Richard Dawkins
Houghton Mifflin Company
2006

In his latest book, The God Delusion, British author Richard Dawkins claims he is using logic and science to argue against the existence of a supreme being, primarily God as worshipped by many modern Conservative American Christians. Rather than providing a coherent argument in favor of—or in defense of—atheism, Dawkins provides an elitist rant against all who consider themselves even remotely religious.

Dawkins sets his tone early in the book by hurling thinly veiled fighting words against the faithful in his audience, such as calling the God of the Old Testament a “psychotic delinquent” and claiming “the only difference between The Da Vinci Code and the gospels is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction.”

There are good moments in the book. For example, while examining early American history, Dawkins stresses the fact that the “Founding Fathers” were not the hardcore Christians modern Red State residents believe. He argues the point by including significant quotations from Thomas Jefferson (“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”), Ben Franklin (“Lighthouses are more useful than churches”), and John Adams (“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”). As interesting as those quotes are and as much as that important history lesson needs to be taught, the author’s voice reads as a culturally elite British snob looking down on ignorant and blindly religious Americans.

If his goal was to create an atheist manifesto to win new converts, Dawkins fails. Anyone who is not already an atheist—even a borderline agnostic—is not going to be won over by his arguments. He scoffs, he insults, and he ridicules those who believe, but he fails to convince readers of the superiority of his cause. In his intolerance of the faithful, Dawkins becomes an extremist as close-minded as the enemy he rails against. Haughty and arrogant, Dawkins reads as if he is passing judgment from On High, just like the Old Testament God he decries so mightily. Even worse, he has taken a subject that should have been interesting and produced the equivalent of a plodding, heavy, and overlong lecture by a professor too impressed with the sound of his own voice.

Reviewed by John C. Leonard, a nearly native resident of the New River Valley, who is neither atheist nor Bible-thumper.