The God Delusion: some general comments

I wanted to get away from the chapter by chapter discussion and offer some general comments about The God Delusion.

To begin with, I am not bothered in the slightest by the tone of the book. The atmospherics are appropriate for a polemic, and I think it is clear that is what Dawkins wrote. Whether it is what he intended to write may be arguable. He may have aimed a bit higher, but the end result speaks for itself. That said, I did not find it to be the hate-filled screed that some of his critics have claimed it to be.

Dawkins has strong opinions about gods and religions, and he is not bashful about expressing them. His candor may upset some people, but I find it refreshing. We have had quite enough temporizing on the subject of gods and religions. I think it's time for some plain talk on the subject, time to clear the air, so to speak.

I found the book to be entertaining, sometimes thought-provoking, but flawed.

Some of the flaws have been noted. The sloppy editing and carelessness with details may be found in many books these days. But the author of a book like this should know going in that every minor mistake and misstep will be a big deal to those who reject his major premise out of hand and want to undermine his credibility. That Dawkins did not take greater pains to avoid the misreporting of some things and the mischaracterization of others is unacceptable. I don't think he deliberately misrepresented anyone. I also think that some of the claimed misrepresentations were more in the mind of the readers making the charge than in the text of the work.

But the biggest problem I see is one no one seems to have noticed, and I think I know why. It mirrors a flaw in most people's thinking when they address this subject. So it really isn't a criticism of The God Delusion per se, more a comment on how we think about the idea.

There really is no such thing as "God." There are only gods. (David Eller makes this point in his excellent book, Natural Atheism.) There may be a god hypothesis, the notion there is a cosmic super critter that created everything that exists and did so for a purpose, but that hypothesis is clothed in many different garbs. No one worships a generic god.

There are many ideas about gods and there are many delusions associated with those ideas. Some of them are serious and some are not. But ideas about gods range from "the crotchety old man in the sky" (yes, there are still a few people around who think about their god that way) to "the ineffable essence at the core of an otherwise inexpressible reality" that seems to be at the heart of most New Age religions. So it really is a mistake to talk about "God" as if everyone means the same thing by it.

It should be noted that Dawkins, himself, seems to recognize this at the end of the first section of Chapter One when he declares that his title does not refer to the "God" of Einsteinian religion (again, though, there is the assumption there is only one).

Are people who really believe the Bible is the divinely transmitted word of the "One True God" deluded? Certainly. Are people who really believe it is the will of the god they worship that they fly planes loaded with people into buildings filled with thousands more deluded? Of course.

There are many religious beliefs that appear to deserve the label "delusional." To the extent people hold those beliefs, they must be considered deluded. However, just as there is tremendous variation in ideas about gods, so there are degrees of delusion.

Having noted the flaws, however, I still think The God Delusion is a worthwhile effort.

First, because Dawkins says some things that need to be said about religions and says them without equivocation and without apology. Terrible things have been done in the name of religions. One simply cannot separate religious belief from religiously motivated behavior and say that it's OK to criticize the latter but the former must always remain off limits.

Second, because religions do not deserve uncritical respect. When they make claims about reality, as they often do, they should expect those ideas to be analyzed, criticized, parodied, satirized and debunked with the same treatment all other claims about reality receive.

If religions really want only to be about the "ineffable essence at the core of an otherwise inexpressible reality" then religionists should retire to their cloistered houses of worship where they are free to believe as they choose without fear of being contradicted by any facts.

Third, because we need more atheists speaking out on these matters. Those who complain that Dawkins is turning some people off are probably right. However, I think he also is turning a lot more people on. There is something to be said for, at least occasionally, being the squeaking wheel. Dawkins has raised a ruckus, to be sure. It's a ruckus that needs raising again and again.

So, in spite of the flaws, there is much in this book that is useful. I think the wheat far outweighs the chaff. In my view, most of the glitches are minor. Your mileage may vary. :-)

George

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

garicker: The atmospherics are appropriate for a polemic, and I think it is clear that is what Dawkins wrote. Whether it is what he intended to write may be arguable.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Everything that I'd read about the book (including a few excerpts) screamed polemic. But to my mind, a lot of people -- even those who have recognized it as polemical -- have taken "The God Delusion" as a clearing of the air. But polemic rarely, if ever, really allows us to take a neutral, honest look at a subject. Which is why it's odd to me that, in the contest of "The God Delusion" (or, indeed, any of the major Freethinkers books that BookTalk has covered in the last year) you'd say something like, "I think it's time for some plain talk on the subject, time to clear the air, so to speak," and mean it in an apparantly laudatory sense.

