From the preface: This book "is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one." THE GOD DELUSION is a provocative book and eminently readable. His basic claim is that religion is a delusion, a modification of Freud's claim that religion is an illusion (a wish fulfillment). It is also a political warning. Dawkins holds the view the religions are dangerous, both cognitively and politically.

The book is really well written, it is fun to read even when you disagree. With lively prose and invective rhetoric there is something here that is sure to annoy almost everyone… it is provocative and entertaining.

In other words, it is the perfect coffee table book; it is also a very SUCCESSFUL book on its own terms.

Dawkins wants to talk critically about religion in public, The book and the video accompanying it have been widely discussed and circulated. So, even if you disagree vehemently - if you are reading this review Dawkins has probably accomplished his aims. He wants to talk about religion in public and he wants more people to talk about religion in public.

As someone who studies religion professionally I have numerous reservations about his book. I'll mention only one.

Dawkins starting point is essentially that religion is "bad science." He spends a lot of time showing the absurdity of "intelligent design" as well as making good fun of the various proofs for the existence of God. He also castigates the idea that science is about truth and religion about meaning - religion is never ONLY about questions of meaning.

The problem is this: religion isn't bad science. I would even go so far as to say that theology isn't bad science (although if I'm correct, this would certainly jeopardize the legitimacy of theology's position within most universities around the world). Religion isn't scientific at all. Religion is a symbol system and as such closely tied with condensed and ritual forms of communication and identity formation. When a Christian says, "I believe" they are not making a scientific claim but attesting to membership within a particular community. It may sound like a scientific claim but it isn't, not really. Belief is a declaration, not an invitation to debate or a propositionally differentiated truth claim. This is what Dawkins misses. In other words, you don't need to apply quantitative testing techniques to "belief," you simply need to contact a church registrar. Instead of the God hypothesis he could have talked about "the God ritual." Most of the difficulties of this debate disappear from view if one considers this seriously. Because of this logical error (equating a claim to identity with a propositional truth claim) you'll see that Dawkins ends up banging his head against the wall because he keeps getting the same answer to his criticisms: "it is true because I believe it" or "It is true because it is true." Such responses will drive any reasonable person nuts. But, there is logic to it. Belief or believing is a ritual performance. Dawkins runs with the assumption that the statement "I believe in God" or "God exists" is a propositional claim. Strictly speaking, they aren't propositions but performances… more like a routine or habit or theatrical skit than a validity claim. Religion is a ritual. Its symbolic vocabulary is more or less closed to non-members who are not initiated into the system of meaning that are utilized within religious rituals.

In closing: if you are interested in studying religion then this is not the place to turn, although it is definitely worth reading. Scholars have been studying religions - as distinct from practicing religion - for 150 years at least. Most universities currently have some form of religious studies as part of their curriculum although this is widely misunderstood to mean theology. There are many fine works concerning the study of religion which help us understand why people do the things they do. I've recommended three here.