Just Finished Reading: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
I actually had this on Amazon pre-order in hardback but have only just got around to reading it. I think that I was more than a little worried that such a book would ‘turn me off’ someone whom I respect a great deal. I have to admit that I have been less than impressed by his TV appearances decrying religion and all matter of superstition so you can understand my trepidation when I started reading.
Dawkins actually does a very good job of undercutting the arguments that have been presented in favour of Gods existence. We’ve heard them all before but he did present them well. I admit to enjoying some of his savagely sarcastic comments which I felt would have had many theists howling with indignation. Dawkins is, as we know, not one to pull any of his punches. After he had called into question the existence of God he then brought up some rather interesting speculations regarding the origins of the ‘religious impulse’. More interesting yet – and I felt the best section of the book – was his discussion of the evolution of morality. Until reading this section I was a pretty firm believer in the idea that morality is a predominantly cultural phenomenon. Now I’m not so sure. He certainly supplied me with enough food for thought to carry my investigations further on this topic. Rather inevitably I have already acquired several books on the subject (Yes, I know. I’m addicted to books).
What I don’t agree with – even after understanding it a bit better - is his proposition that bringing up a child in any particular religion is a form a child abuse. I do not think that this is anything like the case. I fully expect that parents will rather naturally bring up their children to believe pretty much what they do. If I had children I would certainly try to do so. Where I do agree with Dawkins is that filling children’s minds with images of the fires of hell (for example) because they quite naturally masturbate (for example) is a form of psychological abuse. But bringing up children in a more enlightened liberal tradition – without the hellfire and brimstone – is not abusive. I think that it is perpetuating a false and, as Dawkins rightly says, a delusional belief but it is not abusive to do so.
All in all despite the fact that (as I expected) Dawkins was ‘preaching to the choir’ in my case I still thought that this book was well worth a read. It’s written in a chatty fashion which makes the arguments easy to understand and he introduces lots of fascinating asides and titbits to entertain. I do think though that its apparent aim of making theists doubt their faith misses the mark by quite a lot. If I was a theist it might make me ponder on some things but I doubt very much if it was powerful enough to undermine my faith. It might just bring a few atheists ‘out of the closet’ but I really don’t think that it’s going to start an atheist revolution. Nice try though.
17 comments:
I agree with this review.
I think Dawkins was more effective concentrating on what he knows and has such a knack for elucidating: biology and evolution.
The redundancy of religion is implicit in his (and Darwin's) other writings; making it explicit is unlikely to change the minds of the TV-watchers who would not otherwise have read his writings, and devotes time to a subject which already takes up too much time and energy.
Excellent! I can't wait to read it. I just bought 4 books this weekend, so it's probably be Christmas before I can get to it, but it's on my list!
Glad you got around to reading it and I enjoyed your review.
I'm reading Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark now. Sagan definitely has a different (and less confrontational) style. I want to read some of Hitchen's stuff eventually. He can definitely give the alcoholic atheist angle. :-)
CK said, "What I don’t agree with – even after understanding it a bit better - is his proposition that bringing up a child in any particular religion is a form a child abuse." -- Yeah, I think he may have went a bit far with this one. Parents bring up their kids, hopefully, the best that they can. Whether they are brought up religious or not, as long as the parents teach them to be curious and courteous, they will be fine. Everyone needs to come to their own truth eventually.
However, you could make a case for many fundamentalist teachings being abusive and harmful.
wunelle said: I think Dawkins was more effective concentrating on what he knows and has such a knack for elucidating: biology and evolution.
He probably had a whole lot less publicity though, as you say, more impact as an evolutionary biologist than the 'Atheist in Chief' [grin]. He's obviously passionate about his atheism but..... maybe he should stick more to what he does best. That's not to take anything away from this book. It needed to be published and it needed to be said.
united said: Excellent! I can't wait to read it. I just bought 4 books this weekend, so it's probably be Christmas before I can get to it, but it's on my list!
Hope you get around to reading it at some point. I think you'll find it interesting and very informative.
dbackdad said: Glad you got around to reading it and I enjoyed your review.
Thanks. It's been my bedtime reading on & off for about 3 months now.
dbackdad said: I'm reading Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark now.
I looked for that on Amazon - after seeing it mentioned on your Blog - but apparently its out of print.
dbackdad said: I want to read some of Hitchen's stuff eventually. He can definitely give the alcoholic atheist angle. :-)
Strangely I'll be finishing a book by him this weekend - though not the one you're thinking of...
dbackdad said: Parents bring up their kids, hopefully, the best that they can. Whether they are brought up religious or not, as long as the parents teach them to be curious and courteous, they will be fine.
Indeed - as most seem to do.
dbackdad said: Everyone needs to come to their own truth eventually.