If we take seriously Daniel Dennett's exhortation that we start looking at religion through the lens of the social sciences, then I'd say we're best served by putting polemic aside. It's somewhat ironic that he felt polemic was the best way to make that point, and perhaps even self-defeating, since what "Breaking the Spell" seems most to achieved is a greater eagerness for polemic on the part of the reading public, and the further entrenchment of people's pre-conceived biases.

So it really is a mistake to talk about "God" as if everyone means the same thing by it.

I think that's a really excellent point, and it begs an important question: If the range of meanings implied when people talk about God are so broad, then how are we to talk meaningfully about the import and consequences of religion without tackling each individual conception as its own topic? That's a question that we could probably address by choosing a book of social science on the conceptions of God throughout society, and trying to understand where there is and is not common ground on the subject. I don't think BookTalk is likely to take up that question with any degree of seriousness, but I do think it's worth pointing out for those individuals within BookTalk who do put some effort towards understanding culture in its full diversity.

Second, because religions do not deserve uncritical respect.

I think the prevalence of this has been greatly overestimated. Maybe it's just my intellectual background, but honestly, I don't see it. There may be a vocal minority that demands that no one speak amiss of religion, but on the whole -- and this is particularly true if you extend your vision to through the last century, or even further, through the last three centuries, rather than just through the newspaper headlines of, say, the last two years -- it looks to me as though society at large is willing to engage religion as a topic with a broad range of approaches. Dawkins, Dennett et al are hardly the first to remove the kid gloves, and as far as I can tell, they're doing much more to reiterate things that have already been said, and much more eloquently, than to really add anything to the debate. They've reopened the question, but the question hasn't been closed all that long, if it was ever really closed at all. And I think the manner in which they've readdressed the issue is unlikely to lead to any constructive dialogue -- just a further entrenchment of pre-existing attitudes.

Mad: I think the prevalence of this has been greatly overestimated. Maybe it's just my intellectual background, but honestly, I don't see it. There may be a vocal minority that demands that no one speak amiss of religion, but on the whole -- and this is particularly true if you extend your vision to through the last century, or even further, through the last three centuries, rather than just through the newspaper headlines of, say, the last two years -- it looks to me as though society at large is willing to engage religion as a topic with a broad range of approaches.

Certainly, there have been criticisms launched at religion over the years, and the centuries. But I think they have been handled mostly by (a) attacking the authors, (b) dismissing the criticisms as trivial matters with no real merit or (c) playing to the ignorance and prejudice of the masses to ensure they can't get a fair hearing.

Consider the treatment given Tom Paine's Age of Reason at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th. Paine was vilified as an atheist (which he never was), was reviled in the press, was generally persona non grata, even in the United States, which owed him considerably more than mere gratitude. Now, some of the antipathy toward Paine arose from his democratic populism, which didn't sit very well with the upper crust, but it was definitely exacerbated because of his critical look at popular religion.

In order to break through so that these things can be discussed candidly and openly, I think it's necessary to first ruffle some feathers and agitate people. The goal should be to attempt to achieve an honest conversation about these matters. But I'm doubtful we can get to that point until the subject gets demystified and desensitized in the public mind.

George

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

garicker: So it really is a mistake to talk about "God" as if everyone means the same thing by it.

I think this is a very important point. But does this nuance make any real difference if immediately following it we add...and no matter what anybody means by the term, it always reflects delusionary thinking? Thus, even if we take the time to carefully sort out the differences across societies, cultures and traditions (using the social sciences as MA via Dennett suggests), are Atheists (pace Dawkins) willing to remain open to types of theism that are not simply delusional?

garicker: Terrible things have been done in the name of religions. One simply cannot separate religious belief from religiously motivated behavior and say that it's OK to criticize the latter but the former must always remain off limits.

How should we respond to religious beliefs that motivate healthy, intelligent, beautiful and life affirming behavior? If we are willing to critique the terror, should we also remain open to the beauty of religion?

I think the crucial problem with Dawkins approach is not his critique of the terrible and wretched in Religion, (which, by the way, is hardly a new line of study...a simple reading of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Micah will display some of history's strongest criticisms of religious abuses...as will the work of Voltaire, Hume, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud)....but in his unwillingness to examine those religious traditions, communities and individuals that hardly represent deluded bigots or superstitious fanatics.


garicker: If religions really want only to be about the "ineffable essence at the core of an otherwise inexpressible reality" then religionists should retire to their cloistered houses of worship where they are free to believe as they choose without fear of being contradicted by any facts.

