BOOK: A Devil's Chaplain - Richard Dawkins

Earlier I posted two excerpts of this book. Now I've had some a lot of time to let it all sink in, I wrote that proper review I promised.
The last couple of years I've become very interested in atheism. One of the first names you come across when researching that subject is Richard Dawkins. He wrote a lot of books and because I didn't have a clue where to start reading, my brother lend me this collection of essays.

Title: A Devil's Chaplain
Author: Richard Dawkins
Genre: Essays on religion and science
Publisher: Phoenix 2004
Pages: Paperback, 304
Language: English
Rating: 8,5/10
Summary: A collection of articles and lectures with many themes, varying from biology and evolution to history and religion. Richard Dawkins discusses the relation between these subjects and what part they play in morality and education. There are also some very personal essays; memories of his travels and eulogies of his colleagues and friends. The final chapter is a letter to his daughter about believing.

Review
I loved this book very much. It gave me some great insights on several fields of science, but I found the parts about religion the most interesting. I was thrilled to recognize his point of view. It was a relieve to know I'm not alone and I cherish the wonderful arguments he used to explain why religion does not comply with science. I was also very pleased that both Richard Dawkins and Latha Menon -who collected and selected the articles- emphasize that "[B]eing a scientist and rationalist does not mean a life of soulles grind, or misery and meaninglessness, but one that is immensely more enriched, more precious."
Because that is what made this such a joy to read: the enthousiasm about discovering and discussing the world in all its magic.

Excerpt
This is the part that touched me most.
From chapter 3: The Infected Mind
"[...] Religions provide the prime example of memes and meme complexes (mind parasites, or an analogy with computer viruses). To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as comtemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to 'organized religion'. My first response is that I am not exactly friendly towards disorganized religion either. As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.

[...]

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in [fairytales or] Russel's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first. [etc.]"

I now know which of his books I want to read first: I have put The God Delusion on top of my wishlist.