Ξεπερνώντας τον Θεό: Οδηγός για αρχάριους

by Richard Dawkins

Ο Ντόκινς κάθε φορά ξεπερνά τον εαυτό του! Άραγε, πρέπει να πιστεύουμε στον Θεό; Τον χρειαζόμαστε για να εξηγήσουμε τη συναρπαστική γοητεία του απίθανου φυσικού κόσμου μας; Τον χρειαζόμαστε για να είμαστε καλοί άνθρωποι;

Στο πρώτο μισό αυτού του θαρραλέου βιβλίου, με μια χιουμοριστική αποδόμηση των ιστοριών της Βίβλου, ο Ντόκινς διαλύει την υποκρισία που κρύβουν ο Χριστιανισμός και όλα τα δόγματα. Δίπλα στη συγκριτική θρησκειολογία παρατάσσει την ηθολογία, τη φιλοσοφία και τις θετικές επιστήμες και χαρίζει απλόχερα στη νέα γενιά την ευκαιρία να ξεπεράσει όλα τα περί Θεού που της φύτεψαν γονείς, δάσκαλοι, παπάδες.

Οι απαντήσεις στα Μεγάλα Ερωτήματα έρχονται μόνο με την κατάκτηση της γνώσης και την εξοικείωση με την ωμή αλήθεια της πραγματικότητας.

Στο εξαιρετικά ενδιαφέρον δεύτερο μισό, ο απαράμιλλα μεταδοτικός ενθουσιασμός του ωθεί τον Ντόκινς να διαπλέξει αθεϊσμό και εξελικτική αλλαγή με έναν εντελώς διαφορετικό τρόπο. Οι εντυπωσιακοί θρίαμβοι της εξέλιξης -όπως το πώς οι άνθρωποι κυοφορούν άλλους ανθρώπους, οι μεταμφιέσεις του χαμαιλέοντα, το καμουφλάζ του χταποδιού, η κούρσα εξοπλισμών της γαζέλας και του γατόπαρδου, η μετάλλαξη των ιών, και κυρίως η προδιάθεση του ανθρώπου να δείχνει καλοσύνη στον συνάνθρωπο- προσφέρουν στον αναγνώστη μια μοναδική εισαγωγή στη φυσική επιλογή και τον επιστημονικό ορθολογισμό που θεμελιώνουν η βιολογία και η σύγχρονη φυσική.

Genres: Nonfiction, Religion, Science, Philosophy, Atheism, Audiobook, History

316 pages, Paperback

First published September 19, 2019

Reviews

[Jenna ❤ ❀ ❤ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ok, so this review is long and some of it is personal.  I realise that some of you want to know solely about the book and so I've noted with a --------- line where the actual book review begins.  Feel free to skip the beginning; I promise not to pass out any exams 😄

Once upon a time I was a girl who believed in God.  I believed in the Christian god (but none of the other thousands of gods; I, of course, believed in the "right one").  I believed the Bible was to be taken literally, that Adam and Eve, Noah and his ark,  Abraham and Isaac and all the other myths in the Bible were actual history.  Set down in a book by God Himself.   Every word and every story were the literal truth. Because that's what I'd been told.

But then I grew up.  I stopped believing in fairies and Santa Claus, Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark. I realised that not everything people tell us are true, and not everything we read in books is real.

It was a gradual process, my unbelief.  I was too terrified of an eternal hell to stop believing over night, too brainwashed to allow myself to admit and ponder all of the questions in my mind.  I know this is true for many others who have been brought up Christian or Muslim or Jewish or any other religion in which we are threatened with eternal punishment if we don't believe the "right" way, in the "right" god.  It is difficult to free oneself of indoctrination but some of us are able to do so, slow and painful as the process can be.

By the time I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion in 2008, I had already worked my way intellectually out of belief in the Christian god.  However, I still thought there must be "something".  After all, there is life.  How could there possibly be life if something hadn't created and designed it?  Therefore [shrug] God. 

But then!!  Then I read The God Delusion and Dawkins introduced me to the theory of evolution through natural selection and just like that, there was no need for a god.  No need for a designer.  No need for belief in any supernatural being.  Wow!  I was blown away by the beauty and simplicity of evolution.  How it all makes perfect sense.  No wonder some religious people refuse to even learn about evolution.  Whilst there are certainly believers who believe in a god even though they accept science and evolution, many are scared that if they no longer have a need for a designer, their faith will crumble.  And that is a very scary prospect for some believers.  Schools in the US are sadly not required to teach evolution and many do not.   I was 33 years old before I learned of the most beautiful scientific theory there is, that of evolution through natural selection. Ok, let's get on to the book:

---------------------------------------

In Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide Richard Dawkins relates how he too clung to the idea of a god, a need for a designer, until he learned about evolution (though at the much younger age of 15).  Again, I think this is why some believers are so afraid of evolution.  Their faith isn't as strong as they want us to believe it is and on some level they know that every time there is a scientific and natural explanation for something, the need for "God" slips a little further away.  
Mr. Dawkins is often thought to be harsh on faith and unfortunately I think some people refuse to listen to him for that reason alone.  To some, he can come off as arrogant and condescending when discussing faith and religions.  

However, in Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide, Mr. Dawkins has toned that down.  For those who are already atheist, there probably isn't much you will learn in this book.  It is geared more towards those who have started questioning but still haven't been able to find alternate answers to some of the reasons people are told they should believe, especially in the Christian or Muslim or Jewish god.  

Dawkins quotes more of the Bible than I remember him quoting in The God Delusion and I think that is very important.  If you are going to point out inconsistencies or the horrific behaviour of the Christian god, you need to give examples of this.  Perhaps unfortunately, many believers do not know what their own holy books say and thus it is important to give examples when criticising those books.  