I don't think all religions want to be about this, although I agree that something universal (it seems) to religion involves grappling with questions of ultimate origins, foundations, purpose, and goals for reality. I think religion can also be about learning to love the unlovable, forgive the unforgivable, and find hope in the midst of despair. It can be a complex network of ideas and practices that inspire a care for the earth and lifestyles of simplicity and ethical consumption too. I think questions of hope, purpose, and what the good society should be, must be, are not simply reducible to debating facts.

garicker: Those who complain that Dawkins is turning some people off are probably right.

And they're Left too. In other words, there are many progressively minded folk engaged in this-worldly kinds of deeds that Dawkins would undoubtedly support...who relish and celebrate their Religious affiliation and traditions, critically and intelligently.

MA: But polemic rarely, if ever, really allows us to take a neutral, honest look at a subject.

I agree we need to make space for discussing this topic where we can put down our weapons, lower our shields and engage each other apart from polemic. But is neutrality really possible? Is honesty only available to the agnostics in the discussion?

garicker: Certainly, there have been criticisms launched at religion over the years, and the centuries. But I think they have been handled mostly by (a) attacking the authors, (b) dismissing the criticisms as trivial matters with no real merit or (c) playing to the ignorance and prejudice of the masses to ensure they can't get a fair hearing.

I think there is a vibrant dialogue with the critics of religion from within the fields of theology and religious studies that is profoundly sypathetic, willing to learn and adapt positions. Again, it depends upon which responses you consider. As for Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud (with all their limitations, and understanding the development beyond their thought) their critiques have been firmly grounded into the basic worldview that shapes most of Academia....far more than Aquinas or Augustine. I think there are many examples of outstanding theological and religious minds who sypathetically engage the criticisms you mention...but reading Dawkins you would never learn that.

garicker: The goal should be to attempt to achieve an honest conversation about these matters.

Perhaps the goal is not simply an honest conversation, but to address a civilization lurching towards self-destruction and devastation of the biosphere? In other words, what's more important, being right about the God-hypothesis; or working together to save the planet?

I wrote: So it really is a mistake to talk about "God" as if everyone means the same thing by it.

DH responded: I think this is a very important point. But does this nuance make any real difference if immediately following it we add...and no matter what anybody means by the term, it always reflects delusionary thinking? Thus, even if we take the time to carefully sort out the differences across societies, cultures and traditions (using the social sciences as MA via Dennett suggests), are Atheists (pace Dawkins) willing to remain open to types of theism that are not simply delusional?

Of course, I didn't add that and it's dishonest of you to suggest I did.

However, if you think there are types of theism that are not delusional, then it's up to you to make the case. Dawkins himself notes that he does not consider what he labels "Einsteinian religion" to be delusional.

As for the rest of your post, the general thrust seems to be that you have no problem with critiques of religions from within the religious communities, but you want no outsiders taking issue with the claims of religionists. That's a convenient pose to adopt, but you should hardly be surprised if those of us who have escaped the hothouse are unimpressed and unconvinced by it.

Now, I have no difficulty whatever recognizing there is much that is beautiful and worthwhile in many religious traditions. But what I find most compelling in those traditions is their humanity not their theology. In other words, I see religions, in all their forms, as creations by humankind for humankind. At times we have been badly served by them. At other times we have benefited.

That's hardly surprising when one considers that we have been mucking around with religions, in all sorts of ways, for thousands of years.

But religions shouldn't get any kind of pass because some religious practitioners have done some good things or some religious ideas have merit. One could make the same claim, with justice, for practically any set of beliefs or ideas, whether they involve the worship of a deity or not. If religions were only about "peace, love, brotherhood and hope," I doubt anyone would be concerned about them, and I'm quite sure the non religious wouldn't be bothered by them. But religions have always been about much more than that. And that's the rub.

DH: Perhaps the goal is not simply an honest conversation, but to address a civilization lurching towards self-destruction and devastation of the biosphere? In other words, what's more important, being right about the God-hypothesis; or working together to save the planet?

Honest conversation may be the first requirement for reaching that lofty goal. Besides, if "being right about the God-hypothesis" isn't that important to you, why do you spend so much time trying to defend it?

