I must admit to approaching the God Delusion with a little trepidation. Here was a book I'd wanted to read for a long time, now available in paperback, but I could almost hear the warnings from friends of mine when I picked it off the shelf. You know the kind of thing, Dawkins is a fundamentalist, why is it his business to discuss religion in the first place etc., how qualified is he to even speak about this? Some of these criticisms and more were put in Terry Eagleton's review of the orginal in the London Review of Books, "Lunging, flailing, mispunching" (19 October 2006) whose opening line compared Dawkins on theology to someone discussing biology only having read the British Book of Birds. If not going this far wouldn't some argue against the tone of language employed in the book as being counter-productive?

There is no escaping the fact that The God Delusion is a polemic, so why be surprised if Dawkins isn't presenting a balanced overview of all the arguments in favour or against (any) god's existence? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I remember a section in the Communist Manifesto that argued that, actually you could see modern industrial capitalism as largely misunderstood and not all that bad after all. Maybe criticising Dawkins for having only a basic grasp of theology is unfair. He makes frequent references to it throughout the book even though it is apparent from early on precisely what he thinks of any theology (not much in case you're wondering).

Dawkins moves to counter some of the more obvious criticisms of the book in the introduction to the paperback edition, organised under separate headings. He certainly makes no apology for his perceived "shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language". Actually, I found the tone of the language varied throughout; sometimes shrill but often calmer. In chapters four and five Dawkins is on his home territory of evolutionary biology and it's sometimes possible to believe one is reading a different book, although the chapter titles might give it away (e.g. chapter four, "Why there is almost certainly no God").

If there's a criticism to be made of Dawkins' language I'd suggest it would lie in his enthusiasm for slang words and phrases. Is it really necessary for instance to use the words "gazillion", "faith-heads" or the phrase "what is all that about?" which don't seem to befit an Oxford professor, even one who is deliberately writing a populist work. Also, for a book illuminating the wonders and certainties of science, the word "probably" makes too common an appearance (probably).

If you're a heathen like myself then there's a fair chance you'll recognise some of the arguments put forward in the God Delusion. Dawkins covers the logical arguments against religion and adds in his own from the stand point of being an evolutionary biologist. For instance, many a doubter would have questioned how you could have so many competing mutually incompatible faiths in the world all claiming to reveal the ultimate truth. An adherent of one belief system doesn't believe in the god of another's. The atheist takes this one step further and believes in "one less god". You may have also questioned why some parts of the Bible are "allowed" to be perceived as allegorical and some not. Either it's the word of God, or it's not surely? Dawkins is quite right to remind us how unpleasant many of the Bible stories actually are; naturally some of these are the ones most likely to be described as allegorical by the faithful.

Most of Dawkins' ire is naturally reserved for the new proponents of creationism, or "intelligent design" as it likes to brand itself these days. This is of course the theory that there must be a god (or "designer") as some things are just too complex to have come about by evolution. In other words, we don't understand it, so it must have been god who did it. This school of thinking seems so utterly ridiculous that you might consider it unnecessary to give it a second thought, although it has considerable support in the United States and creationism has even made its way into a government-subsidised school in the UK (Emmanuel College in Gateshead).

Dawkins seeks to find answers to the origins of religion and its continued survival in the modern world in terms of evolutionary theory and the theory of memetics; the meme as cultural analogue to the gene. I think this only goes part of the way. As a lapsed historian I would like to see more analysis of the historical context of religion and why some have been more successful than others, but maybe this is outside the scope of Dawkins' work; he is a biologist after all. This aside, Dawkins' arguments are sometimes compromised by a lack of understanding of historical and political factors. The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland cannot be explained away simply by reference to religion, and it's arguable Islamism is also a political phenomenon providing a binding ideology to disparate groups in the same way Marxism-Leninism did to nationalist movements in the Twentieth Century.

The book closes with discussion of some of the other large issues traditionally raised in defence of religion: it provides consolation and inspiration. Dawkins argues we can find consolation in reflection; we are not who we were when we were children and we can experience a series of "slow deaths" throughout our lives as we live through Shakespeare's seven ages of man. Maybe this isn't quite on a par with the promise of eternal life but I found it a strangely comforting way to look at this issue. Inspiration is maybe an easier topic to address. Douglas Adam's quoted words at beginning of the book put it most succintly, "isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I can understand why it's easy to dislike Dawkins. Even if you agree with his views and don't question his language and tone too much you might find his effortless self-promotion makes you shift uncomfortably in your seat occasionally. Frequent references to his other books aside (that is forgiveable), I wasn't really convinced it was central to his argument to maybe mention his website (where you can buy his DVDs) quite as much. He is certainly not backwards in coming forwards -- he was even recently spotted giving a lecture on the God Delusion in Second Life.

