Dawkins’ main aim of the book is to raise four consciousness raising messages: (1) that atheism is a realistic aspiration for any individual; (2) natural selection describes the complexity of life better than the Creator hypothesis; (3) children should not be labelled by their parent’s religion; and (4) atheists should not be apologetic about their beliefs. Although Dawkins focuses on these four central themes, he also explores other topics, such as the origins of religion and the evolutionary origins of morality.
The most significant message of the book for me was Dawkins’ message that there is nothing wrong with unbelief. On page 1:
[This book is intended to] raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who his happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
In Chapter 4, Dawkins focuses on the well known creationist argument that design was responsible for life because biological complexity is too improbable to have arisen by chance. Dawkins argues that both chance and design were not responsible; rather, the third option, natural selection, caused complex life by breaking down improbability into small pieces. Although I disagree with Dawkins’ argument that refuting design refutes God (at least, this is what I think he argues), his arguments for evolution are, as always, his strong point.
However, I thought the weakest part of the book was Chapter 3. Dawkins’ critique of philosophical arguments for God seems far too simplistic; he hurries through each argument, and as a consequence they are only superficially covered. I feel there are better books out there that provide more comprehensive responses to philosophical arguments for theism.
Finally, I have difficulty with Dawkins’ confrontational style. I absolutely share Dawkins’ concern regarding religious fundamentalism, but I think his abrasive approach to religious belief in general not only polarises religious debate, but also hinders constructive dialogue between those on opposite sides of the fence who are willing to speak to each other.
In conclusion . . .
Although I admire Richard Dawkins’ views on biology, I’ve always been uncomfortable with the antagonism he expresses towards religion in general. Although the book provides a clear summary of atheistic beliefs, arguments and concerns, its confrontational tone in parts might turn some Christians off from reading it altogether. This, I believe, is sad, as there are many parts of the book that provide positive and refreshing insights into what it means to be an atheist.
Have you read the God Delusion? If so, what did you think of the book?
14 comments:
It's on my Reading List for the Summer. I'm hoping to start it next month - and hoping that I won't be disapointed by it!
I really enjoy Dawkins' style of writing. I'm only as far as the first chaper, so should probably hold back any thoughts, but it bothers me that he assumes that people believe in one religious system or another because they were brough up that way, but anyone who is atheist is only atheist because of their incredible intelect. I know many atheists who are atheists by default (and are severly lacking in intelectual application to religious, philisophical, or scientific thinking) and people of faith who found their faith through the application of careful, deliberate thinking and the use of their intelect! This kind of stereotyping is exactly what I was writing about in my blog article titled 'Colonial Cross-faithism'. As Kevin says, this kind of patronizing attitude is hardly condusive to open dialogue. Having said that, I'm looking forward to reading more of Dawkins - his ideas and style of writing are really great to engage with.
That review makes me drop this book from my book-a-month list. I thought, on previewing it at Exclusive Books, it was a text with an objective view on both sides, atheism and religion, and demonstrating how the two clash to distabilise the normal running of life in countries such as those in the middle east. I have saved me a couple bucks by bumping into your straight forward review.
I got the book in December and read about 3/4's of it. I watched a lot of his footage on youtube aswell.
I would say it is a must read for the religious, and non religous aswell. It provides thought provoking arguments and Richard Dawkins helps others understand what athiesm is all about.
I have to agree with Kevin that he becomes very forcefull and unrespecting of others views and beliefs at times. He may seem to know what he is talking about and may have the recommendations, but I get the sense at times that he talks in a very condescending tone to those who hold a belief in a deity.
Secondly I feel that most could not really read this book due to the fact they just dont care. I lent the book to a friend of mine and he read half of the 1st chapter and gave it back saying "no offense, but I dont need, or want to read a book like this", he was immedietly put off by the writers use of tone.
Anyway, enough babbling. There is a reason I only read a three quarters of it, and that was because I became bored and "indifferent", as I paged through I started to not care.
weird?
I do wish Christians would read this book, (though Dawkins did not write for them as I'll show) but I doubt many will. Few, it seems, read good Christian books! If they do they just might see just how little dry ammo even the world's most ardent atheist has in his arsenal.
Of course there are many parts of the book I take issue with, but in the interest of brevity I'll just comment on one and even on that point I'll skip the details and just give an overview.
As is often the case in anti-theistic or particularly anti-Christian diatribes, I felt a mixture of anger and happiness that the author knew so little about the subject he was addressing.