The first part of Outgrowing God answers questions about the Bible, where it came from and who wrote it.  Is it really divine and worthy of unquestioning belief?  Dawkins discusses the problem of good and evil and whether we need gods in order to be good (spoiler: nope!).  If there is no god, how do we decide what is good?  Do holy books really contain nuggets of ethicality and morality that we humans couldn't come up with on our own?  Do they not actually contain more immorality than morality?  If scripture is eternal, then why does morality evolve?  For instance, most of us in today's world no longer think it appropriate to stone a woman to death for talking to a man who is not her husband.  Most of us do not think a child should be murdered for dishonouring their parent.  Thankfully we have overall become much less violent than people were in biblical times.  Our morals have changed, and for the better.

The second part of the book is about evolution and describes the bottom-up approach that makes it seem like there must be some intelligent designer creating life.  Dawkins points out precisely and clearly how life forms evolve over millions of years, each successive generation passing on their DNA, including mutations.  Those mutations are crucial to evolution; when they are beneficial to life, the individual with that mutation will survive longer and pass on more offspring that have that mutation than others without it, who will then live longer and pass on more offspring that have that mutation than others, etc.  On and on and on, generation after generation, for millions of years.  The process is so intricate and so stunningly simple.  

Whilst most things Dawkins talks about in this book I already knew about, there were some gorgeous examples of animal evolution that I hadn't.  He explains the process cephalopods use to camouflage themselves and how flounders have evolved grossly misshapen heads -- both things I'd never read about before.  (Click here to watch an awesome video of an octopus camouflaged against seaweed; you won't believe your eyes!)  

Some believers like to point to the human eye as "evidence" that there must be a designer.  Dawkins points out how the human eye is actually a very flawed "design" but that it makes perfect sense when viewed (ha ha!) through the lens(!) of evolution.  He explains how vampire bats have evolved generosity, regurgitating part of the blood they have eaten to feed a bat who was not as fortunate in finding food.  By sharing with others that are hungry, they know that they will be reciprocated in kind the next time they have an unproductive night of hunting.  He talks of starlings, and how their synchronous flight patterns look designed but are actually quite simple when looked at from a bottom-up approach.

Oh so many glorious examples of how fascinating and beautiful and yes, horrific too (think of the gazelle and cheetah, one of which must die for the other to live) the natural world is.  I could read books by Dawkins all day every day.  His books on evolution excite me like no other, his explanations the grandest and yet simplest I've read.  We live in a wonderful, awe-inspiring world teeming with incredible and ever-evolving life forms.  That, for me, is enough.

If you are beginning to question your own religious beliefs, you might find answers to some of your questions here.  If you would like to learn the basics of evolution, that too you will learn in this book.  It's a terrific introduction to why we no longer need gods to explain the natural world and why we are better off getting our morals through rational thinking than through old "holy" books.  If you already know about evolution and/or are already atheist, this might be a fun refresher book though you probably won't learn very much.  I still recommend it!

[Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide was a great read, and it was incredibly thought-provoking. And, despite the fact that I'm no beginner in the process of outgrowing God, I am so glad that I bought it, and it has inspired me to read more of Dawkins works.

When I was a merely a child, I believed in God. I believed every word that was written in The Bible, I relentlessly attended church, sat through service after service like my life solely depended on it. I said my prayers umpteen times a day, praying for forgiveness on my knees to a being that doesn't exist, just because I uttered 'Shit' under my breath to my Mum. I was even told the ridiculous statement that God is watching me all the time and keeping me safe. Thinking back now, I cannot believe that I actually thought that stories like Adam and Eve and that the world was made in seven days were solid history, but I did, and I never challenged it, and my teachers carried on regardless, while I carried on soaking all of it up like a sponge.

My Mother was raised in a happy, but strict Catholic household, and my Father is an atheist. In this case, I think my Mum got the upper hand in how my sister and I were raised where religion was involved. I definitely don't blame my parents for how they chose to raise me in regards to Catholicism, and they did how they saw fit at that time, but it has taught me that I should do things differently.

Once I left school, I doubted my belief in God, and I turned to books as a source for the answers to my questions. I realised that I no longer believed in God, and that not everything I read in books were necessarily true, and a prime example of one of those books is, The Bible.

Thinking back again to my younger days, and some might say naive, I believed we were all made by God, and he was our designer. That was before I learned all of the science and evolution behind everything, which obviously makes a lot more sense. There have been many times I have discussed evolution with individuals that have a certain faith, and sometimes, they have been almost frightened of even daring to think evolution exists.

I thought Dawkins made the right decision in quoting passages from The Bible to support his argument for the Christian God, who he makes out to the reader is utterly appalling in many ways. Without supportive material, the argument is pretty skeletal and flimsy. I enjoyed the question: Do we need God in order to be good? The very obvious answer to this is a straight up no. No, I do need a God in order to be good and I do not need to follow The Ten Commandments each day in order to be a good person. It's a shame I didn't know that while I was in school.

The section on evolution is amazingly interesting, and Dawkins really does go into great detail. There are also some gorgeous colour photographs to support his discussion.

Although this book isn't a huge book, I think it is a valuable companion which tells us why we don't need God to explain our beautiful world, and logical thinking is a better source of obtaining morals instead of referring to The Bible all the time. This was such an interesting read, and I shall be recommending it to my Dad next.

[Luffy Sempai · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was quite the ticket. Everything written here was crystal clear, graspable, progressive. I've never read Dawkins shifting from atheism to biology, to chemistry and physics before.

I gave the book 5 stars, as you see. I think it's better than the God Delusion. It's less provocative (which I don't mind) and it's gently coaxing the reader in the desired direction, that of understanding.

