The Dawkins… Code… of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood

I wanted to read Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion since it came out and am probably the last person EVER to finally read it, but, in my defense, I put myself on the Ottawa Library’s hold list around Christmas and didn’t get my hands on a copy until the end of the summer. Clearly, people are interested learning about atheism, or they enjoy controversy, or they just like books with shiny covers. (Random House, take note!)

You may have noticed that, normally, when I write about books, any pretense at reviewing turns into a discussion about my favourite character, but, never fear! There ARE no characters in The God Delusion. It is – gasp! – NON-FICTION!!!!!

Another non-fiction book I read lately is Lee Smolin’s The Trouble With Physics. So, you see, me and this “non-fiction” thing, we’re tight.

Anyway, I like Dawkins’s writing, even when I disagree with him, which is seldom but not never. But the thing I find most interesting about this book is, when I mention it, I get the strongest responses from people who haven’t read it, despite their personal beliefs in religion or lack-thereof. Dawkins’s work, it seems, makes an impression so strong it comes out through book reviews and interviews.

So, without further ado, I present “Statements about The God Delusion – FACT or FICTION?” (Imagine it like I’m Jonathan Frakes.)

1. RICHARD DAWKINS IS A MEANIE

Richard Dawkins calls religious people “stupid”. He isn’t sensitive to the feelings of those with different beliefs or who hail from different cultures.

First, since when is personal affability a basis for judging a person’s argument? Dude, if Socrates felt he had to be nice to everyone, his dialogues wouldn’t be half as entertaining, and he’d never make his point.

This is a matter of personal taste, but Dawkins seems to me to be as reasonable and calm as any other political, cultural, or academic commentator I’ve come across. Admittedly, I’ve seen few of his interviews, but those I have seen give me the strong impression that he doesn’t “attack” his opponents unless they first are hostile toward him. To my mind, some of the people with whom he debates express much more offensive sentiments. He is perfectly capable of discussing the issues involved in a civilized, reasonable manner, provided his opposite number is willing to do likewise.

Dawkins himself happily declares that he is a poor spokesperson for scientific theories that some religious people feel are threatening to their beliefs; he agrees with them that holding one idea with full understanding of what it entails logically precludes holding the other. But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t express his personal convictions publicly.

If you don’t like Richard Dawkins, okay, nobody’s forcing you to buy his book. But don’t expect me to credit your arguments about something you’ve never read. If you have taken a peek and think he’s cocky, well, you don’t have to like him. He doesn’t have to like you either. But, if you think he’s wrong because he’s cocky? Sorry, I don’t buy that.

2. RICHARD DAWKINS IS ATTACKING RELIGION

Dawkins’s book is NOT about religion. His book, as the title so clearly indicates, is about God. Specifically, it is about whether, given certain beliefs about the robustness of logic, empiricism, and observation that many people hold, it is consistent for us also to believe in a supreme being who created the universe. This is a very specific hypothesis.

Yes, he points out that organized religion is the cause of much conflict and strife. Yes, he suggests that organized religion is not the only nor even the best stimulus of virtue. Yes and yes and yes, he argues that assigning children a religion before they are old enough to think for themselves is wrong. But these are all tangential to his main point.

He isn’t arguing that religion is the source of all evil and science the sole beacon of moral light; his discussion here is a rebuttal to the counterargument that belief in God, whether consistent or not, is justified because its (supposed) byproduct, religion, is necessary to human society. He is trying (successfully, I think) to demonstrate that the opposite line of reasoning carries equal weight.

3. RICHARD DAWKINS DOESN’T KNOW ANYTHING, BECAUSE SCIENCE IS A RELIGION

Your MOM is a religion.

Seriously, though, first of all, again, book about God not religion, blah blah blah. Some religions are not theist, blah blah blah. Whether Dawkins subscribes to a religion or not, doesn’t make his arguments about God any less valid, blah frickin’ blah.

Second, I guess this argument annoys me. Not due to its truth or falsehood, but because, depending on the person saying it, it can mean almost anything*.

Here is the meaning with which I agree: those who make arguments based on science must ultimately take their starting premises (eg empiricism) on faith rather than reasoned argument, as one must take the basic premises of religion. The pursuit of science is inseparable from human error and subjectivity, just like religion. Scientists, like followers of a religion, search for truth in ways that can seem arbitrary and ritualistic.

Yeah, okay: I said I agreed. And I have to admit that, in his book, Dawkins tries briefly to refute the idea that science is as logically arbitrary a system of beliefs as any. Also, he never explicitly states that he starts assuming belief in that system. It may be his intention to prove both that belief in God is illogical if science is accepted AND that science should be accepted; if so, he fails in the latter half of this argument.

“Ha ha!” you say. “So you admit there’s no point in reading Dawkins because he’s wrong!”

Um, sure, but only if you’re willing to give up a lot of other beliefs that many take for granted, or, if they don’t, still find it most practical to behave and think as if they do: the world we perceive is “real”; classical logic is a valid standard on which to judge the validity of an argument; science is a good way of finding stuff out; Hanson totally looked like girls.

So, if your response is, “Heck yeah, bring on the relativism!”, then good for you.

But, if not, then… uh, bad for you?

4. SOME OF RICHARD DAWKINS’S ARGUMENTS ARE JUST AS INVALID AS THE ARGUMENTS HE’S TRYING TO DISPROVE

Guilty as charged. Sometimes he makes points based on anecdotal evidence. Sometimes he attacks those straw men like a hay-obsessed Rottweiler. Sometimes he disregards fun things like response bias (thanks for pointing all those out, Diana) that warm the heart of every first-year Psych student. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t make any good points. His main arguments are, in my opinion, solid, and, whether you agree or not, he has tons of interesting insights on atheism.

5. DAWKINS SAYS GOD DOESN’T EXIST

No, Dawkins says he doesn’t believe God exists, but he also believes there is a non-zero probability that it is possible. However, he suggests, given a belief in the principles of science/reason/etc., this probability is so small that invoking God or Divine Will is not on its own sufficient justification for legislation, morals, etc. Read the book.

6. THE COVER ISN’T SHINY ENOUGH

Just kidding, I’ve never heard this one. Humanity CAN agree on the important things in life.

7. SARAH IS GETTING TIRED AND/OR BORED WITH THIS FORMAT

Yeah, I’m not proud. Don’t worry, I’ve said what I wanted. Anyhow, to conclude, unless you absolutely can’t stand Richard Dawkins as a person or shiny covers as a design choice, I recommend The God Delusion.

Oh, and if you were wondering what is the trouble with physics? I don’t want to spoil things, but turns out it actually isn’t string theory: it’s support of a single avenue of investigation to the exclusion of all others despite lack of evidence. Also, Edward Witten is a Horcrux.

*And let’s not even talk about the problems with defining terms like “science” and “religion”.