The God Delusion v. 2 (long read)

I bought the book by Richard Dawkins last night and decided to re-read it. I admit that the first time I read it I opened the book expecting to disagree and so I didn't really soak up what it was that Dawkins was saying. It occurred to me that sometimes it is necessary to read a book twice, or perhaps even a third time, to catch those things which were not caught the first time around.

Sooo, I am on page 43 now and have encountered two problems already with Dawkin's book, which are as follows:

1. Dawkins, on the first page of the Preface (the last paragraph) says, "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it . . ."

2. His constant references to Thomas Jefferson as "a man of reason" and "one of the great thinkers and founding fathers of the United States."

Now, for the best interest of logic and reason and intelligent discourse, I will refrain from discussing his view of God (mainly because I agree with what he says on page 37, "And I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life," making it crystal clear that he sees no problem whatsoever with my approach to life as it is very similar to Buddhist in both theory and practice). His view of God has been debated enough.

What I will focus on in his hypocrisy and self-contradiction. I will do so by number below.

1. First off, this argument is a fallacy. It is an appeal to emotion. He is asking human beings to imagine a world in which religion never existed, which is impossible since it was religion which helped human beings to evolve (mentally) in many ways. If one were to take religion out of the equation, many of the faculties which human beings possess would be instantly lost. Not to mention that the statues which the Taliban would be blowing up, would simply not exist. There would be no pyramids, there would be no sphinx, no Michaelangelo paintings, no grand statues to be destroyed. How much has come into existence, how much of our creativity would be lost to us, as human beings, had religion never existed? He conveniently ignores (or simply does not consider) this question. If one were to erase religion, no, the Taliban would not exist to blow up statues, but neither would the statues themselves, the great works of art, the amazing architecture around the world and countless other aspects of our lives which came into existence because of (not in spite of) religious views. One cannot keep the beautiful things that have come from religion if they throw out religion because of the abuse of religion. Corrupt minds will corrupt any institution, regardless of whether that institution be theistic or atheistic in nature.

Also, he refers to the Indian Partition and that leads to number two.

2. His constant praising of Thomas Jefferson is quite ignorant. He is promoting Jefferson's good ideals and using Jefferson to fight off the bad results of religions who repress and harm the lives of human beings around the world, all the while forgetting that it was Jefferson who brought about the Trail of Tears, who was responsible for the massacre of countless Native Americans. It was Jefferson who signed several "peace treaties" with the intention of breaking them a few weeks later. It was Jefferson who owned slaves and used religion as his right to do so. One cannot use Jefferson's quotes against forms of religion that he did not hold and change the context in which they were spoken, to speak against all forms of religion. Jefferson was a part of the very institution that Dawkins is claiming to fight against. That is hypocrisy.

These are two flaws in Dawkin's book, which I would like to open for discussion.

I agree with Dawkins that the religions of todays world are completely out of control and destructive. They are not praising life, they are not showing the beauty in existence or the glory in the beings that we call humans, they have been reduced to ONLY intolerance, money squandering and violence. Of course corrupt minds have always manipulated the group of religious people, using their religious beliefs as the excuse, to harm others . . . but there WAS ALWAYS a balance. The religions also provided enough beauty and unity, celebration and love to balance out the negative aspects. Now the positive side has been lost and all that remains is the negative side. So yes, I agree, there is a problem and that problem is religion. Religion is the problem. The goofy religious concepts of God (or the gods) has got to go. Science has explained the natural phenomenons which gave birth to these gods and goddesses. Science has explained them and so now those gods and goddesses are unnecessary. They served their purpose in human growth. They helped us to question our environment. But, like a pair of shoes that one wears at five and outgrows . . . they must be discarded, for they no longer fit.

