However, if he moderated his views, it would make for a less interesting debate, and a less evocative read.

I am currently reading some of the books published in response to the God Delusion, none of which, so far, are significantly more scholarly than Dawkins book. But at least a debate is being had, and I am enjoying reading all sides of that debate.

Fantastic Read, 26 Aug 2008
This is one of Dawkins best books by far, and one which I have now read several times. I would highly recomend to anybody interested in clear logical arguments for the non existance of the supernatural god character.

Broke the spell for me...., 17 Aug 2008
I've been a Daniel Dennett fan ever since The Mind's Eye, a mind-opening book he co-authored/edited with Douglas Hofstadter. In similar vein, I was enthralled by Kinds of Minds; and Darwin's Dangerous Idea showed just how extensive and versatile a thinker Dennett is.

So I was surprised to be disappointed by Breaking the Spell. Maybe it's because I'm older and wiser, or maybe I was expecting this book to be something that it wasn't, but it just seemed to lack substance. The essential thesis of the book is that religious belief is no sacred cow, and should be open to the same level of scientific and philosophical investigation as any other sphere of human activity. This much could have been said in less than a page; and Dennett is engaging and entertaining in outlining his arguments; but there is little more substance to the book than this.

For a book subtitled "Religion as a natural phenomenon", and promising on the back blurb "a truly original - and comprehensive - explanation for faith", such an explanation was conspicuous by its absence. Perhaps this is an unfair criticism - this book concentrates more on asking questions than answering them - but Lewis Wolpert's 'Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast' would have fit the cover of this book much better.

Although Dennett is a prominent atheist, he speaks as the very soul of reason, with courtesy and respect for theists, and a dispassionate open-mindedness. To his credit, he avoids the scathe and scorn employed by Dawkins, Sam Harris and others. But here and there his agenda slips through, as in the following quote (p24 of the paperback edition):

"This puts MY sacred values to work: I want the resolution to the world's problems to be as democratic and just as possible, and both democracy and justice depend on getting on the table for all to see as much of the truth as possible, bearing in mind that sometimes the truth hurts, and hence should sometimes be left uncovered, out of love for those who would suffer were it revealed."

I read this sentence several times, wondering whether he meant 'covered' instead of 'uncovered'. I decided not, for two reasons: firstly, Dennett is generally very precise about his choice of words, and secondly he claims in his preface to have 'shared drafts of this book with many readers', some of whom would surely have queried this odd statement. This statement appears to say that democracy and justice are sacred enough that they should be imposed on others 'out of love', even when it hurts them - a view not too dissimilar from that of the Inquisition. (All right, sorry, that was harsh - but it is telling that nowhere does Dennett propose subjecting his own 'sacred values' to the same kind of investigation that he proposes for religion, even though there are those who would question the benefits that democracy has brought to the world.)

Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed this book, and I agree with most of what Dennett has to say; I recommend it to any reader interested in questions of faith, religion and philosophy. But if you're looking for a book that will provide a Darwinian deconstruction of faith, this is not it; and for all his courteous objectivity, it is clear what Dennett hopes the answer to his investigation will be. I'm still a Daniel Dennett fan, but this book broke the spell for me.


Dennett's Gentle Attack on Religion, 10 Aug 2008
If you're looking at this review, you've probably already read (or are considering reading) End of Faith by Sam Harris and/or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. All three books state the case for reason and against religious faith. Breaking the Spell, however, takes a much softer approach. Harris and Dawkins do not care who they offend. Dennett tries to be gentle and polite. One would think that is a better approach, but that is not how it works out.

Perhaps Dennett is too gentle, or perhaps this argument is one that has to be made forcefully or not at all. In the end, Dennett's book has no audience. The religious won't read it, and won't be convinced. Harris and Dawkins may simply offend most religious people, but they may also convince a few. Atheists like me will prefer Harris and Dawkins.

In the end, this is probably Dennett's worst book. That is not an insult. Dennett is a brilliant philosopher and a wonderful writer. Consciouness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are two of the finest books ever written.

Old questions - still no answers , 30 May 2008
When I was reading the book from Daniel Dennett, a distinguished philosopher and director of Cambridge institute for cognitive studies, I was expecting to get some answers for questions why do humans believe in any deity or superstition.

Questions like:
- Why 80% of the world population so faithful to some kind of religion ?
- How can this be explained by psychology ?
- Is there a specific genetic predisposition for more religious behavior (nature not nurture) ?
- How is religion replacing the parental love with love for God from a specific age (7-years ?) on ?
- Why is rationality suppresses and what happens then in the brain ? (Like a scientists is writing his PhD for geology and study 500 million year old strata and is leaving his office/lab and *thinks* the earth is 6000 years old)

Dan Dennett is very carefully and `politically correct' talking around the problem to avoid offending anybody and is carefully considering the possibility to ask some of this old questions - unfortunately answers I had hoped for are not provided.


Philosophy at its best, 06 Apr 2008
How to break the spell? Dennett knows: don't pretend you have answers and instead ask good questions. Lots of them in sincere response to lots of supposed answers that don't seem like satisfying answers.

I've done this in a non-systematic way and I suspect you may have too but I have never seen it done so well as Dennett does in this book. In the chapter on "Morality and Religion", he even makes this approach explicit in a marvelous statement about what what he says some people have realized is "one of the best secrets of life: let your self go". By which he means, not into any kind of reckless behavior but with a "humble curiousity" in response to the "world's complexity". The paragraph in which he elaborates on that view is, for me, worth by itself reading the book for - but there is so much more insight in this book, it is really a treasure of showing you just how far someone can go if they adopt that attitude. Whether you or I can achieve Dennett's level of effective questioning I don't know but it certainly seems worth a try. In the following chapter "Now What Do We Do?", Dennett proposes alternative schooling for children that would not only address their real needs but also allow a questioning attitude that would challenge religious claims rather than waste student's time on any religious indoctrination.

There's a great deal more in this delightful book but hopefully the above alone will help you realize, as it has me, that Dennett represents cognitive studies at its best.

Takes to long to make points, 19 Mar 2008
Why is Religion here? Is it ever going to go away? This book isn't about answering these complicated questions, but more about why we should ask these questions and how we could go about getting reliable answers.