Personally, I've always liked the idea of intellectual hospitality. I'll consider any reasonable concept, regardless of its source. I know lots of religious people who have lots of good ideas about lots of things. In my experience, though, the ideas aren't good because of their religious bona fides but in spite of them.

Obviously, your mileage may (and apparently does) vary. :-)

George

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

garicker: Of course, I didn't add that and it's dishonest of you to suggest I did.

I didn't suggest you did. The question is hardly controversial or impertinent, and I think it a tad dishonest on your part to dismiss it as you did. Dawkins makes a case that ignores important alternatives. Including Einstein/Spinozist theology as one possible exception is hardly an exception...considering it probably includes a population that one can count on both hands and feet; or maybe fill a lecture hall. My point was that even if we accept your insight (which I do) that not everyone means the same thing about God...it really doesn't make a difference if, no matter what distinctions we make, it is all delusion.

Saying it is up to me to make the case that some types of theism are not delusional is important, and I should be prepared to support an alternative to Dawkins thesis concurrent with my challenge. But it doesn't get Dawkins off the hook for what, as I see it, is really a matter of avoiding data that didn't support his argument.

garicker: you have no problem with critiques of religions from within the religious communities, but you want no outsiders taking issue with the claims of religionists.
me: I think there are many examples of outstanding theological and religious minds who sypathetically engage the criticisms you mention...but reading Dawkins you would never learn that.

I encourage continual, constant criticism from within and without for all communties, especially religious ones who's attention to tradition, custom, and respect for ancient wisdom tends to harden into rigid dogmatism. Thus it is important that theologians constantly engage the secular critics, as well as members of other religious traditions. This is hardly an approach unique to me (even if I don't practice it so well), but is something vibrant and exciting in the fields of theology, comparative religions, and ecumenical dialogue...something, again, you would not know existed if your primary source for the subject was Dawkins.

garicker: I have no difficulty whatever recognizing there is much that is beautiful and worthwhile in many religious traditions. But what I find most compelling in those traditions is their humanity not their theology. In other words, I see religions, in all their forms, as creations by humankind for humankind. At times we have been badly served by them. At other times we have benefited.

This is eminently reasonable. I think it's important to begin to see these things beyond what is good for humankind, and bring the entirety of earthkind into the equation. I think there is something about religion that moves humans to see beyond themselves, to something larger and greater than their own individual and even collective needs and creative abilities. Our planet needs humankind to see beyond itself, and to recognize the value and worth of the whole of the biosphere. I think any kind of theism or atheism that neglects this a problem. I think certain kinds of theism can help us to relate to the planet as something far more valuable than simply stuff to do with as we please and dispose of at will. As I see it, we can no longer see humankind as the measure of all things.

garicker: But religions shouldn't get any kind of pass because some religious practitioners have done some good things or some religious ideas have merit.

Agreed. I don't know where I've stated otherwise. My point is that your distinction between meritorious religion and malicious religion is seemingly lost on Dawkins (except for the Einsteinian contingency). I think this distinction is important.

garicker: If religions were only about "peace, love, brotherhood and hope," I doubt anyone would be concerned about them, and I'm quite sure the non religious wouldn't be bothered by them.

I disagree. I think there are great numbers of people (religous and otherwise) who are no friends to peace, love, brotherhood and hope...and who profit greatly from war, violence, fear and despair. I think these forces of exploitation and domination are steadily ravaging the planet's resources and eroding the biosphere. I think the great mass of humanity feels basically hopeless or in great denial about it. I believe that if this mass of humanity was to awaken with hope, and engage one another in solidarity and love, then these forces of exploitation would respond violently...they would not simply hand over the keys of the machine.

I think those Atheists who recognize this common threat of ecological devastation, economic exploitation and militaristic lunacy should consider what allies they have in the world. It would not be a matter of "not being bothered" by some religions, but creating solidarity and depending upon one another.

DH: Dawkins makes a case that ignores important alternatives.

Dawkins makes his case against religions as they are perceived and practiced by the vast majority of people. That he did not consider every nuance of theological discourse is hardly surprising. I think Dawkins is effective in addressing the issues he does address. He could have been even more effective had he taken a bit more care with some of the details.

But the criticism that "he didn't write the book I think he should have written" carries absolutely no weight at all. He wrote the book he wanted to write. After all, it is titled The God Delusion. Should anyone claim to be surprised that it takes a negative stance toward religions?

