The God Delusion
The God Delusion
By: Richard Dawkins
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin (2006)
ISBN: 0618680004 (hardcover)
I find it somewhat apt that my first review after a long and not entirely voluntary hiatus is one of the most divisive works of the last several years. I’m jumping back into the water (thanks to a gentle prod from my new favorite reader), but seem to have chosen the shark tank to re-acclimatize in. I would request that you read on, even if you are predisposed to deep-six this book at first sight. Regardless of your beliefs, the arguments in the book are worth reading, pondering, and systematically accepting or refuting as you are able. Beliefs are strengthened and tempered through discussion and debate, not by avoiding alternatives due to strength of conviction or unwillingness to be disturbed. My bottom line, here offered up front, is that this book is well worth buying and reading for anyone, anywhere, any time. ‘Nuf said.
Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, was already well-known for his writings on evolution, secularism and humanism, particularly The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins states that The God Delusion is an attempt to move beyond simply making the case for evolution, for science, for reason into the realm of proselytizing for atheism. Make no mistake: this book is written for the purpose of converting the reader. It is also written, I suspect, in such a way as to provoke strong reactions, generate controversy, and attract media attention and visibility as a result. These characteristics are by no means faults, in my mind, and do lend a certain ‘readability’ to what would likely be a dry, pedantic tome if written by anyone other than Dawkins. I do not intend to address the validity of Dawkins’ beliefs and arguments as a whole, though I will comment when I see interesting or problematic points. Suffice it to say that I favor a rational, scientific approach to all questions and believe that Western societies have long prevented such a public discussion on issues pertaining to God and His/Her/Its existence. That said, on to the book!
You will not be bored reading this book, I can offer a 100% guarantee on that. You may spend much of your time in the throes of righteous indignation, in self-congratulatory back-patting, in increasingly deep thought, or even in confusion, but you will not be bored.
Dawkins begins with a powerful first chapter. He clearly distinguishes between theists (those who believe in a supernatural power that takes a hand in human affairs), deists (those who believe in a supernatural power unconcerned with human affairs), pantheists (those who use “God” as a synonym for the laws of Nature or the Universe), and atheists (those who do not believe in God). Dawkins shows a great deal of respect for the latter two categories, and dedicates most of this book to refuting the first two. In what is one of the fundamental memes of this book, he quotes Albert Einstein as saying: “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever…I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. That is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.” Regarding the deists and theists, Dawkins again reveals his intent and quotes H.L. Mencken: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” Religious belief does not mean theism. Religious views deserve no more and no less respect than views on any other subject.
Dawkins says that he “shall not go out of [his] way to offend” which could be a true statement if one does not regard condescension and ‘rationaler’-than-thou speeches as being offensive. This attitude is what turns me off the most about the book. Dawkins is a brilliant man with very strong convictions, buttressed almost flawlessly with scientific, philosophical, statistical and logical proofs, and he is not reticent to point this out (over and over again). Even those who agree with him in part or in whole must get tired of the constant “I’m smarter than you” attitude found within the pages. The fact that Dawkins is brilliant and does tend to present flawless arguments only mitigates my irritation at being talked down to. After a few chapters, though, I guess I got used to it and even began laughing at it as I was never tempted to set the book down.
The remainder of the book is laid out in a logical and straightforward manner. Dawkins lays out the “God Hypothesis” throughout history and in its many variations. He examines the arguments that support the “God Hypothesis” throughout history and the various disciplines. He then proceeds to refute those arguments in a chapter charmingly titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God” (and before you accuse him of prevarication for the “Almost”, he justifies that choice of words both in context of his arguments and of logic). Having basically covered the argument/counter-argument portion of the book, Dawkins takes a fascinating look at the basis of religion and morality, psychologically, spiritually, and as a function of environment and evolution. This section is very impressive in my mind, presenting a consolidated series of arguments I was unfamiliar with and weaving them into the whole subject of the book. This is the end of the arguments about the logical underpinnings of God and deism/theism.
With Chapter 7, Dawkins really strays from the “shall not strive to offend” statement above. In provocative, strident language he delves into the perceived hypocrisy over most mainstream religion, particularly the notions of God changing with the times and church determination of which parts of the Bible are fact or fiction, parable or law, outmoded or still applicable. Chapter 8 is his answer to the questions “What’s Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?” and you’d better believe that he justifies his hostility as thoroughly as he justifies any of his other arguments. Chapter 9 delves into the links, real and perceived, between religion (including both cults and mainstream branches) and the psychological/physical/emotional/intellectual abuse of children. None of these three chapters are likely to please even the casual-churchgoer, so if you don’t feel like facing a wave of hostility, then feel free to skip from the end of Chapter 6 to the last chapter.
Chapter 10 offers a provocative look at what roles religion fills in human society, and whether it is valuable for that purpose regardless of the rationality of religious belief. In his words, Dawkins tries to figure out if religion “fills a much needed gap” in the world. His thoughts are not quite what one would expect and are worth reading.
In the end The God Delusion is a highly provocative and confrontational piece of work. It contains excellent arguments and is the most thought-provoking piece of non-fiction I’ve read in quite some time. It should end up on the must-read lists for anyone even vaguely interested in philosophy, theology, sociology, anthropology, or the current socio-political landscapes of the world.