I gave many books this year a perfect score, yet is there such a book as a perfect one? Outgrowing God is perfect in the way it settles into our minds and grabs the remote, to be metaphorical. What a great book to read on Christmas.

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone wants to compare this book to The God Delusion, for obvious reasons. But I would rather review it on its own merits, for what it is, recognizing its purpose and intended audience. While the content is similar, there are differences; it covers more of the Bible, has expanded coverage of morality, and is a more concise and focused presentation of atheism and evolution that is more accessible to a younger audience or to the beginning skeptic. In that regard, it deserves its own treatment, which is as follows:

Outgrowing God is a concise yet comprehensive statement of atheism and the perfect resource for the burgeoning skeptic or the individual struggling to escape the intellectual prison that is religion.

Dawkins—a reliably great writer—begins the book by reminding us that thousands of gods have been invented throughout history, and that humanity is getting ever closer to the correct answer—from polytheism (belief in many gods) to monotheism (belief in one god) to atheism (belief in no gods).

Dawkins shows how it’s no more reasonable to have faith in any one particular religion or god over any other, and that the fact that we all grow up believing in the religion in which we were raised should raise some red flags. Today’s religion is tomorrow’s mythology, just as belief in Zeus, once considered to be real, is now known to be fiction.

Dawkins proceeds to dissect the Old and New Testaments to reveal the inconsistencies, contradictions, historical and scientific inaccuracies, plagiarism, and immoral teachings that permeate the text. All signs point to the Bible as a man-made document, pieced together with the fragments of distorted history, borrowed mythology, and the manufactured fulfillment of old prophecies, translated through multiple languages and written by scientifically illiterate authors (it was written centuries before the advent of modern science). While there’s nothing wrong with mythology, as Dawkins admits, there’s no reason to elevate the Bible over the myths of ancient Greece, Egypt, Babylonia, India, or anywhere else.

But it’s not only that the Bible is an unreliable source of history; it’s also oftentimes an extremely unpleasant and immoral text. This is why Penn Jillette wrote, “When someone is considering atheism I tell them to read the Bible first and then Dawkins. Outgrowing God—second only to the Bible!”

Is this fair? Well, consider the following verse, which is representative of the bloodlust found throughout the Bible:

“However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.” (Deuteronomy 20:16)

And how about:

“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” (Numbers 31:17-18)

The Bible is full of barbaric punishments for petty crimes, genocidal ethnic cleansing, and treating women and girls as property, with dozens of verses similar to the ones above. So yes, Dawkins treatment of the “Good Book” is more than fair.

Dawkins concludes the first part of the book with a few chapters on morality. He shows that, rather than receiving our morality from the Bible, we apply our pre-existing moral codes to the Bible to decide which verses to ignore (like stoning homosexuals to death), which to commend, and how to interpret them. Dawkins shows that there are far better explanations for morality and where it comes from—including biological, psychological, cultural, and social explanations—than the simplistic assertion that good and bad acts are objectively decreed from an invisible supernatural entity. It’s plainly obvious that morality evolves, and has evolved far ahead of the brutality found in scripture.

Still, whether or not God exists is independent of whether or not we require Him/Her/It/They for moral behavior. Is there evidence that God exists, beyond the unreliable mythology that is the Bible? Dawkins answers this question in the second part of the book, which is devoted to science and evolution.

This is familiar territory to anyone who has read Dawkins previous works, yet it is more concisely expressed. He systematically demonstrates the superfluousness of the God hypothesis with clarity and fascinating examples from biology. The complexity of life cannot be explained by random chance, or by the invocation of a designer that must necessarily be more complex than the life it is meant to explain, but rather by the slow accumulation of mutations carried out over immense periods of time subject to the constraints of natural selection.

Chapter 11 is one of the best parts of the book, where Dawkins posits evolutionary explanations for religion itself. Superstition, hyper-active agency detection, and overactive pattern detection is built into the human mind for good evolutionary reasons (it’s better to think the rustling of leaves is a lion and be wrong than to ignore it and be eaten). The unfortunate byproduct of this is a tendency to see agency everywhere, manifested as belief in gods, spirits, angels, demons, mystical forces, etc.

Dawkins wrap up the book with a reminder that the history of science is a relentless assault on common sense. Wherever things have seemed most obvious (the earth is stationary, life requires a designer), science has shown otherwise. It will continue to do so. With evolution as an incontrovertible fact (there is no alternative explanation that makes any sense, unless you really believe that all animals just popped into existence via divine creation), the religious have retreated into the mysteries of physics as “proof” of God's existence. Don’t follow them. As Dawkins wrote, “If you think you’ve found a gap in our understanding, which you hope might be filled by God, my advice is: ‘Look back through history and never bet against science.’”

[Taylor Sines · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was pretty disappointing. His opening point is that the existence of many false religions means all religions are false.
Does the existence of many falsified scientific theories mean all theories should be discarded? Of course not.

Dawkins attacks the biblical canon by conflating the recognition of the canon at Nicea with determining the canon. Recognizing what was received as authoritative scripture is not the same as picking/choosing scripture.

He argues that because people tend to believe the religion dominant in the society around them, all religion is wrong. Ironically, Dawkins himself is proof that his conclusion is false as his parents were Christian missionaries. This argument also ignores the spread of Christianity in China, the Middle East, Africa, and it's initial spread in the Roman Empire for the first 300 years before Constantine. Again, this phenomenon says nothing about the veracity of the religious view held.

Dawkins regularly appeals to a class he calls "serious scholars" which, assumably, refers to scholars that only share his views but you can't know for sure because there's NO references or bibliography to see where Dawkins gets his information.

