Who here has actually read anything by Richard Dawkins?

I have--large chunks of the God Delusion, all of The Blind Watchmaker, and the Selfish Gene.
I don't agree with everything he says but I think he makes some very good points both as a critic of religion and as an evolutionary biologist, although please note, I do not agree with all his evolutionary theories either.
I hear alot of criticism here of him as a "fundie atheist" but it makes me wonder if those whose critiques are the harshest have actually taken the time to read the man's work. He really is a very good, thought provoking writer and scientist and far from the "tool" some people seem to think he is.
He's so highly regarded that one of the books I read, The Selfish Gene was part of my college curriculum!
I'm curious because it seems to me that deists bash him without actually having first hand knowledge...just like the guy who twisted his words around to suggest he supports eugenics....:eyes:

I thorougly enjoy his books on biology. I found him both interesting and informative.

I also read The God Delusion and I was disappointed in it. I enjoy reading philosophy and have read both Kant and Hume on the question of proving god's existence. I thought they both did an good job. I didn't see Dawkins adding anything to what they've said, and, after a couple of his proofs (e.g. the ontological proof) I went back and re-read Kant because he did a much better job. IIRC, I didn't think Dawkins was convincing on the ontological proof.

ETA: I've also read Stenger (sp) and I've found him far better than Dawkins on this issue. I believe Stenger is a physicist.

I actually think he's books on biology maker a stronger (if very indirect) case for there being no god (and again I don't believe in 100% genetic determinism but he makes some great points). Thats why I think all these people who criticize him need to read more than the God Delusion to understand his POV.

And you seem to think it doesn't go far enough! :)

...as a book for a wide audience, not for scholars of philosophy. Isn't it enough that the ontological argument has been pretty well trashed via number of approaches that Dawkins might choose to take an accessible and brief approach to make a basic point, and not try to confound his readers with, say, "existence is not a predicate"?

I've read the God Delusion, but not recently enough to remember what he wrote on this particular subject.

and should be read by anyone who wants to understand what is known about evolution 150 years after The Origin of the Species.

I read the God Delusion, which is a highly entertaining explication of Dawkin's atheism.

And I'm reading Climbing Mount Improbable, another of his excellent books on evolution and biology.

that I'm reading it again. It's the only book I've read by Dawkins, but I was very impressed.

I read The God Delusion when it came out and have re-read most of it over the last six weeks or so. I'm about halfway through The Greatest Show on Earth and am liking it so far--it makes evolution understandable to someone (like me) whose last experience reading about evolution was back in high school 20+ years ago. (I admit I skipped parts of the chapter on carbon dating because my brain started to glaze over after awhile and I'm not someone who doesn't believe that it works.)

text, not terribly interesting or original, though widely hyped by the Randians and other such social dawinists who liked the title. I've looked at some online excerpts from his anti-religious work in the last few years, to try to decide whether he was worth reading -- and thought the excerpts made fairly obvious and shallow points that didn't really increase my understanding of anything

I have to say that the latest, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution is magnificent. I have been listening to the audio book on my commute and will be adding the hardcover to my library.

I haven't read much of The God Delusion nor much of his other philosophical works because as an atheist already, I really don't learn much from those works. I read in order to learn so I tend to avoid subjects which I already understand. My background is (electrical) engineering and physics so I welcome anyone who can concisely explain biology to me.

The God Delusion is a favorite of those who haven't read it for their ability to misrepresent it.

I'm glad someone else remembers that eugenics thread. Interestingly enough, that thread actually has nothing to do with religion but was posted here in R/T...

except The Extended Phenotype (a bit too esoteric for my taste). I find everything he's written very absorbing, and The Blind Watchmaker is one of the best science books I've ever read. I thought his most recent was actually his weakest, if you judge it by how well it lives up to its sub-title (The Evidence for Evolution). I think he misreads the appropriate audience for the book, and goes off on way too many tangents that distract from demonstrating evolution (not that his tangents aren't still interesting). If he wanted to convince people who needed convincing, and could be convinced, that evolution is true, I think he could have done a better job in fewer pages.

And btw, fundamentalists bash pretty much everyone and everything without actually having first hand knowledge.

I've read The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, A Devil's Chaplain, and Unweaving the Rainbow. I have The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth floating around here somewhere, but I'm taking a break from non-fiction for a while.

I really love his use of words, especially his ability to explain. He has a very concise, simple, direct way of explaining things that makes him a joy to read. He is a towering intellect, and usually right. I find a lot of criticism of him very unusual, because it usually has little to do with his actual positions.

I think my favorite of his has to be A Devil's Chaplain. It contains a diverse little grouping of essays on various unrelated subjects, and it really highlights his ability to write in an elucidating way on several different topics. The crowning jewel of that book was his letter to his ten-year-old daughter on the merits of skepticism. His "Lament for Douglas (Adams)" was moving and profound. His recounting of the wild wonders of Africa, both as the birthplace of our species and as his personal birthplace, was truly artful. I also found his writings on "speciesism" to be thought-provoking, as well as his skepticism of trial-by-jury. I was also a huge fan of Unweaving the Rainbow. It's basically about the wonders of our world as science can reveal them, with particular attention to the huge benefits we have derived from Newton's work with the visible spectrum.

I feel his weakest was The God Delusion. His writing just didn't have passion and joy present when writing about science. It mostly unassailable in its positions, I thought, just not very interesting.