Hopefully!
dbackdad said: However, you could make a case for many fundamentalist teachings being abusive and harmful.
Very true. Being responsible for bringing up a child with a free and open mind is quite a responsibility. Trying not to harm their growth would just give me nightmares. *Far* too stressful!
Religion as a meme has evolved over the years to its present state, and one of the key tenets is to set these hooks of emotional fear and dread at an age when imaginations run wild and the faculties of reason are not developed; and indeed, we all probably know 20 people, Catholics especially, who are wracked with guilt over things that their adult minds know are foolish. This manifests itself in cases mild to extreme, and I think this is where his child abuse idea comes from.
One might say (and I'm sure Dawkins would be on board with this) children shouldn't hear word one about religion until their 18th birthday, but every believer knows the faith would die out in a generation in that case.
That rather confirms the point, methinks.
I read this a while ago. I borrowed the book from a friend of mine and I've since given it back I so can't do an in-depth. The guy I borrowed it from needed to read it for an online metaphysics course offered to Harvard students and alumni. I have the transcripts from the discussions. Interesting reading. He thought the arguments were good (he's an atheist) but the primary thing he took from the book was that Richard must have unresolved issues with his father.
I thought his arguments were mostly run-of-the-mill. He seemed out of his element, for sure. Basically, I think he is trying to shoot down a target he doesn't see. He doesn't understand religion, doesn't want to understand religion, yet thinks he can refute it on its own terms.
For dyed-in-the-wool 'faith-less' heads only.
Having yet to read the book I will resist from asking too many questions about content. But I am intrigued by the idea that morality could be genetic rather than cultural.
Again having heard him speak he put forward the point that genetically we are bred to a certain level of co-operation just to ensure survival (if you will look out for me while I hunt I will share my food with you in thanks - versus we both hunt and both get attacked by predators we don't see).
But there is a large gap between basic co-operation and mutual respect (I want try to kill you as it's bad for my survival chances, directly through conflict with you or by extension for the group reading me as dangerous)and the subtleties of morality within a more developed world (I will not steal from someone i have never met, will never meet because it is wrong rather than it directly impacting my community.)
Yes, rca. These are good questions. I meant to ask CK about this in my previous comment. I was somewhat surprised, knowing CK's general agreement with Dawkins, to read in other posts that CK thought morals/religion were culturally-based. That's not Dawkins-ian at all, AFAIK.
I think the idea is that, during the Pleistocene period, our brains evolved the propensity to believe in unseen agents, like gods, as a result of our needing to perceive hidden dangers. I was planning a post in this topic soon regarding it's implications on the issue of the "persistence of the gods." I'm interested to hear how Dawkins has caused CK to reconsider on this issue.
Sorry for all the alliteration.
laughing boy said: He thought the arguments were good (he's an atheist) but the primary thing he took from the book was that Richard must have unresolved issues with his father.
That's rather funny. I've mentioned before - or at least mused - that my 'problem' with God might have something to do with my distanced relationship with my father [grin].
laughing boy said: I thought his arguments were mostly run-of-the-mill.
They did seem pretty much the 'standard' arguments which disapointed me slightly. I had hoped that he would come up with something new.
laughing boy said: Basically, I think he is trying to shoot down a target he doesn't see. He doesn't understand religion, doesn't want to understand religion, yet thinks he can refute it on its own terms.
That would depend on what you mean by 'understanding' religion. Whenever an issue is raised the answer can always be "It's because you don't *understand* the subject" I don't think that gets us anywhere. It also assumes that once you achieve said 'understanding' that everything will make perfect sense - which it did before then (of course).
..and Yes. He did try to refute it on his own terms. Maybe that's why he failed?
laughing boy said: For dyed-in-the-wool 'faith-less' heads only.
I think it's appealing to a wider audience than that ATM.
rca said: But I am intrigued by the idea that morality could be genetic rather than cultural.
That intrigued me too... I think that there may be genetic *influences* on morality but that these are overlayed by individual cultures.
laughing boy said: I was somewhat surprised, knowing CK's general agreement with Dawkins, to read in other posts that CK thought morals/religion were culturally-based. That's not Dawkins-ian at all, AFAIK.
I am indeed in general agreement with much of what Dawkins puts forward. I don't however follow him slavishly or take on his beliefs as my own. It is still my considered belief that morality is to a great extent a cultural phenomenon.
laughing boy said: I'm interested to hear how Dawkins has caused CK to reconsider on this issue.
Do you mean the genetics of morality or our propensity of seeing intelligent agents where none exist?
The chapter on genetic morality hasn't changed my belief that morality is largely culturally conditioned. It has, however, given me a new line of investigation on the issue. There seems to be a growing amount of literature on the subject which I will be checking out over the coming months. It might lead nowhere but you never can tell with these things.