He then expresses his hatred for the OT and NT but it's built entirely on ignoring the context of the passages. Just one conversation with a theologian would've helped eliminate such comments.

He also conflates the descriptive value of diverse ethics around the would to suggest there is no prescriptive moral standard. Again, non-sequitur.

Most disappointing was the second half of his book on evolution. He does a great job of explaining the details of complex creatures but then he arbitrarily assumes his omniscience by suggesting that because he (and others) can't figure out why something was designed a particular way, they are therefore badly "designed".

The mechanism for explaining God away in this book is that, given enough time, small mutations can accomplish what we typically attribute to God (apparent design). The argument goes something like: We walk out to my car, I explain to you how all the parts work within the system. After doing so, I expect you to believe the car had no manufacturer and that traffic laws/ethics emerged from within the car itself. We both know that no amount of describing the system explains why the system exists or why meaning exists within the system.

Nothing he provides in this book challenges Christianity.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

First half of book is basically the god delusion restated , more concise , framed better, Dawkins has either learned himself more about the religions or has had help writing on those bits ( maybe both ?).

Second half is a gorgeous yet simple introduction and overview on evolution.

The mix prompts questions that should be asked. Thus belongs on every young person’s bookshelf. For me as an adult, I read the god delusion and that was my first ( of many ) steps out of religion. I read TGD as a Christian, I read this book as an atheist. The former I read in secret and with trepidation, the latter with a relaxed joy.

[Tom Gilson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nothing new here, and nothing interesting

Dawkins has written all this before. He’s said many times, for example, that any God who could create the cosmos must be as complex would have to be more complex than the cosmos, and would need his existence explained just as much. He’s been answered many times, but he only repeats himself. It’s as if there were no intellectual world outside his own head; as if intellectual integrity never called for a thinker to respond to other thinkers.

The same goes for virtually all his theologizing. (I’m not a scientist so I will not speak to most of his science, though I’ll turn to one piece of it very shortly.) It’s all recycled material, but sterile, in the sense that it’s remained uninfluenced by the living world surrounding it.

And not just his theology but also his philosophy. At the end of the book he says we “must” live in a “Goldilocks” universe, one of the rare members of the multiverse that supports life. He backs off in the next paragraph as far as admitting it’s not proved yet, but that’s after he concludes it must be true. And why must it be true, even in the complete absence of any physical, empirical evidence? Because there’s no God. And why is he so sure there’s no God? Because the multiverse theory could be true. That’s just rationally empty; it begs the question of God; it’s arguing in a circle

There’s nothing of interest here that wasn’t already in *The God Delusion,* of which nearly every chapter was given enough response by theists to merit at least some attempt at a counter-argument. Dawkins doesn’t seem to care. And because this is old and worked-over material, my final comment is that (unlike most of what I’ve read if Dawkins) this book was really quite boring. I read it so I could review it for The Stream, which I’ll do soon enough. Otherwise I’d have laid it down after a couple chapters and found a better way to spend my time.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

“...cut yourself adrift from comforting, tame, apparent certainties and embrace the wild truth” ~RD

Dawkins can get carried away with his science writing, often forgetting that not all of us are versed in the vernacular - but not here. Here, in theology, he writes with meticulous intent. Imagine Einstein speaking to a class of college freshmen, not just blurting out E=mc2, but rather taking the time to explain that “E” represents “energy” and “m” represents “mass” and “c” represents the speed of light, and that the speed of light is 186,000 miles/second. Dawkins isn’t speaking down to us, he’s quite eloquently lifting us up, wielding his unassailable logic with phenomenal grace and clarity. This is a primer for critical thinkers and those who may be wavering at the threshold of reason.

*Do the English really say ‘anti-clockwise’? Seriously?

[Ian D · Rating 5 out of 5]

"I have a real passion for science, not just because it's useful but because it's beautiful".
Οι ψυχολόγοι το αποκαλούν Halo Effect και σ'αυτά τα πλαίσια, δε θα υποκριθώ κανενός είδους αντικειμενικότητα όσον αφορά το Richard Dawkins.
5 αστέρια για όλο αυτό που κουβαλάει, δηλαδή όλη την αγάπη και το πάθος τόσο για την επιστήμη του όσο και για τη θετική σκέψη εν γένει.

Στα του βιβλίου, τώρα, πρόκειται για μια σύντομη εισαγωγή στο έργο του (αν κάποιος θα ήθελε να συνοψίσει το The God Delusion και το The Blind Watchmaker, ας ξεκινήσει από δω). Απολαυστική ανάγνωση για όλους, εκτός αν είστε τόσο αρνητικά προδιατεθειμένοι ως προς το έργο του Dawkins, οπότε δε σας αφορά αυτή η κριτική έτσι κι αλλιώς.

[David Robertson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wrote a full published review which you can access here - https://theweeflea.com/2019/09/21/out...

But in summary:
n summary, all I can say is that he’s done it again. Richard Dawkins has managed to produce a book on theology, history, philosophy, ethics and science that is even worse than his first.

Outgrowing God is a dumbed down version of TGD, which itself was a dumbed down version of more classical atheist arguments. Apart from the half of the book that is about evolution and where the writing is at times beautiful and often informative, it is poorly written, badly researched and relies on ridicule and ad hominem rather than rational and intelligent discussion.

Dawkins wants to assure us that the atheist emperor is covered in a fine robe of scientific rationalism. He argues that those who do not see this are ‘uneducated’ and to be frank, quite thick. Of course there are those in the fawning interviews and book reviews who will declare that the emperor is fully clothed and in his right mind. But his book only demonstrates that the emperor is naked.

