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: Preaching to the Choir
Summary: 2 Stars
For us who were brought up in atheist or agnostic milieus and have since pursued careers in the sciences, Richard Dawkins has done the favor of binding all of our cherished conceits conveniently between the covers of a single volume. Here we will be reassured that we are of like mind with the 93% of elite and enlightened members of the National Academy of Science who do not believe in a personal god. It will be averred that our favorite arguments against the existence of such a god remain unassailable. We will be reminded that the traditional arguments in favor of religion are not only philosophically unsound, they are unscientific. At the end of this book the sense of self-satisfaction is complete.
But this was not the author's objective. "If this book works as I intend," he says, "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." One anticipates, then, breaking the horse gently, gradually tempering him to bridle and bit. But just a few pages later Dawkins comments on "the weakness of the religious mind," a characterization that seems poorly calculated to win such a mind to his point of view. A short distance further on he refers to the Hebrew god as "the Old Testament's psychotic delinquent." This is among the gentler salutations found throughout the book. In fact as you read this thing it's hard to overcome the impression that rather than persuade the religious, he seeks instead to bludgeon them.
One of the author's gripes about religion, aside from its failure to conform to rationalism, is "society's exaggerated respect" for it. Dawkins' exemplar of this is the 2006 case of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. He recounts the apparent conspiracy to whip up resentment among Muslims worldwide and the resulting riots and abuse, including murder, of Christians and Westerners. "In response to all this frenzied pandemonium," comments Dawkins, "decent liberal newspapers deplored the violence and made token noises about free speech. But at the same time they expressed `respect' and `sympathy' for the deep `offence' and `hurt' that Muslims had `suffered'." Dawkins then wonders at the "disproportionate privileging of religion." "What is so special about religion," he asks, "that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect?"
This is not hard to figure out. It was not a case of the "privileging of religion" generally but of Islam in particular. And the responses of newspapers were not out of societal regard for religious faith, Islamic or otherwise, but rather concern over provoking further violence among Muslims and putting more people at risk. These were editorial decisions, and it can be debated whether or not they were prudent, but they are not evidence of privilege.
The absence of special privilege for religion is particularly true in America. Dawkins is British, and things might be quite different in Britain, but here in America we have the First Amendment, pursuant to which we say and print things critical of religious faith, religious institutions, and religious people all the time, e.g., Dawkins' book. It is such a commonplace, in fact, that it hardly merits notice. We have even gone so far as to have displayed works of "art" such as Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," a photograph of corpus and crucifix submerged in the shutterbug's own urine. Despite the potential religious offensiveness of this image, it was not suppressed. In fact it was supported partially at public expense, and the debut was widely reported in the press. (Artistic acclaim was glowing, religious acclaim less so, but still Christians somehow refrained from worldwide riot.)
The difference between public attitudes toward religion in America and Britain is the subject of a particular puzzle for Dawkins. "[T]he United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church ... is among the least. I am continually asked why this is, and I do not know."
This is not hard to figure out either. While the front-line Anglican clergyman of Britain has become (Dawkins quoting one Giles Fraser, vicar) a "tea-drinking, gentle eccentric" who "represented a type of religion that didn't make non-religious people feel uncomfortable," there remain in America clergy from numerous sects who sincerely and energetically believe. If Britain's establishment clergy demonstrate they lack commitment, you can hardly expect more from the laity. In contrast, many American clergy are eager to sweep up the leavings of unserious churches and make of them believers. And despite the scientific advances of our time, a fervent promise of salvation or call to moral purpose, however fantastical, will persuade far more people than will an appeal to morally indifferent science. Benighted these converts might be, but if Prof. Dawkins seeks to persuade them, he might wish to take into account some results from the science of psychology.
But he would rather demonstrate the obtuseness of religion by recounting the long history of religious corruption, the foolishness of belief, and the power of rational counter-argument. All of us who have tried this know how easy it is and how pleasing to press a foot on the neck of an intellectual inferior. All of us who have tried it also know how easy it is for this tactic to give offense. Which may account for some of the "hatred and misunderstanding of atheists" that Dawkins cites, documentation of which is kept in a database maintained by the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. One shouldn't hate atheists, of course. Disagree with them, sure; debate them if you have time and inclination. Likewise one shouldn't hate theists, and perhaps Dawkins doesn't, but as is evident in this book, he certainly holds their views in solid and public contempt. It does nothing to lessen any supposed hatred and misunderstanding of atheists that their most prominent spokesman makes himself obnoxious.
