The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.54 You Save: $9.41 (59%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.45 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The God Delusion
Book Review: SUGGESTIONS FOR BELIEVERS IN DELUSION
Summary: 4 Stars
I am an unpopular monist. This is the view that consciousness is an organic whole comprising all aspects of reality. This view is contrasted with the popular monist, or materialist, but must also be distinguished from the solipsist who ignores the evidence that other consciousnesses exist and that these other consciousnesses contribute significantly to their own reality.
In this context I have some suggestions for improvements to Richard's arguments based on my beliefs about the utility of religion, the facts of which are demonstrated at:
http://kengelhart.home.igc.org/religion.htm
If anyone is interested in my ideas I would be glad to describe them.
EVOLUTION OF GESTALT
Dawkins makes the important point that our beliefs evolve in the form of a gestalt. He also makes the point that some in the culture are, what you might call, behind the curve, lagging behind the characteristics of the gestalt. In the terms of a normal curve, we can speculate that the gestalt is the normal part, where outliers on the leading edge are pulling the curve into the future, and outliers on the trailing edge are holding the curve in the past. Speculatively, this is a process resulting in the evolution of the gestalt.
Dawkins' complaint is about the population on the trailing edge who hold the entire curve in a state of obsolete thinking. When he asks "what are these people THINKING?" we might answer, "they are hypostatizing their beliefs." They are refusing to allow the evolution of their own beliefs plus those of everybody else, except the innovators.
All of my suggestions to Dawkins regarding his criticism of religion fall into the category of asking for a more charitable understanding of those who are caught in the trailing edge of the gestalt. Clearly Dawkins is on the leading edge, but the other components of the curve also have useful functions. Also, others are further out on the curve than he is. Acknowledging his own tendency to hypostatize (we all do it) could make him more forgiving of this failure in others.
I completely agree with Dawkins assessment of the undesirable side effects of organized religions. However, I want to see the gestalt evolve as quickly as possible. Using the best possible arguments is crucial to ordinary people understanding the issue and making personal decisions about what they believe.
THE SIN OF HYPOSTATIZATION
Uncompromising hypostatizers are not easily convinced of the error of their ways. They fall into the same category as the "cosmos-revolves-around-the-earth" crowd. Convinced that they and only they have a valid perspective on the world, they attempt to destroy other views rather than understand them. They are purveyors of dogma and enemies of new ideas.
Dawkins imagines no religion., September 19, 2006 By G. Merritt (http://www.amazon.com/review/RHKZEK73JB ... ZEK73JB0FS)
"As a scientist," Richard Dawkins writes, "I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise."
Because I do not have the book at my fingertips, I am using a quote from the most favorable review posted at the referenced site. In this quotation, Dawkins implies the absolute reality of the abstract ideas: scientist, fundamentalist religion, scientific enterprise. When I say implies I mean he uses these ideas as expressed in words as if every reader's reality must be the same as his. This is a very common and natural form of hypostatizing. However, Dawkins acknowledges in no way that these purported "things" are structures of ideas and beliefs making scientific enterprise no different in this respect than fundamentalist religion. Yes, the two realities are different, but what makes one of them better than the other? In my terms, one is closed to other realities where the other is open to other realities. Realists must acknowledge the existence of multiple realities and show how they are resolved. As I have already mentioned, this is an unpopular perspective.
THE VIRTUES OF CHARITABILITY
Dawkins tells the story of Wittgenstein wondering why people believed the Sun went around the Earth. His friend says it's because it looks like the Sun goes around the Earth. Wittgenstein makes the point that it looks just the same to believe the Earth is rotating. Wittgenstein makes the point in a glib way that implies the Earth-centrists are ignorant or, worse, stupid. The Big W seems to think that Sun-centrism is self-evident and ignores evidence the Earth people feel is important, like, the Earth obviously is stable beneath our feet and, anybody can see that if the Earth were rotating everything would fly off. Maybe the Big W knows better than to be influenced by this evidence but he is insensitive to the logic that underlies the Earth people's reality. Both perspectives here are seeing the same facts; they are interpreting them differently. Nothing is "wrong" with the Ptolemaic system. It is just highly inefficient in descriptive and explanatory power. Plus, the world's religion at the time, in that place, depended on it.
Dawkins himself gets into a similar situation when he confronts a hypothetical religious apologist for NOM (non-overlapping magisteria, I am dropping the A because I see no function for it). NOM can be illustrated by the kid addicted to Grand Theft Auto (GTA). For most kids, GTA and real life are NOM. Those who believe these systems are integrated are easily identified. GTA cannot be mastered while thinking of it as just a game. One has to actually live it at the microsecond level. The kid on GTA can be likened to the Catholic priest who has to get up early in the morning, brush his teeth, put on his socks, eat breakfast, and then go conduct Mass. Religious ritual is not real life, but it is just as real as real life and those who are adept at it can shift back and forth just as easily as from high to low gear.
I have to say, in my opinion, those who are comfortable with NOM have to have developed a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance. The contradictions in their realities do not call out to them to be resolved. It is like a person with a multiple personality disorder. I personally am not good with NOM, and I would speculate that Dawkins shares this characteristic. I am totally with Dawkins when he insists that religious claims cannot be beyond the realm of science. But I resolve the problem by believing that ideas that are unsupported by evidence have a crucial role in science. They are the stuff that fills the gaps in our systemic understanding of the universe.