The childish arguments and sneering mockery only show his inability to see beyond his own prejudices and preconceptions. It’s time for him to outgrow his atheism and mature in his thinking. If our society follows the philosophy and faith of Dawkins we will be heading into a dark abyss. It’s time for another Christian Enlightenment.

[Tanja Berg · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very clear guide out of religious misconceptions. Having been brought up thoroughly Christian and completely indoctrinated - well, almost, since nobody told me to not believe in evolution until it was too late - it took me nearly three full decades to leave religion behind. I was terrified, it was like letting go of a safety blanket. As if I was 3 years old at the time and not nearly 30. This book would have comforted me and helped me along. It still does, even if it brings me nothing new.

It shows that most of us are atheists when it comes to Greek or Norse Gods, to just name a few examples. That the Christian God is quite malevolent and jealous and that morality does not come from the commandments or believing in a watcher in the sky. It gives an alternative explanation to creation, showing that living creatures are not designed, even if they appear that way.

It’s been 15 years since I lost religion. I relish in my freedom, other than this, very little in my life or how I behave has changed. There are definitely fewer conundrums - there is no need to contemplate how god allows suffering. There is no supernatural being NOT intervening because there isn’t one. The burden of proof is on the making the most outlandish claim. I can’t prove that pixies, unicorns or leprechauns don’t exist - that doesn’t mean they do. We are wired to believe, it’s been vital for our survival as a species. It doesn’t mean we have to.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is in 2 parts. The first is an excellent overview of why we shouldn't believe in any religion or take them too seriously. It's less provocative & far more likely to convince believers than some of his other books, although he certainly shows why Christian bibles are just collections of myths. Not very good ones for moral instruction, either. The second is an overview of evolution & the current theories on the birth of the universe.

The only hole in the book is typical - there's nothing resembling a replacement for religion. He does mention that religion can strengthen the sense of community without dwelling on how it is usually taken too far. The wonders that science has revealed, but there's nothing about spirituality, reconciling our inherently distorted world view with reality. I guess that is too foggy of an area, but I think it is a real one that needs some attention & definition. Certainly it can be addressed without religion, but most don't believe that or know how. Perhaps it is too personal, but I still think he should have given some ideas on the subject.

I think this is the only book of his that was narrated just by him, without Lalla Ward. It was still good & highly recommended. I highly suggest listening to it & having a text copy to refer to. There are drawings & pictures that are instructive, although I was familiar enough with most of his examples not to need them since most of this material is covered in other books of his.

[Carolina Ibanez · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a good book, specially the first part. The second part (in my opinion) had too many details and very specific examples of evolution which I consider were a bit repetitive.
Nevertheless, the author is very clear to expose the arguments and it’s an easy reading.

[Tim · Rating 1 out of 5]

Evolution, biodiversity, yeah yeah, fine. Nothing here explains why God doesn't exist or why anything exists in the first place.

The book was incredibly poorly written, cited sources include "many historians" and "most Christians." Historically and factually inaccurate and in many places just plain wrong. It's as if he did no research or preparation on the history of religion or biblical exegesis beyond a YouTube comment box.

[Gavin Long · Rating 5 out of 5]

So simple even the fundamentalist nut jobs could understand it - though they`d never bother reading it. Quite a light read written by one of the greats.

[Michael Kress · Rating 5 out of 5]

I overheard some co-workers (one of them being an engineer, ironically) having a "philosophical" discussion, and one of them said that he believed in adaptation, but not evolution. The other one agreed and had some ridiculous comments to add. It then occurred to me that I may be the only one of my coworkers who believes in evolution. That's frustrating, and religion is to blame for them not accepting this scientific fact. They should outgrow god.

I've read anti-religion books by Nietzsche and Hitchens, as well as The God Delusion by Dawkins, and Outgrowing God is the most compelling argument for atheism I've read. Dawkins's critics say that atheism is a worn-out topic, but I think as long as people are denying facts, it needs to be discussed and elaborated on. He is right for being passionate about it. Although I was already convinced before reading this, this book further convinced me of the importance of atheism, especially with the Multiverse Theory and the "god of the gaps." This theory wouldn't exist if people hadn't freed their minds of that idea.

[Angela Groves · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent, concise, clear argument for atheism. Written with humour, it gives clear logical reasoning for turning away from the belief in a higher power, backed up with evidence that is not overly bogged down with scientific jargon. It allows opportunity for further reading. It really is the ideal introduction to atheism.

[Anuraag Sharma · Rating 5 out of 5]

The bold step into the frightening void of what seems improbable has turned out right so often in the history of science. I think we should take our courage in both hands, grow up and give up on all gods. Don’t you?

[Hirangi ྀི · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was quite incredible, hard to argue against something or someone that proves their claims at every step, isn’t it? The book is divided into two parts, the first focusing on the myths regarding god and religion and the false narratives spread over the course of history, while the latter part solely talks about science and the theory of evolution that pretty much we all agree is the reason behind life.
I was hooked from the start especially as someone who knows nothing about the religion targeted here nor about the other religions mentioned (I come from a different part of the world and a different culture.) Now as a person who works in the science field, it was easy to follow all the explanations in the second half not that it would be any hard for a layman, everything was explained in a way that’s easy to comprehend and the fun facts mentioned here and there were so cool, very nerdy very fascinating!
While personally I still do believe in god (at least I think I do) but I have never been religious. My core belief remains that never trust a single person who puts their god above humanity.

[Angus McKeogh · Rating 4 out of 5]

It occurs to me after reading this book that such books exist in a sort of paradox. Here Dawkins clearly tackles many subjects. He discusses how he came to question the existence of a god, which I found remarkable considering I came at it with the same reasoning. Taking a global view, he imagined as a teenager that if he’d have been born somewhere else on the globe and was raised by different parents that he’d be a different religion. Logical. But why was “his religion” the correct one if it was just a matter of timing and geography. Exactly.

