Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

[Philip Stein]

Here's my Amazon review of Richard Dawkins' new book The God Delusion.

 

If you're reading this, the chances are you're either a 'radical atheist' (the preferred term of Dawkins' late friend Douglas Adams, to whom the book is dedicated), hoping that The God Delusion will give you a good satisfying dose of anti-religion rhetoric; or you're a devout believer, hoping to be roundly appalled and outraged.

 

Either way, you could be disappointed. For the first half or more, The God Delusion is more rigorous and scientifically demanding than we have been led to expect (Jeremy Paxman in interviewing Dawkins called it 'entertaining': well, yes and no). Dawkins goes to great, and occasionally tiresomely great, lengths to detail why the existence of the universe, the development of life and the variety of creation can be comfortably explained by science and probability. And then he gets to grips with traditional justifications for the existence of God, disposing of them in his own neat way. Perhaps these sections seemed superfluous to me as someone who is satisfied that Dawkins is right and there is no God; and doubtless they will seem equally superfluous - in another sense - to those who believe in God and not in Dawkins.

 

(It's worth saying at this point that when Dawkins means 'God', he means a personal, supernatural creator of the religious scriptures, a God-being rather than the more progressive notion of God as something nebulous that exists in all of us. This is after all the commonly understood meaning of God, which children are taught and most Christian, Islamic and Jewish adults continue to believe in. For sophisticated modern believers, who do not take the scriptures literally, Dawkins doesn't really regard you as religious at all; and you can take that as an insult or compliment as you see fit.)

 

All this is worthwhile but when the book was more than half over, by page 200, and we were still on "The Roots of Religion," I couldn't help wondering when it would all get going. I needn't have worried. Dawkins, who has been quite restrained up until now - his disrespect limited to the odd sneer of 'faith-heads' or referring to the God of the Old Testament as a 'psychotic delinquent' - lets fly with the passion of his true feelings once the subject turns to morality.

 

And it is a thrilling, invigorating display. Dawkins systematically dismantles all arguments for morality being connected to religious belief in any sense (indeed shows how diametrically opposed much religious teaching is to widely accepted morality), addresses tricky issues like the Darwinian explanation for altruism, disposes of a few sacred cows along the way (Mother Teresa is "sanctimoniously hypocritical [with] cock-eyed judgement"), and horrifies us with religion's historical and present-day cruelties and injustices.

 

The other principal benefit of The God Delusion is that it gives us an opportunity to see all Dawkins' religious arguments in one place, having previously experienced them only in snippets of other books, newspaper articles and TV programmes. And he wastes no time in reiterating some of his favourite rhetoric:

 

I think we should all wince when we hear a small child being labelled as belonging to some particular religion or another. Small children are too young to decide their views on the origins of the cosmos, of life and of morals. The very sound of the phrase 'Christian child' or 'Muslim child' should grate like fingernails on a blackboard.

 

I have found it amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and almost all the other gods that have been invented since the dawn of man. I just go one god further.

 

And having put the fear of, well, God into us by detailing the dark side of religious belief (Dawkins would argue that there is no bright side: if your good morals and deeds are determined solely by a God you believe in, he argues, you are an "immoral person we should steer a clear passage around"), he is too professional to leave us floundering. Instead he injects the last ten pages with a soaring essay on the passion of science, which "widens the window" on what we can see, and leaves us with a lasting taste of the freedom that can be ours if we can only dare to think for ourselves. It is reminiscent of this beautiful passage from his earlier book Unweaving the Rainbow, which seems a good place to end, letting the wonder of what's really there speak for itself:

 

Fling your arms wide in an expansive gesture to span all of evolution from its origin at your left fingertip to today at your right fingertip. All across your midline to well past your right shoulder, life consists of nothing but bacteria.

 

Many

[Freewheeling Andy]

I find Dawkins to be a bit odd, because although I agree with almost everything he says, there's something in his hectoring style that really grates with me. Even when he's writing scientifically about evolution, he'll take a metaphor and thrash it to death rather than keep it within its limits.

 

And when he's trying to debate religion his style is so agressive and vituperative that, even though he's right, I think he just annoys anyone he's debating with rather than leaves open a place for people to change their minds.

