web counter
 

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

By Jen K. | Posted Under Book Reviews | Comments (59)

the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-$11716$300.jpg

When I was in Iraq, one of the soldiers I got along with best was an atheist, and since I had a similar irreverent attitude towards religion, he assumed that I was also an atheist. Except I was still rather hesitant to use that label at that point in time, and even ended up writing a rather extensive post about it.

The reason I originally turned away from religion had very little to do with my political beliefs and very much to do with the fact that I found church and the sermons boring. Comments like “Jesus loves you” just irritated me, and the idea of Christianity as taught in America when I first moved back in 8th grade seemed way too goody two shoes for me (in Germany, it was just repetitive and boring). From this boredom and disdain, I eventually also started analyzing organized religion and seeing the way people behaved in the name of God, and it just turned me off even more from the concept.

Now, I definitely consider myself a non-believer, though occasionally I’ll notice myself accidentally doing things from habits as a child — I will still cross myself with holy water when I enter a Catholic church though I enter them now purely as a tourist. Occasionally, I still think in my head, “please God, don’t let this happen” or “please help me with this test/etc” before remembering that I’m not actually addressing anyone. When I walk into a particularly beautiful and well-constructed church, I will occasionally think if anything could make me believe in God, it would be this, before rationally reminding myself that God didn’t build the church - humans did, sometimes inspired by him, but nonetheless, it was a human that designed and built the church and painted the paintings and made the sculptures. If anything, the buildings then reaffirm my faith in humanity. And as much as religion may occasionally irritate me, anything that inspired and financed anything that beautiful can’t be all bad (although as Dawkins points out, what might they have made if they hadn’t been spending all their time on church stuff — I guess I just have a hard time thinking of what may have taken the place of a church and had the money and power to create all that if religion hadn’t existed).

I enjoyed The God Delusion quite a bit, although I think that may be because I already agreed with a lot of the things he said. Some of the chapters dragged on a bit I felt, but maybe that was due to a case of preaching to the choir. However, I don’t think this would be enough to change anyone’s mind. Anyone open to this book probably already has some doubts or agrees with Dawkins and is simply looking for a more articulate way of expressing themselves and supporting their arguments. He even used an example of a geologist who was both religious and studied geology, only to give up geology (at least the way he had been taught) because the two conflicted. While many scientists have been able to reconcile their faith with their work, this is a problem for some in the States where many tend to read their Bible literally.

While Dawkins briefly addresses other religions, he focuses on the big three, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, since he expects most of his readers to fall into one of those categories or at least be familiar with them. In his first few chapters, he discusses some of his issues with religion, and the fact that it is treated in such a respectful manner — that is, religion is used to excuse many actions that would otherwise be frowned upon. He also discusses the idea of faith and how very little that comprises religion has any base in reason. All these chapters were well-set up and provided good background.

I felt like Chapter Four dragged on way too much, though. In this chapter, Dawkins discusses why the idea of intelligent design and a supreme being is ridiculous — as crazy as the idea is that life suddenly developed through a chemical reaction, it makes much more sense. After all, in this theory, life began as something very simple and over billions of years, developed into something much more complex and varied. If there were a supreme being, that would mean something incredibly complex existed and developed from nothing which is much more far-fetched. As I said, I felt like he drove his point into the ground but that’s also because it made sense to me, and I agreed with his assessment.

I loved the rest of the book, which involved quite a bit of sarcasm and humor while Dawkins analyzed and skewered religion. It really is frightening how much ignorance is continued in the name of religion. Also, the people that are portrayed in the Bible as examples are incredibly flawed, lying and cheating, destroying other cultures for no real reason other than “they were in the way or on the land God promised us.”

My other major problem with the book was in Chapter Nine. In it, Dawkins equates religion with child abuse, and while I definitely agree with the idea that children should be allowed to make an informed decision about which religion to follow or if any at all, some of his statements bugged me:

I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment (356).

Since he said it was “an off-the-cuff remark” I would have been willing to ignore the comment but he pressed the point, and used a woman’s letter to support this idea. I’m sure it depends on the situation — I’ve never been sexually abused, but I also wasn’t raised in a very strict religious household that preached fire and brimstone so I don’t know which one would probably be worse for me. I thought the statement was too sweeping, and disregarded how serious an effect sexual abuse could have on someone.

Overall, I thought it was a well-reasoned book that addressed the problems with religion from a variety of views rather than just science. It is hard to imagine how the world would have developed without religion but it is an interesting question to ponder. Especially in this day and age, it seems that people would be more likely to take a more rational approach to religion — not necessarily getting rid of it all together, but not using it as an excuse to let ignorance reign as tends to be a problem in certain parts of the US.

Also, speaking from a purely military perspective, there are certain ways in which I think religion is helpful. When soldiers have personal problems or other issues that they don’t want to discuss with their leadership, many of them are much more likely to talk to a chaplain than a mental health counselor (there still tends to be a certain stigma attached in the soldiers’ minds to the latter). As a result, I actually support the blending of religion and state in this one instance only, and even there it completely depends on the chaplain — I’ve seen the fire and brimstone variety, and I’ve seen those that really just want to help soldiers and provide some sound advice, independent of religion or God. I just don’t think having a counselor in a battalion would have the same effect as a chaplain.

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. For more of Jen K’s reviews, check out her blog, Notes from an Officer’s Club









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← The Day of the Cannonball Read | Wishful Drinking by Carrie Fisher →









Comments

Well done, Jen!

I actually started reading this a while back, for my 3rd CBR read (I still haven't finished it; stupid life, getting in the way of the important stuff!). I can't remember how far I got off the top of my head (though I know I at least began chapter 4), but I find myself by turns annoyed by Dawkins' superiority and completely engaged by his charm, articulateness, and sense of humor. I love that he loves Douglas Adams so much and brings him up frequently. Overall, I have to agree, a lot of it is preaching to the choir, though he says at the beginning of the book that his intent is to convert people; I think the majority of people who are actually going to pick up the book are already pretty decided, though, so I'm not sure how well his plan is going to work.

I was talking to an atheist friend at work who recommended Hitchens' God Is Not Great and also The End Of Faith by Sam Harris, both of which I picked up with a gift card and plan to read after finishing The God Delusion. If of course stupid life stops interfering with my time. She tells me they're a little less smug, a little more acessible.

I did learn from this book, by the way, that I am technically more of a pantheist-leaning atheist (the "sexed-up" version of atheism, as he calls it), as I tend to find that the laws of nature are what I would think of as God, if I had a need to think of something as God, if that makes sense. I found the "levels" of atheism bit interesting as well, and realized from that that I am more comfortable with my atheism than I had previously thought. Though still not *quite* comfortable enough to list it in the "religious views" section of my Facebook profile, for some reason...

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at February 15, 2010 10:31 AM

I love Dawkins: his science writing. I've mostly stayed away from the explicitly religion-centered stuff, mostly because I could tell from reading The Blind Watchmaker that it would get much too "preaching to the choir" and also too extreme in its anti-religion views, if that makes sense. I get the arguments against religion on the grounds of reason, but the child abuse stuff? Eh. I think that people who believe religion is and always has been a solely negative influence on the world are narrow-minded, and quite frankly, silly.

Posted by: SaBrina at February 15, 2010 10:33 AM

I've been doing some soul-searching lately given my recent medical problems, with which most of you I think are familiar. But it's not my soul I've been searching, but the souls of others.

