The God Delusion is one of those books that polarises the readers – either you agree with it or you don’t. Its premise is that the half-way position cannot conscionably be held without some compromise, and ultimately the issue of religion is a divisive one in any case.
Its topic? Why, that’s simple: God doesn’t exist and religion is a dangerous lie. Dawkins doesn’t just argue that god doesn’t exist; indeed, he dispenses with that argument very quickly. The primary focus of this book is not God – it is that the role religion has played in society has not been a positive one, and here he departs from what many in the middle ground hold – which is to say, God might not exist, but there’s nothing wrong with religion. Perhaps this is the only way to argue the case of God convincingly, given how tied up the question is with religion, but as you can tell, this strident position is sure to make many a little uncomfortable accepting Dawkins’ message.
Dawkins is a biologist, and it shows. There are many ways that the God question is approached, but the one that Dawkins focuses on – and one that is near to both his heart and his field of expertise – is that of creationism, or the euphamism of Intelligent Design. The theory of evolution is key to the case argued in The God Delusion, attacking first and foremost the strident believers of creationism representing the religous. The fundamental argument of “irreducible complexity” that creationism trots out is dealt with definitively, though perhaps not to the satisfaction of the deeply religous. Dawkins has written many other books on evolution, and it seems almost as though this is him putting his core arguments down in one place.
In itself, the theory of evolution is sufficient to disprove the case of creationism, to any who appreciates science and reason at least, but it does beg the question “well what if ‘God’ just set the wheels in motion?” Dawkins dodges this somewhat by not adressing that argument – his case is against the “active God”, the one which monitors your (and everyone else’s) daily activities and thoughts for infractions of the holy law. Indeed, he dismisses this “diest” god and agnosticism as fence sitting positions that act as apologists for the “hardcore” religiosity. Dawkins also casually dismisses the case of religions outside of the major monothestic three of Judaism, Christianity and Islam – and even with these he focuses on Christianity, the religion he was born into.
In a sense, this is fair enough – he knows Christianity, and that is what he can attack most authoritatively. In other ways, this could leave those from outside these religions (like my background) a little unsatisfied. Attacking the active god is also “appealing” to the majority of the audience which would consider the active god their concept, to whichever degree they do believe in it.
The majority of the book is devoted to the ridiculousness of religion, and the argument that religion is indeed dangerous. Dawkins once more advances evolution as a method for explaining humanity’s perceived need of religion and its pervasiveness, and for numerous arguments besides – clearly he is a fan of this core tenet of biology. However, he also uses some powerful examples to show the problem with religion in society, and this is perhaps the most convincing argument of the book. The litany of crimes and abuses committed in religion’s name, and the unacknowledged hypocracy of many a relgious stance makes it bleedingly obvious that far from being a force for good, religion has over the years hindered humanity’s progress.
One of the key facts is that religion is ultimately incompatible with science: religion asks you to believe despite evidence to the contrary or indeed without any credible evidence in favor. Science tells you to question it, to probe further and further. Dawkins argues that the most negative manifestation of this would be at the childhood level, when parents indoctrinate thier children – the unquestioning belief required by religion opposes science and its charge to question everything. In pointing out this conflict, Dawkins builds a solid case for why religion gets it so wrong.
While there were areas where Dawkins gets distracted, and some of the arguments are unsatisfying to someone from outside Christianity, ultimately Dawkins delivers far more on the argument against religion than just God. You never get the feeling that Dawkins is arguing the case of agnosticism, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that if you start this book a “believer”, you’ll end it either at least agnostic, or very angry.
Dawkins is an astute debator, and he has applied his skill cleverly here – he defines the topic, and he argues the case comprehensively. There is no single knockout blow, but the accumulation of arguments add up powerfully. It is no atheist bible (ironic a concept as that may be) but it remains an interesting piece of work – one to contemplate over time to absorb the message.
I’ve been meaning to read this book. The evolution/creationism/ID debate is something I can’t help but weigh in on whenever I see it come up. The libertarian in me doesn’t agree with the fundamental premise of the book – everyone has a right to believe whatever they want, so we’re in no position to remove religion from society, but at the same time he brings up a good point about children. Why do we indoctrinate them with anything at birth? Much better to leave matters of faith until a time when they can judge what is true for themselves, IMO.
I don’t think the argument is that you should stop people from believing in or practising religion, but rather that if children were allowed to grow up outside of religion, and be taught science (and by implication the scientific method), they wouldn’t choose to follow any religion. Naturally enough, the usual points about flying pork and a month of Sundays applies.
It’s nice to think that people are entitled to believe whatever they want, but this has ramifications. Dawkins makes the point that people are allowed to get away with things in the name of religion that would otherwise be considered unacceptable, for example, discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, or in some places in the world, murdering one’s daughter if she commits adultery.
The argument that you should allow people to believe whatever they want doesn’t really hold water: some believe it’s right to murder, and act on that belief; but our society disagrees and will- must- act strongly in support of that opinion given the opportunity*. If others don’t act upon that belief, then our reaction will be tempered, but there should still be a reaction- we should not sit passively by while people delude themselves, each other, and their children.
Other cases are less serious, of course, but it’s still an problem when people are making decisions based on false premises, especially if they are in positions of power. We should not pretend that this is OK. Sure, start out believing what you believe, but if you do act or make decisions based on false beliefs, then you should expect, accept, and learn from criticism and feedback- not hide behind faith.
*The Iraq invasion doesn’t count as a good opportunity, and I’m certainly not saying that all means are justified.
Yeah, that was another good point that Dawkins made, and I’ve found myself being far more conscious about it – the automatic respect accorded to religion is a dangerous thing, and we should expect that it’s all equal and treated much like any other belief (e.g. that the earth is flat or whatnot).