He then goes on to confront the “reasons” religious people generally state for their belief. The Bible taught morals. The gods of heathen people from the past are simply that: stories and myths. Dawkins proceeds to point out the fallacies in all these arguments. Thereafter the second part of the book is basically Dawkins laying out the evidence that demonstrates why what we know precludes the need for a god. However, this is where I see the paradox or the problem with such a book. Presenting evidence demonstrating the validity of your position (that a god isn’t necessary) to people who are holding up “faith” (the definition of faith being the belief in something without any evidence) as their “proof” is absolutely futile. The book is great. The evidence is sound and demonstrative. But for any readership that refuses to open their mind, casting aside all that was inculcated into them as children, and does not accept experimental evidence as something that in demonstrative of proof, I lament that the argument of the book is not only lost on such a readership; but I further posit that such a readership would be incapable of receiving any sort of knowledge from such a discussion and demonstration.

So while it was a great read for those that already acknowledge and agree with Dawkins, I think it probably goes innocuously into the readership that frankly can’t be swayed by evidence, science, or reasonable thought. Their whole existence and belief system is already built around unwavering belief in that which has never had and never will harbor any evidence.

[Sara · Rating 5 out of 5]

از کتاب هایی که باعث میشه بخوام برای ستاره دادن سختگیر شم تا وقتی پنج میدم به یه کتاب معلوم شه تفاوتش.
نمی‌خواستم تموم شه، کتاب خوبی بود. هم مدل نوشتنش و هم چیزایی که انتخاب کرده بود بررسی کنه خوب بودن.

کاش یه کتاب مینوشت اون جاهایی که اینجا خلاصه گفته و نوشته که در بحث کتاب نمیگنجه(واقعا بسطشون نمی‌گنجید و کتاب خیلی گنده ای میشد) رو کامل توش توضیح میداد و مینوشت.

هم ایبوک رو خوندم هم ادیوبوک رو گوش کردم؛ گوش دادنی خوش می‌گذشت. خودش خونده کتاب رو و خیلی خوب خونده! جدی خوش میگذره گوش دادن بهش.

کتاب اولاش بررسی گفته های ادیان رو داره، بررسی متون اسطوره ها رو هم کنارشون میاره. خیلی زیبا کنار هم میاره.
خودمم خیلی اسطوره دوست دارم؛ تلاش میکنم بین اسطوره ها و دین ها و فولک‌تیل ها تشابه و همترازی پیدا کنم پس مطمئنن عاشق متنی میشم که اینا رو قشنگ کنار هم آورده. منطقا کامل نیست ولی برای این کتاب کافی بود.

اصلن بی احترامی نمیکنه، یه سری جاها فقط متن تو بایبل، عهد عتیق و جدید و... رو آورده و آنقدر اینا یه سری جاها توهین به شعورن شاید به نظر بیاد داره مسخره می‌کنه ولی خب کاری نکرده متن رو آورده.

از وسطاش یکم ارجاع تاریخی میده و تناقضاتی که یه سری نوشته ها با تاریخ دارن.
اون وسط اخلاق و علوم انسانی رو یکم میاره و ارجاع میده. چندین تا کتاب و شخص معرفی کرد که میخوام بخونم راجع بهشون.

تو یه سری داستان های دینی از یه سری چیز ها یاد شده که امکان نداشته تو اون دوره تاریخی اونجا باشن یا امثال همینا؛ و خب یه سری مدارک دیگه جغرافیایی تاریخی برای داستان هایی مثل نوح و موسی.

بعدش چیزای علمی از زیست و فیزیک و شیمی شروع میشه، مشخصن زیست و تکامل رو کامل تر میگه خب چون داوکینزه؛ تهش به نجوم و زمین ختم میشه.

آخراش بحث علم به طور کلی رو میاره و اینکه چرا مثلن ارسطو به سری چیزا رو نگفته و کلن جمع بندی می‌کنه .


❇️ یکم چیزایی که حین خوندن نوشته بودم رو بیارم:

•وقتی بهم میگن تو که انقدر کتاب تاریخی خوندی(میگن، واقعن اونقدر زیاد نخوندم) پس چرا تعصب نداری رو تاریخمون و هخامنشی فلان و.... ؛ منم همین جوابی رو میدم که داوکینز نوشته.(الان که فکر میکنم زیاد میشه نمینویسم؛ ولی به طور خلاصه از کجا میدونی اون درسته وقتی حافظه انسان هم گچتصویر سازی می‌کنی و چیزی که فیزیکلی بودی و با چشم های خودت دیدی رو بعدن اشتباه به یاد میاری بدون اینکه متوجه بشی ، چون مغزت تصویرسازی کرده. چه برسه دهن به دهن بچرخه، چند سال بگذره، برای نوشتن، ثبت و ... باید از چه کسایی اجازه میگرفتن، چی باید مینوشتن تا بمونه و....‌
و ارجاع میدم به جمله های اول تاریخ بیهقی درباره تاریخ نوشتن و ...)

• وای دلیل درد زایمان خانم ها خوردن سیبه بوده😅😅😅 ارجاع به یه سری اسطوره د��ره نخونده بودم تاحالا ، همین گاردن او ایدنه ولی یه مدل دیگه‌ش.

• بله خدا کارایی می‌کنه که از درکمون خارجه آقای داوکینز! شما نمیتونی با علم و فکت و اخلاق جواب بدی! حتا با خود دین هم یه سری وقت ها توجیه نمیشه، حکمت الهیه ها!!