Arrogance about the absoluteness of one's own beliefs is no more attractive for a scientist than it is for a religious fanatic. It is just as important for the scientist to recognize the function of unsupported belief as it is for the fanatic to recognize the function of evolving interpretation of evidence. This is, in both cases, a matter of charity.
THE QUALITY OF MERCY
"[W]e do pray for mercy; /And that same prayer doth teach us all to render/The deeds of mercy."- William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I.
Mercy is an ideal, hardly ever practically realized. A rational person in our age must show the intent to be merciful or can expect no mercy. I want people who read Dawkins to be merciful to him because I believe in his mission and want it to proceed. However, he seems to expect his esteemed position in one context to protect him from destruction in the broader context. I am not sure this strategy will make the lasting impression I would hope for. This doubt on my part is what motivates the suggestions I make here.
Henry Chu, in a recent interview (1), asks him, "Do you see any redeeming values in religion or a belief in God?" Dawkins answers, "I don't think there's any general reason, any logical pathway, that goes from being religious to being good. . ."
I think that Dawkins does not answer the question. He has argued successfully that religion is not, according to the evidence, the source of the "good." But he has not offered any speculation as to where morals do come from. In this same interview he alludes to philosophy transcending religion and being the possible source of universal rules of conduct. That would be a useful direction for investigation, but he might be out of his element and into philosophy.
Moral conduct is not the only way religious beliefs can be justified. Dawkins addresses a few of these but always from the perspective of a biologist rather than a philosopher, where I believe the best speculations lie. In particular, his perspective does not offer him the standpoint to consider beliefs unsupported by evidence as essential for the operation of rational thought. I believe if he were more open to the possibilities and less obsessed with what his peers accept as "scientific rationalism" his views would be more effective.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 4830.story
THE MAKING OF MODELS
Dawkins says things sometimes that make me think he may know more than he is letting on. He may hesitate to make claims that would frighten many of his loyal followers. Hostility they can understand and accept but weird claims about the nature of reality or such could make many people discard his book, and his ideas, in disgust. However, he may incorporate short bursts of code that let other readers know there is something else going on. Having no large group of followers myself, I have no hesitation about making weird claims that would disgust the ordinary reader. Since the followers of this forum are not ordinary, I am sure they would not discard Dawkins just because I have outed him.
Dawkins obviously accepts there are beliefs that are not religious. This is a slippery slope since true beliefs would be based on evidence. I project this position to a claim that all knowledge is belief, so we can just drop the idea of knowledge. I would go further to suggest that belief constitutes reality. Reality is our beliefs, some of it based on evidence, some of it not. Going even further, the part that is not based on evidence is what we call religion.
Dawkins is consistent in using the term "religion" to refer to those categories of belief that are called that popularly: widely recognized, formally organized systems having many active members. This definition does not exhaust the possibilities for belief that is not based on widely accepted evidence. Scientists frequently share hypotheses with each other where evidence is inconclusive. Sometimes it is only a matter of interpretation whether any evidence exists at all. Where scientists may be aggressively pursuing every avenue to find supporting evidence for their hypotheses, these same people may have other vague speculations they know may never be supported by evidence. Like, what was the composition of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang? In my mind, this kind of speculation and the beliefs it engenders constitutes religion.
What is not religion is what we refer to as "organized religion." These are simply commercialized systems of dogma, promoted for the benefit of their "gurus." People who believe this stuff simply have nothing else more important to believe in. People who have more important things to believe in do not believe them. This may seem harsh, or even hostile, but that's the way I see it.
At the end of "Delusion" Dawkins makes another very controversial claim concerning consciousness functioning as a modeling context. Perhaps he hopes that most of his readers will never get this far. He speculates that the purpose of the organism determines the structure of the models they create. Now, we know that an organism's purpose will be highly oriented toward the opportunities in its environment, so that is precisely what the structure that grows in its consciousness depicts. This is the organism's reality. These are the organism's beliefs: a model of a world in which the organism can act to insure its survival and development.
Some may say, "I don't have a model. I have a description of the original in this book here. Written by the guy who made the original." Sorry, the evidence shows this cannot be true. We have perceptions and ideas. We combine the two to generate speculations we test. When the speculations work dependably enough they become our reality. We don't have any original, and we don't need one. The model works fine. It's a miracle. So, it's OK to call God a delusion. Everything's a delusion. Be happy.
That's all, folks.
L. Kurt Engelhart, PhD
Yountville, California
Book Review: Dear Richard
Summary: 3 Stars
(Thoughts on reaching Page 82 of "Delusion")
Richard,
You may understand when I say there is s:cience (little s) and there is S:cience (big S). s:cience is what us s:cientists do. We scrounge consistencies from the unwilling Universe by guided trial and error and pack them into Mankind's little island of understanding so as to make it larger and more secure so that we may all be larger and more secure. It is what Dr Gould meant. 'God' is meaningless here. S:cience, the worldview side of our endeavor, is the face presented to the rest of the 'world'. This term 'world' is important. It is the collective psychosis created by all living humans whose active communal values determine the behaviors which allow their particular group identity to pass through time coherently and successfully in competition with all of the other groups with whom they share the 'world'. The 'world' delusion, if you will. What all of us immates here call 'reality'. Mankind looks very different when viewed from outside of the 'world' delusion, much more like an obligate communal bony worm with appendages and an overdeveloped denial system. Our only special tricks are obligate communality, data accretion, and strong intraspecific group competition. Language, personality structure, and the rest come with the lifestyle.