Whatever you make of it I think this book makes for a welcome stimulator of debate. As we are reminded throughout the book, religion holds a privileged position in society and is often considered to be above criticism. The faithful (or certain sections of them) are often very quick to take offence (e.g. at dangerous things like plays, or cartoons) and make their protests known, and as a result of well-intentioned diversity policies (see the GLA website for a recent example), governments are sometimes too willing to listen to these complaints. So, maybe its publication is timely. Whether it will change any minds is however, doubtful despite Dawkins' high hopes. You'll love it or you'll hate it, a bit like marmite. And I love marmite.

This book hardly needs any introduction - if you have not heard of it you must have been cataloging the names of the minor characters in ¨War and Peace¨ over the last 10 months or so. Basically this book is written in Dawkins´ normal expansive and eloquent style which readers of his earlier books will have become accustomed to; even given the subject matter this book carries you along at a fair old pace - for a non-fiction book this is quite the page turner.

The subject matter is Dawkins´ pet subject, namely the irrationality of the belief in god or any other supreme, all knowing being. In this book he goes further arguing that this belief has, through the ages, significantly harmed the human race, society in general, science in particular and remains the primary cause of individual suffering today. The first half of the book is a devastating attack on the arguments offered by the proponents of religious thinking, Dawkins takes each argument for the existence of god in turn and leaves it battered and lifeless on the road to rational Nirvana (and he´d argue that this last phrase is a symptom of a language peppered with religious concepts - brainwashing us all!).

The second half of the book labors the point and you feel a certain sense of frustration with the arguments presented - ¨OK - I get it - enough already!!¨ - check out the chapter ¨Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion¨ one feels that Mr. Dawkins would rather not have included the punctuation - nevertheless it is still well written and the intelligence of the man shines through every paragraph.

Time to come clean - I am an atheist (have been since I was 18) who was brought up in a ´traditional´ Roman Catholic household and I enjoyed this book - I will almost certainly re-read it. This however is the problem with ¨The God Delusion¨ - I doubt that a devote Hindu would read this book and think ¨Wow - I´ve been duped all my life and now Dawkins has opened my mind to the futility of religion, give me a bacon sandwich¨, the thrust of the book is powerfully but I believe it will mostly preach to the converted if I can be forgiven for using another religiously bias phrase.

I believe I read somewhere that Dawkins hopes that the book will lead to a reduction in the influence religion has on the governance of our societies - particularly in the United States and that this will be achieved through the increased use of rational thought unencumbered by religious bias - I think this is a tall order for this book, good as it is, and possibly the world post ¨The God Delusion" is more polarised on this subject than it was before.

My first review, don't laugh.

A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley paints a picture of a system of society where the inhabitants are conditioned to be happy and somewhat superficial in order to ensure the stability of a World State. The novel takes place in the future when technological advances have allowed the cloning of human embryos, which are placed into five separate castes. The different embryos of these castes are conditioned for work purposes to ensure the thriving of the ever growing population and the success of the society. Superficial happiness is given to each member through the drug soma and the practice of casual sex.

After reading this book, I think I developed more of an admiration for Aldous Huxley rather than the book itself. I admire mostly the fact that Huxley wrote this novel in the 1930’s and that practices of genetic engineering and cloning have come to pass already in this 21st century, causing this story to be a true case of pure science fiction. I feel like Huxley was a genius in an imaginative way and this gives me a lot of respect for him.

I’ve noticed that the book itself has obtained some very good reviews and I’ve wanted to read it for a few months now. After reading the book though, I have to admit that I was a little bit disappointed with the plot. It seemed like it didn’t progress or answer many questions. It was like a look into a world; seeing how it operated what it was comprised of – nothing more nothing less.

For such a brilliant idea I wish that Huxley could have thought up a better story for such an advanced world. Personally, I loved the part of the story where John Savage talks to Mustapha Mond, the World Controller and it turns out that the World Controller isn’t brain washed and knows full well what is going on. Seeing how both characters possess contrasting views of the World State that they are in was the most enjoyable point of the novel for me. It’s hard not to agree with them both, because they both make strong valid points. In John’s case he is pointing out what it means to be human while Mond takes things from an impersonal leadership stance where stability is the only thing that matters. This brings me to another observation. Huxley created each character so diverse so that the reader could see things from every angle. He created the model citizen (Lenina and Henry), the socially inept (Bernard), the socially adept (Helmholtz), the anti-social (John Savage), and the society’s controller (Mond). It’s almost as if Huxley produced this world and these people but didn’t know what to do with them.