Book Review: DAWKINS MIRRORS DARWIN, HE IS A STUDENT OF DARWIN
Summary: 2 Stars
The best thing about this book is a substantial reference to thinkers and their thoughts. Get out your dictionary and have your Internet search engine ready. All high school American history class students should demand to read not just pro and con, but the rest of the story that is being told. This is a good, educational example for them to use. People will never learn how to think for themselves until they can spot someone who is attempting to think for them with phrases like "statistically possible" and "law of [Insert the advanced scientifically proven theory name here]." "Natural science" only means that it is what we are used to observing in nature. All things, observed long enough, have a nature about them. In my opinion, the phrase "natural science" is deceptively authoritative to children and adults alike. Please review that for yourself.
The most negative thing about this book is that it is a 400 plus page lecture that can easily be summarized in three points. 1. Numbers, i.e., statistical numbers, are the best godfather available to all of us. 2. Given time, and gradual steps, by purely natural laws (i.e., Darwin's natural selection!), the statistical probability of evolution marches forward and upward because large numbers of slightly improbable agents add up to accumulation of the possiblity of anything, i.e., evolution. 3. If you don't agree with what Mr. Dawkins holds, you are a/an/some [Insert adjective(s) and euphemism for bad person plus noun of Mr. Dawkin's choice Here] in need of having your `consciousness raised.'
Do you like numbers? Does even mention of statistics have the effect of increasing your belief in the presence of infallible fact? Do you accept statistical probability on hearsay evidence? Can numbers say what ever you want them to in favor of probability? Have I got a book for you.
God is irreducibly complex, and that flaw makes him unacceptable to Mr. Dawkins. God cannot be reduced to a numerical equation or tested as a law of science. I had really hoped to find some meat in this book. Instead, I found observation, rigged examples, hearsay quotes, lack of citation and footnotes, absolutist opinion, and manipulation.
If Mr. Dawkins could have scored a quote from Beelzebub himself, he would have gladly printed it and followed through with condemning Satanism as part of the problem with the CARB (Catch-All Religion Bucket). On pages 56-57, Mr. Dawkins declares that God and gods are all the same to him and under his `attacking.' Therefore, he will treat all three Abrahamaic religions `as indistinguishable' (i.e., Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) (see pg. 58). He creates the CARB, with the same logic that "No one is perfect; all people are bad because they are different and not perfect. I am correct. All people should be killed." If Mr. Dawkins were God, we'd all be... well, dead.
Mr. Dawkins uses quotes from some real bottom feeders in the university system of Great Britain with impressive titles. No one is immune: the pacifist, religious apologist, deist, theist, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Quaker, Protestant, Christian, theology. See Mr. Dawkins on page 56 where he has a Catholic meltdown and page 80 for theologians to get their comeuppance. Changing definitions to accommodate Mr. Dawkins personal use the God hypothesis on page 52 that is then altered on page 82 because there are `many versions of the hypothesis.' How convenient. Now we can't tell if the God Hypothesis was Mr. Dawkins name for it, or his name for their name for it. But then, they will translate to anything and anyone in the CARB.
Mr. Dawkins time travels. There is a forum for anachronistic politics. For example, Mr. Dawkins tells us what the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson (and others) would be about events that are more recent. Mr. Dawkins quotes the atheist Nehru and to my surprise, even what Nehru thought he said isn't what he said. The lecture is filled with haphazard illustrative quotations, self-made and manipulated definitions, angry absolutisms, and an allegedly scientific appeal to the intelligence of real thinkers.
The section devoted to the widely held idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation should be required reading in all high school American history classes. It's not that Dawkins takes it out of context, he takes it out of the greater picture of historical application. The book segment on the document of Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, and the Musselmen (use the dictionary for that one if it is not familiar) on pgs. 60-61 will not tell you that the Treaty of Tripoli was on the books for 8 years, then renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped. It was put in the document to avoid a religious war between the Muslims of Tripoli and a young America circa 1796. You would have put in whatever you needed to in order to stem piracy and a declaration of war against you.
Read "Treaty of Tripoli by David Barton" - [...]. All high school American history class students should demand to read not just pro and con, but to read the rest of the story that is being told. This is a good educational example for them to use.
You don't have to think, just believe as Mr. Dawkins does. His thought process isn't easy to follow unless you're already angry. If you're not angry when you start reading, you will be later with his subtle (and not subtle at all) snipes, snarks, and condescension.