S:cience lives in this 'world' and is sort of an interface between the 'world' and the Universe as s:cience sees it. The two worldviews, 'world' and s:cience, are very different. Within the 'world', S:cience is just another religion. It is even developing its own little inquisitional cadre of 'skeptics' and 'atheist fundamentalists'! In what you consider to be the "religions", I suspect that the mass of the carriers of a 'religion' know little of the actual details of their religion. In a world of S:cience, the carriers would probably understand even less. They would 'believe in' S:cience on, of all things, faith. Who are the main carriers of religion in a multiplexed group structure? We need look only to the convenient distribution curve. Beginning at the highest end (which probably looks like insanity to most of us), and moving toward the Chimpanzee side, we will see a steady increase in the proportion of carriers of religion. There seem to be bands, ranges, where incorporation of the religion is stronger (zealots), whereas carriers of greater capacity can see the holes and those of less capacity see not enough of the story to get excited about. This may be the optimum substrate unit capacity range for that particular religion, akin to the relationship among primates of brain size to maintainable group sizes.
Religion is a genetically determined behavior. The 'spiritual' is universal in humans. It is a powerful uniting factor as it was a foundation of every identity group up to the development of multiplexed groups. All gods until that time were war gods. They still are. Necessarily so. War is also a genetically determined behavior. The schism between milieu versus dna in S:cience does not exist in s:cience. It is all one thing, the data of the gene pool and the data of the brain, they move through time as interacting data bodies constantly accreting more information to ultimately use to eat the group next door, which is our sole external collective behavior as groups. We are a very primitive organism, indeed. We must become generally aware of that.
You cannot argue religion away in the 'world'. Every religion is engaged in the same argument. Mine, not yours. If a religion loses its substrate, its carriers, it goes extinct with the demise of the last carrier. Like any simple organism, a religion contains mechanisms to avoid this fate. It is not necessary to destroy religions, just modify out their more objectionable qualities. Religions are perfectly serviceable subunits when properly multiplexed into a larger group. Religions constantly bud. These buds move off, grow, and come back to compete with their parent. This increases the frequency and competitiveness of wars through time. The switch from wiping out our clademates to going to work on ourselves was probably unnoticeable. Information was the difference between winning and losing and the more of it you could carry as a group, and the more organised it was, the more you ate their children rather than they ate yours. Real holocaust to the losers was assured. Strong slective pressure for greater data storage, not so much for data processing. And the larger your brain became to carry the increasing data. And the more of your females died in birthing.
50,000 generations from the mostly agreed upon date of controlled fire, 1.2MYA, and this is as far as we have come. The greatest intellects that man might hope to produce have lived and died and this is as far as we have come. An appallingly large portion of our 'world', our collective worldview, is ruled by magic. And thus it will always be. Even in a perfectly S:cientific 'world', for most it would still be magic and faith, with S:cience the only Authority. Boring.
But, yes, what to do about religion's propensity for war, its most objectionable characteristic and good reason to modify it. War permeates our entire structure. Any group weak in war went extinct long ago. We cannot stop war. We can redirect war. If we redirect war to, say, the reproduction of Gaia, our only possible justification for what our existence is doing to the current biospheric homeostasis, we might be able to effect this through the religions. The reproductive effort itself would offer many inducements, huge expenditures difficult to track through corporate accounting mazes, way more contracts than any 'defense' ministry could hope to churn out. And no need to blow up large buildings in one's own country to justify a war. At some point in the promotion for "Mankind's Seed Into the Universe", it will be stated that religions will not be allowed. We expect to meet other civilizations and we don't want earthly religions trying to parasitize or convert them. I, in my cynicism, believe this will provide the fire that, properly directed, could redirect war and propel Gaia outward. The earth would go to seed. The humans selected to inhabit our vehicle will of necessity then be selected from all of the religions with any kind of political skill (including high explosives) at asserting their will, at their insistence (and assistance). Since this 'seed' will, of needs, be a living seed, the selected will then say goodbye and be separated for 'training', that is, a thorough reprogramming, with 'zealots' and 'fanatics' returned as unfit. Losing those sorts is a serious handicap to the group but if anything should be left alive by arrival of our seed at its target, we must cripple the group to this extent. We will have no control of how the group develops over time in a spinning 16 km by 10 km cylinder. If we can sell the religios, though, I think the sociopathic corporates will come along. Gold will flow like wine. Endless space construction contracts. The promise of bazillions of civilizations out there ripe for redemption and compound interest. A whole planet of Jerry Falwell's People? The planet Exxon? and lots of money to be had by all. Really. Might work as a concept. S:cience must begin to use more sophisticated tools if we are to be the Queen of Religions. And war is bad for us all. It seriously diminishes our future probability. And it is archaic. The lab folks are suggesting that the human brain stopped expanding about 6 to 8000 years ago (appearance of external data storage, writing). War still fuels data accretion but its human extinctive potential negates any evolutionary value it might still have for us. It has become a disease, a design flaw.
