Richard Dawkins, who writes with a prose that is saucy and caustic and witty, argues in his newest book that God is a delusion. I will be joined in this series by RJS; I will write the first few paragraphs today and then RJS joins in. RJS is a scientist at a research university in the USA, and we will be looking at Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion.
"You can be," Dawkins claims, "an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled" (1) and, he continues two pages later, "for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." On the contrary, taking aim at his believing targets, "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument" (5).
How's that for a Preface? Do you think believers are "immune to argument"?
Chp 1 deals with "deserved" and "undeserved" respect. The former -- nature. The latter -- belief in God. "A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists" (11). But, this is not belief in God. He's with Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein. And he thinks physicists should refrain from referring to this "metaphorical and pantheistic God" as "God." To refer to the former as the latter is "an act of intellectual high treason" (19).
The undeserved respect is the way religion is treated with respect in public sectors. Think of Salman Rushdie or the cartoons published in Denmark or the way American media grants respect to religions. His question: "What is so special about religion that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect?" (27).
RJS:
Richard Dawkins is an evangelist of dogmatic atheism and secular humanism. Although he is by training an evolutionary biologist, and one who made some substantial scientific contributions early in his career, he has really made his reputation and his later career in the realm of the “popularization of science,” or more accurately in the preaching and popularization of a robust atheism. This book is essentially an extended polemic for atheism. Be aware though that Dawkins is not alone and those openly holding similar positions, although perhaps possessing somewhat more tact, are rapidly becoming more vocal and forceful, and ultimately, perhaps, more dangerous. Many of the arguments presented within this book are ones we must understand and be prepared to deal with.
Neither the preface nor the 1st chapter of The God Delusion contains much science, although Dawkins does quote a number of well known atheistic or agnostic scientists to bolster his argument that rational thinking demands atheism. In the section on undeserved respect his most cogent argument against religion and respect for religion relates to the condoned hatred of groups and individuals, all in the name of God, as practiced by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. How is this argument to be answered?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Julie (#40),
I'd nuance your comment by suggesting that human nature is responsible for intolerance and violence, whether it's Godless and political, Religious and political, or whatever. Religiosity has, historically, been exploited by despots, crooks, con-men and tyrants quite successfully in order to achieve political aims. Many tyrants have managed to wreak havoc by being anti-religious as well. The one common thread, it seems to me, is human nature, and if Dawkins were to get his way and succeed in stamping out the God delusion, there'd still be no shortage of cruelty, genocide, racism, and every other sinful human behavior known to mankind...because it's not God who's the problem.
VanSkaamper,
I agree ... humans are the problem. Humans who use just about everything in the world to justify power, ideology, and violence. Including religion. Including Jesus.
Julie +,
I don't want to be misunderstood as denying our responsibility for the bad things that have been done in our name. Nor do I want anyone to think I'm saying that all that is ok because other groups have done it.
But a big part of the new militant atheist attack on Christianity and religion in general is the claim that, since so much bad has been done in the name of religion, we should get rid of religion so the bad stuff will quit happening. The fact that non- and even anti-religious groups have done bad stuff without resorting to religion as a justification demonstrates that their "plan" for world peace is without merit.
Dawkins et al don't believe in God; fine. They don't want to have anything to do with Christianity; fine. They want to live their lives free from interference by religious people; fine (provisionally). They want to stamp out these annoying religions; not fine.
Let's be clear -- these folks want to destroy, and outlaw if necessary, all religion, religious expression, and religious faith. While we shouldn't be ugly, we mustn't give them an inch in their attacks. And we must be careful to meet their attacks head on. When their statements are wrong or wrong-headed, we have to point that out. If their arguments are illogical or historically suspect or hypocritical, we have to highlight it.
We are in a contest not only for souls but for the right to raise our children in our faith (again, see the article I referenced above). We need to act accordingly.
Jack said: to arbitrarily rule out certain methods of obtaining knowledge in favor of one (e.g., scientific method) that is applied universally, without regard to what is being studied, is in a sense irrational.
This is spot on. In one of my many e-discussions with my atheist friends, I tried to establish a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Or between training and experience. The former can be measured. The latter cannot.
But the atheists all had confidence that one could develop an objective measure of wisdom and/or experience. I think they fell into the trap of having one yardstick for all things regardless of subject.
One obvious weakness in Dawkins general approach of pitting science against religion is that a lot of the best science has been done by other than atheists whether deists or theists or pantheists or panentheists. Arguing that only atheism can be true to science is ridiculous.
On the other hand, the way in which mainstream religion had (and sometimes still does) tried to overstep its bounds and rule over any sort of enquiry, whether philosophical or political or scientific is honestly problematic. There are many who believe that their faith precludes a belief in quantum mechanics or in subatomic particles or in genetics or in evolution... We have to think through various issues including what the bible does and does not teach regarding nature and incidentally, science.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.