[Icecream]

There is always a place, and on that note, I think I may have to read it and write a response to it..

 

What's the use in a housewife having a theology degree otherwise?

[Philip Stein]

What's the use in a housewife having a theology degree otherwise?

 

Dawkins would argue that there's no point in anyone having a theology degree, any more than having a degree in unicorns or fairies at the bottom of the garden. Indeed he does argue this in The God Delusion.

[scottishbookworm]

I've never heard of this writer:bookworm:

[Paul]

Did someone say "dead horse?"

Even Dawkins, did I hear?

[Philip Stein]

Scottishbookworm: Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He also regularly appears in the broadsheets and discussion programmes, usually on the subject of religion and/or natural selection.

 

If I read you right, Paul - that Dawkins is flogging a dead horse in the way he bangs on about religion - then I suspect he wishes it were so. However, it seems that religion, in many parts of the world, is not only not dead but on the rise, and in startlingly fundamentalist forms too. That being the case, I think he would say (and I would agree) that it's an argument well worth repeating, and repeating, and repeating.

[SmartBomb]

Whilst poor Dawkins does get rather lionised, I certainly admire his evangelical atheism. Dawkins, in all his works from Blind Watchmaker to God Delusion is certainly passionate, but never anything but humanist and rational.

 

Rather then seek 'blind converts', his vision is of a failed and broken belief system that does little to evolve us as a species. As Philip alludes to above, if religious types get to damn atheists to hell, then atheists are allowed to bring their tools of reason, science and the scientific method to bear. It's certainly not a 'dead horse' when you consider that religion (depsite the positive effects if can have) is still causing upset, death and unrest in the world.

[Freewheeling Andy]

I generally Dawkins on religion tends to work along the lines of "well, religion is patently, obviously wrong, because it's based on faith and with no reason, and it's clearly utter nonsense, but dangerous and insidious nonsense.

 

Now, I agree with all that, but it takes a paragraph to say. To say it over and over and over again, through several books, does begin to look like a dead horse massacre.

[Paul]

Still chuckling at the image of a dead horse massacre. Good one! And well said.

The attacks against religion are not new and it would seem that they do promise to continue well into the future. as correctly predicted above. So, if one is indeed interested in erasing the religious impulse from mankind -- which I am not yet convinced is a wise idea, or achievable -- then it would seem, at the least, that a more effective approach is needed. And if one does not like the horse metaphor, then perhaps the Rock of Sisyphus might do as well for an endless and arduous activity that goes nowhere. My underlying discomfort with the book stems from Dawkins association of "evil" and "religion." It seems to me they are definitely separable ideas and that Dawkins, and others, might do better to address the sources of evil in mankind. Because they may just be us, religion or no religion. I think he has the wrong horse by the wrong tail. Oops, or the wrong rock. Or, . . . . whatever.

[SmartBomb]

Whilst I am certainly a Dawkins advocate, I can also agree with your points. He is vehemently against religion, although connotations of religion = evil are not what he intends; he is more religion = misguided folly; and perhaps more like Carl Sagan in The Demon Haunted World.

 

However, you are right insofar as Dawkins' highlighting WHY there is no god, etc, is rather a nostrum and does not solve the problem, as people need religion for a reason; and simply removing the 'crutch' for people will do more harm than good. Perhaps Dawkins should introduce some Buddhist elements as well, to help people understand they have one life, and to make it count, etc.

 

I think more important, and Dawkins does at least sideswipe this, is to get people to consider their beliefs and not merely close the door on them as right and true.

 

Can I just say that this is a great forum as we can have this discussion without somebody resorting to insult?

[Paul]

SmartBomb,

Thank you for a very kind and understanding response.

As for this being a great forum, yes, indeed!

[SmartBomb]

SmartBomb,

Thank you for a very kind and understanding response.

As for this being a great forum, yes, indeed!

 

Well, it's a delicate subject indeed!

 

As an atheist myself, people seem to expect me to launch on some tirade against their belief system, or start babbling about evolution or other scientific proof. Contradictory as it seems, I also believe in tolerance and understanding. After all, what did we ever learn from shouting and violence?