A tougher nut will be nationalism. If the 'world', while maintaining its competing identity groups, could be subverted to a 'primary' identity of Human, the universal group inhibition on killing members of the same group might be spread over us all. I wonder how many religious or seriously nationalistic biologists there are amongst us. If S:cientists learn to proselytize seductively rather than just dialectically (expecting the mass of humans to suddenly accept truths for which they are neither ready to understand nor, very often, capable of understanding), it could be done. s:cientists are busy accreting our understanding and security but S:cientists, with their communication skills, have to take s:cience to the street. Not S:cience, the religious part. I mean, ask a general audience what is evolution and you will get many and varied responses mostly to do with monkeys. Ask what is natural selection and not so many responses. For many with the little darwinfishes on their vehicles, natural selection has yet to complicate their view of evolution. Yet, they believe. Not s:cience's data but S:cience's Power and Authority is what makes them believers. Religion. Forgive me, but what you are asserting is the Trueness of one religion over another. That our religion (S:cience) is rooted in the structure of the Universe matters not. In many ways, their's is too. You are arguing, which is simply war in its early stages. It's not the way. If we are to become the dominant religion, S:cience must study the processes that religion has developed EVOLUTIONARILY to recruit and instill belief systems, and apply them. S:cience is still on the rise but we need to provide the average human with a coherent worldview they can use in their daily lives. And, we must develop a deliverable value system that creates behaviors beneficial to the group as a whole (humanity). In that regard, we must not let these retired rabbi/priest/ethicists continue to invade our academic enclaves. They are the worst of religion in disguise. Drive them out. We must develop our own ethos that includes all Life and unrelated in its origins to anything extant today. We must derive an ethos from the Universe and not the red in fang and claw universe that humans now live in thanks to religions, and nationalisms, and not being as removed from the chimpanzee as we might wish.
S:cience needs to start training guides like Mormonism trains missionaries. We need to develop a series of lessons for kids that build one central value into those children, we are all the same, our skin and bones and brains and emotions and group structures, except for inconsequentials like language and dress, are almost identical. It is not necessary to stress our developmental ancestry or to 'prove' the improbability of some god or to kneejerk the religios in any way at all. In the 'world', truth is held by the majority. That entire majority starts out as children and Confucious, Jesus, Hitler et al have explicitly pointed out the significance of this fact. We can prove our less inflammatory assertions in very concrete ways. Because religions regard S:cience as more or less neutral, and, without the hot buttons, necessary, religions and nationalisms allow us access to their children. We could build common identity, hence common homocidal inhibition into the children right under the noses of the religios and sociopaths. If there is an optimum carrier (individual substrate unit) capacity range that produces the strongest adherents, we must identify and concentrate on this subgroup. Only we can do it. Jihad or crusade or simple butchery of a captive population (Gaza) don't mean much to you if you really don't want to kill anyone. Gods do exist, Richard, and they have exactly the power of the group upon and within whom they live. The question you could address, instead, might be the characteristics of that which is to us as we are to an earthworm. Have you seen anything in science that would preclude such beings? I have not. Are we the best or most complicated this Universe can do? If we could be aware of them, what might we call such beings? Don't choke on the word.
How did you like Last and First Men? I should like to hear your opinion of Stapledon.
William Bjornson
Aloha, Oregon
Book Review: God is not a delusion, religions are.
Summary: 4 Stars
The God Delusion was ranked number 2 on the Amazon.com bestsellers' list in November 2006. In early December 2006, it reached number 4 in the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best Seller list after nine weeks on the list. As of August 5, 2007, it is still listed at number 29, after 43 weeks on the list.
It brings into question why such a book on this controversial topic, and which is difficult to read, can be so popular. May be it reflects a phenomenon that the uncertainty of god and the present state of religions have created doubt in the mind of many people. The title is an attractive subject to the doubtful. It is also an attractive subject to the faithful. Religious faith is so important for many that they would wish to examine the other side of the argument and ridicule it in order to confirm their faith. If you think this book is talking nonsense, don't worry. Half of the world population may be thinking that way. I am on the other half.
Dawkins said the God Delusion is mainly about the Abrahamic religions, namely religions which have the origin from the god of Abraham, including Judaism, Islam, Catholic, Christian, Orthodox and the like. He thought some religions such as Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism should be labeled ethical systems. I do not agree with him on this point. Although these ethical systems exist, they have been similarly distorted into religion per se by the inclusion of idol worshiping, rituals, blind faith and superstition.
The book shows a lot of examples that the holy books contain many passages which are contradictory, irrational and immoral. This does not come as a surprise as these have been pointed out by many for a long time. When I was in secondary school, a priest who was my teacher in biblical studies explained that the bible was not exact history. They were written by the followers of the apostles recording verbal legends. The bible was then kept by monks and was worshiped at the church. The monks read the bible and added margin notes of praise and commentaries. When the bible was copied, which was the only way of reproduction in ancient time, all the side notes were included in the text, making some of the meanings inconsistent. When students asked questions on the inconsistency, the priest would explain but usually conclude with the notion of faith, i.e. bible was to be believed, not questioned. This is the main difference between religious belief and scientific belief. When there is a mystery, religion would accept it as god's will. Science would consider it as god's invitation to learn.
The religious non-believer
Following a long period of doubtful tradition, irrationality, superstition, and tyranny during the Dark Ages and the theocratic rule of the Middle Ages, there was the Age of Enlightenment which advocated reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and logic, so that human beings could obtain objective truth about the universe. This movement in Europe from about 1650 until 1800 advocated the use of reason and individualism instead of tradition and established doctrine. Although many enlightened intellectual leaders including philosophers and scientists were at awe with the mystery of the universe and the origin of beings, they did not find the holy books and religions satisfactory in answering the mystery. As said by Albert Einstein, "I don't try to imagine a personal god; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
The God hypothesis
Many people believe god exists, and many people do not. Thus there is a hypothesis that god exists or not. The solution is to find a way to prove it. There has not been any direct proof put forward to prove the existence of god; similarly it is argued that there is also no direct proof that god does not exist. It all boils down to how one looks at this scenario.
