Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion was in many respects not the book I had been led to believe. Bear in mind, of course, that I was raised in a primarily christian environment, one in which calling god a delusion was about the same as calling someone's mother a fat, ugly bitch. I would guess that the "reviews" that I heard were mostly just reactions to the title of the book and the word "atheism" of which Dawkins is not ashamed. And while Dawkins certainly does not pull any punches in his approach to religion, he was surprisingly civil and sometimes kindly to those with whom he strongly disagrees. There were one or two sentences bordering on condescending, but Dawkins did a remarkable job of sticking to the facts, logic and reason, and not devolving into name-calling, a tactic oh-so-familiar in most religious debates.
I read Dawkins' book in two sittings; on a seven-hour flight home for the holidays, and on the six-hour flight back. While I may be an aberration in this opinion, I found I could not put the book down. Dawkins' was charming, witty, informative, enthusiastic, and very, very compelling. I found myself nodding in agreement, laughing out loud, and gasping in surprise or horror at all the right moments (just ask my husband; I literally did all of these things on a crowded airplane).
The book is divided up into ten fairly lengthy chapters, which are further divided up under headings (which makes it relatively easy to find a stopping place when it's time to disembark). The chapters were intuitively organized by subject matter; one with religious scriptures, one with religious abuses (specifically of children), one of the science of origins, etc. One could probably even just read the chapters whose subject intrigued the reader, although I would wholeheartedly recommend the entire book to any interested reader.
All-in-all, it is a book that should be read by people of all philosophies: by the religious, to approach the question of why do they believe; by the questioning and doubting to clarify their own questions; by the non-believers to give them the words to stand up for their own beliefs in a world that is often hostile to those who do not subscribe to some system of supernatural belief. That is what the idealist in me believes. The realist in me, however, knows that most religious people might find Dawkins' entire book to be offensive and demeaning (although, I would have to agree with Dawkins when he points out that there is no reason for religion to be more above questioning than any other aspect of human life, society, and culture). This is a book destined to be appreciated by some, although on its merits alone deserved of appreciation by many, many more.
