Book review: The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins)

Information: A review of Richard Dawkins' provocative new book, The God Delusion.

Feminism shows us the power of consciousness-raising, and I want to borrow the technique for natural selection (p.116)

I really do not like Richard Dawkins, and let me explain why. Whenever I have heard or read his comments on religion I always felt he came across as someone who willingly criticised believers for holding strong views about the existence of God, yet himself a committed atheist of equal passion. I also felt that his constant attacks on religion and belief in God were unnecessary, and betrayed the thinking of someone who maybe did not feel very secure in his atheism. However, the main reason I dislike Richard Dawkins these days is because having read The God Delusion, I now find that my so-called religious foe and I share very similar views on almost every topic he covers. I also found the book a hugely enjoyable read (in a difficult-to-put-down sort of way), and one of the better (introductory) books on the philosophy of religion I have read (even though I bet he never intended to write one). Quite simply, I found its clear, perceptive and witty perspective on all the topics it covered to be intoxicating...

God, I really do not like Richard Dawkins!

I would describe The God Delusion as a work of three parts. First, Dawkins (as we would expect) outlines the traditional theistic proofs for God's existence, and his reasons for rejecting them. Considering he is first and foremost a scientist, this review of the subject-matter is extremely proficient, and Dawkins' dismissal of God's existence based on traditional proofs is done (in the most part) competently, and respectfully.

Some... good principles can be found in holy books, but buried alongside much else that no descent person would wish to follow: and the holy books do not supply any rules for distinguishing the good principles from the bad (p.263)

Secondly (as we would also expect), the book examines the nature of religious belief within the context of biological evolution, and reasons for understanding religion as largely a remnant of an evolving (human) consciousness. Although at times this section borders on the speculative, I believe Dawkins generally succeeds in raising our consciousness enough to consider an alternative reading of the nature of religion, in light of our present understanding of biological evolution. Finally, the book concludes with a challenge for all of us to see the danger of transplanting a religious worldview onto children ('a child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents, or a child of Muslim parents' (p.339)), and a call for them to be given greater choice as to whether they believe (in God), or not.

If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no more suicide bombers (p.308)

It is only in this final section that the earlier thesis, that religion is a harmful thing, seems somewhat undermined by concluding that people should be free to choose to be religious, or not.

Advertisements

Having read (and surprisingly enjoyed) The God Delusion, I no longer consider Richard Dawkins to be someone out to attack religion at every opportunity, and to convert everyone to atheism. Although he would clearly love to live in a world without organised (or any) religion, for me Dawkins' role in the God-debate now is rather like that of the Masked Magician, Val Valentino. Valentino caused outrage amongst professional magicians several years ago for his role in four television specials (Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed), in which he exposed the secrets of the most well-known and popular illusions being performed by magicians today. In the fourth and final 'special', the Masked Magician explained that he had done this because he felt magicians had become lazy in their craft, and that he wanted to inspire (some might say force) them to invent new illusions, and for them to find new ways to mystify and entertain people in the modern age. In many ways I believe Dawkins has done for theology and the philosophy of religion in The God Delusion, what the Masked Magician did for magic.

Although this book has been clearly written by a committed atheist, I believe it should actually inspire theists around the world to find better ways to 'prove' what they believe is true - namely that God exists! One could quite easily reject and simply write-off the book as the work of a misguided unbeliever. However, I believe that would be to miss the opportunity Dawkins has given theologians and philosophers of religion. For me, The God Delusion exposes the now tired and familiar 'tricks' (arguments) theologians and philosophers of religion regularly use, to 'prove' that God exists. For centuries, theologians and philosophers of religion have attempted to justify God's existence based on notions of design, cosmology, morality etc., yet Dawkins competently shows that there are other ways of explaining why things are as they are in the world, which do not require us to believe in God. In doing so, the 'magician's' sleeve has once and for all been rolled up, and the 'gimmick' well and truly exposed...

Dawkins intended the The God Delusion to be a consciousness-raising book, and I believe he has achieved this (despite one or two short-comings noted earlier). But the question now is, how will theists respond to it? Will they stick their head in the sand and insist that all is well, while the world around them moves on, or will they rise to the challenge and show that the existence of God is not (for them), a Delusion? My fear is that there will be far too many sand-filled ear-holes, in the not too distant future...

Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It's not - it's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an 'I dunno' dressed up on spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to God, generally what it means is that they haven't got a clue (p.134)

Hardcover: 416 pages
Published: September 18, 2006

Further reading