Bertrand Russell was a strong advocate that it was not the business of the skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than the dogmatists to prove them. He wrote a parable of the orbiting teapot to illustrate that it was irrational to look for proof that something did not exist. Suppose between the Earth and Mars there was a small teapot revolving about the sun in a elliptical orbit, and that the teapot was too small to be revealed by the most powerful telescopes. Someone could say that this got to be true because it was beyond human ability to doubt it; but this would just be considered nonsense by everybody. However, if the story of the teapot was written in the holy books, any hesitation to believe in its existence would cause the doubter to be persecuted.
Another parable on god's creation was one said by Fred Hoyle of the ultimate Boeing 747. In arguing creation by intelligent design or evolution, Hoyle likened the probability of life originating on Earth was no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard of aeroplane parts, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. This improbability is termed irreducible complexity. Because of it, life on earth, and everything else, must have been created outright by a designer. The answer of Dawkins, being a biologist and an evolution specialist, was that such parable was ignorant of the nature of natural selection, that life was the result of numerous trials of molecular combinations over trillion of years. It was a gradual process of perfection.
Back to history, Thomas Aquinas of the thirteenth century drew up five proofs on god's existence. These proofs were adopted by the church for several centuries. According to the proofs, god was:
1. The unmoved mover - Everything moves by a mover; by regression there is the last mover that is unmoved.
2. The uncaused cause - Everything is caused by a cause; by regression there is the last cause that is uncaused.
3. The cosmological argument - Physical things exist now; there must be a time when non-physical being brings them into existence.
The first three proofs are the same, being regression to the extreme. It is symbolic of the terminator to the logic, just like positive whole numbers regress to zero. These proofs do not lead to a god with the respected properties of omnipotence, omniscience and goodness.
4. The argument from degree - Everything has a degree of goodness; there is a maximum goodness to set the standard of perfection.
5. The teleological argument or argument from design - Everything in the world looks as if it is designed; thus there is a designer of all things.
The fourth proof deploys comparison. The comparison can be used in any dimension and we cannot call the ultimate standard of anything god. These four proofs are not in use anymore. The fifth proof is the one which is strongly disputed by modern science, but it is the most controversial one as there are still many religious people arguing that, according to the bible, the universe was created eight thousand years ago and the great world flood occurred four thousand years ago created the Grand Canyon.
The roots of religion and morality
The religious explanations of the roots of religion and morality are straight forward and easy to understand. Religion came directly from god together with morality which is god's will. Dawkins proposed that religion created the god delusion, and morality is the behavioural standard mutually accepted in a community. Dean Hamer in his book The God Gene explained why human beings are susceptible to religion. He claimed that a gene VMAT2 was discovered in human DNA. This gene has the effect of a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated by some with the presence of god or other mystic experiences, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind. There is no theory as to how this gene came into the human DNA. A religious perspective is that it could be implanted by god. Evolutionists claimed that it is by natural selection that such a behaviour was gradually developed among human beings as they evolved into a community having leaders, teachers and authority to be followed. The rest was the building up of hierarchy in a community and the devising of the god delusion for the strengthening of governance.
Much examples were quoted to show that morality did not come from religion. While Dawkins showed many quotations from the holy books that much immoral acts were recorded, he also proposed by scientific arguments that moral was a result of natural selection along the evolution path. In the process of evolution, good genes get maintained while bad ones get eliminated. Good or bad genes are defined by their probability to reproduce or be copied. Expanding from genetics, good genes are reflected in the behaviour of the organism in being able to survive. There are some activities that are conducive to survival and sustained existence. One important virtue is the caring for the young, which is essential in the continued existence of the gene. Such behaviour can be found in many kinds of animal, and especially human; thus there is a tendency to care for the young and to reciprocate, care for the parents who provide. Such morality is embedded in our genes and is innate. On the other hand, competition among peers is a necessary evil for survival. We can see this trait among young children where siblings could compete for food, toys and attention, sometimes by lying and violence. They have to be taught to behave well. In such case, morality is acquired in order to maintain the cohesion within a community. Whether innate or acquired, a person does not need religious belief to be moral.
Childhood and Abuse
Dawkins was very critical of the compulsory education on religion for young children. He considered this child abuse because the children were not free in being fed the doctrine of the religion of their parents. I do not agree with him in this line of thought. Children have to be educated. The education they received is the knowledge and thoughts prevailing in his living environment. Although Dawkins listed many examples of child abuse owing to inflexible and superstitious religious rules, this cannot rule out that most children are receiving proper education including a religion of their parents' belief.
The book also mentions the effect of religion on consolation and inspiration. The theory put forward for such effects is the need to fill a gap in human emotion; and this gap could be filled by other means which is non-religious. I agree that there are many ways to sooth one's spirit and motivate creativity. However, it cannot be denied that religions play a vital role on many occasions. It may be a delusion, but in this case it is a delusion for a good cause. However, most of the time the god delusion has a negative effect on humanity, including war, tyranny, bureaucracy, superstition, terrorism, and many more evil deeds. Of all the religious activities, I only admire the religious self-help groups, fellowship groups and self-improvement programmes which help people help themselves and each others. If there is a chance for people to really live a better live, it does not really matter whether it is god delusion or not.
[...]