The word religion is used in a continuous feed loop that appeals to anyone who doesn't catch on that religion is a handy straw man for all the world's evils. For Mr. Dawkins purposes, all gods are the same (once again, page 57), and every expression of belief that contains any pro theological reference goes in the CARB (once again, Catch-All Religion Bucket).
Book Review: To me atheist fundamentalism is the same as theist fundamentalism
Summary: 2 Stars
Dawkins set out to write an atheist book were the reader would read being a theist and walk away being an atheist. This book sort of reminds me of an hell fire preacher who uses the idea of hell as a means of making converts, Dawkins paints a picture of Atheists as the enlightened ones (the brights) and theists as being naive, believing in a myth and even worse by being religious they perform untold atrocities. Same as the effective preacher, from the persuasive rhetoric there might be converts but ultimately it doesn't really address the question, is there a God. I don't think you have to look hard to find religious people who are in fact intelligent and see all of the good that also comes from it. (On a side note, I think its pretty apparent from human history that removing religion or God won't stop prejudices, wars, ect., sadly this seems to be part of humanity, does Dawkins not realize he's just as intolerant as the people he's complaining about being intolerant?)
At one point in this book, likely anticipating the backlash his book would cause, Dawkins discusses how he's not an atheist fundamentalist. According to him, to be a fundamentalist you are so stuck in your beliefs that you won't change them regardless of the evidence, this sounds nice but like most of the book its just rhetoric and simply doesn't appear to be true. He uses examples of scientists who change their views in light of new discoveries, but someone calling him a fundamental has nothing do with his views on science but his atheistic fundamentalism, which is very apparent. Often in other negative reviews of this book you'll see complaints of how Dawkins knows nothing about Christian theology or doesn't have any understanding of the bible. Another thing telling is almost all of his sources are atheist writers, now if you're going to claim to not be a fundamentalist and open to change if evidence is present wouldn't you at least read some theist apologists? I'm not saying his viewpoints would be different, but it would be absurd for me as a protestant to go and only read anti-catholic literature to get a perspective on Catholicism, surely Dawkins can understand this? Sadly that's not the case, when his lack of understanding of theology is mentioned Dawkins just replies something about not having to study about leprechauns to prove they don't exist. This might be fine and true but if the vast majority of humanity did in fact believe in leprechauns (and had done so throughout all of known human history) then I do think you might at least try to understand why they believe.
To keep this review from getting too long, I'll just discuss a few parts of the book. The first is the section on NOMA. As a Christian who loves science this part of the book frustrated me, Dawkins is so concerned with his anti religious proselytizing that he doesn't really seem care about getting people to accept things like evolution (he wants them to accept evolution but only at the cost of belief in God). I'm fully on the side of Gould where we should separate science and religion differences. There are many Christians who accept evolution and are doing good work in getting others to accept it also, but Dawkins wants to keep pushing Darwinism as his God and make Christians think its either or, which its not.
The next is his section on the old and new testament, sadly I question if he's actually read any of the bible for himself. The stories he mentions in the old testament seem to be only the same ones used by Julia Sweeny (someone he often mentions), and like most of the rest of the book he doesn't mention the other side of the bible showing once again a lack of knowing anything but the atheist arguments. I'll admit firsthand that some of the stories he mentioned seem horrific now days, but some of these stories weren't meant to be used things to do but moral guides. Take for example the horrible story of Jephthah, who promises to God to sacrifice whatever/whomever meets him first if God gives him victory, the person turns out to be his own daughter and he then sacrifices her. This story is terrible, but its not meant to be taken as what to do, but instead of what not to do (in this case make rash promises to God), elsewhere in scripture human sacrifices are strictly prohibited (and would have been prohibited here). I'm not going to go into most of the other examples but I think any reader of the bible would be advised also to read about hyperbole and its use in the bible.
Dawkins also makes an absurd assertion that "Love Thy Neighbor" was strictly for the Jews as neighbors, but Dawkins clearly forgets later when Jesus is asked but who is my neighbor the extremely popular story of The Good Samaritan. The Jews at the time hated the Samaritans, and the purpose of the parable was to show just how much thy neighbor was all of humanity not just the Jewish ones. He also must have never read Deuteronomy where the Israelites are constantly told to treat foreigners well because they themselves were once foreigners in Egypt.
Dawkins ended the book discussing just how limited our knowledge and perspective is. How we only see and understand a small part of whats actually going on in the world. I think the world and science are amazing things, we should pursue knowledge and understanding. I think we (theists) shouldn't force science to fit into out religious viewpoints (such as a 6000 year old earth), but at the same time there are questions which science can't answer, we're limited by our own evolved mind and religion may or may not answer those questions, but I think its sad that a book like this is far more concerned with proselytizing (biased at that) than actually considering the question of God.