Dennet's view is that we could examine Religion empiraclly and scientifically. By having some reliable data we would then understand the paradigm more and approach reliable answers to these questions. Religious people should not have a fear about this as if they wish to understand their Religion they should be prepared to examine it. We should then present all findings and not hide anything.

I felt that this honest and objective approach was Dennet's political correct and sensitive way of saying we must really look at Religion more critically. He is certainly not as caustic as Dawkins or Hitchens
and an approach of critizing something that people hold sacred with sensitivity is to be welcomed.

That said, I found that Dennet spent too long making some of his points. Sometimes, I felt he would take 5 pages to make a point that could have been made in half a page. This was either because Dennet was trying to convey to the reader he was being as objective as possible or it was because he needs to hire himself a good editor. Probably a bit of both.

I am not sure if Dennet pushed the buttons in this book. Who is it meant to appeal to? Most atheists I am sure will have already questioned Religion. Intelligent Religious people who don't like to be offended but who are open minded about their beliefs might like it - but how many of them are there? What about someone doing some sociology research and needs some ideas? Perhaps.

I didn't get much of it anyway. A book that described results of some of the studies and experiments Dennet's suggest would certainly be very interesting. But I was kind of hoping this book would be that, not simply saying what we could do and why we should do it. That to me is too obvious.

I also found the writing style too cumbersome. I think Dennet is a far better speaker than writer.

A very helpful contribution to the debate, 01 Sep 2008
This book is written from the perspective of a Christian geneticist. His writing is informed by his knowledge of this fast moving field.

Like the majority of Christians who are professional scientists, he is willing to be tentative in his conclusions. Believing that there is much we don't yet (and may never) understand about how God chose to create mankind.

He points out the danger of poor theology and poor science creating stumbling blocks. Such stumbling blocks can stop the good news of Christ Jesus being heard, so we should choose our words carefully when we discuss such a hot subject, otherwise we may create more heat than light.

Denis Alexander believes God is the creator, and created in a way consistent with him being the God of truth (as do I). He presents a little of the enormous range of evidence pointing to the age of our planet (as being circa 4.5 Billion years old) and comes at the subject of evolution from "an old earth creationist" position. He goes into considerable depth explaining in lay terms some of the recent discoveries at the genetic level that point to the very close linkage between mankind and the animals. From these he comes to a position of saying that Adam and Eve were Neolithic farmers in the near east who he chose to reveal himself in a special way ("Homo divinus"). In the region of 6,000 - 8,000 years ago.
To quote page 243 of the book he says, "I do not know if model C is correct. But for myself I am happy to use it as a working model, and if a better model comes along I will readily discard C and adopt the new one."

In later chapters he also draws out some of the flaws that he sees in both "ID" (Intelligent Design) and the young earth viewpoints.

I, for one, found it a very helpful book. Denis put into words many of the ideas that I had personally held, but not known how to voice. (And not wanted to unsettle fellow believers by voicing). I therefore give it 4 stars.

I give it 4 stars and not 5, only because at one or two points I feel he is overly harsh in his comments about named Christians who hold different viewpoints to him. Particularly the tone of his comments about John Lennox (page 334) stick in my mind.
The science covered, although written for a layman, could be a hard read for those who disliked science at GCSE. An A level or two, or even a science / engineering degree is needed to get the most from some of his more complex asides.

But overall a very good book, and a good grounding in this important subject.

Alexander the Great!, 26 Aug 2008
Dr Denis Alexander has written this book to expose the false dichotomy being presented to the British public by creationist and neo-atheist alike and sets out to present a clear, rational and passionately argued defence of 'Christian Darwinism' that is both faithful to orthodox Christianity and to 'orthodox' Science.