As to giving objects etc 'agent' status... We do that all the time. How often have we shouted at a car for refusing to start! So it doesn't surprise me that early humans saw agents everywhere. It's an interesting conjecture that this was the foundation of all supernatural beliefs.
Interesting stuff. I've been umming and ahhing over reading this for ages. I probably will at some point, but I couldn't help but find myself thoroughly disillusioned with Dawkins following his recent series disputing 'superstition' etc. What Laughing Boy said about Dawkins having no wish to try and understand religion resonates with me a little more having seen this... and not because of what CK said about it all having to make sense before it's considered understood. I haven't read much of Dawkins' take on religion directly, but I assume he works on a similar line. When I saw his episode that dealt with astrology, for example, I was quite dismayed at the number of facts that he simply got wrong. His brief outline of the history of astrology, for example, was completely inaccurate, as was his most basic understanding of the subject. Now, while I'm sure Dawkins has no wish to try and understand astrology, and while I'm equally sure his understanding of it wouldn't change his views on it, I was quite disappointed by the fact that he clearly hadn't looked into it properly at all before attempting to decry it. I'd have had a lot more respect for him, whatever his conclusions, if he had. And if this one example is anything to go by, it doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence for the rest of his arguments.
As for the 'to indoctrinate or not to indoctrinate children?' debate, I'm very much on the fence, I have to say. While I agree that calling it a form of child abuse is an extreme exaggeration, I also feel that bringing kids up with a set religion doesn't do them any favours in the long run. I'm also aware that any parents who honestly believe that following their religion is the only way to salvation are absolutely going to teach their children their beliefs out of honest love for them. So it's a tough one.
However, you could make a case for many fundamentalist teachings being abusive and harmful.
Absolutely. And this is probably why I tend to be more biased against teaching religion to kids. I was brought up in a fundamentalist environment with a full belief in the existence of hell and a vengeful devil, so I know firsthand how this shapes a child's view of the world. I also know that it leaves scars of varying degrees on a person for the rest of their life, especially if they break away from it. So... yeah. Teaching fundamentalism to kids is wholly wrong, IMO. But the original point still stands that fundie parents will absolutely teach their children to believe the same things. If you truly believed your child would suffer eternal torment otherwise, what else could you do?
wunelle said: One might say (and I'm sure Dawkins would be on board with this) children shouldn't hear word one about religion until their 18th birthday, but every believer knows the faith would die out in a generation in that case.
Maybe not in a single generation - but I do think that religion (of all types) would take a huge hit if people were only made aware of it at 18.
Of course another way of undermining childhood religious indoctrination in the home is to teach comparative religion in infant school..... [grin].
Of course another way of undermining childhood religious indoctrination in the home is to teach comparative religion in infant school.
Indeed. But no religion wants comparative religion taught at any time, or not in a level, even-handed way where religions are treated as equally (im)plausible.
There's a kernel here of other larger issues, dealing with education versus indoctrination, but...
Mstr A gets taught about a variety of religions at his\primary school. A small variety admittedly, but it's a start:-)
Of course, the curriculum is still "broadly christian". And it doesn't apply to the faith schools that the gov't seems determined to expand:-(
JM said: And it doesn't apply to the faith schools that the gov't seems determined to expand:-(
Maybe that will change now that Blair has gone?
OF COURSE you see no harm in teaching your kids YOUR religion: you're a practicing adherent of that religion! But you might just as well have quoted the pro-social passages of Hindu or Islam or Shintu, any of which have as much (or as little) a probability of being the correct one--and NONE of which allow the co-existence of YOUR faith.
Interesting that you did not include passages from Joshua about the wanton slaughter of whole villages and collecting the foreskins as bounty; or about the stoning of infidels; or of women as second-class citizens. To claim that your religion is all about peace and love (quoted in convoluted, Yoda-like King James phraseology) is to cherry pick only what suits your argument. Your bible is a muddled book with plenty of cruelty and violence to match the pro-social phrases you cite.
So are you saying that you think children should extensively be taught other religions as well? Will you sign your kids up for church membership and sunday school in Islam and Buddhism? Or are you "intolerant?" Adherents to those faiths are AT LEAST as sure that you're an infidel as you are them. ACCEPTING them, grudgingly, from the armchair of your faith is not what I'm arguing: I'm arguing that TEACHING them that faith in the first place is wrong. If it's Islam or Zoroastrism, I suspect you agree.
As for "indoctrination into atheism," this is the semantic obfuscation that religious folks seem to love. Failing to teach children the tenets of any particular mythology is not indoctrination in anything like an equal sense. But yes, I would find it much better to teach one's children NO mythologies except in a comparative way. You yourself are an atheist for every one of the thousands of identified gods except the one you have been born into the midst of.
Post a Comment