Book Review: Consciousness raising, but is it powerful enough to change your beliefs?
Summary: 5 Stars
There appears to be a discord between who Mr. Dawkins wrote this book for, and the manner in which he conveyed his thoughts. In the preface, Mr. Dawkins asserted that his goal in writing this book was to raise consciousness, especially of those "people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realize that leaving is an option." Mr. Dawkins also repeatedly asserted that as the consciousness is raised, which is particularly the case in the highly educated and intellectuals, the need to solicit religion for answers to life's basic inquiries subsides significantly. Therefore, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume Mr. Dawkins believes at least a majority of religious people are neither intellectuals, nor highly educated. Mr. Dawkin's further asserted, "the religiousity of today's America is something truly remarkable." From that statement we can surmise one group of his target audience is Americans, one in four of whom didn't read a single book in 2006 (Associated Press/Ipsol poll of Americans' reading habits). This group also has an average reading level of 8th to 9th grade (University of Utah Health Sciences Center). All of this begs the question why Mr. Dawkins refused to "dumb down" his rhetoric. Afterall, many of the people he hopes to influence are neither highly educated nor avid or very skillful readers. Yet, he stubbornly retained his professional prose in presenting his ideas, as effective and eloquent as they were.
Mr. Dawkins also failed to present a conclusive explanation of why humans appear to be "psychology primed for religion" (religion chip in the brain). Mr. Dawkins proposes that as children we are programmed to defer to, and accept direction from adults. Rather than experience how dangerous it is to venture near a cliff or swim in crocodile infested waters, we can avoid them altogether by accepting the consequences of such potentially harmful acts from adults. The propensity to accept religion, therefore, is a misfiring of such a tendency, or a byproduct of such a phenomenon; accept instructions of a higher power because it benefits you. Reject them and suffer the dire consequences. While on the face of it, this seems like a strong hypothesis to explain why the human psyche is so receptive to deity, further examination of Mr. Dawkins' idea brings to light issues that may have been overlooked. For starters, the idea that children act in deference to adults is a stretch. From a very young age, e.g. 1-2 years old, children often act in defiance of their parents, primarily to establish their own identity. There is even a term for this stage that most parents are all too aware of: Terrible twos. This defiance magnifies in the teenage years. It is not until well into adulthood when descendants finally realize their parents have some useful advice worthy of serious consideration. Most protections afforded to children are, therefore, not a consequence of children accepting and following directions from parents. Rather, they're the result of parents facilitating and steering children, often forcefully into situations that helps them avoid danger, e.g. young children can rarely spend time without adult supervision. They are not allowed to consume alcohol (a rule that is commonly ignored), and they must be put into car seats before being transported in a vehicle. Try advising a child of the consequences of not using a car seat, and see how accepting he or she will be of your very useful advice.
According to German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, all humans possess "the will-to-life", defined as an inherent drive within us to stay alive and reproduce. The will to life has at its core the principle of immortality, and at its root the "selfish gene". From ape to human, we took a giant leap forward in developing consciousness and suddenly became keenly aware of our vulnerability and mortality. The idea that death spells the end of us was swiftly rejected and replaced with (apparently, we developed a healthy imagination early on as well) idea of an imaginary friend(s) who would guide us to immortality through the afterlife. In essence, we created God(s) because we rejected death as an end, and also as a means to cope with all the random and undesirable sh*t in our nasty, brutish and short lives (Thomas Hobbs), especially during an era without Dulce De Leche Hagen Daaz (anyone who's tried it knows what I'm referring to).
Once consciousness developed, no longer would the immortality of the selfish gene suffice. Death is a state that is neither consciously, nor subconsciously desirable to a conscious being. Humans are social animals. Without the afterlife, death is perceived to offer a state of eternal solitaire. Most humans free of serious mental and/or physical pain also find joy in living life. Death deprives us of all of the joyful events, such as love and watching our kids grow up. Religion nicely reconciled the immortality need of the consciousness with that of the selfish gene, and religious ideas a few thousand years ago didn't seem as preposterous as now, e.g. earth is 6,000 years old. Consequently religious ideas took root early on and their influence has continued to persist, although we can argue with all of the scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe etc., the influence of religion is on the decline. How receptive would our minds be to religion if we'd transformed from ape to Homo sapien accompanied by the knowledge and technology available today?
