In the preface, Dawkins states that the intent of the book is to raise consciousness to the possibility of atheism and that, “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” Predictably, the book has set off something of a storm amongst the sort of people who write about books on the Internet. Unfortunately, the majority of the press it's gotten seems to have come from reviewers who have managed to become outraged by his subject matter without having bothered to comprehend what he's actually saying. In other words, it seems that a number of his interlocutors have simply brought along baggage from their previous theism vs atheism arguments and responded to that, rather than to any points Dawkins actually attempts to make in his book. To take just one example, Deepak Chopra states that:
“Therefore, reducing God to a Sunday school picture and claiming that the Book of Genesis--or creationism in general--competes with science isn't accurate. Fundamentalism hasn't played a role in scientific debate for generations. Einstein pointed out that he didn't believe in a personal God but was fascinated by how an orderly universe and its physical laws came about.”...but, in doing so, blithely disregards the both first chapter of The God Delusion, in which Dawkins makes it explicitly clear that he is not arguing against the 'god' Einstein spoke of, and further takes issue with the vacuousness of attaching the name 'god' to a fascination with the physical universe, and also the second chapter, in which Dawkins addresses the anticipated complaint that his readers may feel that Dawkins' arguments only apply to unsophisticated “Sunday school pictures” (to use Chopra's words) and not to the more refined god concepts they themselves believe in.
Additional criticism has originated in the atheist community, many of whom feel that Dawkins' combative approach is counterproductive, politically dangerous, or simply rude. At any rate, background aside, this is meant to be a review of Dawkins' book, not a review of reactions to Dawkins' book. Onward...
Chapter 1 – A Deeply Religious Non-believer
As noted above, Dawkins devotes a good portion of his first chapter to addressing various non-theistic uses of the word 'god', including the Einsteinian sense Chopra mentions. He presents quotes from scientists ranging from Carl Sagan to Charles Darwin to Einstein himself, showcasing both their rhapsodic use of religious metaphor to describe their awe at the wonders the natural world has to offer and their plain statements making it very clear that their metaphorical language is just that and no more. Particularly enlightening (not to mention entertaining) are several pieces written by Einstein's critics demonstrating that, however much modern theists would like to claim the man as one of their own, theists in Einstein's own time very clearly considered him an unbeliever. Dawkins' point here is to distinguish what he calls the 'deserved respect' accorded to the wonders of nature by those who reflect upon them from the 'undeserved respect' reflexively granted to religious ideas in our society.
This chapter represents one of the most important points Dawkins makes in the book, and one he's made repeatedly in the past. Simply stated, our societies grant respect to most sorts of ideas based on how well they actually work, and debate about their relative merits is encouraged or, at least, not frowned upon. Religious ideas, on the other hand, are accorded a disproportionate amount of respect simply because they are religious ideas. Dawkins gives several examples (conscientious objectors, hallucinogenic users, discrimination) where religious beliefs are readily accepted as excuses for behavior that is much more difficult to justify using secular reasons. What Dawkins doesn't explicitly mention in this chapter is that, if the reader does not accept his point here, the reader is unlikely to be receptive to anything else he has to say in the book, as this chapter argues against the (unnamed in the text) fallacy usually referred to as special pleading. In short, religious beliefs are normally considered exempt from the same rules of evidence and argument that govern our acceptance of other sorts of ideas and, if the reader does not agree with Dawkins (and, incidentally, with me) that this normal state of affairs is inappropriate, then none of the arguments Dawkins goes on to muster in subsequent chapters will be effective, as religion will simply be given a free pass.
As a final note on this chapter, to be fair to the clergy, Dawkins does overlook one point in his complaint that religious leaders are overrepresented in the media when commentary on some ethical issue is required. While I do agree with Dawkins that they are no more qualified than anyone else to comment on ethical issues by simple virtue of being religious leaders, they do, as a group, tend to be familiar with moral philosophy, so that any randomly selected religious leader is probably more likely than a randomly selected member of the population at large to have received some training in moral philosophy.
Chapter 2 to follow when I have time to write it.
1 comment:
> While I do agree with Dawkins that they are no more qualified than anyone else to comment on ethical issues by simple virtue of being religious leaders, they do, as a group, tend to be familiar with moral philosophy, so that any randomly selected religious leader is probably more likely than a randomly selected member of the population at large to have received some training in moral philosophy.
Counter argument (devils' advocate, so to speak. :)): That assumed moral training is couched in the belief in a supernatural Sky Man, rather than being a broad, dispassionate overview of contemporary ethics.
The underlying issue is not just that the religious representatives are without any insight, it is that there are far more qualified experts who are never asked to appear, while the impetus of Religion is (mysteriously) granted a special status.
These talk show priests and rabbis are rarely introduced as "the esteemed scholar of ethical philosophy"; no, they are merely identified by their religious rank, as if that was all one needed to know.
Post a Comment