Why would a person publish a book with the intended purpose of destroying any reasonable foundation for Christianity (among other things) and yet make no effort to understand Christianity? Could Dawkins have expected to un-convert Christians without getting inside their perspective and guiding them out with honesty and integrity, not to mention congeniality. Yes, it seems so.
Why?
Well, I think I found the answer. In an debate with fellow Oxford professor (and Christian) Alister McGrath, McGrath noted that Dawkins was largely ignorant of Christian theology, to which Dawkins replied:
"I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor’s hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?"
-Science and Theology News, April 2005
WelI there you have it! A book on a subject the author proudly proclaims he knows nothing about. Hurry while supplies last!
Laughing boy, I understand what your trying to say but I dont believe Richard's intent was at attacking the christian religion.
Rather it was used due to its popularity and it tends to be the "image" of religion.
I also picked up that he did not really understand much about the religion but I at the same time it didnt make his book less impactful by what he wrote about. His arguments were still valid in the scientific world.
Even though I no longer consider myself part of christianity or any other religion, strangely enough I still stumble into christian book shops browsing. I am always dissapointed because they do not have anything worthwhile, all the books are the same. If christians intend on keeping their faith existant they need to start addressing issues and become more "adventerous" in their writings and start tackling modern day issues.
I bought a book from a christian bookstore(on evoloution) which I havent read yet, but will start soon. What was funny about this is when I walked in with my non christian girlfriend and myself being very indifferent, I asked the girl at the bookstore if she had anything on evoloution. I was not too familiar of the subject and was keen to get a grasp on it for my own knowledge. Whe I asked her just look at me and laughed and said "well.... we are christian so we dont believe in evoloution", a little bit annoyed i turned around and said "Im athiest, so im not christian, thats why I asked." The expression on her face, she looked at me as though I said I worship satan.
She was about 16, the point being is that everyone needs to come out a bit and start exploring past their horizens. Richard Dawkins should have grasped a greater understanding on christianity before he started using it christians need to start grasping science before they use it in their books and sermons.
Ps: I apologised later and showed her the book I found in the very same store. i explained to her I was interested in seeing what christians had to say about it(not much obviously, when I found only one book in the entire store ;)
You're point is well taken. I'm just saying when Dawkins directly addresses Christianity he shows he is ill-informed.
If christians intend on keeping their faith existant they need to start addressing issues and become more "adventerous" in their writings and start tackling modern day issues.
There are lots of "adventerous" Christian authors addressing modern day issues...but I doubt you'll find them in a Christian bookstore. They're mostly for KJV bibles and "Footprints" posters.
Try Amazon.
It's perfectly OK and logical to formulate arguments from basic precepts without embracing totalitarian comprehension of some subject or other.
There are many Christians whole fully reject, say, Manicheism without ever having developed a complete understanding of that religion. And I must add that many Christians also reject evolutionary theory out-of-hand even while demonstrating ignorance of it. (The YouTube video with Dawkins facing off against Ted Haggard is a nice example.)
People who try to use this as argument are simply attacking the messenger, rather than addressing the facts.
"who"
There are many Christians who fully reject, say, Manicheism without ever having developed a complete understanding of that religion.
First: It's not as correct to say that Dawkins does not posess a complete understanding of Christianity as it is to say that he lacks even the most rudimentary understanding of Christianity and the historical evidence regarding it.
Second: That might be ok if he didn't publish a book about it. I expect an author (atheist or Christian) to know his subject, be it Manicheism, evolution, or whatever. Is that too much to ask?
I am interested in knowing what specific cases of ignorance on Dawkins’ part you are referring to. Where does Dawkins make claims about Christianity that are caricatures or worse?
That's a tall order. There is so much to find fault with. By the way I actually agree with Dawkins on many things he says in The God Delusion. Some examples:
1. Religion should be debated in the open like anything else,
2. Agnosticism is not a good option.
3. The Great Prayer Experiment was pathetic.
4. Science and religion should be integrated.
5. Aquinas' Proofs don't "prove" the God of the bible.
6. Feigning belief (Pascal's wager) is ridiculous.
7. Some people don't have good reasons for what they believe (those who do are unimpressed by the book).
8. Unquestioning faith, based on no evidence, will conflict with science and history.
9. The government shouldn't fund religious education in science classes.
10. Etc...
But when it comes to understanding Christianity, well...