Despite these flaws, there is no denying that Mr. Dawkins succeeded in presenting arguments that raise the consciousness regardless of whether the reader agrees with his arguments or not.
Book Review: Why this Book?
Summary: 4 Stars
Richard Dawkin's latest book, "The GOD Delusion" is a must read for everyone. Theist or Atheist, believer or non-believer, Dawkin's has, for the first time, placed the complete set of arguments about the existence (or non-existence as he would prefer) of God, into a single place for easy reference during after dinner conversation. Not withstanding his relentless negative and somewhat emotional attacks on the believer, his arguments and counter arguments are well written and within easy grasp of all. If you can read this book and maintain your own level minded perspective you will be in strong possession of significant knowledge to either impress your dinner guests or perhaps upset them to the point of keeping them from ever coming to your house again -- if that is your wish. In the end, based on the comprehensive research he has provided, either perspective can still be argued, although he has clearly stated that he is trying to convert believers to his side -- but he has missed the best and perhaps newest argument due to a lack of evidence.
Most of his arguments are old, 19th century as he has been accused, but never quite understood why. And most contemporary believers have reconciled their faith with the natural science of the day. However, he has one new intriguing thread with regard to the origin of religion and he pulls on it, but he freely admits it is arguably one of perhaps many threads that could have caused the human brain to develop religious beliefs as a bi-product of selecting for other things pertinent to survival, or whatever was deemed important during the selection process. And this thread bumps up against something far more important than religion -- It cries forth with the question of human consciousness and it's evolutionary development -- a.k.a. Julian Jaynes. Alas Dawkins never crosses fully into the pursuit of consciousness and it's potential origins leaving us to wonder if Jaynes was a genius or a quack -- I wonder why? If you prove consciousness is an illusion than absolutely you have proven there is no God. He has unfortunately shied away from this subject. It is the substance necessary to create not just artificial life but artificial intelligence. A subject he never addresses -- although he poignantly relays the tragic end to Alan Turing, the father of AI, for a completely different reason.
More important to his writings, however, is his insistence that it is the believer who is suffering from a delusion, when it is just as clear that he suffers from some sort of emotional discontinuity, perhaps paranoia, that propels his own delusions about what is and what is not true religious faith. So here Dawkin's labors away, trifling with the Almighty, a personal God or natural selection -- no one should really care since both belief in the Almighty or the processes of natural selection are far stronger than Richard Dawkins. Regardless of what they may believe during the good times, during the dark of night, or on their death bed, does not change the fact that the universe is really really big, perhaps infinite, and he is far from unlocking its ultimate secrets -- something he freely admits in the end. The secrets that he hopes to find, keep slipping through his fingers as the universe keeps expanding and the smallest building blocks of matter keep turning back into something that he cannot quite grasp. Yet the curiosity of science propels him forward in his quest -- with such conviction to know or finally know, that there is no God. This is clearly a crusade of sorts for Dawkin's, yet he maintains that he is an atheist. Somewhere in Chapter 2 though he rates himself a level 6 agnostic -- allowing for a very very small possibility that there actually is a God. Or else he couldn't continue his quest, it wouldn't make logical sense. So he too, has a disconnect. By allowing himself a brief, if not unconsciously repressed uncertainty, about the meaning of life enables him to go on his atheistic crusade -- mimicking all of the same characteristics of religion that he so soundly criticizes. I find this ironic.
Second, if social behavior including morals and values actually evolved as he suggests, including religion, then these things are hard wired into our physiology. They are firmware, not software, which makes them real. And no matter what delusion he thinks believers are suffering from -- he goes to quite some extent to explain why these actions are real and necessary -- believers, therefore, are not suffering from anything false. They do what they do because they are supposed to. They are behaving as their creator, designer, or natural selector would have them behave...hence reality, no matter whose side you are on. Again, ironic.
Dawkins most significant contribution to society, though this particular book, however, has nothing at all to do with God or religion. It has to do with the abuse of young minds. His stance should be every parent's stance and the brainwashing of young minds in ways that would damage their mental develoment is indeed problematic. Religion, no religion, God, or no God, we do not have the right to lie to our children in ways that would torment or terrorize their thoughts. Particularly in ways that would fundamentally alter the way they brains are developing -- at least before the age of eight or nine. To do otherwise would be the same as altering their bodies physically for instance, the heinous binding of a young girl's feet in certain countries. Dawkin's carries this topic quite well -- but I'm not sure why it's in this particular book.