Quite honestly, I think this is one of those classic books that is somewhat overrated. As far as the book goes, I say it’s a manifestation of the fact that Huxley was incredibly bright and had some amazing ideas. The world Huxley tells of and the characters are the most interesting aspects, but as far as the plot goes, it can’t compete. The idea was smart; the plot wasn’t so much.

I have mixed opinions about “A Secret of the Universe.” I found it very informative, but I did not agree with the author’s conclusion. The book basically is the story of two lifelong friends: Ian and Mac. Both are seeking the ultimate meaning of life, and both are traveling divergent paths. The author uses these two men to present his opinions about the Judeo-Christian view of life and about a non-Biblical scientific view of life.

The main characters are Ian Keppler and Bill Vanderveen. Both get married in the novel; both have children. There are many characters: in-laws, parents, friends, and a study-group of scientists trying to discern what is really true in human traditions. Gibson does a good job of characterization. He describes some surprising conduct on the part of some characters, but, in the concluding chapters, he lets that conduct amplify his thesis.

A harder task is to bring in the opposing world views for Bill and Ian to discuss. Gibson does a good job here. I was surprised at some of the world views described, but Gibson provides ample references to show that these views are indeed held by real people, experts in their fields. A difficulty with lengthy technical material is that many writers will simply narrate the views instead of expressing the different views through dialog between characters. Gibson’s dialog, when he uses it, is good, but there are long sections of the book that are narrated.

Gibson presents some surprising information in his book. In support of the presumption that Christianity is not true, he quotes an Episcopalian bishop (a real person) claiming that Jesus Christ is essentially a myth, and Gibson quotes Carl Sagan saying that if Jesus Christ ascended into heaven at the speed of light (the fastest speed known to science), he, today (two thousand years later), would not yet have risen above our galaxy. In support of the Judeo-Christian view, Gibson quotes C. S. Lewis explanation that Christian altruism (inspired by God) is what motivates people to help others, sometimes at the risk of their own lives and to rejoice and be touched when observing goodness in others.

The first half of the book is an even-handed discussion of the pros and cons of the Judeo-Christian view of life with many quotes from contemporary scholars. About halfway through the book, one of the characters opines that if someone could prove that there was no historical Jesus Christ, it would be like revealing a secret of the universe. It is here that I got a premonition of where this book is headed, and I began to wonder what the secret is.

Gibson has focused everything, even religion, on a scientific quest for truth using the scientific method. The scientific method is effective for physical objects that can be measured and experimented with, but it is not effective when dealing with spiritual objects, like God, that cannot be measured or experimented with, or even observed. Gibson focuses on the work that scriptural specialists have done in reconstructing ancient manuscripts, particularity Gnostic manuscripts. However, this is a study only of the manuscripts. The scientific method cannot measure beyond the manuscripts to determine the truth of the words in the manuscripts. In addition to lost Gnostic manuscripts, there is also an ongoing legacy of Christian writers whose manuscripts were not lost. To be fair to the Christian tradition, one would have to take into account both sources of information. The manuscripts that were lost and recently found might represent what earlier generations rejected. The traditions that were saved probably represent what previous generations thought was correct and worthy of preservation. Presuming that the lost manuscripts portrayed authentic Christianity and the information that was preserved portrayed a subverted Christianity goes well beyond science. Not taking this into account is a big flaw in Gibson’s arguments.

Gibson goes so far as to propose that there is no evidence of God, no revelation, nothing more than what humans can imagine. Gibson has Mac, one of the proponents of atheism, state that, since the earliest days of tribal conflict, distinctions between people have most commonly existed based upon their various religions. I disagree here also. Tribal conflict does not have its roots in religious views. Television documentaries (Animal Kingdom) (Planet Earth) show that meerkats, chimpanzees, and packs of wolves also have tribal conflicts. It is, therefore, obvious that tribal warfare stems from our animal nature and is not something peculiar to our spiritual nature.

Gibson wonders: “how our minds, the cells in our head, could absorb and process such concepts as Einstein’s relativity.” Does Gibson think that humans are entirely physical, no spirit—no soul? One would presume so reading the book. The secret, when Gibson finally reveals it, is very elementary. The secret is love. Everyone would agree with the secret. However, Gibson misses the point that, perhaps, God is the source of love.

