It's about time I got around to reading this, with the reputation it has as the definitive reference for modern atheism. Generally speaking I'd rather spend my time reading fiction, but the irony of stumbling upon this book for $1 at a church sponsored book sale was too much for me to ignore.
The first thought I had while turning the first few pages was how similar his written word was to his spoken word lectures. He somehow infuses the same tone in each, a tone of patience and charm, but with bold sometimes tongue in cheek statements interspersed to grab the attention of his audience. I immediately understood that this wasn't going to be an unbiased reference, but rather an emotional and passionate presentation of why religion is ridiculous. This is the source of my first criticism. Being an atheist, I don't need to be convinced that faith is irrational, but for someone looking for a book to lead them away from faith, The God Delusion may seem too abrasive, too matter of fact. Dawkins has no patience for believers of any sort and wastes no time discrediting anyone with any belief in the supernatural, from noted scientists to poor farmers of the mid-west.
To go even further, Dawkins even turns his back on agnostics. He has the personal belief that agnosticism is a cop out, an easy answer to a difficult question. He says that if evidence were to be presented of the supernatural he would have no issue judging the evidence objectively and changing his mind, but since no evidence exists it's ridiculous for agnostics to hold out hope and believe in something undefinable, it's more logical to be an observant, open-minded atheist.
One of the major topics that stood out for me was an in-depth explanation of the anthropic principle. The principle basically says that if we're here to observe the universe, then it would make sense that certain universal constants were perfect for life to exist and to evolve to the point of cognition. This explanation is followed by several theoretical explanations for how other universes might have failed at producing cognitive beings. Either this universe is just one of many in a long timeline of universes going back to infinity, or existence is based on a multiverse model in which an infinity of universes exist all at once and we just happen to be existing and aware of one that was perfect for human life. These are really interesting topics to think about and discuss and I'm glad Dawkins spent some time explaining it all with several references to sources of related theoretical science.
The argument that I sometimes bring up in conversation when talking about the "benefits" of religion is that it presents morality in a fun, colorful way and that if society did away with religion, some accessible moral construct would have to fill the void left in religion's absence. After reading the applicable chapters on this topic I'm going to have to reassess my opinions slightly but not completely. Dawkins makes the argument that it's not the bible that is responsible for the moral construct taught to children, it's the interpretation of the bible by biased ministers. If it was the bible directly, morals found in the Old Testament would teach children to kill and seek revenge and make sacrifices etc... The New Testament is considerably more PC, but still not a good guide of moral responsibility considering the views of homosexuality and women's rights. Dawkins thinks that morality shouldn't be the product of literature, but rather based on the success of a society. It's a very utilitarian view to think that you shouldn't kill, not because someone told you not to but because it's obvious that killing reduces the chances of the survival of a society. This leads to another criticism though. Morality is extremely complex and oftentimes the right decision isn't as black and white as kill or don't kill. It takes a very involved construct to explain all of these moral issues and there needs to be something to replace all the adapted stories of the bible; stories that nowadays hardly have any resemblance to the original scripture, but would not exist if not for religion.
The next topic worth talking about is, in my opinion, Dawkin's most controversial argument. He states very clearly that bringing a child up under a religion they had no power in choosing is more abusive than sexual assault. You might ask why he would make such an insanely ludicrous statement and it is basically a response to all of the sexual assault cases committed by priests. He says that sexual assault, while horrible and scarring, is nothing compared to the reinforcement of the idea that the supernatural exists. He describes how grown men and women are tortured by the possibility of the existence of hell, experiencing horrible nightmares and severe depression because they feel they very well might be doomed for an eternity.
On this point I can see why Dawkins made the argument but that doesn't make it a tactful relation. Sexual assault is horrid. Bringing up a child in an environment where the only motivating factor is fear is horrid. Neither is more horrid.
However, after setting a somewhat sour, unsettling tone for the last portion of the book, Dawkins comes back to what he's most passionate about, which is the idea that Atheism is the only path to reason, and that there is no gap that needs to be filled if religion were to be abandoned. Arguments have been made about the wonder of religious art, but people too often forget that artists are wonderfully imaginative. They don't need a book to tell them what to write or paint or compose; they'll always find a muse and a subject. I sort of wish Dawkins spent a little more time talking about mortality, because it's the issue I've spent the most time grappling with. But, he believes no gap is left by religion here because of the idea proposed by a simple quote from Mark Twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." It's a refreshing way to look at it, as long as you can accept that your existence is a speck, a molecule, an unremarkable blip in infinity.
Overall a fun, entertaining read. I would certainly recommend The God Delusion to any atheist or even any believer who was on the fence. But the myriad God-fearing people out there would do nothing but wail and curse which will cost you a point Dawkins. I'll be waiting for an example of atheist literature that actually tries to approach convincing believers to reassess their beliefs in a tactful, effective way for such a book does not yet exist.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment