So, I've read several reviews of this book and I've seen several reactions to this work, but I wanted to get it straight from the horse's mouth in a manner of speaking. So I'm reading The God Delusion, and I'll give you my notes.
Even in the preface Dawkins has already shown his prejudice. Obviously the title says a lot, "Delusion." He even mentions that psychologists asked him to change it because the word delusion is a scientific term and to apply it to the millions of people that believe in god wouldn't do justice to the word. Of course that doesn't seem to faze Dawkins and his writing about that almost seems boastful, like he's proud of the fact that he's insulted the majority of the world. How about this quote? "... I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, or for other reasons didn't 'take,' or whose native intelligence is strong enough to overcome it" (pg6). In case you didn't catch that, if you're open-minded or intelligent you'll give up anything you were taught about God in your childhood and be an atheist, like all the other smart people in the world.
How about this "gem"? Quote from a Roman Catholic bishop who wrote to Einstein, "...He is all wrong. Some men think that because they have achieved a high degree of learning in some field, they are qualified to express opinions in all." Of course, Dawkins' retort is a false analogy based on his presupposition that God is just as fanciful as fairies. Dawkins claims that theology isn't a "proper field" at all. I find this particularly interesting because I've heard a very similar comment levied against Dawkins. He's a world-renowned ethologist and evolutionary biologist, not a philosopher or theologian yet he's written extensively and authoritatively on subjects he has no (formal) education in. No offence to his brilliance in his fields, but what expertise does a animal behaviorist and evolutionary biologist have in the fields of philosophy of religion, theology, philosophy in general? Being brilliant in one particular field of knowledge doesn't give one authority to speak to all other fields of knowledge.
The biggest problem I have so far is that there haven't been any arguments (yet, he keeps hinting that they'll be proven in later chapters). Chapter one, the first section is simply a childish foot-stomping raving that when atheists say "god" they don't mean the word "god." Something akin to a child throwing a fit saying, "I did not say what you think I said!" Alright! When Dawkins and other atheists say "god" they really mean, uh, well... nothing really, they apparently mean force or nature or the universe, or whatever they want it to mean at that particular moment, but they most certainly do not mean a personal intervening god that is worthy of worship. Dawkins talks about how Einstein was NOT a theist as some theists claim, that he was actually a deist or pantheist. The only acceptable belief in god, to Dawkins, is the deists' god that creates the universe then leaves it alone and never interacts with it again; an invisible, intangible, inactive, uncaring, uninvolved, person-less, unintelligent being with no human characteristics at all. The deists' god is the same as the pantheists' god, an impersonal force that has nothing to do with humanity, that's the only acceptable god, one that has nothing to do with the universe.
Then in chapter one, section two, Dawkins offers a half-hearted attempt at an (advance) apology, which comes too late since the only thing he's said so far is that only intelligent people believe in either an impersonal god or that the universe is god, and by extension only idiots believe in a personal god. It's almost comical, Dawkins makes this claim that theists are always trotting out scientists, especially Einstein, that believe/believed in god and then dismisses it as a bad argument. Then, he turns the same fallacious argument around and uses it, saying that this or that brilliant scientist is atheist and the vast majority of Nobel prize winners in science have been atheists, on and on. I'm sorry, but if an argument is fallacious for one side of an argument, it's equally as fallacious for the opposing side. Think about it; if I say, "Thousands of people believe in pink unicorns, therefore I'm a pink unicorn." You cannot say, "Thousands of people don't believe in pink unicorns, therefore there's no such thing as pink unicorns." An appeal to the people or authority is a fallacy for either side.
In chapter two the insults just keep coming. Not only does Dawkins attack those that believe in a personal god, but he begins attacking anyone who believes that we cannot know whether or not there is a god, agnostics. As part of his disdain for agnosticism he attacks the concept of NOMA (Non-Overlapping MAgisteria). He, who has been continuously accusing God of evil acts and intentions, seems to be calling on god to prove himself. It's like Dawkins is calling upon god to submit to scientific inquiry or proof. It's like Dawkins is saying he expects this wicked, sneaky, conniving, evil, all-powerful entity to answer this puny ant's call. Reminds me of a quote from the 2012 Avengers movie, "The ant has no quarrel with the boot." (Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying God is the boot looking to crush ants like us, merely that Dawkins is making god out to be this crushing, killing, evil boot character then complains when that entity doesn't kowtow to his demands for proof.) Dawkins, who is much less than an ant, is shaking his puny fist at a god he doesn't believe exists saying, "How dare you not prove yourself to me! How dare you presume to break the laws you set by performing miracles, but when I ask you're silent!"
I just finished reading Jenna Miscavige Hill's book about getting out of Scientology, and she had a quote that Dawkins would do well to listen to: "My parents were aware it was my choice to remain in [Scientology], but they also knew I was brainwashed. The last thing you want to tell a person who is brainwashed is that they are brainwashed." If Dawkins really wants to get through to us poor brainwashed theists, telling us we're brainwashed is definitely not the way to go.
Then on pg. 83 Dawkins quotes Norman Malcom in relation to Anselm's ontological argument, which seems to have a loophole in it about existence being more perfect than non-existence. "The doctrine that existence is a perfection is remarkably queer. It makes sense and is true to say that my future house will be a better one if it is insulated than if it is not insulated; but what could it mean to say that it will be a better house if it exists than if it does not?" The answer to this riddle seem painfully obvious. If you need/want shelter, it's much better to have a house that exists than one that doesn't.
In summation: the first three chapters and preface do nothing in the way of arguing against God; hopefully the actual arguments will begin in chapter four. The first three chapters have been nothing but blustering and casually brushing aside arguments for god. Even Aquinas' eloquently framed ways to God were poorly treated and no real arguments or counter-arguments have been made. These first three chapters can be summed up as such: Anyone who believes there is a God and anyone who believes that we cannot know if there is or isn't a god, is an idiot.