Gibson also argues against emotion-driven thinking, proposing that truth-driven thinking is preferred. He’s absolutely correct. In his book, however, when Bill Vanderveen suddenly discovers the secret of the universe, the discovery is realized during very emotional circumstances. When Ian affirms the secret to his sons, it is also done at a moment when emotions are high. I think this is another flaw in his book. The secret of the universe should have been discovered during a truth-driven exercise devoid of emotion and the other impediments to clear thinking that Gibson had pointed out in his book.

Gibson’s book is exciting and entertaining fiction. It contains a lot of surprising information, with references that show that many eminent people hold the positions he describes. Read it for information and entertainment. If you do not agree with Gibson's conclusions, you are not alone.

The Short History of Nearly Everything admirably lives up to its daunting title, but achieves far more than it suggests by conveying the depth and breadth of the feats and follies in science with a storyteller's lyrical prose. Bill Bryson utilizes a multitude of sources, from academic and popular science books to candid interviews with luminaries in a variety of fields.

Far from cardboard dry, if you have any curiousity or like to be entertained by facts, foibles and other tid-bits of history you will enjoy this invigorating dunk into the occasional murky pool of humanity.

His exploration from the smallest particles to the unimaginably vast expanses of space achieves granting the reader a reminder of how incredible existence is and how important our influence on this rare and beautiful planet must be used to protect and nurture its future.

If the idea of a 500+ page non-fiction science novel leaves you with a grimace, both the CD and Cassette tape versions are also available, and grant the tome greater accessibility.

Succinctly, "This is a book about how it happened," the author writes. "In particular how we went from there being nothing at all to there being something, and then how a little of that something turned into us, and also what happened in between and since."

Following her success with Stiff and Spook, Mary Roach triumphantly continues with Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex. Far and away funnier than I anticipated, this titillating foray into sexual research, diagnosis and treatment is not for the squeamish or faint of heart. It is a rare book indeed that can convey scholarly and incredibly thorough research in a hip and hilarious manner that is both factual and fascinating.

In one of my favorite passages in the book, as part of her initiation into this research, she and her hoodwinked husband travel to London to take place in coital imaging (i.e. having an x-ray taken while in the act). Pre-scan, the technician hands her husband an erotic magazine and the author quips “The implication being, I suppose, that the sight of one’s wife in a baggy knee-length hospital johnny and threadbare socks is not [erotic].”

The most horrifying of the passages generally deal with the historical accounts of what was once accepted medicine, which can have the unnerving affect of having your naughty bits cringe. Anecdotal and conversational, this book is for anyone, from scientists to nymphos and all us regular folk in between.

What will happen to you when you die? It's not a question asked often in polite company, but if you were asked, what would you say? Many of us would consider our choices to be quite simple, limited to cremation or burial. But as Mary Roach reveals in this hugely entertaining, light-hearted and informative book the actual possibilities are almost endless.

You could be freeze-dried, minced and returned to the soil, to help a tree grow. Or put your cadaver to good use and help to further the body of knowledge in the field of criminal forensics, by slowly decomposing in woodland at the University of Tennessee. Or drive (and crash) the latest model of your favourite car. Or be the close companion of an anatomy student throughout their education, as they learn what made you tick before your spring finally unwound.

As well as the practical, physical aspects of our ultimate destination the book also discusses weighty issues such as what constitutes death. "Beating heart cadavers" are an essential ingredient for successful organ transplantation, but create all sorts of moral and ethical questions that need to be answered. The seat-of-the-soul debate is particularly interesting - for example did you know that until the 1970s there was no legal clarity on the issue of brain death?

What forced the issue was a bizarre murder trial in Oakland, California. The killer, Andrew Lyons, shot a man in the head and left him brain-dead. When Lyons's attourneys found out that the victim's family had donated his heart for transplantation, they tried to use this in Lyons's defence: If the heart was still beating at the time of the surgery, they maintained, then how could it be that Lyons had killed him the day before? They tried to convince the jury that Andrew Lyons hadn't murdered the man, the organ recovery surgeon had.

The book is chock-full of this sort of fascinating background detail. It's rarely gruesome or ghoulish, almost always sensitive, but with the occasional lapse into what some readers (not this one, I should add) may consider bad taste. It's very much about living with death too, exploring the coping strategies and emotional responses of the people who work with the dead every day.