I attend Catholic church but I grew up in a pretty fundamental nondenominational congregation. These are people (my mom, my sister, my aunts and others) who really believe in the power of prayer, and as I went through my minor ordeals I knew they were praying for me. That's all well and good. Certainly can't hurt anything. And, as it turns out in my case, they pretty much got the answers they wanted.

But if they hadn't -- if it turned out I had full-blown lymphoma or something -- I also know these good and kind folks would have chalked that up to "God's will."

I'm trying to figure out how this is supposed to work. They believe in a perfect and infallible God. So when they pray, what are they trying to do? Change God's will? Isn't that all worked out in advance? I mean, supposedly God allows for free will, in that you can accept Him or reject Him or go whatever direction you choose. But doesn't He also know what you're going to do and how it turns out? What would be the point of being an omnipotent God if you didn't?

So what, exactly, is the point of the prayer? (I mean that prayer that asks for something to happen, not the prayer of praise and thanks.)

And while I'm at it, what's so special about me that I'm spared a full round of chemo and get to go on living my life while 200,000 people in Haiti are smote dead?

Religious folks let God off the hook on this one. "We can't fathom the mysteries, we can't know God's mind ..." blah blah. God gets every benefit of the doubt. And to me that's just too easy a path to go down.

The Bible says that many of the Old Testament prophets carried on a dialogue with God, somehow. They questioned, they strayed, they faltered. This, I think, is intended to show that even fallible and weak human beings (I'm thinking, like, Abraham and Jonah and Job) can become great men (and women).

Faith can be a great thing, but I think faith without continuous questioning to reaffirm that faith (or, perhaps, to debunk it) is pretty useless.

And that's way before we get into the whole fantastical concept of an eternal supreme being that created the universe out of nothingness.

OK, I've rambled on about this enough for now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Jen. I'll see if my library has it and maybe it will address some of the issues I've been thinking about.

Posted by: , at February 15, 2010 10:34 AM

Oh god, AvB, Hitchens less smug? I haven't read the book, but I've read a lot of his political commentary, and I strongly doubt that you're going to get "less smug" from anything he writes on the subject of religion.

Posted by: SaBrina at February 15, 2010 10:38 AM

This is a great review and such an apt topic for today given how the fundamentalists are trying really hard to re-interpret the intent of the founding fathers and inject Christianity where it doesn't belong.
I'm amazed at how closely I relate to your position on religion. I always have to dip in the holy water and bless myself when I go into a church, but it's in the same way I say "touch wood" when I say work is going well. I also love beautiful churches and yes I know they were built with too much money and all that but I do feel there's something wonderful about a beautiful building that has stood for centuries. And just think of all the music by Mozart and Bach and Verdi, etc. that we wouldn't have if it hadn't been commissioned by the church.
Of course, being Irish and raised Catholic there's also the dark side but I'm in a good mood today so I won't dwell on that.

Posted by: PaddyDog at February 15, 2010 10:51 AM

Hee, SaBrina. I haven't read anything of Hitchens' at all, that was what my friend told me when I was telling her I found Dawkins a bit "unholier-than-thou." I tend to think they're probably all a bit like that.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at February 15, 2010 10:51 AM

Dawkins is a bit too bigoted for my tastes. That said, this was a very good an thoughtful review of his book.

I think this is a good place to plug a fabulous skeptic's blog I stumbled across: http://hjhop.blogspot.com/

I don't know the guy and I'm not shilling; I just think his blog is very thoughtful and often very funny.

Posted by: Jerce at February 15, 2010 10:55 AM

I find his book reviews in The Atlantic damn-near unreadable. He's pretty engaging in radio and TV interviews though.

Posted by: gunnertec at February 15, 2010 10:57 AM

I might give this a try. I'm an atheist but love a factual and reasonable book on the subject (preaching to the choir, for sure). I tried reading God Is Not Great but Hitchens was so fucking smug I couldn't take it. After 50 pages I called it quits. Which is sad because I love seeing Hitchens' drunken ass on TV. I can't imagine that Dawkins is worse.

Posted by: Scully at February 15, 2010 11:01 AM

[,]

I really liked you comment about doing the soul-searching, but searching the souls of others. I have my own struggles with religion- to say I'm a lapsed Catholic would be very generous- but for all the ways that my own Faith has been a struggle the way I relate to and benefit from religion the most is through other people.

Let me explain: I think people are very quick to point out the illogic, the hypocrisy, and other negative aspects of 'other people's religion' And I'll admit I see a lot of that too, a lot of stupid people doing and saying stupid things in the name of religion. But I have been very lucky to see the other side of it, too. And the influence of spiritual people in my life is something real and tangible and good, even if I don't feel moved by God personally or directly.

Is it all hogwash, superstition, mumbo-jumbo? Maybe. I can't say. But the thing that Dawkins doesn't get is that even a delusion can have positive consequences.

I don't get moved by religious feelings. It doesn't even register for me. But I get moved by people who get moved by religious feelings- that stuff knocks me out. People who do things and make sacrifices that my practical, cynical ass wouldn't even contemplate for reasons that I cannot understand.

I don't mean that you can't have selflessness without a higher power, of course not. But I see the good side of religion embodied in a lot of real people I know. Most of the asshole religious people I only see on the internet or the news.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 15, 2010 11:11 AM

I tend to think they're probably all a bit like that.

Yeah, that's probably true. That can generally be a problem with atheists writing on religion. They're atheists. They think they're the ones with all the answers. They're arguing from an entrenched position and look down on people who disagree with them, which may be good for funny rants and put-downs, but it biases them and therefore doesn't lend itself well to truly understanding the reasons for faith, investigating the logic or non- behind believing in what seem like contradictions, etc.

Posted by: SaBrina at February 15, 2010 11:13 AM

Maybe this is a better distinction (or, maybe it is really insensitive, I can't be sure): Dumb people with religion do nothing for me. The folksy 'It's all part of God's plan stuff' and the various degrees of bigotry and intolerance, the lack of self-awareness or the inability to value beliefs that you don't hold yourself-- these people are a nuisance at best.

But, smart people who belive in God, I love these people even if I don't share their beliefs. In fact, I admire them for their ability to have faith. I chicken out like Kierkegaard with the Fear and Trembling. When someone I respect has faith, and they display it in an admirable and benevolent way, I am a little in awe. And they are cool and easy to talk to and relate to and they never give you the hard sell or the evil eye, but they respect you right back. Good people. And the world would be lesser if they were robbed of that faith.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 15, 2010 11:20 AM

Whoops! we are talking about Dawkins, here, and not Hitchens. Which would make my comment irrelevant. Sorry. No funeral! [gunshot to head]

Posted by: gunnertec at February 15, 2010 11:21 AM

Yossarian,

Agree. That's the part that gets my goat about people who have an adversarial stance toward religious folks. Everyone knows there have been a lot of horrors committed in the name of God. I also know there's an astounding amount of good that's been done and continues to be done. The failure to acknowledge that is, I think, a flaw in the criticism.

This weekend the priest at my church announced that the parishes in West Virginia had raised $300,000 for Haiti relief. I doubt the Haitians who get some help from it will care whether the people who contributed are deluded or not.

I also doubt whether, if there were no religion, there'd have been sufficient motivation for the parishioners to kick in. It's one thing to watch appeals on TV; it's another to be sitting in a pew and have someone place a basket in your lap and wait for you to get your wallet out.

I can acknowledge that nonreligious people can be virtuous and do good works. I appreciate the same acknowledgement from them.