❇️ تیکه های متن کتاب رو نمیارم ولی اینا باشه:

"Darwin’s and Galileo’s and Wegener’s intellectual courage should inspire us to go further, in the future. All those examples of apparently ridiculous propositions turning out to be true should give us new courage when we face the remaining big puzzles of existence."

"The bold step into the frightening void of what seems improbable has turned out right so often in the history of science. I think we should take our courage in both hands, grow up and give up on all gods."

[Arun Divakar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wide-eyed adoration, that is how religious indoctrination would have begun for me. Listening to the tales of the Gods and Goddesses from the epics would have been the first step in the journey and the rich and vivid tales would have certainly sowed the first seeds for the process to begin. Over the years, an understanding somehow took root in me that there is a personalized wish granting machine called God somewhere out there in the vast unknown. As a schoolgoer, I remember praying for a lot of things : passing an exam successfully, getting a new toy, being taken to watch a new movie, wanting the power to come back while we were watching a cricket match etcetera were but a few of them. Even when I began reading in earnest, this wish granting form of God stayed rooted in my mind with almost the same strength. There was also a time when I was utterly aghast while listening to a couple of atheist friends talking about their views and this was only a few years back. But fellow reader, you know that books are dangerous aren’t they ? Eventually they make you see different perspectives, ideas and alternatives. Ergo questions started forming in my mind over the years.

In the book, there is an anecdote that Richard Dawkins talks about : a religious person who after having her own set of questions decides to imagine a world without God. This is something I have personally tried and for the initial few times, I failed utterly at this. It felt pretty much obscene and rudderless to think of a world without a God but gradually, there was a clearing of clouds and I could see much more clearly. To me, the change was brought about not just by books and/or people but also by the happenings in the world around us. If you pause to reflect at what happens in your state or country or even the wider world, then it becomes clear how deeply such a man-made construct has seeped into our lives and times. I wish I had stumbled on this book when I was younger and still looking for a sense of direction because it is a great primer. As a child, Science was just another tedious subject that I learned in school and beyond the rote learning there was no additional thought that I gave to its principles. In the book, Dawkins uses strong and solid fundamentals of science to dispel the vapours of what religion told us to believe about God. He does not try to controversial or vitriolic but rather disassembles some of the fundamental pillars in the teachings of Abrahamic religions. While the focus is almost exclusively on Christianity, the tools of logic and reasoning that he uses are very effective for even daily life.

Recommended to begin things with if you are on the way to exploring things beyond God.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide, by Richard Dawkins is a book that looks to disprove major discourse that a religious person may offer to an atheist in a discussion or debate. The book looks at why religious texts are kind of silly; from major logical issues in the bible, to the violence of God, to contradicting ethical issues, and so on. Topics like biology (intelligent design vs. evolution), morality and ethics, philosophy and how myths evolve into religions are all touched on very lightly. Dawkins arguments in this text are compelling, interesting, and highly readable. This was my first Dawkins text that I have read, and I was left enjoying it, without being too compelled by his arguments.

To start, I would say that I am already non-religious, although I dislike any religious identifiers (atheist, agnostic, Christian etc.) in any form. The universe is far to complex, and my knowledge of philosophy, physics, and religious discourse is far too lacking to really make any sort of concrete decision, Suffice to say, I would probably heavily empathize with Dawkins in many ways, although I am skeptical of many of his viewpoints as well. The sheer vastness of the universe, its complexity, and the mysteriousness of its origin, as well as life itself, leaves many questions unanswered, although I would be shocked if the differ too far from what the scientific community has established. Dawkins book, therefore, did not offer too much that was new to me in terms of concepts, although that is not the fault of the book or author. Instead, I would say this is an engaging read, that me be enlightening at a basic level, to those looking to challenge their internalized religious beliefs.

This book had good information, some interesting tangents, and some cool factoids. It's style is what think when I hear someone talking about a book on atheism; preachy, nerdy, and, without trying to be too mean, self important. Even so, as someone who is looking to read more on religious concepts, including atheism, this book did offer some good insight. Recommended for those who are looking to start learning about religious discourse, or those looking for a quick read on atheism.

[Петър Стойков · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ох, какво да кажа за поредната атеистка книга на Докинс?

По принцип, Докинс е пич. Първата му книга, Себичният ген, поставя ново стъпало за еволюционното разбиране за развитието на живота на земята. После той се захваща със стръв да громи религиите и основно християнството. Може би трябва да му простим, че продължава да се занимава с това на стари години, тъй като то безпорно му донесе огромната част от световната известност.

Това обаче не прави поредицата от атеистични книги, които излизат изпод клавиатурата му по-малко еднообразни. Да, аргументите в всички тях са еднакви - еднакво силни и с еднакви пропуски, които той за две десетилетия така и не можа да запълни. Може би защото пропуските са в собствените му разсъждения относно човешката еволюция - а кой харесва (или даже може) да признава дори само пред себе си, че не е бил прав...

Подобни книги не научават никого на нищо - те се купуват главно от убедени атеисти, за да се радват на аргументи, които вече отдавна знаят и да злорадстват колко са тъпи религиозните хора. Никой религиозен човек няма да прочете тая книга и да изостави вярата си, нито даже някой, който е "на кантар" според мен ще има нерви да чете така поднесена информацията за това как бог няма и това е добре.

[Johannes Jansson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was hoping to read a more worked through and structured version of the God delusion. I was disappointed.

The two first thirds of the book are so filled with random weak underdeveloped arguments against God that it’s impossible to untangle them as one is reading, without re-reading several times with pen and paper. It’s even more impossible to remember or understand exactly what his points are. (I want to point out that I’m not referencing Dawkins condescending tone here, but his structure and reasoning) The result is hyper communication. You’re left with a strong _feeling_ that God doesn’t exist and that there are plenty of strong arguments supporting this. But when asked what those arguments are you probably won’t be able to provide them, and definitely not defend them against any kind of serious scrutiny.