In Chapters 1 ("What Do We Mean By Creation?")& 2 ("The Biblical Doctrine of Creation"). The author starts by defining what the Bible means by creation and the principles of biblical interpretation with a detailed discussion of the original Hebrew terms for creation: bara, 'asah and yatsar. DA also explains how the bible relates to science, tracing the lineage of 'Accommodationism' from Augustine through Calvin to Kepler to the modern era and how modernist assumptions shape our cultural attitude towards the biblical text.In these chapters DA also successfully debunks creationist arguments .
Chapters 3 ("What Do We Mean By Evolution? Dating, DNA and Genes") & 4 ("What do We Mean By Evolution? Natural Selection and Reproductive Success"). DA summarises for the non-specialist the current understanding of biological evolution and covers such areas as: dating methods, radioscopes, Milankovitch cycles, ice-core drilling, magnetic field polarity reversals, genetics, DNA & RNA. Ch 4 covers the core concepts of evolutionary theory, such as 'Natural Selection'.
Chapter 5 ("W.D.M.B.E? Speciation ,Fossils and the Question of Information"). Covers speciation and the fossil record, both genetic and "traditional".
Chapter 6 ("Ojections to Evolution"). Answers common fundamentalist/ literalist objections to evolution.
Chapter 7 ("What about Genesis?"). Discusses the meaning of Genesis in light of historic church teaching from the church fathers onward, with specific reference to the original cultural context in which the book was written especially in relation to Mesopotamian creation myths.This section should prove enlightening to anyone who wonders why the Bible says that light was created before the Sun!
Chapter 8 ("Evolutionary Creationism").Discuses how the theory of evolution has been abused to legitemise various (and often mutually contradictory) political, economic and racialist theories, ideologies and psuedo-sciences, such as eugenics. DA also takes on the neo-atheists, to quote (p182): " ...there is nothing that I can see in evolutionary theory that supports atheism. Of course if we view evolution through an atheistic lens, we shall inevitably interprete it within an atheistic framework, as [Richard] Dawkins does when he writes that in evolution he sees 'no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference'. How could it be otherwise? - the conclusions are built into the starting proposition. This is what the the atheistic world-view delivers, it is not what evolution itself delivers". The atheist can of course at this point make the inverse argument - that christians are interpreting the raw scientific data in line with our beliefs, but as DA makes clear throughout the book, the crucial difference is that we christians are aware it, we are thinking about evolution in a christian way. We are doing theology.And we are aware of the difference between scientific explainations and personal ones in a way that neo-atheists appear not to be. This is Dawkins real blind-spot.
Chapters 9 ("Who were Adam and Eve? The Background")& 10 ("W.W.A.E? Genesis and Science in Conversation"). Covers the subject of "Adam and Eve" and how the biblical narrative can be squared rationally with the scientific 'narrative' of Darwinism. In this chapter DA introduces for the first time his five interpretive 'models' for understanding the creation narrative of Genesis ranging from 'A': existential myth (using the term myth in its true, technical sense; to 'E': "Young Earth" creationism.The first three being rational the last two being irrational.
Chapter 11 ("Evolution and the biblical understanding of death").
The chapters title says it all! Covers the biblical meanings of physical, spiritual and "The Second Death". This short chapter is a preparatory discussion for the next chapter.
Chapter 12 ("Evolution and the Fall"). Using the Five models of biblical interpretation introduced in chapter Ten, this chapter discusses the doctrine of the Fall within the particular context of the evolutionary history of mankind with special reference to the writings of St Paul; Romans and 1 Corinthians.
Chapter 13 ("Evolution, natural evil and the Theodicy question"). How the science informs theological reflection on the nature of suffering and evil in relation to the existence and nature of a 'good' God. As DA says Darwinism gifts the church a "strong theodicy". As evolution is the only biological process through which intelligent self-concious beings such as Homo Sapiens may emerge, then pain, suffering and 'natural evil' are unaviodable consequences of the act of creation, and God has no choice in the matter, natural evil exists because we exist! The only choice is whether to create or not in the full knowledge that natural evil will be brought into existence with, what may be termed 'natural good'. The ultimate question is of course; is it, or will it be, worth it? Which of course only God; the omniscient being, can answer.As He states " I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."
Chapter 14 ("Intelligent design and creations order"). A full and thorough scientific critique of (so-called) 'Intelligent Design' exposing it for what it is, a transparent and disinginuous attempt to get around the American constitional principle of seperation of church and state and introduce religion into the science classroom. It is clear
that 'Intelligent Design' is being used as a Trojan horse for creationism. The fact that one of ID's main advocates in the U.S.A is a trained 'minister' in the Unification 'church' (thats the 'Moonies') should give any orthodox christian pause for thought! As for the content of ID itself it is little more than a new version of the 'God-of-the-Gaps' argument, which is an argument from ignorance as it seeks to exploite gaps in current scientific knowledge. As DA demonstrates Micheal Behes examples of "irreducible complexity" (found in his book 'Darwins Black Box')have proven to be particular hostages to fortune with neo-Darwinists taking great delight in knocking each "example" over!
Chapter 15 ("Evolution - intelligent and designed?"). Part two of DA's
full and thorough critique of ID, this time from the theological and philosophical perspectives.This chapter also ellucidates a christian understanding of Darwinian Evolution.As DA states (p320) "As we have been at pains to emphasis, in biblical creation theology, the natural order is seen as a seamless web of Gods creative activity. All scientists can do is to describe God's creative activity to the best of their ability.Often their theories will be wrong and will need to be modified or dicarded. But within this framework of a robust biblical theism, there is nothing in the created order without exeption that is not created and sustained by God.Science is definitly not a naturalistic enterprise for the Christian who is a scientist."
Chapter 16 ("The Origin of Life"). In which DA gives a full account of origin of life science ("Biogenesis") that ranges across such subjects as: Carbon and the building blocks of life, RNA and the origins of the genetic code, macromolecules and the 'Krebs cycle'.
Postscript. The authors concluding thoughts. And in which Dr Alexander delivers a stinging rebuke to creationists for wasting money, time, talent and resources attacking legitimate scientific research instead of promoting the gospel of grace! As Galileo said:"The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go".

This is an important and timely book, 2009 will be a double Darwin anniversary (birth 1809; 'On the Origin of Species'.1859) So you can expect to see a lot of neo-atheist activity in the media in this year as it is exploited for its full propaganda purposes. This book is the perfect antidote to such malarky,it provides a wealth of counter arguments and should be on every Christians book-shelf. A must read for the anniversary year and beyond.

Possible further reading:

'The Language of God' by Francis S.Collins.
'Lifes Solution' by Simon Conway Morris.
'Why there almost certainly is a God' by Keith Ward.

Alexander "de-bate", 12 Aug 2008
In honesty, I marked this book down, not becasue it was poorly written or researched, but because I disagreed with so much of the 'naturalistic' emphasis that comes across in the overall story - even though this would be denied.

From the outset, the writer states that all Christians are by defintion 'creationists' - I agree. But I couldn't find much in the book that would differ from "The Blind Watchmaker" and a host of other similar books - albeit that DA believes that God brought the universe into existence and sustains it. Everything else differs little from 'almost' deistic beliefs (even though this too would be denied). I'm itching to know "What exactly did God do then?" Not an unreasonable question (to which I searched in vain for a coherent theistic answer), bearing in mind that biblically He raised people from the dead - which can have no naturalistic/scientific explanation!

DA doesn't deny miracles (even though the scientific community generally does) and is cautious to point out that the Genesis account does not indicate that miracles actually occured. This is quite true, but it's almost illogical. If He is capable of miracles at all (and He is) I would expect God to have acted miraculously in the Created order at certain key stages, perhaps in his direct creation of information to produce man (without common ancestry), thereby demonstrating His power, so that we are without excuse in providing fully naturalistic Just-So stories that exclude any acknowledgement of His Being.

In the Postscript, DA implies that scientists "investigate and seek to understand the works of God." That may be true of some, but not the majority, that are either atheistic or agnostic. They do what they do because they love the science and get paid for it.

As pointed out by ID theorists, such scientists are also committed to the reigning philosophical paradigm of naturalism. Awkward 'design' evidence is simply malleable enough to fit the a priori naturalistic conclusions (i.e. there can be no Divine Foot in the Door) - even if the evidence is crying out to the contrary.

DA is very critical of ID in the book, even though the motive for it is not to 'close down' scientific discovery, but point towards actions of 'intelligent agency' - which is surely what a creationist would predict to be the case....