Posted by: , at February 15, 2010 11:33 AM

My position is, admittedly, something of a cop-out, but if there is a God, I think it's terribly presumptions for humans with our limited vision and unrelenting selfishness to think we could ever understand such a being. We struggle to understand the ramifications of the national debt and the NFL collective bargaining agreement, yet there are people who will tell you that they and the alone can divine the thinking -- if it can even be called thinking as we understand it -- of a being that is all-seeing, all-knowing, everlasting and all-powerful? Fuck and no.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at February 15, 2010 11:49 AM

Sabrina: They're atheists. They think they're the ones with all the answers.

Um, no. If someone is an atheist because they have looked at both options - scientific thinking vs faith and opted for science, I assure you, they (we) don't think that we have all the answers. But we are asking questions. And trying to find answers. Religions don't ask questions, they provide ready answers which are not to be questioned. And catholics even have a guy in a dress saying that he's infallible.

Honestly, I know I sound smug when talking about this stuff, but I don't care. Religion might be conditioned by evolution as many studies have started finding out but we have managed to get rid of so many things that were determined by revolution (we adopt, we have chosen monogamy as the predominant form of pairing, we denounce rape)that I am slightly hopeful that some time in the near future humanity will get rid of it.
I have, of my own will, decided to check out the catholic church when i was 6 because I liked what my best friend told me about it. I have left it at 13 when i started to question things and not get adequate (if any) answers.
It took some time after that to shift from agnostic to atheist. And trust me, it's not easy being an atheist in a 90%catholic country. I have seen many horrible things being done in the name of faith. and I would NEVER allow my child to come near a nun or priest regarding education. Because the amount of guilt that they instill in children in their formative years should be outlawed.
Yossarian, wouldn't it be a nicer world if people (be they smart or stupid) did nice things for each other not because they're like donkeys, afraid of the big stick and tempted by the carrot but because they genuinely want to help their fellow humans? Respecting and in awe of the fact that this is the one life we get?

Posted by: astounded at February 15, 2010 11:51 AM

Really tried to get through God Delusion, my 1st & only Dawkins material, but his writing style turned me off. And far too many of these: "as we will see", "as I will address in a later chapter", etc. Maybe one day I'll find another written work to sharpen my defense of my atheism. Until then, I'll have to go with "ya'll dumb."

Posted by: the new transported man at February 15, 2010 12:00 PM

Um, no. If someone is an atheist because they have looked at both options - scientific thinking vs faith and opted for science, I assure you, they (we) don't think that we have all the answers.

Sorry, I should've been clearer. I didn't mean all atheists, and I didn't mean they think they have the answers about everything that exists in the world. I understand that science is all about questioning. But an atheist writing an anti-religion screed is most likely going to believe that he has the answers on that specific topic: that religion is wrong, a delusion, illogical, harmful, etc.

I also think that saying "Religions don't ask questions" is disingenuous. Maybe you haven't personally witnessed that, but throughout history religion has fueled a lot of scientific inquiry in the pursuit of more knowledge about God-created nature.

Yossarian, wouldn't it be a nicer world if people (be they smart or stupid) did nice things for each other not because they're like donkeys, afraid of the big stick and tempted by the carrot but because they genuinely want to help their fellow humans?

I know this wasn't for me, but I'd like to comment. First of all: that's insulting. Maybe those parishioners needed an extra impetus to donate, but you really think it was all out of fear of going to hell? You don't think that religion could've inspired them to feel greater compassion, making them want to help their fellow humans? Or maybe that was just the most convenient way for them to help.

Also, I don't believe that a good deed should be discounted just because you think there's a better reason for performing it.

Posted by: SaBrina at February 15, 2010 12:22 PM

SaBrina already said it well enough, but I'll add: I think you are failing to acknowledge a whole lot of religious thinkers who have struggled mightily with those very same issues and come out on the side of Faith. True faith has to be questioned and chosen, not just followed blindly.

From Augustine to Aquinas, Descartes and Pascal, Kant, Kierkegaard, and Dostoevsky among many others. The idea that you have thought more critically about religion than those men of faith goes beyond smug.

I'm not saying there is a right and a wrong, and I disagree with the conclusions some of them reached- Descartes and Pascal in particular have some logical fallacies- but their faith is true and authentic, held up to as much scrutiny as the most staid atheist you can find (i.e. Mr. Dawkins) and they came down on the side of belief. That belief and their contributions to Western thought should be deserving of your respect.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 15, 2010 12:45 PM

Wow, I'm loving this discussion. Yay for smart people!

Posted by: Nicole at February 15, 2010 12:51 PM

Sabrina:religion has fueled a lot of scientific inquiry in the pursuit of more knowledge about God-created nature.
Yes, there have been people trying to fit the knowledge that bad things happen in this world with the idea of a loving god - theodicy, but they tried to fit the world into the theory of god and not vice versa. Religions don't ask questions - they ask for obedience and believing the authority of priest-figures. As for scientific inquiry - centuries of the inquisition's work dispute your claim. And, yes, many prominent scientists were priests but only because religion held the monopoly on access to education and knowledge. They tried to lock in the innate human desire for knowledge (Index Librorum Prohibitorum ) but, luckily, the Promethean spark is not that easy to put out. The history of the dispute between religion and science is the history of religion accomodating things science discovers in spite of religions' every effort to the contrary (the heliocentric system, evolution, etc.,etc)
As for people donating to Haiti - I'm not yet that cynical to believe that they all donated because of the fear of hell. Most of this type of idiots believe that Haitians only have themselves to blame anyway. However, my point is that I appreciate when good people do good deeds. I only wish they didn't hide behind religions to do it, but did it out of the kindness of their hearts. Would Jesus be less of a good role model with some of his thoughts if he weren't the son of god? if he were only another young jewish politician?
Why are we more ready to believe in some ridiculous deity more than in our innate sense of right and wrong?

Posted by: astounded at February 15, 2010 12:56 PM

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and agree with Yoss, SaB, and , as well; there's no call for discounting every thought ever had by religious people, or people of faith, whatever you'd like to call them. As "devout" an atheist as I am, I would certainly never presume to think I have all the answers. Hell, I could very well be dead wrong (imagine the look on my face if I die and find out there is a Heaven!). Furthermore, I grew up Catholic and while I did get the guilt from one of our priests, our main priest, Father Eugene, was a lovely man who encouraged us to *think* rather than just accepting. There are always going to be people, regardless of faith, who just follow along and do as they're told, and there are always going to be those who question, and debate, and philosophize, and think. It has to do with individual proclivities, as far as I am concerned. And I'm a very "benefit-of-the-doubt" sort of woman, and so I make no assumptions of people based on their faith or lack thereof as to what kind of people they are.

At any rate, I maybe should have been clearer with my original comment to SaBrina: I also was referring to atheists writing on religion and faith. And I mean, let's face it, who's going to get published? The guy who's a controversial loudmouth who denigrates religion or the guy who looks at the issue from both sides, all fair-and-balanced like?

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at February 15, 2010 1:04 PM

No, I would never dream of thinking that I have thought more profoundly on the matter of religious faith than the philosophers have. But that's just it, I have the advantage of several centuries and the possibility to study their work on my side. But, do you think they would have thought differently if they had access to all the information we have today? If they knew about the evolution, the incredible vastness of space and our insignificance - scratch that, if they knew even about the human race and all the different cultures (and different religions) as much as we do today? I think that they might have. I am profoundly thankful for the possibility to think outside the box of religion and faith.

Posted by: astounded at February 15, 2010 1:25 PM

I only wish they didn't hide behind religions to do it, but did it out of the kindness of their hearts.
---
Astounded,

Are you asserting that religious people can't be kind too? What if we all attributed to others the best possible motives we would like to think we ourselves possess?

Yeah, I know how naive that sounds.

Posted by: , at February 15, 2010 1:49 PM

Yossarian Your comments about smart people and religious faith made me get a huge cry ball in my throat. I love people like that, too.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 15, 2010 2:11 PM

Thanks for all the comments and I'm really excited about having my review pulled onto the main page.

As far as the debate about morals and religion that is going on right now, that was actually one thing that Dawkins addressed. He said that there have been studies done and it seems that most people tend to have the same reaction to certain ethical dilemmas no matter what their religious background or lack thereof may be. The theory is that it was evolutionary, that having a certain amount of empathy for others in the group would help the group survive, basically natural selection on the large scale.

My opinion on the matter is that people will generally try to help each other because most people are empathetic (or at least start out that way). Society might like to attribute morals to religion, but it is more likely that certain moral principles became a part of religion because they made sense to people. After all, many ideas tend to echo each other in different religions.

Posted by: Jen K at February 15, 2010 2:17 PM

No Bucdaddy, I never said that religious people can't be kind - my favourite co-worker (whom I regard as my office mom) is religious and I love her to bits. She is so kind that when I first met her, my cynical and bitter little heart said to itself: no one can be THAT good and nice. And yet she is. My point is that she would be like that even if she didn't believe in god.
Relinquishing religion can be scary, especially when you're violently faced with your own or the mortality of your loved ones. But there is some wild beauty in the randomness of this life, in spite of all the structures and order we try to impose on it. People should center more on that than betting on the existence of some other life after this one...

Posted by: astounded at February 15, 2010 2:28 PM

Jen K, your description of how your religion has mostly left you, but still clings on in those little habits(I dont cross with water but I'll cross when a funeral procession crosses my path) is me down to the ground and I've never seen it put more accurately.

I consider myself agnostic more than atheist. I'd like to believe there is some greater mind, some greater thing...not this great benevolent beard in the sky with a skinny, hippy son whom he sent to be slaughtered.
I prefer a sort of...it's hard to explain...I think of what may or may not be behind our existence, if there is any thing...it's young. What ever it is, again, if anything, we where not some grand project, we where a hobby. And now we're forgotten cos its moved on.

But I only think that on days when the sheer size of the universe starts to overwhelm me and I have to tell myself there is something out in all that Out There because if there isnt...*shudder*

Posted by: Nadine at February 15, 2010 3:34 PM

"wouldn't it be a nicer world if people (be they smart or stupid) did nice things for each other not because they're like donkeys, afraid of the big stick and tempted by the carrot but because they genuinely want to help their fellow humans?"

There are lots of religions where people believe in God but don't believe that their good or bad deeds will be awarded or punished. There are Jewish sects that don't believe in Heaven or Hell, in any afterlife that serves as a carrot or stick, but they still encourage good works. There are Protestant religions where your deeds don't matter, only your faith in Jesus can "save" you. Looking at religion as a carrot or stick, or as something that people hide their good deeds behind, is a gross oversimplification and lack of understanding of what many people get out of faith and religion.

Posted by: bat at February 15, 2010 3:36 PM

I'm not quite sure what I think about Richard Dawkins. When you hear him actually speak he's a very reasonable person and is definitely able to have a civilized debate with religious types. As a writer, he has a huge tendency to make intense arguments about things he doesn't actually understand. Hence the "philosophy" chapter in The God Delusion or "memes." He's definitely an intelligent, reasonable person, but the fact that he almost never does the research on fields outside of his own turns me off of him as a writer.

Posted by: Royalewithcheese at February 15, 2010 3:54 PM

Dawkins did an amazing documentary series over here that was designed to highlight certain aspects of Evolution.

They took certain animals, an elephant, a giraffe, a crocodile, a whale etc, who had died naturally, and autopsied them. Simple formula.
During the autopsy, they pointed out certain facts, like, how elephants had evolved to use their ears to keep cool.

Hoowwww some Whale's still have vestigial bones near their tails, from where they used to have legs...

He spoke with a certain...love, and deep, abiding respect for Evolution. He didn't come off as smug or overpowering or forceful, just like a man who was really, reaaalllyy into his subject matter.

It was a fascinating, brilliant series that I strongly recommend people watch.

Posted by: Nadine at February 15, 2010 4:18 PM

I also know there's an astounding amount of good that's been done and continues to be done. The failure to acknowledge that is, I think, a flaw in the criticism.

This might be a good sociological argument for deceiving the populace into believing there's a god, i.e., so they'll behave themselves -- which is why the Bible was invented in the first place -- but it doesn't do anything in terms of providing logical analysis of the basic question. Their behavior may be laudable, but that doesn't go to whether the motivation is based on something real.

I have problems with Dawkins because he's such a know-it-all, and all of his "logical argument" allegedly disproving the existence of a god can be turned right back on him. He can't prove the non-existence of a god, either, and while he admits this to be true, he dismisses it with a cheap trick of comparing one infinite unknowable to another and proclaiming one "far more likely" than the other. They're both unknowable, and anyone who claims to "know" the answer either way is deluded. If you can't prove it, then you can't be sure.

There are aspects of his work that I greatly enjoy, however, such as his deflation of the argument that we must "respect" other people's religious beliefs. As Dawkins points out, asking me to respect someone's belief in Christianity is no different than asking me to respect my neighbor's conviction that fairies live at the bottom of his garden. The former gets societal respect while the latter gets an involuntary commitment, even though they're equally likely beliefs.

I respect each person's right to believe what he wants. It's a cornerstone of our republic. But the idea that I'm supposed to accord some kind of deference to it, or that it should result in tax free property ownership or other special benefit? Nonsense.

So what do I do with my friends who still retain religious beliefs? Eck. We don't talk about it.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at February 15, 2010 4:46 PM

I cannot think about Richard Dawkins without also thinking about this.

Jen K., you are kicking all of our butts in the Cannonball, and your review was thoughtful, and an honest look at the book. Rock on, lady.

Yoss, I'm thankful for people like you who are willing to recognize that just because someone believes in something that he can't see doesn't make him an idiot.

COMMAndo (buc, I hope you don't mind my silly nickname -- I just don't know if you'll see it if I just type ,): Hang in there, man. For what it's worth, I'm praying for you.

I have so much I still want to say, but I've got way too much work to do today. In my characteristic way, I will spend a month formulating my thoughts and post the world's longest comment here long after the thread dies. ;)

Posted by: Jelinas at February 15, 2010 4:57 PM

Here's a question for you Pajibans: I have never read any Dawkins/Hitchens. As a devoted, non-Conservative Christian, I feel as if I'd like to read some works by either/both authors to round out my philosophical reading experience. I'm not looking to be persuaded to become atheist, but I am interested to hear what they have to say. Where should I start?

Posted by: bonnie at February 15, 2010 5:42 PM

@bonnie:

I would actually say start with Bertrand Russell if you're interested in atheist thinkers. Here's a link: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

Posted by: Royalewithcheese at February 15, 2010 5:58 PM

@ Bonnie

The God Delusion is actually a good book to read if you want the contemporary case for atheism from one of the big celebrity proponents. Dawkins is very intelligent but he is writing in an accessible, popular style.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 15, 2010 6:15 PM

Quick point on the nature of science that many scientists (and "scientists" like Dawkins) seem to forget:

Science is not atheistic. Science is, by definition, agnostic.

If you take seriously the scientific method, you have no choice but to be agnostic. You can attack the specific narratives of specific religions, sure. I can tell you unequivocally that the Earth was not created in 6 literal days, for example. I guarantee you that evolution by natural selection does in fact occur. We have very good evidence on that. But there is no actual evidence on the simple existence of God or gods. Committing to either Religion or Atheism requires making a decision without evidence.

In that regard, Atheism is, itself, a form of Faith. So avowed Atheists and hard line religious folks are actually sort of the same thing.

For this reason, among others, Dawkins irks me. All this "Religion vs. Science" debate that pops up on various issues is entirely asinine. It is not possible to have an objective, scientific position on the existence of God or gods.

He is part of the problem. He's helping perpetuate the opposition between religions and science. As a scientist.... let me tell you that we really don't need that issue. We have enough trouble getting funding without assorted wealthy institutions lobbying against us on some sort of misguided principle.

Back before atheists started using science to attack religion, there used to be scholarly clerics who religious scholars who believed that learning about God's creation was a way of honoring God. It was a much more amicable and sensible relationship.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at February 15, 2010 6:54 PM

Thank you, Jelinas.
---
My point is that she would be like that even if she didn't believe in god.

astounded,

I don't think that's necessarily so, because some religious people believe that through God or Jesus they have undergone a transformative experience that completely altered the direction their lives were heading. Perhaps the most famous example is Paul, in the Bible. IIRC, Paul persecuted the early Christians, had them slaughtered, and after the Damacus road became a champion of the belief system he had despised. It's hard to see how he would not have continued down the path of persecution without believing he'd heard the voice of God speaking to him.

There are no doubt countless similar, if less dramatic, experiences people have had through the centuries since that changed the course of their lives for the better. How does that happen ... I'm not going to say how does that happen if there IS no God, but how does that happen without a BELIEF in something better, something stronger, which might as well be the same thing?

BTW, I'm not trying to convert you or anything, I'm just enjoying the discussion among all the commenters and appreciate that it's been civil and thoughtful.

Posted by: , at February 15, 2010 6:57 PM

Posted by: bonnie at February 15, 2010 5:42 PM

Definitely Dawkins, I personally believe that he's the best non-fiction author I've ever read, in terms of pure writing style. Though I have to say that his books on evolution (I just finished The Greatest Show On Earth) are alot more enjoyable, and I say that as an atheist who takes it quite seriously.

I would stay away from Hitchens because all he's really good for is making people angry, whether it's at him or with him (I tend to fall on the side of with him). Regardless, he doesn't really give good arguments with supporting evidence as much as he delivers screeds supported by anecdotes. I quite enjoyed God Is Not Great, but then I also loved the title.

astounded you've done some good work in this thread, and I just wish I'd gotten up early enough to back you up somewhat, you made most of the points I would have done had I been around.

The only other thing I would like to mention is the religion is child abuse argument. I'm not going to argue that it's as bad as molesting a kid, but that doesn't make it right. Children shouldn't be brought up forced into the worldview of their parents, with psychological blinkers put in place despite how intelligent they may be when it comes to any number of other subjects. My parents may be atheists but they didn't actually tell me until I was 17, and the fact that I behave more like a first-gen than a second-gen (go to any atheist group and you will instantly see what I'm talking about here) suggests to me that they were successful in not forcing their beliefs on me, as it should be.

Posted by: Chugga at February 15, 2010 7:03 PM

@ Bonnie

The book I would recommend for people just getting started in this topic is "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" by Guy P. Harrison.

Guy is a journalist who on his travels around the world, asked people why they believed in a god. He found that no matter what religion he was talking about, many people gave similar reasons. For example, for a Hindu and a Catholic would say they believe in a god because they've been convinced by miracles. After listing each reason and the different people who posit it, he talks about how he as an atheist sees their perspective.

It's a really good book for people who are just dipping their toes in the water of religious criticism. It's not very philosophy heavy, it's written in a style that's easy to read but not light on substance, and the chapters are short (maybe five or ten pages per subject) so it's easy to pick up, read a chapter or two, then do something else while you think about what he's written.

I would actually recommend Harrison's book before Dawkins or Hitchens because he deals with more of the reasons people on the street give for belief in god, and less with philosophical theology.

Posted by: Andrew at February 15, 2010 7:29 PM

@ ZombieScientist

I disagree with your stance on the atheist/agnostic issue. It think the difference is one of definitions.

Belief in something is a true logical dichotomy. Either you believe something is true or you don't believe something is true. Ask someone if they believe X is true and those who say "yes" are Xists and those who say anything other than "yes" are aXists. Insert belief in a god and those you say "yes" are called theists and those who say anything else (eg. I don't know, No, Of course not, I've never thought about it) are atheists.

Separate from belief is knowledge, where a similar scale applies. People who say they have knowledge about something are gnostics whereas people who say they have no knowledge about something are agnostics.

So, there are two scales, one dealing with knowledge and one dealing with belief. I see them laying perpendicular to each other, like a Cartesian coordinate grid. Mapping people's opinions on a god onto the grid and you get: agnostic theists, gnostic theists, gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists.

This isn't anything revolutionary, and it's a distinction that many of the prominent atheist thinkers make.

Committing to either Religion or Atheism requires making a decision without evidence.

No, committing to atheism is not making a decision without evidence. An atheist simply lacks a belief in a god. That's the null hypothesis. It's up to the person saying a phenomenon is real to provide compelling evidence to support it. Until then, I'm justified in saying they haven't made their case, and I don't believe their claims.

Dawkins and other atheists are so concerned with the "Religion vs. Science" debate because the two systems use diametrically opposed methods of determining truth. Religion uses divine revelation which is not dependent on evidentiary support and is often unquestioned and enforced by authority figures for no reason other than they are in charge. Science on the other hand is based on observation and testing hypotheses. It is always questioned and there is always the possibility for even the most solid of findings to be overturned by new evidence. In science anyone can participate and everyone has the opportunity to discover something new and wonderful about the world.

Those ancient clerics may have been studying the natural world to honor god, but they weren't doing science. In science you don't assume the conclusion is true (god exists) and then go from there. Those clerics should have first demonstrated that a god exists and then gone about finding a way to honor it.

Posted by: Andrew at February 15, 2010 7:51 PM

You know, something that I thought of earlier and didn't actually post:

I was brought up Catholic. I went to church most every Sunday when I was very young, and went to Catholic school K-8. I was baptised, and I received communion, and I was confirmed. Somewhere during that time, maybe when I was around 8 or 9, is when I began to question what, exactly, it was I was participating in, and whether I actually believed it. (And good on you, astounded, for investigating the option at 6; me, I was too busy playing with my Barbies and learning phonics to compare religious experiences.) At age 12, when I graduated from the 8th grade and went to a public high school, I also stopped going to church. It was over a period of many, many years that I came to the conclusion that I am, in fact, an atheist. Not an agnostic, though I thought I was that for a while; but very assuredly an atheist.

Now, I do not consider that my parents were "forcing" their beliefs on me; it what simply who they were. They went to church every Sunday, and so I went. I am glad, actually, to have had the experience; I enjoyed the rituals and the hymns, and Father Eugene's sermons were often full of joy and hope (and the man himself was full of life and love; I hope he had, or is still having, a peaceful life). And I believe it gave me a basis for the thoughts that led me to decide on my own that religion was not for me, and eventually, my certainty that there is no such thing as God. It also gave me the ability to recognize that any person, whether they are certain there is God or not, or anywhere in between, is capable of being a good person, or a bad person, or ...well, anywhere in between. I don't believe this is a black-and-white issue, and it so often tends to get broken down into that "people who believe in god are stupid"/"people who are atheists are incapable of being moral" mentality, and I so wish it weren't. The world would be a better place if there were more reasonable discussions, like this one. At any rate, to compare this to child abuse is like saying that feeding your pet table scraps because that's what you're eating is animal abuse. it is not, and it is wrong to compare it to such trauma.

So avowed Atheists and hard line religious folks are actually sort of the same thing.

I am an avowed atheist, and I do not endorse this statement.

perpetuate the opposition between religions and science.

I don't believe in the "religion vs. science" argument. For me, and, I would argue, for many atheists, science has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god. Science is science, and religion has nothing to do with that.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at February 15, 2010 7:55 PM

Nice review Jen - this sounds like something I'd enjoy reading. I think I'm still in the process of figuring out my beliefs, but I'm certainly leaning toward agnosticism. I've poked around in several kinds of religion, and while I admire and even envy people who are certain, I'm just not. I love the idea that we are all connected by a universal energy; the higher power being more of an energy than a being. I try to be respectful of everyone else's thoughts.

Posted by: Cindy at February 15, 2010 8:26 PM

Thanks, everyone, for your suggestions! I'm looking forward to expanding my religious/philosophical horizons.

Posted by: bonnie at February 15, 2010 8:43 PM

I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment (356).

I was never sexually abused. But, after speaking with people who were, I get the impression that they know what was done to them was wrong. This is not the case with being raised religious. They can go through their entire life hating themselves for being "bad". I was raised Catholic, and I see it now as a form of brain-washing. I love my parents (Mom Catholic, Dad some form or another of Protestant at any given time), but recently I've come to resent that I was raised going to Church, and for three years going to a Catholic school. That's some fucked up shit to put on a kid.

Kids are not able to make an informed decisions at age 0.

Posted by: pissant at February 15, 2010 10:35 PM


nothing like religion to stir the intellect. the comments are interesting, if a bit one sided but religion is an easy target. as
some responders have pointed out, religion requires faith in
something that defies knowing and atheists express a sense
of intellectual superiority when referring to believers who have
that faith. as for me, i just don't know so i'm not taking sides but
i know just as many bright people who have faith as who don't.
it's tough to swallow the adam and eve opus but it isn't any easier to believe thet the chimp in the bronx zoo morphed into albert einstein. have at it guys.

Posted by: snake at February 15, 2010 11:12 PM

Andrew, Didn't somebody do a documentary movie the same way, take a camera around and ask people why they believe in God? Seems like it was within the past 2-3 years. Or is my mind just messing with me?

Posted by: , at February 16, 2010 12:05 AM

@ ,

I haven't heard anything about that, but it sounds like something that would be easy to do and a good social experiment.

The thing with Harrison's book though is that he has a wider range of religious views than most other atheist books. Most of the big popular ones deal with the Abrahamic faiths. Harrison spends a lot of time dealing with Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism (as well as comparing the beliefs and reasons for belief with more familiar western and middle-eastern religions).

Posted by: Andrew at February 16, 2010 12:26 AM

ZombieScientist Come on, Science is a kind of Religion! Only the truly faithful can deal with grant applications, university policies and the endless sacrifice of small furry critters on the Altar of What Happens If We...?

Seriously though, I agree that science and religion aren't natural enemies, but sadly, it seems to benefit people on both sides to try to claim that.

It's such a pity, because we really could do so much good if we worked together. My favourite example is that of Trishna and Krishna, siamese twins connected at the head. They were brought to Australia and supported by a religion-based charity, and a bunch of doctor/scientists performed the operation that separated them. There was a beautiful moment of synergy, where the charity was thanking the surgeons for saving the girl's lives, and the chief neurosurgeon was praising the charity for, you guess it, saving the girl's lives. These girls SHARED THEIR BRAIN and now they're all, 'Yup, living apart, doing good, met The Wiggles, bitches.'

Posted by: ScienceGeek at February 16, 2010 2:04 AM

As I can see it from my distant European perspective, we can blame islam and the fundamentalist christianity for the radicalization of the debate religion vs science. I don't think it was such a big deal before "intelligent" design and creationism reared their ugly heads. However, when someone approaches a paleontologist and tells him that what he's doing is idiotic since the earth is 6000 years old, it tends to piss off the said paleontologist. Also, things would be fine and well if religions didn't meddle into scientific stuff such as HIV protection and stem cell researh or human rights stuff such as abortion. I know that even in a secular society stem cell research and abortion would trigger many public discussions. Alas, these discussions would be so much more advanced than the present level of "You'll burn in hell if you do that".
AvB - I wish I was so deep at the age of 6 as you suggest - I just really liked the stories in the illustrated bible my friend had. I especially liked Samson and Delilah. Of course, not so much later on when I found out that Samson was pretty much sent on a killing spree by a genocidal vengeful god...
As for the child abuse discussion - I haven't been abused as a child but the priest explained to us before our first communion how confession works:
we drew ourselves with red spots representing sins. then we drew ourselves w/o the spots after confession. But, if we didn't tell the priest everything - we would have black spots on our souls - mortal sins. Thank you very much asshole for telling an 8 year old that! Like I said, I would never let a nun or a priest near my child...

Posted by: astounded at February 16, 2010 3:59 AM

it's tough to swallow the adam and eve opus but it isn't any easier to believe thet the chimp in the bronx zoo morphed into albert einstein.

Except, all the evidence that supports evolution. And the fact that if it is ever disproved, the scientists (the reals ones, anyway) who "believe" in evolution, will immediately change their minds based on the new evidence.

Real quick, chimps didn't turn into humans. They evolved from a common ancestor.

Posted by: pissant at February 16, 2010 8:37 AM

Sorry, Andrew, but that argument is pure sophistry, and you contradict it yourself at the end:

"It is always questioned and there is always the possibility for even the most solid of findings to be overturned by new evidence. In science anyone can participate and everyone has the opportunity to discover something new and wonderful about the world."

Exactly. And if someone came up with actual evidence for a god tomorrow? Solid, physical evidence? What do you think Dawkins would say?

We have no positive or negative evidence. Science has zero traction on the issue.

Also...

Those ancient clerics may have been studying the natural world to honor god, but they weren't doing science.

Tell that to Isaac Newton or Gregor Mendel. Theist scholar and scholarly cleric, respectively.

This...

"No, committing to atheism is not making a decision without evidence. An atheist simply lacks a belief in a god. That's the null hypothesis. It's up to the person saying a phenomenon is real to provide compelling evidence to support it. Until then, I'm justified in saying they haven't made their case, and I don't believe their claims.

...is a fundamental lack of understanding how science works. It's so common a misunderstanding that many trained scientists fall into the trap.

If you cannot start with the statement "I don't know" then you have closed your mind and you are not behaving as a scientist. Science comes from the tradition of natural philosophy. All knowledge begins from the statement "I don't know." If you start from a position of assumed knowledge, you will bias your own results.

That's just how the human brain works.

AvB, we agree wholeheartedly on this point:
"I don't believe in the "religion vs. science" argument. For me, and, I would argue, for many atheists, science has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god. Science is science, and religion has nothing to do with that.

That's part of what I was getting at. The opposition is a mistake of thought. The two don't have anything to say to one another because the tools of the scientific method are not applicable to the question: "Is there a God?".

Since science's toolkit can't touch the subject, from the perspective of the scientific method, you really can't distinguish between a theist and an atheist. There are plenty of other frameworks for thought that allow you to reject theism. Science in its pure form currently does not.

I am, however, entirely with you on rejecting the Catholic interpretation of God. I was raised in that environment and even taught that shit myself for years before I finally let myself walk away. The dogma insists on truths that contradict fact. You can reject that within the boundaries of science. But many of, say, the non-Evangelical protestant religions? They operate from the perspective that those stories are allegorical, not historical. Science simply can't argue with that.

Sciencegeek knows where it's at. He even understands the godawful funding treadmill. When I'm on that, all bets are off. I have regular voodoo sacrifices just to cover my bases. ;)

Seriously though, I agree that science and religion aren't natural enemies, but sadly, it seems to benefit people on both sides to try to claim that.

It is my hypothesis that it really, really doesn't. Leastways it doesn't actually benefit scientists. Politicizing the research space is almost always a bad idea. When a church throws their weight into politicizing it, science's best move is NOT to say, "You are all wrongheaded idiots and your belief is wrong." You can't win that argument. Belief is not subject to rational argument.

However, if you marshal a bunch of rational reasons to proceed with what needs to be done, and you remain respectful of their position but politely disagree, staying above the mudslinging... most people in Western society eventually come around to your point of view.

History shows that in spades.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at February 16, 2010 9:54 AM

As far as I'm concerned, Richard Dawkins does not believe in God, nor does he believe in Science. He believes in Richard Dawkins, and that's why I got halfway through The God Delusion before I threw it across the room.

Posted by: That Girl at February 16, 2010 10:51 AM

I was never sexually abused. But, after speaking with people who were, I get the impression that they know what was done to them was wrong. This is not the case with being raised religious. They can go through their entire life hating themselves for being "bad".

Well, pissant, I actually was sexually abused as a child (multiple times by multiple people -- the ghetto is messed up, yo), and, I have to say, that Dawkins quote really got my dander up.

My parents were pretty blindly religious when I was growing up -- my mom made us go to church every Sunday, even though we hated it. We weren't allowed to spend the night at friends' houses, we had to read the Bible every day, and we weren't allowed to watch TV at all (but we would always watch when my parents weren't home). Once, as a punishment, my brother had to go to his room for ten minutes and look at a picture of Jesus. Even as a ten-year-old, I could snicker at this -- looking at Jesus is supposed to be a punishment? Nice, Mom.

On top of that, we were raised in an extremely conservative Korean household, which is even more shame-based than most Pajibans' views of organized religion. We were regularly punished and berated for not getting straight A's (a feat I never accomplished), forced into extracurricular activities we hated (Korean school, violin, some cheesy Korean children's choir) and denied permission to participate in activities we enjoyed (drama, art) because they weren't respectable enough.

One time, in first grade, I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning and refused to change out of my pajamas to go to school. So my mom stripped me completely butt-naked and unceremoniously shoved me outside. She left me screaming and crying hysterically in the yard until I would submit to getting dressed in my school clothes.

Some would call this abuse. I just call it growing up Korean. It was my life every day.

And none of it even came close to messing me up half as much as the sexual abuse I suffered. What happened to me wasn't nearly as bad as some of the other stories I've heard. But I still thought about what happened to me every day for years (and still do on occasion). It's with you forever, even if you can come to a point where it doesn't ruin your daily life anymore (fortunately, I think I'm there).

And because you're just a kid, you feel guilty. You don't know why, but you do. You feel like you can't tell your parents about it, even if they tell you that you can tell them anything (mine never said anything like that, but that's beside the point). Mine still don't know what happened to me.

Maybe some religions make people hate themselves for being "bad." Mine made me love myself for being better than other people. But I could never fully feel comfortable in my own skin because I couldn't stop feeling this irrational guilt over what happened to me. I knew it was irrational. I knew that the people who had abused me were the ones who were wrong. But I couldn't stop the guilt and I couldn't move on from it. I saw myself as damaged goods for most of my life and none of that came from my ultra-conservative upbringing. It all stemmed from the abuse.

Are there people who feel the same way about oppressive religions? Sure. But I think that many of them would agree that, in many cases (not all -- there are always extreme cases on both sides), sexual abuse is generally more traumatic.

I don't think I'm that easily offended (would I survive as a Pajiban otherwise?), but I have to admit that I was a little offended by Dawkins' statement. And I wasn't offended as a Christian. I was offended as a victim of sexual abuse. He's trying to illustrate how terrible religious oppression can be. But I think his illustration had the unintended consequence of belittling the trauma of sexual abuse. I can personally assure you that even one brief incident is quite traumatizing.

That said, the ultimate trauma has to be someone who was sexually abused by someone in the clergy. Man, that sucks.

Sorry. That was long. But I don't get to talk about this very often because it's not exactly something you'd bring up at a dinner party. But it happens a lot more than people know, and I thought it was a little cavalier of Dawkins to say what he did. Maybe it's not as bad in the context of the book.

By the way, pissant, my vitriol was in no way directed at you. I find you to be quite an eloquent Eloquent, and I respect your opinion. It's just that Dawkins pushed a very sensitive button of mine and set off an explosion in me that would have made Michael Bay shrink into a corner and cry for mercy.

Sorry if that was too much informa-- eh, what am I talking about? You people welcome and embrace TMI. Unless it involves centipedes.

Posted by: Jelinas at February 16, 2010 3:56 PM

@ ZombieScientist

Buhwaah?

I have no idea how my argument could be considered sophistry. Could you please provide more detail?

As far as evidence of a god turning up tomorrow: I would admit that a god exists should such evidence appear. So would Dawkins. So would any skeptic who was proven wrong about something. We're always excited to discover new things.

I was at The Amazing Meeting 7 last spring and on the final day there was a preliminary test for the Million Dollar Challenge. The room was packed and when the dowser failed, there was a general sense of disappointment. It would have been so cool had we been there when we learned something so astonishing and new about the world. We would have gladly admitted we had been wrong, because that's what the evidence says.

Isaac Newton didn't discover the laws of gravity or fluid dynamics by praying and divine revelation. He used mathematics and hard work. He also wasted half of his life searching for hidden codes in the Bible. Imagine what more he could have done had he not been sucked into something for which there is no evidence.

This is a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works.

This is really strange. Just because we start from the position of not knowing anything, doesn't mean that we can't learn things and then apply what we've learned to further endeavors.

If someone came up to you and claimed that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon, would you tell them: "I don't know how earthquakes are caused. Poseidon is a god, therefore as a scientist I can't say anything about that." Or would you say: "No, Poseidon doesn't cause earthquakes. Earthquakes are caused by tectonic plates slipping along fault lines."

Unless that explanation is just my personal bias.

I would also like to hear how you think science works. I think that it is an extrospective, objective, recursive, self-correcting method of learning about the universe. It goes something like this:

1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Data collection/synthesis
4. Hypothesis revision.
5. Repeat 3 & 4.

Also, who do you think has the burden of proof when discussing a claim. Is it the person who is saying something is true and accurate, or is it the person who is saying that they don't believe the first person because they haven't presented enough evidence.

Atheism is the null hypothesis because it isn't making any claims. It is simple the lack of belief in a god or goddess. That's all.