Coming up:
-Just Kick It by Mark St. Amant
-Dies The Fire by S.M. Stirling
-The Knitting Answer Book by Margaret Radcliffe
-The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin Friedman
Technorati Tags: Book reviews Sparky reading The God Delusion Richard Dawkins Witting Atheism Theology
By: Richard Dawkins
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin (2006)
ISBN: 0618680004 (hardcover)
I find it somewhat apt that my first review after a long and not entirely voluntary hiatus is one of the most divisive works of the last several years. I’m jumping back into the water (thanks to a gentle prod from my new favorite reader), but seem to have chosen the shark tank to re-acclimatize in. I would request that you read on, even if you are predisposed to deep-six this book at first sight. Regardless of your beliefs, the arguments in the book are worth reading, pondering, and systematically accepting or refuting as you are able. Beliefs are strengthened and tempered through discussion and debate, not by avoiding alternatives due to strength of conviction or unwillingness to be disturbed. My bottom line, here offered up front, is that this book is well worth buying and reading for anyone, anywhere, any time. ‘Nuf said.
Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, was already well-known for his writings on evolution, secularism and humanism, particularly The Selfish Gene
and The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins states that The God Delusion is an attempt to move beyond simply making the case for evolution, for science, for reason into the realm of proselytizing for atheism. Make no mistake: this book is written for the purpose of converting the reader. It is also written, I suspect, in such a way as to provoke strong reactions, generate controversy, and attract media attention and visibility as a result. These characteristics are by no means faults, in my mind, and do lend a certain ‘readability’ to what would likely be a dry, pedantic tome if written by anyone other than Dawkins. I do not intend to address the validity of Dawkins’ beliefs and arguments as a whole, though I will comment when I see interesting or problematic points. Suffice it to say that I favor a rational, scientific approach to all questions and believe that Western societies have long prevented such a public discussion on issues pertaining to God and His/Her/Its existence. That said, on to the book!You will not be bored reading this book, I can offer a 100% guarantee on that. You may spend much of your time in the throes of righteous indignation, in self-congratulatory back-patting, in increasingly deep thought, or even in confusion, but you will not be bored.
Dawkins begins with a powerful first chapter. He clearly distinguishes between theists (those who believe in a supernatural power that takes a hand in human affairs), deists (those who believe in a supernatural power unconcerned with human affairs), pantheists (those who use “God” as a synonym for the laws of Nature or the Universe), and atheists (those who do not believe in God). Dawkins shows a great deal of respect for the latter two categories, and dedicates most of this book to refuting the first two. In what is one of the fundamental memes of this book, he quotes Albert Einstein as saying: “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever…I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. That is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.” Regarding the deists and theists, Dawkins again reveals his intent and quotes H.L. Mencken: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” Religious belief does not mean theism. Religious views deserve no more and no less respect than views on any other subject.
Dawkins says that he “shall not go out of [his] way to offend” which could be a true statement if one does not regard condescension and ‘rationaler’-than-thou speeches as being offensive. This attitude is what turns me off the most about the book. Dawkins is a brilliant man with very strong convictions, buttressed almost flawlessly with scientific, philosophical, statistical and logical proofs, and he is not reticent to point this out (over and over again). Even those who agree with him in part or in whole must get tired of the constant “I’m smarter than you” attitude found within the pages. The fact that Dawkins is brilliant and does tend to present flawless arguments only mitigates my irritation at being talked down to. After a few chapters, though, I guess I got used to it and even began laughing at it as I was never tempted to set the book down.
The remainder of the book is laid out in a logical and straightforward manner. Dawkins lays out the “God Hypothesis” throughout history and in its many variations. He examines the arguments that support the “God Hypothesis” throughout history and the various disciplines. He then proceeds to refute those arguments in a chapter charmingly titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God” (and before you accuse him of prevarication for the “Almost”, he justifies that choice of words both in context of his arguments and of logic). Having basically covered the argument/counter-argument portion of the book, Dawkins takes a fascinating look at the basis of religion and morality, psychologically, spiritually, and as a function of environment and evolution. This section is very impressive in my mind, presenting a consolidated series of arguments I was unfamiliar with and weaving them into the whole subject of the book. This is the end of the arguments about the logical underpinnings of God and deism/theism.
With Chapter 7, Dawkins really strays from the “shall not strive to offend” statement above. In provocative, strident language he delves into the perceived hypocrisy over most mainstream religion, particularly the notions of God changing with the times and church determination of which parts of the Bible are fact or fiction, parable or law, outmoded or still applicable. Chapter 8 is his answer to the questions “What’s Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?” and you’d better believe that he justifies his hostility as thoroughly as he justifies any of his other arguments. Chapter 9 delves into the links, real and perceived, between religion (including both cults and mainstream branches) and the psychological/physical/emotional/intellectual abuse of children. None of these three chapters are likely to please even the casual-churchgoer, so if you don’t feel like facing a wave of hostility, then feel free to skip from the end of Chapter 6 to the last chapter.
Chapter 10 offers a provocative look at what roles religion fills in human society, and whether it is valuable for that purpose regardless of the rationality of religious belief. In his words, Dawkins tries to figure out if religion “fills a much needed gap” in the world. His thoughts are not quite what one would expect and are worth reading.
In the end The God Delusion is a highly provocative and confrontational piece of work. It contains excellent arguments and is the most thought-provoking piece of non-fiction I’ve read in quite some time. It should end up on the must-read lists for anyone even vaguely interested in philosophy, theology, sociology, anthropology, or the current socio-political landscapes of the world.
Coming up:
-Just Kick It by Mark St. Amant
-Dies The Fire by S.M. Stirling
-The Knitting Answer Book by Margaret Radcliffe
-The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin Friedman
Technorati Tags: Book reviews Sparky reading The God Delusion Richard Dawkins Witting Atheism Theology
Labels: Must Reads, Non-Fiction, Philosophy, Theology
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home