Book Review: Disappointed in Dawkins - not for the reason you may think
Summary: 2 Stars
First - sorry for the length, but I ain't the first.
I'm a thoughtful Christian. My aptitude tests though school put me in the 98-99% of science and math and I aced the logic portion of my GREs. I may not be a genius, but I'm someone who excels in logic. I'm also an artist. I read widely in theological as well as, educational and philosophical, as well as scientific material. I have read the Bible in it's entirety (a number of times), along with apologetic materials such as "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," and followed up Darwin's Black Box with reading Behe's critics. This just to say I'm not blindly ignorant of either my faith or science.
I think I stayed away from Dawkins because in some way I feared him by reputation. Dawkins was the nuclear weapon of atheism. A man so intelligent and persuasive, he crushes Christians with his stare. A Goliath (Dawkins says you all need to know your Bible if for no other reason than to understand all the allusions in the world) before which all quake. Well, I finally steeled myself up to read this book and am left saying, "I don't even need these five smooth stones." The giant may not be defeated, but I can face him without needing to fear.
Before anything else, I have to acknowledge that this book is a masterpiece in persuasiveness. It'a very adept at the soft-sell. Dawkins almost imperceptibly tosses his collegial arm around you (who are obviously smart and enlightened and progressive and rich and good looking, just like all the atheists in the world today). He disarms you with his witticisms and gets you laughing with him at all the stupid things people believe. But, while accusing religion as the evil empire that pits "us" (believer) against "them" (non-believers) he has created a new "us" (the smart, peaceful, enlightened, progressive, open-minded, tolerant, good looking atheists) against "them" (the stupid, violent, ugly, closed-minded, bigoted, god-worshippers). Substitute "white and black" for "atheist and theist" in a few phrases of this book as you read it and hear to how hateful he sounds.
But beyond this, I find his logic weak, his theological understanding paper thin and his view of humanity distorted. An example - he postulates that if laws were removed, people would all act just as orderly as they do now. Do you really believe this? He even gives evidence to the contrary (by way of a police strike in Canada), but tosses out that information. Why? Because it doesn't agree with his belief. How many of you would willingly advertise that ALL laws and the enforcement thereof would be removed from your town (or state or country) and we'll just trust our common morality? Anyone want to be a test case for the rest of us? Anyone?
Dawkins sites the worst in religious history (OK, he does mention that he is not going to mention the crusades or inquisition, which is itself a masterful rhetorical trick), but completely ignores all the good religious (and specifically Christian) organizations and people do. What's the name of the hospital nearest you? St. Mary's? St. Jude's? What are the best schools (from kindergarten to college)? If you could afford a private (code for founded by a religious organization) would you go to public schools? Who runs the soup kitchens and food banks? Who do you hope responds to a disaster in your hometown? National Geographic or the Red Cross? OK, you get my point. Dawkins hopes you won't remember those things - he doesn't even gloss over it. Do scientists contribute to a better world in a more indirect way? Certainly. Not trying to say that, but are pharmasuedical companies giving away all their life giving drugs that science creates? Hardly. Where's the morality in that? An atheist culture can only inherit the morality (and the structure and organization) that religious thought and organizations have built, but he won't even admit that little fact.
Don't get me all wrong - Dawkins has plenty that I agree with. Suicide bombers? Making kids shudder with incessant talk about hell? Yeah...people do terrible things in the name of religion, it is true. But it does not follow that religion needs to be abolished. (Which is what Dawkins is advocating here, do NOT water that down). I could equally say that someone following Dawkins evolutionary, atheistic view of the world who kills someone to take all their things, justifying it by saying that 'the person is no different from a monkey (or a cow or a frog) and that if they were "more fit" they would have survived' means that we should abolish evolutionary, atheistic views. And I'm not going to pretend to defend every religion's teaching. For example, I think Mormonism flies in the face of reason as well as Dawkins does.
One scary, scary thing Dawkins seems to believe is that it should be OK for the state to take kids away from people who force their religious views on their children. I am NOT making this up. Read his section titled "In Defense Of Children." He's quoting NIcholas Humphreys, and admits it seems shocking, but continues on as if it's only logical. Teaching your child a religion, that is obviously a lie, robs them of their ability to grow up innocently and embrace the wonder of science, and is paramount to abuse, so parents who try to force religion on their children need to be taken out of the picture. I take this as his sincere view (he seems very passionate about the "protection" of children in this regard). REALLY think about that. A governmental organization that decides if parents are "indoctrinating" their children in a "false belief." This organization then takes the children away from the parents (to live where?) for their own good. REALLY? Perhaps we could just remove the parents long enough to "cleanse" them of these false beliefs? This is the logical result of Dawkins' view. It is what he is (if not advocating), dreaming of. How long before someone tries to get it into action? This alone should be a HUGE red flag that Dawkins is not just interested in scientific truth, he wants everyone to think like he does.
Which leads me to my fear of Dawkins' apparent view that if people would just LISTEN to him, they would be convinced, become atheists, accept evolution and BE HAPPY. And those that don't agree with him? They are obviously stupid or belligerent or brainwashed or something, because HE IS RIGHT! Wow. I applaud his passion and fear his arrogance. It is the stuff that dictators are made of - atheist dictators like Kim Jong Il, or rather, people who have set up a police state to enforce patriotism and "worship" of the leader and does not tolerant dissent, like belief in a God that challenges the leader. Oh, yes I did.