A large part of his purpose was to demonstrate that, contrary to the manner in which it is handled in most of the popular media most of the time, religions are not always benign and can lead to bad consequences. It's hardly as if bookstores are not already filled to the brim with volumes extolling all the wonderful things claimed by the religious for their religions.

I'm all for atheists and theists finding common ground to work for mutually beneficial objectives. Certainly, environmental causes would fall into that category as would many others. However, I think that common ground will be found outside the realms of religions, not within them. As I said previously, I've known lots of religious people who had lots of good ideas. However, the ideas weren't good because of their religiosity but in spite of it.

One of the most profound scientific insights of the last 150 years has been the discovery that all life springs from the same source. Couple that idea with the notion popularized by the late Dr. Carl Sagan that "we are star stuff," and you have gone a long way toward demonstrating the connectedness of all existence in a way that is far more profound and far more enlightening than anything put out by religions over the millennia.

Compared to the inspiration to be found in that perspective, I find religions offer a poor substitute.

On that, Dawkins and I are in complete agreement.

George

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

Just finished "The God Delusion". Pretty much covers all the points I've came up on my own for ending my faith and accepting naturalism!

This is beside the point and I'm only experimenting with ezboard to see how links and pictures work, so bare with me and enjoy the excursion! The link below is for a college group I've been keeping alive from year to year.

Secular Student Alliance

Edited by: Meme Wars at: 2/12/07 11:26 am

garicker: That he did not consider every nuance of theological discourse is hardly surprising.

Nor is it necessarily helpful. I think this brings us around to what, exactly, was his goal in writing the book? I think the lager, fundamental goal was protecting humanity and the planet from the combined lunacies of religious intolerance and theological delusion. I think leaving out the meritorious elements of theology and religion does not support his larger goal. And, I don't think nuance is the right term for describing those religious practices and theological insights that offer a less than delusional and more than faddish response to humanity's large and small challenges.

garicker: A large part of his purpose was to demonstrate that, contrary to the manner in which it is handled in most of the popular media most of the time, religions are not always benign and can lead to bad consequences.

And he was superbly successful at attaining this goal in this book. There is no way that a thoughtful theist could read this book and not come away more skeptical of rigid dogmatism, religious exclucivism, scriptural literalism, and intolerant fundamentalism. It should serve every member of any religious community as a sharp reminder of how bad religion can get: the abuses of intellect, body, family, politics, culture and planet caused by mindless, heartless, violent faith.

garicker: I'm all for atheists and theists finding common ground to work for mutually beneficial objectives. Certainly, environmental causes would fall into that category as would many others.

Are you familiar with EO Wilson's latest book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth? I don't critique Dawkins for not writing Wilson's book, but it is an example of how a natural scientist approaches a common cause with theists and religious communities. Wilson does not abandon his naturalist worldview at all in the process, but works to connect to the reverence and love of creation that his theistic interlocutor shares.

garicker: I think that common ground will be found outside the realms of religions, not within them.

I hope common ground can be found wherever it may be. I think we need to get creative and think out of the box...no matter our worldview. I think there is ample room for connection within and between the religious traditions and I hope the naturalists of the world can remain open to it. Again, I think Dawkins' book does no favor to this hope. Perhaps I am hoping against hope...something religious folk tend to do.

garickerOne of the most profound scientific insights of the last 150 years has been the discovery that all life springs from the same source. Couple that idea with the notion popularized by the late Dr. Carl Sagan that "we are star stuff," and you have gone a long way toward demonstrating the connectedness of all existence in a way that is far more profound and far more enlightening than anything put out by religions over the millennia. Compared to the inspiration to be found in that perspective, I find religions offer a poor substitute.

I'm interested in what you mean by the term inspiration, and how you apply it to your life. Perhaps in another thread you could expound upon that? As for calling it a discovery, well, Religious folk all over the planet for more than a few millenium have wondered in awe at the common source and connectedness of existence. One example is the "Great Spirit" that made possible the wind, water, earth, fire and animal brothers and sisters of the Lakota peoples (or the Arawak, or Navaho, or Shawnee, or on and on and on)...where all existence was sacred and each act was part of a grand, cosmic dance that contained all that ever was, is, or will be. Not nearly as neat and orderly as Sagan's fabulous Cosmic Calendar, but certainly carrying the same gist.

Can someone edit this so that the forum is not stretched so much?

Thanks!

Mr. P.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Thanks Meme!

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

this is definitely a good book.