In the last third of the book something happened. Dawkins went from a stressed out hyper communicator to a pedagogical teacher as he explained evolution. While not without gaps, I really appreciated this part of the book and picked up a few new cool examples of evolution.

[britt_brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn’t realize Dawkins had a new book until I heard him on Dax Shepard’s podcast a few days ago. That was quite an interview. Dax - an atheist - was totally fanboying and I loved it! Anyway, this book is insightful. “You don’t have to believe in a higher power to be good.” Simply stated, yet so true.

I do think Dawkins could be a bit less condescending with his book titles, but I like what he has to say within.

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

My favourite science author👍 this man's a genius! Should be in every school's library! & every adult's library!

[Jeff Koeppen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide is Dawkins 101, the shorter, gentler, and more accessible sibling to The God Delusion. It is targeted at younger people, and is therefore an introduction in to the world of critical thinking so to speak. Unfortunately, I believe the young indoctrinated-at-birth who should read this would never pick up something they consider blasphemous, and it will only be enjoyed by those already leaning away from the world of magic and the supernatural, and grown-up Dawkins fans such as myself. Oh, how I wish I would've had access to such a book in high school or my early college years!

Dawkins divided this relatively short book (compared to his other works) in to two parts: "Goodbye God" and "Evolution and Beyond". Chapters are also relatively short and to the point, Dawkins hits the main points and moves on, and references other books or even YouTube videos which the reader can turn to if they have a deeper interest in the subject matter. As always, Dawkins is articulate and makes the subject matter understandable for the layperson, displaying his usual wit and throwing humor occasionally.

"Goodbye God's" chapters address the origins of gods and myths, addresses the absurdity of the Bible and the other holy books of the Abrahamic religions, and what is "good" and do we need a god to be good? Classic Dawkins, all of it, but told with less venom that Dawkins fans are used to.

In "Evolution and Beyond", Dawkins uses his vast knowledge as an evolutionary biologist to address the idea of a universal designer and how evolution and natural laws explain things which appear to be designed. This is Dawkins at his finest, explaining evolution and other scientific facts, which the intelligent design crowd continues to contest, in such a way that a young person with limited knowledge of biology can understand.

This book is full of great quotes. I will share one of my favorites, which struck me as a former Catholic school pupil:

"That's the favourite dodge of theologians, had you noticed? If you don't like something in the Bible, say it's only symbolic, it never really happened, it's a metaphor to convey a message. And of course they get to choose which verses are metaphors and which are to be taken literally." Yup, all day long!

This is a great introduction in to critical thinking and I wish all young people could read it. It's sad that some are indoctrinated from day one, receive years and years of religious-based education, but are not taught proper critical thinking skills or exposed to the real science of how the world works. Like Dawkins says, it is time for our species to grow up, embrace knowledge, and let go of the gods.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars
If you want to decide for yourself if what you were taught about religion were true, I’d highly recommend this book along with Stephen Hawkings’ “Brief Answers to the Big Questions” Here Dawkins goes through the biology of evolution, Hawkins goes through the cosmology of why a god is unnecessary.
Unfortunately I think it will be largely ignored, I think it’s very hard to persuade superstitious people to have the courage to give up their superstitions, especially today when so many unscientific theories abound both on the internet and in politics. My favorite chapters are the first part of the book where he takes on the bible, philosophy and how myths start.

Eye-witnesses photographed what they thought was the face of Satan in the smoky dust clouds hanging over New York that day.

We want to see patterns, it’s how we order the world, even when there really is no pattern to see.

I love the Mark Twain quotes

Mormonism is another relatively recent cult which, unlike the John Frum or cargo cults, or the ‘Elvis is Risen’ cult, has spread all over the world and become rich and powerful. The founder was a man from New York State called Joseph Smith. He claimed that in 1823 an angel called Moroni told him where to dig up some golden plates which had ancient writing on them. Smith said he did so, and translated the writing from an old Egyptian language into English. He did this with the aid of a magic stone in a magic hat. When he looked in the hat, the stone revealed to him the meaning of the words. He published his English ‘translation’ in 1830. Weirdly, the English was not the English of his own time but the English of more than two centuries earlier, the English of the King James Bible. Mark Twain joked that if you cut out every repetition of ‘It came to pass’, the Book of Mormon would shrink to a pamphlet.

Mark Twain is supposed to have said: ‘A lie can spread half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.’ And not only malicious lies, but good stories that aren’t true but are amusing and fun to recount, especially if you were told them in good faith and don’t positively know they’re untrue. Or stories that, if not amusing, are spookily uncanny – another reason why so many are passed on.

Like so many lies spread that through social media and news sources that offer no real facts only opinion.

[Eric Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has its share of interesting facts, but in the end, it truly is a beginner's guide. The arguments made are no different than those raised for years against religion--and that is really what Dawkins attacks here, more than any basis for or against a greater being called God.

In full disclosure, I do believe in God, but wanted to hear Dawkins' arguments. Sadly, he resorts to a lot of silly names and wordage instead of staying objective, for which I would have had more respect. His bias is already known, and that's fine, but then he makes blanket statements, such as there are no modern biblical scholars who take the Old Testament as history, which is far from accurate. I've worked with archaeologists and biblical scholars and theologians who do in fact accept the Old Testament as history. The more they discover, the more they substantiate things that were long thought spurious.

I hoped for more from Mr. Dawkins, not because I share his beliefs but because I wanted to examine my own beliefs with a more critical eye. He failed to give me much to work with.