This post is way too long as it is and I'm only addressing a few points superficially. I might try to put together a more comprehensive rebuttal at my blog if I find the time. If so I'll link from here.
In the meantime...
The entire "Argument from Scripture" section has too many errors to recount, but here are three examples of ignorance from that section. These are not interpretation-type errors, but I-did-not-read-what-I'm-criticizing-type errors.
p. 92 - There is no 4th option for C.S. Lewis' so-called Mad, Bad, or God trilemma. Would you say that a person was just mistaken (not insane) who repeatedly claimed: a) to be God, b) to have been in existence before Abraham, and c) that everything in the Scriptures points to himself? Lewis was right.
p. 92 - "The fact that something is written down is persuasive to people not used to asking questions like: Who wrote it and when?"
Dawkins seems to be unaware that thousands of biblical scholars have been investigating these very questions for well over 1000 years and the consensus among scholars is that we do know who wrote the gospels and when. Two well-respected scholars among many currently publishing books for general audiences are Ben Witherington and N.T. Wright.
p. 94 - After saying we should dismiss the gospels because the authors were biased and had an agenda, he goes on to (poorly) refute the trustworthiness of the gospels by quoting two atheists with no credentials in text, form, or source criticism. They show their ignorance of the subject matter, and since Dawkins is likewise ignorant, he swallows it whole. Among their many errors, two are very easy to point out. 1) No gospel account mentions "worship by kings", that's from a Christmas carol, not the bible. 2) Flynn is trying to make the point that Matthew made up things that would be most impressive to Jews (Davidic lineage, Bethlehem birthplace), while Luke made up things that would be most impressive to Gentiles (virgin birth, worship by kings). However, Luke does not mention a visit by magi (not kings) while Matthew does! Both Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Ten minutes spent reading the first chapters of Matthew and Luke (for themselves) and these errors could have been avoided.
After weak attacks on just a few verses of Matthew and Luke, Dawkins assigns the whole of Scripture to the trash heap (p. 97)
All of Chapter 7 is a caricature of Christianity (and Judaism). It reads like the long-running "Blogging The Bible" feature at Slate.com which is supposed to be comical. But on page 253, I was literally stunned a the super-nova of stupidity that Dawkins seemingly considers a logical tour-de-force. In attempting to paint the doctrine of the atonement as not only sado-masochistic, but "barking mad" he states the "awkward fact" that Adam never existed. Now up to this point he has, as far as I can tell, been attempting to layout what Christian theology teaches. Of course we are to understand that Dawkins isn't buying any of it, but he's trying to show how insane the whole enterprise is on it's own terms. So after setting up the ideas of original sin and atonement and the pivotal role played by Adam and Jesus he then...well any attempt on my part to paraphrase what Dawkins says in the second full paragraph this page (253) would only detract from the spectacular logical flame-out. If you have trouble seeing it, I'll help you out. The Scriptures do not teach that Adam and Eve were symbolic. People who claim that Adam and Eve were symbolic should indeed be silenced by Dawkins argument, but again those people think pretty much everything Jesus did including the resurrection was symbolic and would probably be unfazed. But if Dawkins is attempting to address orthodox Christianity, which should be his target, then its a big, embarrassing swing and a miss.
But the biggest example of Dawkins ignorance of Christianity is that he does not even know what James Cameron knows; it's about the Resurrection. Christian teaching itself acknowledges that if the resurrection is a lie it's all over. But Dawkins does not address the resurrection at all. I'm guess he thinks it's too silly to even consider, but he thinks that about the whole she-bang. So why focus on mere details when he could drop Christianity with one shot? I think it's one of two reasons: 1) He's too ignorant of Christianity to know what to aim at, or 2) He's read the evidence regarding the resurrection and decided he didn't want to take it on. Given that it seems he hasn't even read the first chapter of Matthew and Luke for himself, I'm betting on reason #1.
Hello sir,
I guess that you could call me a Christian in the sense that I have faith in a certain understandings of the gospel.
I see a lot of similarities between you and me. I see in your methods and search for truth things similar to my own.
You take no cheap shots. You are honest and sincere.
Atheism cannot exist without christianity.
Anonymous wrote:
Atheism cannot exist without christianity.
Excellent point! But I don’t know if I fully agree with you. Atheism is simply lack of belief in god or gods. So if religion did not exist, then every person would be an atheist (but they wouldn’t call themselves that).
Post a Comment