Perhaps the most famous famous, and amongst the most militant atheists writing today, Richard Dawkins has shifted over two million copies of his anti-religion polemic. That's an awful lot of books. Rick Warren's pro-Christian tract The Purpose Driven Life has sold about 30 million copies (source - ABC News), that's a truly massive amount of books.
Dawkins hates religion, much of The God Delusion burns with his fury at theism in all its forms. I say in all its forms but to be honest it is mostly the big faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that Dawkins takes on, and Christianity that he seems particularly angry about.
Dawkins is obviously a hugely intelligent man, Oxford University don't choose fools to be professors, and he has an incredible pedigree in the fields of ethology and evolutionary biology. He also has quite a large ego, I don't think I have read another scholarly book in which the author mentions himself quite so often. Dawkins just loves pointing out how clever he has been in previous verbal sparring with theists and how often he himself has demolished theist arguments. It does become a little wearing after a while.
Where Dawkins is particularly strong is the science. I enjoyed discussions on topics like Martin Rees' six constants theory, and the evolution pieces are splendid especially where Dawkins explores in detail how a pre-disposition toward religion could have been a very useful, if slightly misdirected, element of evolution itself.
Where Dawkins makes rather a fool of himself is politics. He asserts twice in TGD that without religion, there would have been no Troubles in Northern Ireland, and then claims that if children were schooled together the tensions in that community would die out in a generation. This is simply rubbish, those people in NI who consider themselves Irish and Catholic would still be opposed to a British and Protestant government if the religious element was missing. Although I have some sympathy for the view that cross-community schooling would help the community as a whole, joint education of white and black/asian children certainly has not wiped out racism in the wider community.
Dawkins really attacks religion, and tried to prop up the values of atheism by claiming that religion systematically influences people to do bad things. One of his arguments for this is that he doesn't think that there are many atheists in prison (an unverified claim as far as I can see), you could look at this claim from another point of view and say that people turn to religion when they get themselves into a bad spot. In a Louis Theroux documentary a prison guard offered a nicely cynical point of view when he said that he saw a lot of religious 'conversions' in prisoners as it certainly didn't harm their chances with the parole board.
There are numerous instances of religious people doing bad things, far too many to count. Bad Popes, the Inquisition, dozens of Kings and Queens who have made war for religious reasons, paedophile priests, the nutters from the Westboro Baptist Church, all claiming that one god or another tells them to do bad things. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were all largely atheist though, and that didn't stop any of them from massacring millions.
I have tried to think of a single moment when my church, its priests and followers, its teachings and public pronouncements have influenced or encouraged me to be bad. I cannot think of one. Instead I can clearly remember the things it has tried to influence me to do. To love all people equally without regard for race, nationality or religion. To have compassion and charity for those less fortunate. To know the difference between the older faith of an eye for an eye which we do not follow and the teachings of Christ that we should turn the other cheek. To strive to be the best you can be in this life, but not at the expense of others.
The God Delusion was an interesting read, but did it destroy my belief in God and throw a new kind of light into my life ? Well, it didn't. It raised some interesting questions, trod over a lot of already well trodden anti-religious rhetoric and argued mostly wisely from a scientific point of view. On the downside there are far too many assumptions and presumptions made when scientific fact and research would have safely shored up his arguments, such as in his discussion of the Montreal Police strike when he says "the majority of the population of Montreal presumably believed in God." It is no good presuming things when arguing from a scientific viewpoint, do the research, find the facts and use them, unless you have found them and they don't quite support the point you wish to make.
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
The God Delusion
I was going to attempt some 'witty' corruption of the title such as The Dawkins Delusion before realising that has probably been done a thousand times before.
I thought I would read The God Delusion before embarking on the World Religions module in September. Acquaint yourself with the opposing view and all that. I was, and still am, quite prepared to approach Dawkins' work with an open and fair mind and to see what the man has to say about belief and religion.
This later edition of the book opens with a series of reasons for why you cannot argue with Dawkins' conclusions. This does strike me as a little defensive, but it is handy for getting your point across to the sort of reader who picks up a famous book but then finds they cannot actually read it al the way through. This way they can pick up a handful of easy quotes and spurious conclusions from the introduction and then enter into pub and dinner debate as if they had read and considered the book in its entirety.
Dawkins' does write some appalling rubbish very early on. Included in his list of things that only occurred because of religion he mentions the Troubles in NI/Ireland, well I would tend to the argument that the IRA (and other) campaigns were largely carried out because the IRA saw themselves as freedom fighters seeking to oust an invading army from their homeland and that as such religion played a very minor role. He also claims that the Gunpowder Plot could not have happened without religion, yet there have been numerous coups and assassinations (including the murder of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval) which have as their prime motivators politics, power, revenge or money.
"Atheism nearly always indicates...a healthy mind."
"Atheists tend to think independently and will not conform to authority." Both quotes from The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
I presume Dawkins' will provide well substantiated research results later in the book to support these statements. Taken as they are though, I can see no reason why either atheism or theism should create either a healthy mind or an unhealthy one. The authority statement is similarly woolly and requires substantiating evidence. In comments posted on the blog in response to earlier articles I have posted on religion writers have made the point that concerns of morality, welfare, honesty, politics and life goals are common to atheists and are not the sole province of theists. This would seem to indicate some commonality of thinking and it does rather seem as if Dawkins' is trying to apply his own traits to a larger section of the community.
I am only a short way into the book though, so perhaps all will be made clearer later on.
I thought I would read The God Delusion before embarking on the World Religions module in September. Acquaint yourself with the opposing view and all that. I was, and still am, quite prepared to approach Dawkins' work with an open and fair mind and to see what the man has to say about belief and religion.
This later edition of the book opens with a series of reasons for why you cannot argue with Dawkins' conclusions. This does strike me as a little defensive, but it is handy for getting your point across to the sort of reader who picks up a famous book but then finds they cannot actually read it al the way through. This way they can pick up a handful of easy quotes and spurious conclusions from the introduction and then enter into pub and dinner debate as if they had read and considered the book in its entirety.
Dawkins' does write some appalling rubbish very early on. Included in his list of things that only occurred because of religion he mentions the Troubles in NI/Ireland, well I would tend to the argument that the IRA (and other) campaigns were largely carried out because the IRA saw themselves as freedom fighters seeking to oust an invading army from their homeland and that as such religion played a very minor role. He also claims that the Gunpowder Plot could not have happened without religion, yet there have been numerous coups and assassinations (including the murder of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval) which have as their prime motivators politics, power, revenge or money.
"Atheism nearly always indicates...a healthy mind."
"Atheists tend to think independently and will not conform to authority." Both quotes from The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
I presume Dawkins' will provide well substantiated research results later in the book to support these statements. Taken as they are though, I can see no reason why either atheism or theism should create either a healthy mind or an unhealthy one. The authority statement is similarly woolly and requires substantiating evidence. In comments posted on the blog in response to earlier articles I have posted on religion writers have made the point that concerns of morality, welfare, honesty, politics and life goals are common to atheists and are not the sole province of theists. This would seem to indicate some commonality of thinking and it does rather seem as if Dawkins' is trying to apply his own traits to a larger section of the community.
I am only a short way into the book though, so perhaps all will be made clearer later on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