It's a destination we're all travelling towards, some faster than others, yet death is a subject many of us shy away from. Whether you want to be fully appraised of your choices post-demise, understand a little more what death is all about, or just reassure yourself that it's not going to be that bad, this is a great read. Me? I'm with Susanne Wiigh-Masak - return me to the soil. That cherry tree in the orchard could use a bit of a boost.

The Dark Dreamweaver is the story of David, a young boy, who is transported into Remin, a parallel world, where Thane, an evil wizard, has taken control of the Imaginator, a dream-producing device, and is causing people in our world to have nightmares instead of good dreams. In this parallel world people's dreams become a form of energy, called Spectrum, used to keep the country of Remin functioning. When the good dreams are replaced with the nightmares, the supply of Spectrum is diminished and life in Remin is at risk.

In his travels, David meets a variety of Reminites. He first meets Houdin, a good wizard, bewitched by the evil wizard so that he constantly is reborn as different creatures. In this life Houdin takes the shape of a monarch butterfly. Throughout the book Houdin experiences the different stages in a butterfly's life cycle. David also meets Kira, a sort of female warrior and Aradel, a sullen jellyfish. The three Reminites explain the power of the Imaginator to David.

"...After much study, it was determined that the real power as not the stone itself but the air around the stone. It's as if the power pours out of the stone and changes the air. There are four different elements to the power as you have by now realized Fire, water, earth and air. Four crystals were carved from pieces of the stone. Through trial and error some crystals were shaped so that each one extracted one element from the air around the stone...The four crystals were placed at this level to concentrate the power of the stone. But now that the stone's power was refined into four separate parts, a way had to be found to bring the powers back together and make them available to the people..."

In The Dark Dreamweaver, Nick Ruth attempted to write a story that appealed to young children, yet taught a number of lessons. The most obvious is the life cycle of the monarch butterfly. It also seems as if Mr. Ruth tried to teach a lesson about our reliance on fossil fuels - but perhaps I just read that into the story.

Many books written for children or young adults also largely appeal to adults. The Dark Dreamweaver is not one of them. Mr. Ruth's writing style was uneven. In places it was interesting enough, but in others it was mind-numbingly boring. Actually I am not sure who this book is written for. The main character, David, is 11 years old and much of the writing seems geared towards a 4th or 5th grader, but some parts seem to be written for someone older. Some of the conversation seems stiff - as if the author was trying to make it understandable to younger children, but didn't quite know how to do so.

The characters were an interesting lot: a butterfly, a jellyfish, two sea serpents, a lion-dog and finally, Sir Heads-a-Lot - a man who could change his appearance when the circumstances arose. In the end, most of the characters' reasons for being along on the journey were explained, but it was hard to visualize this troupe actually walking along together. I couldn't help thinking that they all belonged more in an episode of Sponge Bob Square Pants than in this story.

I had high hopes for this story. I was disappointed, however. It may appeal to children - and according to the back cover has won 7 awards and honors. There seemed to be too much going on in this book. The environmental science lessons combined with wizardry just didn't seem to work - at least not for me, but it is highly probable it does appeal to the intended audeience.

Ask most organic gardeners to list the indicators of a healthy soil and most will mention the presence of earthworms somewhere in their answer. We all know that worms are found where the soil is good, but few really know why.

Amy Stewart seeks to enlighten us in her wonderfully readable book The Earth Moved. Okay, so worms might not be the most appealing subject-matter for many readers, but this is a must-read if you've got a garden and care about what happens in it, or are intrigued by the idea of vermicomposting, or like me have just acquired your first wormery. In fact even those who have a problem with the idea of a book about our wriggly friends should get over it - the role of the apparently humble earthworm in our lives is much more significant than may be apparent at first glance.

Stewart uses the work and writing of Charles Darwin as a constant touchstone, and little wonder. In 1881 Darwin published 'The Formation of Vegetable Mould', the result of extensive and painstaking scientific research into earthworms. His passion and knowledge is recounted with evident enthusiasm here, and put into the context of present-day science and thinking, which shows Darwin's own science to have been remarkably robust. This is not to say that The Earth Moved is merely a rehash of Darwin's work - far from it. There is much to learn, from physiological secrets to potential uses for such noble tasks as cleaning up sewage and other pollution, with some cautionary tales in between - as with most of nature man's intervention can often have unforeseen and disasterous results, and even something as small as a worm can bring the biggest forests to their knees.

It's no exaggeration to say that earthworms play a critical role in our lives, and Amy Stewart does a first rate job of restoring them to their rightful place in the affections of the reader. Highly recommended.