The worst thing about Dawkins' book may be what he himself does not even believe - the consequences of an atheistic, evolutionary world view. In short, I find him a very poor evolutionary atheist. He may be a pacifist, and proud of that, but that isn't a very evolutionary, atheistic attribute. Isn't the basis of evolutionary atheism that people are not fundamentally different than animals? That it is the strongest and best fit who survive? Isn't it a short walk to people acting on eugenic-type ideas? Get rid of the Downs Syndrome kids. (By the way, this is already happening in-utero.) Get rid of the cripples, they are sucking our collective resources. Get rid of the old people. Right? I'm not saying this is what DAWKINS would advocate, Dawkins has a nice set of morals, as I'm sure most atheists today do, but they are dishonest, because their own belief system carries no morality at all. On what basis do you say, "don't steal"? If it helps me survive, and I can get away with it (I am stronger, more intelligent, whatever), what is wrong with me stealing everything I can? Why do you embrace monogamous marriage? Stupid religion, that's why. Sex in the natural world is mostly free-wheeling and the women raise the kids on their own and the men may bring some food, but mostly we just fight for propagation rights, so why should humans be any different? While one could argue the MERITS of monogamy, in Dawkins' world view, you could not argue the MORALITY of it, and "deadbeat dads" could NOT be accused of not doing what is "right." On what basis do we not kill members of the gene pool that are keeping us from evolutionary advancement? There is no moral basis (beyond what we arbitrarily agree is good) for any "right" or "wrong."
But I digress. None of my critiques of Dawkins are reasons to believe in God, but simply fears of listening to his call to arms.
Why do I believe in God? Because I believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ. In reading the Gospels (and the Acts of the Apostles, etc) I read something that is completely different than other ancient religious documents/ narratives. The Bible has specific people and places and actions and challenges the (original, at least) readers to go talk to these people who are still alive. The gospels report it was a woman who first testified to the risen Jesus, this in a culture when women could not even give testimony in court. Why make that up? Who in first Century Middle East would be convinced by that? I cannot fathom that these documents and the actions of the original believers were fabricated. (The apostles admit that they abandoned Jesus, that they thought he was coming back right away - why admit that?) SOMETHING happened to make them state that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Romans crucified at the request of the Jewish leaders was seen alive. And Dawkins quick dismissal based on the "Jesus Seminar's" proclamations of what Jesus didn't say and a 4th Century document that contradicts the New Testament documents and the like is not convincing. Do I think the BIble is literally true 100% start to finish? No, there are things that are meant to be symbolic (John's Revelation is symbolic writing convention from the time period, and not simply "John on acid.") and things that may have been stated in ways that a 5th Century B.C. mind could understand them. But the Bible does refer to the earth as a sphere centuries before science figured it out, and that "in the beginning" the waters were all in one place (hence the land in one place, hence plate tectonics?) long before scientists considered (and then mocked, and then finally accepted) the idea. God is described as having "stretched out the heavens" - could this be a description of unfolding or stretching space in a way that we are only now beginning to perceive as possible? Do I expect a died in the wool atheist to just take my word for it? No, but it IS possible to be thoughtful and critical and smart (at the risk of being accused of arrogance) and find flaws in evolution and find rationality in faith.
I'm glad I read this book. (I'm also glad it was in my local library so I didn't have to give Dawkins any more money.) He did destroy one aspect of my beliefs. Dawkins did convince me that he is not the giant I was lead to believe he was.
Book Review: Puerile nonsense
Summary: 1 Stars
Whenever someone mentions Richard Dawkins' book `The God Delusion' I can't stop the refrain from the Pet Shop Boys song `Seriously' echoing in my head. The refrain aimed originally at fellow pop stars such as Bono and Sting goes, `How can you expect to be taken seriously?' Here are ten reasons why I'm unable to take Richard Dawkins seriously
1) I suspect he has a black belt in Origami. He never tires of making paper tigers which, when complete, he mauls in ruthless Serengeti fashion. I read the first 100 pages of the `God Delusion' wondering where this scientific genius (yes, he is that) finds the time to write such meandering twaddle. Even when he does gets started I found nothing more than a dismissal of tired arguments reputable theologians haven't taken seriously for many years. Russell's Cosmic Teapots? Give me a (tea) break - please!
2) He fails to properly acknowledge that religious faith cannot be proven. If we could prove God's existence then we would be compelled to follow not our own plan for our lives life but God's. At the very core of Christian belief is the idea that we must be free to choose to accept or decline God's involvement in our lives. If religion is so vacuous then surely the world's great geniuses could demonstrate that view.
3) He shies away from serious debate with top-line theologians or philosophers. Why does he constantly seek out fundamentalists (usually American televangelists) to ridicule when it would be easier to engage with someone like Richard Swinburne of Oxford University. Isn't Dawkins an emeritus professor at Oxford? I'm sure they could easily arrange a meeting or a debate for the enrichment of their students. Go for it, Mr. Dawkins, at least show your own students that truth matters and that you are match for anyone - or do you perhaps fear that you aren't? I know which Richard I have more respect for.
4) He falsely sees faith schools as having an indoctrinating agenda. How can you force children who spend most of their day studying science, math, languages, history, politics, art, and history to uncritically believe anything we teach in religion classes? Most of us who teach religious education don't even try or want to indoctrinate. Those who do are quickly dismissed as `wackjobs' by the smarter students. Those of us who care about religious education have spent many years, largely without success, trying to ensure that religion is taught by specialists. In most schools I've worked in people who go to church on Sundays are considered competent enough to reach R.E. Dept chairs in science or math would have a fit if their subjects were so casually treated. When students have to miss a class to see their guidance counselor or have school photos taken it's invariably religious studies they are forced to miss. If Dawkins spent any time in an Advanced Level theology class he would see that few teachers ever claim these days that the bible is meant to be taken literally. The students in those classes are encouraged to adopt a far more critical approach to religion than they do in, say, history classes where few students ever seriously question whether or not Caesar or Hannibal ever existed. I know all too well the abuses of religion past and present and I'm as quick as anyone to point those mistakes of the past out to those who care to listen. By the way, the faith schools save America a fortune. If we didn't educate those children it would cost the taxpayers many billions to replace our schools which get no financial help whatsoever. In the UK the govt pays faith schools only to pay for their education - the Church foots the 15% bill for the religious education element, not the taxpayer. Dawkins either doesn't know that or he deliberately ignores it.
5) Like Freud, Marx, and other post-modernists from the past his obvious contempt for religion and his jaundiced view of it forces him to abandon all pretense of objectivity. The methods that he and his scientific colleagues so rightly treasure can be abandoned for one subject only: religion. He also makes the same mistake of taking the very worst of religious practice and dressing it up as religion per se. Look what happens when we take religion out of society and replace it with Marxism or fascism? I'm glad to live in a society that allows us freedom to choose our own way of life, even when it includes the right to lambast peoples' treasured religious beliefs. Perhaps Dawkins should spend a few years living in a country where any disagreement with its secular leader's worldview leads to the death camps. His unbridled faith in the power of reason alone to create a just society is risible and cannot be historically substantiated. Religion has done more to humanize this world than any other comparable force. Where are the dedicated atheist outreach programs for the poor and marginalized? (Yes, I do realize there are organizations like Amnesty and the Red Cross around the world doing amazing things but atheism isn't their inspiration. I also recognize that these organizations would be less effective if many religious people didn't support and fund them).
6) What if, like America, we all agreed to take religious studies off the daily curriculum? Wouldn't that suggest to children without any knowledge of religious beliefs that science alone is able to explain creation and that religious instruction of any kind is somewhat subversive or dangerous - hence the protection of young minds? Dawkins surely wouldn't allow his own children to relate to any kind of religious inclinations since he doesn't believe in them. So, as father he must be instructing his children to have a worldview that excludes religion as having any real value - so much for his passionate argument for children's rights to make choices. (`Daddy, I'm hearing voices in my head telling me to do good and care for others' hmmmm). He wants to limit their choices to scientific ones, even though the age of our universe in my lifetime has grown from about 4 billion years to 13.7 billion. What will our scientists be saying a hundred years from now? Dawkins doesn't accept as valid any child's view that God created the world or that Jesus Christ is its greatest hope for survival beyond this earthly existence. Dawkins wants us all to accept his view that we cannot survive our earthly existence. He won't be satisfied until we all endure the kind of existential angst that obviously troubles him. Unlike Jesus, he cannot accept the rejection of his worldview like a man of true fortitude, courage, and grace.
7) Dawkins really ought to study the works of great theologians with more care. Sixteen hundred years ago St Augustine wrote `where religion or the bible is in conflict with reputable science it is religion or the bible that must be changed not the science.' It was the Catholic Church that did more than anyone to create the modern education system that we have today. Who started the university system that Dawkins and many others have enjoyed throughout their lives? It was in fact the Catholic Church that Dawkins despises so much. That's not a Catholic teaching by the way, it's a historical fact. I shudder to think what our world would be like had it not been for the efforts of church leaders envisioning and championing a right to an education for all regardless or color, race or creed.
8) Dawkins has a strange view of religious protectionism. Where in the free world does religion enjoy any viable form of protection? Yes, we are allowed to build churches so long as we can afford them and we are allowed to practice our faith. But that is part of a natural freedom that western democracies allow, it isn't protectionism. America is often described as the land of the free and yet we won't allow religious education in our schools. In stark contrast to Dawkins, I think that those who espouse explicit religious beliefs are more likely to encounter prejudice and discrimination from their superiors. Who wants a bank manager who insists that customers must accrue wealth only by strict moral standards? Who needs a surgeon who stands up for the rights of the unborn? Who needs a store manager who refuses to accept the `happy holiday' directive of his superiors in favor of the `Happy Christmas' alternative? TV and radio presenters and journalists never last long if they have discernable religious leanings.
9) The one thing I have to admire about religious folk generally is their devotion to care for the outcast members of society. There are countless thousands of outreach charities around the world selflessly serving millions of people because they believe their faith encourages them to care for the less fortunate. What does Dawkins do for others? Jesus once said, `by their fruits ye shall know them'. What does Dawkins do for others less fortunate than himself? If he gave away everything he had for his beliefs then I might admire him as much as I do the great saints like St Francis of Assisi.
10) Finally, I've come to realize that dictators suppress religious leaders not because they are able to turn people into simpletons (they aren't); but because they realize that the masses will see them in all their shallow glory when they compare them (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) to Jesus Christ the greatest person who ever lived. Dawkins the genius v Jesus the great - who are you listening to?
Whatever else the Dawkins Delusion is, it's certainly not a great book. By the way, you Dawkins fans out there really should read the `Dawkins Delusion' and then tell me how brilliant Dawkins is outside of his own field. He should stick to what he's great at rather than the childish polemics that intelligent Christians grate at.