I'm not a 'head in the sand' Creationist who believes in the God-of-the-Gaps. Far from it. Scientists need to be free to investigate everything as if the full workings of any material or biological scenario etc.., can be established in a fully plausible way - but where there does appear to be evidence for very specific design (say, in the genetic code), this should also be freely debated openly, rather than hear yet more story-telling in popular science literature!

Part of the difficulty of being a Christian within our world, is admitting, without embarrasment or shame, that we believe things, such as miraculous stories in the New Testament, that have no scientific explanation - and we should be content to accept that this is so and give God the glory for it.

This is a book that I would still recommend to all Christians to read, for the simple reason that within it there is a challenge to get to grips with the science (and theology) that is covered - and applauded by highly respected people such as Dr Francis Collins and Professor J I Packer. It can then be discussed further, particularly within a Christian context.

After gobbling it up, it left a bitter taste., 02 Sep 2008
As an atheist myself, I relished the coming of Dawkins' take on atheist theory. I wondered how he would tackle it. I found myself enjoying the flow of the book and reached the end with a few new interesting arguments and ideas (hadn't heard of his meme idea before, sounds like a bit of a dangerous oversimplification to me and a bit of a slap in the face of anthropologists and developmental psychologists) BUT at the end something didn't sit right. A bit like that feeling a few hours before you realise you are about to be violently ill after eating something dodgy. You can't quite put your finger on it. I wasn't happy.

After reading it again, slower this time, I realised it was a combination of unsettling feelings - The feeling that I had just been yelled at for several hours by an angry, red-faced little man, the feeling that someone had just insulted the intelligence of some of my best friends, the feeling that I had just read an argument on the fundamentals of modern theology in the style of an impassioned Daily Mail columnist (OH WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) and the feeling that my own personal quest for some bloody answers and help with religious philosophy was no further forward.

From my own limited experience, I have seen science (especially medical science) is prone to fashions and fads. More often than not the fascinating ebb and flow of scientific development is driven by enthusiasts, and then substantiated or refuted by a collection of careful objective analyses drawn together from other parties. It has taught me to welcome the passionate argument (for without it we will never advance our way of thinking) but also to never trust anyone with unshakable strongly held convictions. There is something out there he just hasn't thought of.

Nietzsche said "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." But then again, Louisa May Alcott, who wrote Little Women, and was a transcendentalist, abolitionist feminist (now that's a lot of convictions!), apparently said; "He who believes is strong; he who doubts is weak. Strong convictions precede great actions." So maybe I'm wrong on the whole thing. Oh dash my weak doubting mind. Thanks a lot Dawkins, now look what you have done!

Anyway, to conclude my ramble, I would recommend that everyone should read this book, even though many won't like it. It is a very important book of our times and has really ruffled some feathers. It has generated such debate that you will feel academically redundant if you haven't read it and it comes up in conversation. It will not change your life as Dawkins hopes it will. If you have read it and you think it has changed your life, I would respond to the bitter taste in the back of your throat and read it again. And whatever you do, don't let it be the only book you ever read on the subject. He may now be the most well known author to write about atheism, it doesn't make him the best.

Enjoy the search.


Not wanting to start a debate here, but this is complete drivel., 02 Sep 2008
Attempting to look at this from a non-religious point of view (myself being a practicing high Anglican), I must say that having read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", I found the book to be poorly structured, rambling and incredibly one sided.

I had never read any of Professor Dawkins' books before this, but when I did I was not surprised to find that his written persona is almost as irritating as his television persona. When on telivision he will face his opponent in a debate and tell them (usually) that they are deluded, therefore wrong, therefore stupid, rather than explaining his own views to them. This book is no different; Professor Dawkins has formed no argument whatsoever and reaches no conclusion by the end of it. Whilst some may consider this book a "masterpiece", all it is effectively is a 400 page rant by one of the most egocentric scholars that the world has produced.

The book itself isn't even that interesting either. The first three chapters are littered with Professor Dawkins saying how "In this book I am going to disprove the existance of God", or variants thereof. From that it seems that instead of deciding on a question to answer and then gathering views to fuel a discussion, he seems to have decided upon the answer to the question before he has written the book, making it so incredibly one-sided that it is difficult to convince yourself that this is an Oxford Professor writing.

I say in this review that Professor Dawkins has formed no argument in this book. Some may disagree with me, however, but it is painfully obvious that he hasn't. Indeed, the entire book is riddled with quotes from other people that he has copied into his book. I can not honestly say that, having read this book, I feel Professor Dawkins has created a well-structured, "truthful" argument if he is using other people's words.

What I find most irritating about this book is the collection of theories by which Professor Dawkins attempts to disprove the existance of God. These theories seem to be none other than what he thinks is wrong with religion and those who practice them (or even just a few religious fanatics). He seems to think this is sufficient grounds for his views, and by these attempts to justifiy his outspoken hostility.

I borrowed this book from a friend, and I must say I'm glad I did, as I would have regretted spending my own money on this rubbish. I'm not pretending I know all the answers, but it seems to me that Richard Dawkins generally feels that anything that rolls off his tongue is undeniable fact and that it is the be-all-and-end-all. This book is no exception to this.

Needless to say, I was not convinced.

A Tough, Controversial Subject Made Approachable and Digestable, 02 Sep 2008
No doubt, this is a controversial book. But, it is controversial only for those who disagree with Dawkins' explanations or do not have an open mind or both. What I enjoyed about the book is that Richard Dawkins is an excellent and very readable writer. He presents his ideas and explanations in a way that do not have to be offensive but can be stimulating if you are willing to accept that the true answers may not be known by anyone. I like how his style of writing creates almost a serenity in accepting the unknown. No one can stop you from finding joy in belief. But, it is important to understand what you believe and why. It is important to also understand where the pitfalls in those beliefs might be.

I think, for anyone who has a religion, it is important to not become complacent with your faith and accept everything at face value. Faith isn't faith if it is done by rote.

That Dawkins challenges these beliefs and gives explanations for where they originate and why people need religion can help people to be stronger in their faith, if that is what they choose. Or, if they choose, they can evaluate how they have come to believe what they believe and find out if it is really the truth for them? Or are they living someone else's lie?