BUT, this is not the way to go about it. Contradicting yourself only opens up attack from those who wish to maintain their goofy beliefs. Why quote anybody from the past? Why do their views give validity to a scientist? If scientists make statements only on what can be observed and proven in the present, what possible need is there to persuade people by quoting famous names? The truth does not need a spokesperson. The truth can be proven at any time. The reliance on old men's quotes is a sign of persuasion and if you must persuade a person to accept your views, then you are not asking them to gain "knowledge" but simply to "believe" because persuasion only begets belief (if successful) and never knowledge. Knowledge is gained through experience.

And, if you are indeed asking them to believe, then you are no less religious than the people you claim to be fighting.

I repeat: This thread is not about God, it is about the contradictions . This thread is NOT about God. Do not come in here and discuss whether or not God exists or whether you think Dawkins was right or wrong on his view of God. That is not the concern of this thread.

 

i haven't read this book, but i have read some of his papers and watched a couple of his lectures on youtube.

but, i think that this book was written for a popular, and not a scientific audience. if he were to present only statistics and scientific proofs, it would be dull.
when writing for the general public, you need to in some way connect to them on some level.
using emotional appeals lends a more human aspect to the whole work, and allows people to relate it to themselves on a personal level.

as for praising Jefferson, he is again appealing to public through a non-scientific way. (although scientists are often guilty of not questioning a respected authority, ie aristotle's four elements, the ptolmeian (sp?) model of an earth centered universe), people trust (some) of their leaders, and in america the veneration of the Founding Fathers nears ancestor worship. People are, in this country at least, far far far more likely to respect the ideas of Jefferson than Darwin.

i would also like to say, because i'm a history nerd, that it was Andrew Jackson (our most psychotic president,, and founder of the democratic party) who was responsible for the trail of tears, not Jefferson.

i do agree that historical speculation is a very trite concept (ie what would happen if hitler won the war), but i think that it's part of our human nature at it's very basic to create and express ourselves. how, or even if, this would manifest itself without religion over history, is open to debate. you also have to take into account that the religious classes usually were the controlling classes. they were the people with the power to create monuments. these monuments naturally took on a religious nature. if the early leaders were athiest, they'd probably make giant statues of themselves...
who knows?

 

Whether or not God exists was the main point of Dawkins book. The points you bring up are peripheral, suggesting that if anyone is wrong about any detail, his/her arguments can be dismissed or subjected to scathing criticism. Elsewhere in the book, Dawkins makes clear that he admires religious music and art, but he is mainly concerned with whether or not the beliefs that led to them are true and whether they cause harm that outweighs the good. (I think the good outweighs the harm, but I think the case to the contrary by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchins deserves consideration).

The notion that religion "helped humans to evolve" is somewhat speculative. Dawkins argues that religion helped religious memes evolve, sometimes at the expense of their human "hosts" (See also,Denning's Breaking the Spell). As for Thomas Jefferson, like any human, he had flaws, but was one of the intellectual giants of his age and ours. As noted by others, criticism of his contribution to the Trail of Tears is off-base. Since my home state was the end of that trail, us Okies are well-aware that it was President Jackson who was to blame. Jefferson was long out of office and in his grave before the actions leading to the Trail of Tears, including the treaty of 1838. According to your logic, that should make you "ignorant" and no longer worthy of our attention, but I don't think that's the case. I'm surprised you didn't mention the fact that Jefferson had sex with his slave--a matter which was a scandal during his own time.

By the way, I'm a Christian. I find all of the authors I mentioned a bit too left-brained smarty pants intellectual for my taste, but I think they make a useful contribution in a world where superstition seems to be taking over. When our presidential candidates have to field questions such as "Do you believe that prayer can prevent disasters like Katrina or 9-11?", it's time for some critical rationalism.

 

Dawkin's is British. He comes from a school of thought that ties theology and religion and sociology all in the same breath. While one DOES influence the other, he is missing the interpolation of larger, harder to see frequencies.

I can sit here and fire off hundreds of Humanist events in history that have resulted in the deaths of almost 1 billion people. Yet, people here would call me batshit insane for doing so.