This was a homework assignment for Writing for a Wide Readership, a journalism class for non-journalism majors. Here, I try to crumble the normative 'rational' high ground atheists take by showing that there is no basis for a debate between science and religion, especially when one tries to disprove the other's supernatural aspects on its own terms. They're certainly not mutually exclusive...it seems the discussion should be how to mitigate those sorts of extreme positions, a problem less in the realm of scientists, and more in the hands of religious leaders and policy makers.
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins First Mariner Books, 420 pp, $16.95, October 2006, Preface 2008
Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, Oxford fellow, writer, and professional atheist, has spent many years crusading for the cause of “non-belief”. He rose to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene in which he popularized a gene-based evolutionary theory, and since then has carved out his own brand of celebrity appearing regularly on TV campaigning for the secular life and debating theologians. Much like the way American televangelists have sensationalized the Gospel, turning sermons into rock concerts,Dawkins has made religious diatribe sexy to watch. According to its website, the mission of his foundation, the Richard Dawkins Foundation of Science and Reason is to remove religion in science education and public policy. However, Dawkins makes clear in The God Delusion that his vision extends to abolishing religious belief entirely.The purpose of his second international bestseller was not only to awaken religious people from their delusions (in which case they can meet in fellowship at his website’s Converts’ Corner); but it is also preaching to the sizable number of “closet” non-believers. Dawkins says that he dreams his book may help these people to “come out”.The book is structured like a critical analysis paper arguing against the truth and pragmatic value of religion— first set up the belief in a supernatural God as a scientific hypothesis and then disprove it with explanations of the cosmos; second provide purely natural explanations for the pervasiveness of religion; lastly, call into question its pragmatic value,showing that whatever moral good, solace, inspiration or exhortation it provides, the love of nature too can provide, and without the side effects of bigotry and war.Ironically, although he extols the value of measured rational inquiry, his arguments are very much an unfair dialectic; reasons disproving the God hypothesis are elaborated explicitly while religious perspectives are wrapped up in a few lines and represented by an assortment of caricatures— suicide bombers, strange allegories, letters taken out of historical context. Written in piquant prose spiked with smug quips, The God Delusion is as much argumentative paper as it is ferocious burlesque. Dawkins’ tirades against “the OldTestament’s psychotic delinquent”, the “aptly named” late televangelist Oral Roberts, and fairyologists almost distracts from the unsound argument of the first half of the book.Nevertheless, after the chuckles subside, his misguided logic becomes apparent. This treatise of the “supreme improbability of the existence of a supreme being” might have worked if he was trying to convince someone of something remotely provable. The fact that religion has been around for as long as its been unprovable means there is something other than proof that seizes people. That central element is faith, which he has defined elsewhere as the belief in spite of, “even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”Herein lies the fundamental senselessness of his endeavor. If believers are devout without scientific evidence, why is he showering them with deductive proofs of God’s non-existence?
In the preface of the paperback edition, Dawkins addresses a criticism of his lack of“detailed analysis of learned books” to which he responds, “most of us happily disavow fairies, astrology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, without first immersing ourselves in the books of Pastafarian theology etc”. His flippant statement was meant to show his disregard of theology as a field of study but it speaks more to his lack of understanding of the pith of the matter; that unlike science, faith isn’t something that can be studied. Belief in God is not akin to believing in aliens, whose existence we must hold off on believing until we find ample proof. Faith is something to be experienced and unless he undertakes that spiritual journey, he will not be able to comprehend and address the emotional stakes that define religious belief. Perhaps he should add an experimental element to his investigation and try his hand at faith; if he comes out of it with the same conclusion, he will at least have beefed up the empirical foundation of his work.It’s a shame that the first 200 or so pages of his book was taken up by an illogical train of thought because when he finally addresses the conceptual and practical value of religion— areas where rational assessment is indeed possible— he is quite coercive. Poignant questions frame and call into reevaluation the central doctrine of Christianity— “What kind of ethnical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor?” while vivid vignettes of “God’s monumental rage” and “jealous sulk” cast doubt on the moral guidance of biblical scripture. Anecdotes of religion’s brutal divisive forces at work today leads into his compelling call for its dissolution. Although economic and political oppression are equal culprits in global grievances, Dawkins contends that religion provides the dominant “label of in-group/out-group enmity and vendetta”. He advocates the appreciation and understanding of science as a worthy successor to “fill the inspirational role that religion has historically— and inadequately--usurped.”Dawkins claims that a world devoid of religion will a be a more peaceful one. Whether or not this is true, It can be certain that the bellicose and insensitive manner in which Dawkins champions his beliefs is the more likely antecedent to ideological warfare, than the differing religious beliefs themselves.