Reading this book is a step towards authenticity in living and faith. If faith cannot stand up to examination and challenge and logic, then it is not really faith at all.

Excellent book! Highly recommended for those who have an open mind or are prepared to open their minds.

Must read, 01 Sep 2008
I have read several of Dawkins' books. I generally like them, and one of his great strengths is that he is capable of explaining complex concepts with great clarity. I fall short of calling myself a fan, but this is not the place to discuss the reasons for that.
I really enjoyed reading this book, and purchased multiple copies to give away as Christmas and birthday presents. I did not give copies to any of my Christian friends, and I can understand why Christians might be offended by it's tone, which is somewhat irreverant. However, I think that is what makes it so entertaining.

One of the main criticisms levelled at this book is that it is less scholarly than his earlier works. That is true, but again that is one of the reasons I like it so much. It does not attempt to be scholarly, which I find very refreshing. If I were to criticise, I would point out that it has nothing new to say. There is absolutely nothing here that has not been said before. In fact, one of the reasons I like this book so much is that many of the points raised are the kind of questions I put to my RE teachers when I was at school, XX years ago. These questions were never answered to my satisfaction, and I was dismissed as an impudent schoolboy (which I was). The whole point is that these long-standing issues have still not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner, and are continually ignored. However, when someone with the intellectual credibility of Richard Dawkins raises them, it is not so easy to ignore them.

I do not agree with every arguement in this book. I personally know people who take a great deal of comfort from their religious beliefs, and it is that comfort which is important rather than whether their beliefs are correct or not. I can think of nothing to be gained by trying to take that away from them. I would be happy to enter into a debate with Dawkins over whether religion is a bad thing, because I do think he is quite blinkered in this matter. However, if he moderated his views, it would make for a less interesting debate, and a less evocative read.

I am currently reading some of the books published in response to the God Delusion, none of which, so far, are significantly more scholarly than Dawkins book. But at least a debate is being had, and I am enjoying reading all sides of that debate.

Fantastic Read, 26 Aug 2008
This is one of Dawkins best books by far, and one which I have now read several times. I would highly recomend to anybody interested in clear logical arguments for the non existance of the supernatural god character.

Broke the spell for me...., 17 Aug 2008
I've been a Daniel Dennett fan ever since The Mind's Eye, a mind-opening book he co-authored/edited with Douglas Hofstadter. In similar vein, I was enthralled by Kinds of Minds; and Darwin's Dangerous Idea showed just how extensive and versatile a thinker Dennett is.

So I was surprised to be disappointed by Breaking the Spell. Maybe it's because I'm older and wiser, or maybe I was expecting this book to be something that it wasn't, but it just seemed to lack substance. The essential thesis of the book is that religious belief is no sacred cow, and should be open to the same level of scientific and philosophical investigation as any other sphere of human activity. This much could have been said in less than a page; and Dennett is engaging and entertaining in outlining his arguments; but there is little more substance to the book than this.

For a book subtitled "Religion as a natural phenomenon", and promising on the back blurb "a truly original - and comprehensive - explanation for faith", such an explanation was conspicuous by its absence. Perhaps this is an unfair criticism - this book concentrates more on asking questions than answering them - but Lewis Wolpert's 'Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast' would have fit the cover of this book much better.

Although Dennett is a prominent atheist, he speaks as the very soul of reason, with courtesy and respect for theists, and a dispassionate open-mindedness. To his credit, he avoids the scathe and scorn employed by Dawkins, Sam Harris and others. But here and there his agenda slips through, as in the following quote (p24 of the paperback edition):

"This puts MY sacred values to work: I want the resolution to the world's problems to be as democratic and just as possible, and both democracy and justice depend on getting on the table for all to see as much of the truth as possible, bearing in mind that sometimes the truth hurts, and hence should sometimes be left uncovered, out of love for those who would suffer were it revealed."

I read this sentence several times, wondering whether he meant 'covered' instead of 'uncovered'. I decided not, for two reasons: firstly, Dennett is generally very precise about his choice of words, and secondly he claims in his preface to have 'shared drafts of this book with many readers', some of whom would surely have queried this odd statement. This statement appears to say that democracy and justice are sacred enough that they should be imposed on others 'out of love', even when it hurts them - a view not too dissimilar from that of the Inquisition. (All right, sorry, that was harsh - but it is telling that nowhere does Dennett propose subjecting his own 'sacred values' to the same kind of investigation that he proposes for religion, even though there are those who would question the benefits that democracy has brought to the world.)

Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed this book, and I agree with most of what Dennett has to say; I recommend it to any reader interested in questions of faith, religion and philosophy. But if you're looking for a book that will provide a Darwinian deconstruction of faith, this is not it; and for all his courteous objectivity, it is clear what Dennett hopes the answer to his investigation will be. I'm still a Daniel Dennett fan, but this book broke the spell for me.


Dennett's Gentle Attack on Religion, 10 Aug 2008
If you're looking at this review, you've probably already read (or are considering reading) End of Faith by Sam Harris and/or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. All three books state the case for reason and against religious faith. Breaking the Spell, however, takes a much softer approach. Harris and Dawkins do not care who they offend. Dennett tries to be gentle and polite. One would think that is a better approach, but that is not how it works out.

Perhaps Dennett is too gentle, or perhaps this argument is one that has to be made forcefully or not at all. In the end, Dennett's book has no audience. The religious won't read it, and won't be convinced. Harris and Dawkins may simply offend most religious people, but they may also convince a few. Atheists like me will prefer Harris and Dawkins.

In the end, this is probably Dennett's worst book. That is not an insult. Dennett is a brilliant philosopher and a wonderful writer. Consciouness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are two of the finest books ever written.

Old questions - still no answers , 30 May 2008
When I was reading the book from Daniel Dennett, a distinguished philosopher and director of Cambridge institute for cognitive studies, I was expecting to get some answers for questions why do humans believe in any deity or superstition.

Questions like:
- Why 80% of the world population so faithful to some kind of religion ?
- How can this be explained by psychology ?
- Is there a specific genetic predisposition for more religious behavior (nature not nurture) ?
- How is religion replacing the parental love with love for God from a specific age (7-years ?) on ?
- Why is rationality suppresses and what happens then in the brain ? (Like a scientists is writing his PhD for geology and study 500 million year old strata and is leaving his office/lab and *thinks* the earth is 6000 years old)

Dan Dennett is very carefully and `politically correct' talking around the problem to avoid offending anybody and is carefully considering the possibility to ask some of this old questions - unfortunately answers I had hoped for are not provided.


Philosophy at its best, 06 Apr 2008
How to break the spell? Dennett knows: don't pretend you have answers and instead ask good questions. Lots of them in sincere response to lots of supposed answers that don't seem like satisfying answers.

I've done this in a non-systematic way and I suspect you may have too but I have never seen it done so well as Dennett does in this book. In the chapter on "Morality and Religion", he even makes this approach explicit in a marvelous statement about what what he says some people have realized is "one of the best secrets of life: let your self go". By which he means, not into any kind of reckless behavior but with a "humble curiousity" in response to the "world's complexity". The paragraph in which he elaborates on that view is, for me, worth by itself reading the book for - but there is so much more insight in this book, it is really a treasure of showing you just how far someone can go if they adopt that attitude. Whether you or I can achieve Dennett's level of effective questioning I don't know but it certainly seems worth a try. In the following chapter "Now What Do We Do?", Dennett proposes alternative schooling for children that would not only address their real needs but also allow a questioning attitude that would challenge religious claims rather than waste student's time on any religious indoctrination.

There's a great deal more in this delightful book but hopefully the above alone will help you realize, as it has me, that Dennett represents cognitive studies at its best.

Takes to long to make points, 19 Mar 2008
Why is Religion here? Is it ever going to go away? This book isn't about answering these complicated questions, but more about why we should ask these questions and how we could go about getting reliable answers.

Dennet's view is that we could examine Religion empiraclly and scientifically. By having some reliable data we would then understand the paradigm more and approach reliable answers to these questions. Religious people should not have a fear about this as if they wish to understand their Religion they should be prepared to examine it. We should then present all findings and not hide anything.

I felt that this honest and objective approach was Dennet's political correct and sensitive way of saying we must really look at Religion more critically. He is certainly not as caustic as Dawkins or Hitchens
and an approach of critizing something that people hold sacred with sensitivity is to be welcomed.

That said, I found that Dennet spent too long making some of his points. Sometimes, I felt he would take 5 pages to make a point that could have been made in half a page. This was either because Dennet was trying to convey to the reader he was being as objective as possible or it was because he needs to hire himself a good editor. Probably a bit of both.

I am not sure if Dennet pushed the buttons in this book. Who is it meant to appeal to? Most atheists I am sure will have already questioned Religion. Intelligent Religious people who don't like to be offended but who are open minded about their beliefs might like it - but how many of them are there? What about someone doing some sociology research and needs some ideas? Perhaps.

I didn't get much of it anyway. A book that described results of some of the studies and experiments Dennet's suggest would certainly be very interesting. But I was kind of hoping this book would be that, not simply saying what we could do and why we should do it. That to me is too obvious.

I also found the writing style too cumbersome. I think Dennet is a far better speaker than writer.

A very helpful contribution to the debate, 01 Sep 2008
This book is written from the perspective of a Christian geneticist. His writing is informed by his knowledge of this fast moving field.

Like the majority of Christians who are professional scientists, he is willing to be tentative in his conclusions. Believing that there is much we don't yet (and may never) understand about how God chose to create mankind.

He points out the danger of poor theology and poor science creating stumbling blocks. Such stumbling blocks can stop the good news of Christ Jesus being heard, so we should choose our words carefully when we discuss such a hot subject, otherwise we may create more heat than light.

Denis Alexander believes God is the creator, and created in a way consistent with him being the God of truth (as do I). He presents a little of the enormous range of evidence pointing to the age of our planet (as being circa 4.5 Billion years old) and comes at the subject of evolution from "an old earth creationist" position. He goes into considerable depth explaining in lay terms some of the recent discoveries at the genetic level that point to the very close linkage between mankind and the animals. From these he comes to a position of saying that Adam and Eve were Neolithic farmers in the near east who he chose to reveal himself in a special way ("Homo divinus"). In the region of 6,000 - 8,000 years ago.
To quote page 243 of the book he says, "I do not know if model C is correct. But for myself I am happy to use it as a working model, and if a better model comes along I will readily discard C and adopt the new one."

In later chapters he also draws out some of the flaws that he sees in both "ID" (Intelligent Design) and the young earth viewpoints.

I, for one, found it a very helpful book. Denis put into words many of the ideas that I had personally held, but not known how to voice. (And not wanted to unsettle fellow believers by voicing). I therefore give it 4 stars.

I give it 4 stars and not 5, only because at one or two points I feel he is overly harsh in his comments about named Christians who hold different viewpoints to him. Particularly the tone of his comments about John Lennox (page 334) stick in my mind.
The science covered, although written for a layman, could be a hard read for those who disliked science at GCSE. An A level or two, or even a science / engineering degree is needed to get the most from some of his more complex asides.

But overall a very good book, and a good grounding in this important subject.

Alexander the Great!, 26 Aug 2008
Dr Denis Alexander has written this book to expose the false dichotomy being presented to the British public by creationist and neo-atheist alike and sets out to present a clear, rational and passionately argued defence of 'Christian Darwinism' that is both faithful to orthodox Christianity and to 'orthodox' Science.