Finally in the following section you begin by saying that science can't approach the question "Does a god exist?" That depends entirely on the god and its characteristics. In the very next paragraph, you reject the notion of a Catholic god. However did you come to this conclusion? Was it based on evidence? Reason? Logic? What?

Posted by: Andrew at February 16, 2010 4:40 PM

By the way, pissant, my vitriol was in no way directed at you.

S'cool, I felt no vitriol. To clarify, I wasn't saying that I agree with Dawkins. I was only saying that I could see his side of that statement.

Posted by: pissant at February 16, 2010 7:04 PM

Jesus jumped-up Christ on a motorcart, you're dogmatic. Another characteristic shared by the certain, whether they be fundamentalist religious folks or fundamentalist atheists.

Certainty is an illusion. A complete and utter myth. That is the first thing anyone who actually practices science learns.

In any case, you need to stop over-generalizing. There is an ocean of difference between saying "Plate tectonics cause earthquakes" and saying "There is no such thing as Poseidon." And there is no logical or scientific way to get from "Plate tectonics cause earthquakes" to "there is no such thing as a god."

The first statement is a scientific statement supported by evidence. The second is a leap past what that evidence can strictly tell us, but if you work a bit harder, you can pile together enough evidence for it. The third isn't even on the farking map. You cannot get there from here within the boundaries of evidence-based methods. And science is evidence-based.

You are clinging to a vague approximation of the scientific method and using it to reject something you've already concluded is false.

That second part in particular sets off alarm bells and is anathema to the scientific method. Don't worry, you're in esteemed company. Thousands of respected scientists do it every day.

Guess it's time to put on my "instructor" hat. I'm going to run over in a few paragraphs things that take a semester of study, but I suppose that's what the internet is for, right? Rampant reductionism.

In any case.... How do you structure a hypothesis test?

Kept simple.... You structure it in order to reject the null hypothesis.

We do NOT prove things. We only disprove things. Einstein said it very well: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." This is central to the Scientific Method. We work very hard to minimize Type II Error. We do NOT state that things are true if there is the slightest chance that they are false.

And don't give me the "inductive reasoning" line. Just in case you've taken the prereqs to this class.... If you try to quote Hempel at me, I'll throw a brick at you. First, Hempel was an ass. Second, inductive reasoning is subject to the frailties of human thought, which are many and varied. Science needs to be strictly evidence-based or we end up on a slippery slope.

Furthermore, the null hypothesis must be as narrow as possible. Vagueness or ambiguity lead to overly broad interpretations.

Basically, you risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For example, we can prove that Poseidon is not the proximal cause of earthquakes. But you cannot use that exact hypothesis test to extend to the notion that no gods exist. You need to either do about 10 billion individual hypothesis tests or else you need to find what they call the "crucial experiment" that will properly test your thesis.

Let me know when you've found it. Westerners have been looking for it since about 1587 with no luck.

Dawkins and his compatriots have done a handful of limited empirical tests and a whole bunch of inductive reasoning to justify an overly broad conclusion. That is almost the archetype of bad science.

On the Catholicism issue... Catholicism, unlike many other Christian religions, insists upon literal interpretation of most of the Bible. We can disprove many of those facts. I went ahead and started doing it back in about 3rd grade when I was in Catholic school. Drove the nuns batty.

I would be comfortable leaving it there. I was ready to accept the message whilst telling the messengers to go screw. I don't think the notion "Love your neighbor" needs to come packaged with a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark, a heavy itemization of Leviticus and Romans I, and centuries worth of personification of both a manic-depressive Father and an Adversary. But Catholic dogma insists that Catholics accept every letter of it (including the parts written two thousand years later by whoever sits on the Papal throne). Since they insist it be treated as a whole, I am comfortable throwing it out as a whole.

I will admit this is not sound scientific practice. I am over-generalizing, and I did so here because I agreed with some of AvB's comments. But then, I'm throwing out one singular religious tradition based on dozens of individual hypothesis tests and almost 2 decades of constant experimentation. You're throwing out the entire concept of a god based on nothing more than inductive reasoning.

Oh, and as an aside, I don't think you have the right to cast aspersions of Isaac Newton. Dude did more with the first half of his life than most people could do with 4 lives. Also, his retiring from science had a great deal to do with personal and political issues as well as health issues related to his chemical experiments. He didn't bow out to go look for codes in the Bible. They drop this from his Wikipedia entry all the time for some reason, but he spent that time in public service. Among other things, he was instrumental in preventing counterfeit and redefining the economics of the country.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at February 16, 2010 8:37 PM

@ ZombieScientist

I'm not dogmatic. How could you possibly get dogmatic out of:

It would have been so cool had we been there when we learned something so astonishing and new about the world. We would have gladly admitted we had been wrong, because that's what the evidence says.

I have repeatedly said that should compelling evidence be presented, I would change my mind. That's an odd definition of dogmatic. But, maybe I'm being dogmatic with my definition of dogmatic.

I used the example of earthquakes and Poseidon because Poseidon was the god who caused earthquakes. He was the ancient Greek's explanation for earthquakes. Of course that explanation wasn't based on evidence, it was a story they made up to reassure themselves; they felt as though they were in more control of their lives because they had an explanation for a random, uncontrollable event, evidence based or not.

My point has to do with characteristics, attributes and effects the god or goddess is claimed to have. You can make a list of all of them for any god. Then go through that list and see if they conflict with the way we understand the universe. Poseidon causing earthquakes conflicts with what we know about earthquakes, so we can cross that off the list. If you go through the list and cross off everything that god supposedly does, then what is left? Poseidon may exist, but he doesn't cause earthquakes, or control the weather on the sea, or many other things we now understand. So, is he still Poseidon if he doesn't have any of the defining characteristics of Poseidon? If we go through all the different gods humans have claimed to exist and find that there is no effect that can be attributed to them, then what does that say about their possible existence?

I agree that science is evidence based, but that is not the only consideration. We also need to consider prior plausibility. For example people have presented studies supposedly showing efficacy for homeopathy, but they are practically useless because the prior plausibility of homeopathy is next to zero, and therefore the standard for the evidence is sky high (water has no magical properties; oops, was that a dogmatic statement?) The same issue of prior probability comes up when discussing god claims.

Prior plausibility separates evidence-based conclusions from truly science-based conclusions.

I have no idea what you're talking about concerning doing experiments especially related to Dawkins. It isn't my (or his) job to do any experiments. We're not making any claims. We're saying to theists "We don't believe you." That's not a claim, it's just a statement of disbelief.

I don't think you have the right to cast aspersions of Isaac Newton.

So looking for the Bible code wasn't a waste of time? I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you think there is something to it?

Also, his retiring from science had a great deal to do with personal and political issues as well as health issues related to his chemical experiments. He didn't bow out to go look for codes in the Bible.

I never said this.

Many of his pursuits were on-again off-again for all of his life. That doesn't mean that wasted time isn't wasted time, whether it occurs in a big block or dispersed.

Finally, neither Dawkins, nor I, have come to a conclusion. We're not making a claim; how could we come to a conclusion? I have no idea where you've gotten this odd concept. Could you please provide a direct quote?

Posted by: Andrew at February 16, 2010 9:30 PM

Hey, pissant, FWIW, I can see it, too. I don't agree with it, and I think the illustration was a li'l extreme, but I can see what he means. I don't agree with it, but I can see what he means.

Posted by: Jelinas at February 17, 2010 12:06 AM