Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion
Non-fiction – 2006 - 380 pages / Borrowed from the Dawkins loving Jamie
- 3 nods out of 5 -
For three decades Richard Dawkins has made a name for himself as sceptic and general fly in the ointment for religious buffs; a man who sticks in his oar in without hesitation if he feels that the truth is being tampered with. Why is it, then, that I do not wholly agree with his point of view? Admittedly, I do not know a great deal about Dawkins and his back catalogue of works (which includes The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker; The God Delusion is my first read. A wise choice for virginal eyes? Let's see…
The whole premise of the book is for Dawkins to not only refute the existence of God, but also to stress time and again that "He" is superfluous to human life. He makes a credible case at doing so – using illuminating quotes from many historical figures, including those such as Douglas Adams (to whom the book is dedicated), Einstein and Thomas Jefferson.
It is obvious that he is armed to the teeth about the debate in question: impressive bits of facts come out alongside interesting terms (such as ‘The Neville Chamberlain School of evolutionists’) and bits of research (such as ‘The Great Prayer Experiment’); all backed up by many delicious anecdotes that Dawkins regales the reader with, the majority of which concern his under-graduate Cambridge days.
This is all good, however, as Dawkins himself concedes (at the end of chapter 4) his argument of “God’s” non-existence is over; so what of the additional 200 pages? Dawkins decides to back up his original points, lurching from one argument to the next, in what is not a wholly convincing manner.Besides the waste of text, two of my largest gripes with the book are as follows: 1. Dawkins insistence to explain everything from a Darwinistic point of view. For example, he explains the roots of religion as coming from a need/instinct within our brains to listen out to a higher authority; but in doing so he completely discounts the political/social uses/vices of religion.
And 2. is Dawkins' belief that his point of view is the right one. This is to be expected in a book of 350 pages that is essentially one, long, drawn-out argument – Dawkins essentially sniping back at those who have attacked him. However, some of his comments in Chapter 9 – ‘Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion’ – appear misguided; he attacks the Amish for ‘their right to bring up “their children” in “their own” way’ (p.330), that ‘Amish children never volunteered to be Amish; they were born into it and they had no choice. (p.331). Hard criticism; and it must be asked, what does Dawkins suggest happen exactly - remove the children from the sinister clutches of their parents? And remove them into what exactly?: simply into another culture which has differing morals and ethical codes, of which there are countless amounts around the globe. Our Western bias should not permit to state that "our" way is right (the same, too, can be said of any view-point, either Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Amish or, indeed, atheist).*
The strongest of Dawkins' points is his insistence on what man can achieve (as soon in full splendour in his last chapter). His mission statement was to persuade people away from the pitfalls of religion. Of course, Bible nuts won't come within breathing distance of the book, so presumably his target audience are those like myself. Have I done away with God? I don't believe I'm urgent to rule in or rule out anything yet. As Eric Hoffer once wrote, 'The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a God or not'.
* Furthermore, in addition to the negative comments i've made to Dawkins' book, there is another comment i wish to argue against, being his comparison of Hitler to ancient figures such as Caligula and Genghis Khan (Hitler 'would not have stood out' (p.268)). This seemingly mis-interprets Nazism’s racial hatred – of which a considerable number of historians believe to be a revolutionary - if sinister - creation).
Non-fiction – 2006 - 380 pages / Borrowed from the Dawkins loving Jamie
- 3 nods out of 5 -
For three decades Richard Dawkins has made a name for himself as sceptic and general fly in the ointment for religious buffs; a man who sticks in his oar in without hesitation if he feels that the truth is being tampered with. Why is it, then, that I do not wholly agree with his point of view? Admittedly, I do not know a great deal about Dawkins and his back catalogue of works (which includes The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker; The God Delusion is my first read. A wise choice for virginal eyes? Let's see…
The whole premise of the book is for Dawkins to not only refute the existence of God, but also to stress time and again that "He" is superfluous to human life. He makes a credible case at doing so – using illuminating quotes from many historical figures, including those such as Douglas Adams (to whom the book is dedicated), Einstein and Thomas Jefferson.
It is obvious that he is armed to the teeth about the debate in question: impressive bits of facts come out alongside interesting terms (such as ‘The Neville Chamberlain School of evolutionists’) and bits of research (such as ‘The Great Prayer Experiment’); all backed up by many delicious anecdotes that Dawkins regales the reader with, the majority of which concern his under-graduate Cambridge days.
This is all good, however, as Dawkins himself concedes (at the end of chapter 4) his argument of “God’s” non-existence is over; so what of the additional 200 pages? Dawkins decides to back up his original points, lurching from one argument to the next, in what is not a wholly convincing manner.Besides the waste of text, two of my largest gripes with the book are as follows: 1. Dawkins insistence to explain everything from a Darwinistic point of view. For example, he explains the roots of religion as coming from a need/instinct within our brains to listen out to a higher authority; but in doing so he completely discounts the political/social uses/vices of religion.
And 2. is Dawkins' belief that his point of view is the right one. This is to be expected in a book of 350 pages that is essentially one, long, drawn-out argument – Dawkins essentially sniping back at those who have attacked him. However, some of his comments in Chapter 9 – ‘Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion’ – appear misguided; he attacks the Amish for ‘their right to bring up “their children” in “their own” way’ (p.330), that ‘Amish children never volunteered to be Amish; they were born into it and they had no choice. (p.331). Hard criticism; and it must be asked, what does Dawkins suggest happen exactly - remove the children from the sinister clutches of their parents? And remove them into what exactly?: simply into another culture which has differing morals and ethical codes, of which there are countless amounts around the globe. Our Western bias should not permit to state that "our" way is right (the same, too, can be said of any view-point, either Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Amish or, indeed, atheist).*
The strongest of Dawkins' points is his insistence on what man can achieve (as soon in full splendour in his last chapter). His mission statement was to persuade people away from the pitfalls of religion. Of course, Bible nuts won't come within breathing distance of the book, so presumably his target audience are those like myself. Have I done away with God? I don't believe I'm urgent to rule in or rule out anything yet. As Eric Hoffer once wrote, 'The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a God or not'.
* Furthermore, in addition to the negative comments i've made to Dawkins' book, there is another comment i wish to argue against, being his comparison of Hitler to ancient figures such as Caligula and Genghis Khan (Hitler 'would not have stood out' (p.268)). This seemingly mis-interprets Nazism’s racial hatred – of which a considerable number of historians believe to be a revolutionary - if sinister - creation).