In Chapters 1 ("What Do We Mean By Creation?")& 2 ("The Biblical Doctrine of Creation"). The author starts by defining what the Bible means by creation and the principles of biblical interpretation with a detailed discussion of the original Hebrew terms for creation: bara, 'asah and yatsar. DA also explains how the bible relates to science, tracing the lineage of 'Accommodationism' from Augustine through Calvin to Kepler to the modern era and how modernist assumptions shape our cultural attitude towards the biblical text.In these chapters DA also successfully debunks creationist arguments .
Chapters 3 ("What Do We Mean By Evolution? Dating, DNA and Genes") & 4 ("What do We Mean By Evolution? Natural Selection and Reproductive Success"). DA summarises for the non-specialist the current understanding of biological evolution and covers such areas as: dating methods, radioscopes, Milankovitch cycles, ice-core drilling, magnetic field polarity reversals, genetics, DNA & RNA. Ch 4 covers the core concepts of evolutionary theory, such as 'Natural Selection'.
Chapter 5 ("W.D.M.B.E? Speciation ,Fossils and the Question of Information"). Covers speciation and the fossil record, both genetic and "traditional".
Chapter 6 ("Ojections to Evolution"). Answers common fundamentalist/ literalist objections to evolution.
Chapter 7 ("What about Genesis?"). Discusses the meaning of Genesis in light of historic church teaching from the church fathers onward, with specific reference to the original cultural context in which the book was written especially in relation to Mesopotamian creation myths.This section should prove enlightening to anyone who wonders why the Bible says that light was created before the Sun!
Chapter 8 ("Evolutionary Creationism").Discuses how the theory of evolution has been abused to legitemise various (and often mutually contradictory) political, economic and racialist theories, ideologies and psuedo-sciences, such as eugenics. DA also takes on the neo-atheists, to quote (p182): " ...there is nothing that I can see in evolutionary theory that supports atheism. Of course if we view evolution through an atheistic lens, we shall inevitably interprete it within an atheistic framework, as [Richard] Dawkins does when he writes that in evolution he sees 'no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference'. How could it be otherwise? - the conclusions are built into the starting proposition. This is what the the atheistic world-view delivers, it is not what evolution itself delivers". The atheist can of course at this point make the inverse argument - that christians are interpreting the raw scientific data in line with our beliefs, but as DA makes clear throughout the book, the crucial difference is that we christians are aware it, we are thinking about evolution in a christian way. We are doing theology.And we are aware of the difference between scientific explainations and personal ones in a way that neo-atheists appear not to be. This is Dawkins real blind-spot.
Chapters 9 ("Who were Adam and Eve? The Background")& 10 ("W.W.A.E? Genesis and Science in Conversation"). Covers the subject of "Adam and Eve" and how the biblical narrative can be squared rationally with the scientific 'narrative' of Darwinism. In this chapter DA introduces for the first time his five interpretive 'models' for understanding the creation narrative of Genesis ranging from 'A': existential myth (using the term myth in its true, technical sense; to 'E': "Young Earth" creationism.The first three being rational the last two being irrational.
Chapter 11 ("Evolution and the biblical understanding of death").
The chapters title says it all! Covers the biblical meanings of physical, spiritual and "The Second Death". This short chapter is a preparatory discussion for the next chapter.
Chapter 12 ("Evolution and the Fall"). Using the Five models of biblical interpretation introduced in chapter Ten, this chapter discusses the doctrine of the Fall within the particular context of the evolutionary history of mankind with special reference to the writings of St Paul; Romans and 1 Corinthians.
Chapter 13 ("Evolution, natural evil and the Theodicy question"). How the science informs theological reflection on the nature of suffering and evil in relation to the existence and nature of a 'good' God. As DA says Darwinism gifts the church a "strong theodicy". As evolution is the only biological process through which intelligent self-concious beings such as Homo Sapiens may emerge, then pain, suffering and 'natural evil' are unaviodable consequences of the act of creation, and God has no choice in the matter, natural evil exists because we exist! The only choice is whether to create or not in the full knowledge that natural evil will be brought into existence with, what may be termed 'natural good'. The ultimate question is of course; is it, or will it be, worth it? Which of course only God; the omniscient being, can answer.As He states " I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."
Chapter 14 ("Intelligent design and creations order"). A full and thorough scientific critique of (so-called) 'Intelligent Design' exposing it for what it is, a transparent and disinginuous attempt to get around the American constitional principle of seperation of church and state and introduce religion into the science classroom. It is clear
that 'Intelligent Design' is being used as a Trojan horse for creationism. The fact that one of ID's main advocates in the U.S.A is a trained 'minister' in the Unification 'church' (thats the 'Moonies') should give any orthodox christian pause for thought! As for the content of ID itself it is little more than a new version of the 'God-of-the-Gaps' argument, which is an argument from ignorance as it seeks to exploite gaps in current scientific knowledge. As DA demonstrates Micheal Behes examples of "irreducible complexity" (found in his book 'Darwins Black Box')have proven to be particular hostages to fortune with neo-Darwinists taking great delight in knocking each "example" over!
Chapter 15 ("Evolution - intelligent and designed?"). Part two of DA's
full and thorough critique of ID, this time from the theological and philosophical perspectives.This chapter also ellucidates a christian understanding of Darwinian Evolution.As DA states (p320) "As we have been at pains to emphasis, in biblical creation theology, the natural order is seen as a seamless web of Gods creative activity. All scientists can do is to describe God's creative activity to the best of their ability.Often their theories will be wrong and will need to be modified or dicarded. But within this framework of a robust biblical theism, there is nothing in the created order without exeption that is not created and sustained by God.Science is definitly not a naturalistic enterprise for the Christian who is a scientist."
Chapter 16 ("The Origin of Life"). In which DA gives a full account of origin of life science ("Biogenesis") that ranges across such subjects as: Carbon and the building blocks of life, RNA and the origins of the genetic code, macromolecules and the 'Krebs cycle'.
Postscript. The authors concluding thoughts. And in which Dr Alexander delivers a stinging rebuke to creationists for wasting money, time, talent and resources attacking legitimate scientific research instead of promoting the gospel of grace! As Galileo said:"The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go".

This is an important and timely book, 2009 will be a double Darwin anniversary (birth 1809; 'On the Origin of Species'.1859) So you can expect to see a lot of neo-atheist activity in the media in this year as it is exploited for its full propaganda purposes. This book is the perfect antidote to such malarky,it provides a wealth of counter arguments and should be on every Christians book-shelf. A must read for the anniversary year and beyond.

Possible further reading:

'The Language of God' by Francis S.Collins.
'Lifes Solution' by Simon Conway Morris.
'Why there almost certainly is a God' by Keith Ward.

Alexander "de-bate", 12 Aug 2008
In honesty, I marked this book down, not becasue it was poorly written or researched, but because I disagreed with so much of the 'naturalistic' emphasis that comes across in the overall story - even though this would be denied.

From the outset, the writer states that all Christians are by defintion 'creationists' - I agree. But I couldn't find much in the book that would differ from "The Blind Watchmaker" and a host of other similar books - albeit that DA believes that God brought the universe into existence and sustains it. Everything else differs little from 'almost' deistic beliefs (even though this too would be denied). I'm itching to know "What exactly did God do then?" Not an unreasonable question (to which I searched in vain for a coherent theistic answer), bearing in mind that biblically He raised people from the dead - which can have no naturalistic/scientific explanation!

DA doesn't deny miracles (even though the scientific community generally does) and is cautious to point out that the Genesis account does not indicate that miracles actually occured. This is quite true, but it's almost illogical. If He is capable of miracles at all (and He is) I would expect God to have acted miraculously in the Created order at certain key stages, perhaps in his direct creation of information to produce man (without common ancestry), thereby demonstrating His power, so that we are without excuse in providing fully naturalistic Just-So stories that exclude any acknowledgement of His Being.

In the Postscript, DA implies that scientists "investigate and seek to understand the works of God." That may be true of some, but not the majority, that are either atheistic or agnostic. They do what they do because they love the science and get paid for it.

As pointed out by ID theorists, such scientists are also committed to the reigning philosophical paradigm of naturalism. Awkward 'design' evidence is simply malleable enough to fit the a priori naturalistic conclusions (i.e. there can be no Divine Foot in the Door) - even if the evidence is crying out to the contrary.

DA is very critical of ID in the book, even though the motive for it is not to 'close down' scientific discovery, but point towards actions of 'intelligent agency' - which is surely what a creationist would predict to be the case....

I'm not a 'head in the sand' Creationist who believes in the God-of-the-Gaps. Far from it. Scientists need to be free to investigate everything as if the full workings of any material or biological scenario etc.., can be established in a fully plausible way - but where there does appear to be evidence for very specific design (say, in the genetic code), this should also be freely debated openly, rather than hear yet more story-telling in popular science literature!

Part of the difficulty of being a Christian within our world, is admitting, without embarrasment or shame, that we believe things, such as miraculous stories in the New Testament, that have no scientific explanation - and we should be content to accept that this is so and give God the glory for it.

This is a book that I would still recommend to all Christians to read, for the simple reason that within it there is a challenge to get to grips with the science (and theology) that is covered - and applauded by highly respected people such as Dr Francis Collins and Professor J I Packer. It can then be discussed further, particularly within a Christian context.

unbelievable strength, 27 Aug 2008
In a world filled with crime and death, war and poverty, many seek the salvation of religion to overcome.
We hear many stories about cults in America, stories of teenagers leaving then people they love to stay in communes where they are brainwashed, humiliated, abused and used.
This is the true accounts of three sisters who had no choice but to be born into one of these cults, the children of god.
From a very early age these poor children were systematically abused physically and mentally by the adult members of the group.
How these girls triumphed over these sick people astounds me and I congratulate them and hope that their lives are not tainted by these evil people.
This cult is still going and the story of these girls is a warning to us all. This is not easy reading but it is a book one must read.

Disturbing but Courageous, 26 Aug 2008
It is never pleasant to read some disturbing experiences that these young lady's have gone through. I kept questioning myself on why I was reading what I was. My wife, Mother in Law & sister in law all read this book & found it disturbing. The only reason I could find as to why I wanted to read such a book, was in the hope that the 3 lady's were now back together & leading 'normal' lives.

If you are planning to purchase this book, the details, I found, are very explicit. However, the truth has to be known & the truth definitely comes out in this book. Yes I feel extremely sorry for these young lady's knowing that while I was growing up, there were people suffering like they did. These young lady's are very brave. Brave to that fact of making it known the disgusting things these so-called 'adults' put them through & then these 'adults' trying to justify their crimes through the word of the lord.

I can only wish Kristina, Celeste & Juliana well, & congratulate them on their brave fight & wish them well in their continued fight to expose organisations such as the 'Children of God'.

This is a very good, well written, but painful book. The 3 lady's courage can be found to be inspirational & a lesson to us all.

disturbing, 27 Jun 2008
I didn't think I could finish this book. It really effected me that so much evil could still exist in the name of a God that despises child abuse.
The three sisters were very brave to allow this book to go to print and tell the truth. The sad thing is that I believe I met some of the group on a trip to Portugal many years ago, without realising the full extent of the cult's beliefs. I can still see the face of the small little girl who was performing for us...

absolutely fantastic, 27 May 2008
this was the most moving, upsetting, yet amusing at times, book i have read in a very long time. These women are a total inspiration to me and I thank them for sharing thier story with us. I am familiar with the CoG and was interested to read what it was really like from the inside. A gripping and compelling story that was uncomfortable at times but well worth reading.

Truly Wow, 07 May 2008
I chose this book for some reason, from the army of others like these which are on the shelves at them moment. Not knowing anything about the 'CoG' or 'The Family' as I lived in South Africa, and don't think they had much or any contact there. On reading these very well written, and compelling life stories by three amazing woman, I can not help but be thankful for the up bringing I had.
I am truly relieved that they have been able to survive their past, and help others and each other. You girls deserve all the happiness that life can bring.
Thank you for your inspiring lives, and sharing it with us!!!
To those in the Family who reject what these woman say, God will have the final say!

After gobbling it up, it left a bitter taste., 02 Sep 2008
As an atheist myself, I relished the coming of Dawkins' take on atheist theory. I wondered how he would tackle it. I found myself enjoying the flow of the book and reached the end with a few new interesting arguments and ideas (hadn't heard of his meme idea before, sounds like a bit of a dangerous oversimplification to me and a bit of a slap in the face of anthropologists and developmental psychologists) BUT at the end something didn't sit right. A bit like that feeling a few hours before you realise you are about to be violently ill after eating something dodgy. You can't quite put your finger on it. I wasn't happy.

After reading it again, slower this time, I realised it was a combination of unsettling feelings - The feeling that I had just been yelled at for several hours by an angry, red-faced little man, the feeling that someone had just insulted the intelligence of some of my best friends, the feeling that I had just read an argument on the fundamentals of modern theology in the style of an impassioned Daily Mail columnist (OH WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) and the feel