http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
In his 420-page negation of both the existence of a god and the benefits of religious belief, Richard Dawkins creates a novel that is sure to stand the test of time. Unique in the extent that he attacks the institution of religion, Dawkins criticizes the most famous ‘proofs’ of god, scientifically details the improbability of a divine creator, proposes theories for the roots of both religion and morality, explains the evils of religion and why it is so important to abandon it, and, most importantly, calls the general population to raise their consciousness to the wonderful possibility that is atheism. There truly is not an aspect of the religious debate that Dawkins does not tackle. In all ten chapters of his book, he incorporates and analyzes quotes from other writings on religion by both theists and atheists to completely dominate the issue of god.
Throughout all of this, Dawkins demonstrates his place in society as not only the face of modern atheism but also as a great novelist, as he is able to flow between styles of precise logic when detailing his explanation of evolution and comical incredulity when commenting on the persistent beliefs of creationists. Notably different from other novels refuting the existence of God, Dawkins is able to incorporate a subtle type of ironic humor that will leave a careful reader rolling on the floor laughing. In an effort to make sure that every assertion is proven thoroughly and every possible counter-argument is refuted (something that Dawkins’s opponents fail to do), The God Delusion can get a bit dull in places of extensive analysis.
Not to worry though, the quality of Dawkins’s arguments is unparalleled. If read by every religious person on the face of the Earth, there is no doubt that a overwhelming majority of them will end the novel having seriously questioned their religious beliefs. The elegance and never-ending logical insight that Dawkins provides makes it a must read. The publication of this book represents the greatest leap in the atheistic movement in the history of religion. People are now armed with the greatest arsenal of ideas an atheist could ever ask for in the never ending battle against religion (although don’t misunderstand the metaphor. We are an incredibly gentle people.). After reading The God Delusion, I have serious hope that more children will reject their parent’s indoctrination of religion and become aware of the possibility of atheism. My goal of living in a world free of religion may become a reality before I die; and this great book may have triggered it all.
Few things satisfy me as greatly as an ingeniously elegant argument. And I didn’t just choose the words “ingeniously” and “elegant” randomly. They have very specific definitions that set them apart from wonderfully persuasive arguments or incredibly logical arguments. To be ingenious, the argument must answer a seemingly insolvable problem in an extraordinary fashion, one that the average person would never stumble upon. Ingenuity demands the creativity to go beyond any obvious solution and the perceptive logic to make the argument airtight. Elegance is an adjective that is usually attributed to famous math or physics equations. An equation or, in this case, an argument is elegant when it says a great deal in very few words. Einstein’s most famous equation, relating mass and energy is E=mc^2. In six simple symbols, Einstein was able to change physics forever. Its elegance is derived from the impact it is able to have on society without being overwhelmingly incomprehensible.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Richard Dawkins’s novel The God Delusion, I encountered many arguments that were ingenious but not elegant (his theory on “where religion comes from and why all human cultures have it” was completely convincing, but after the 40th page on the same argument, I started to lose focus.). Some passages were elegant but not ingenious (his negation that “Hitler and Stalin did their terrible deeds because they were atheists” was compact and tremendous, but I had heard it elsewhere.). And some arguments were neither ingenious nor elegant (his argument that “the logic of Darwinism concludes that the unit… which survives… will tend to be selfish” but that this does not mean that “a selfish person” is the only one that will survive was distasteful and rather confusing.).
But there were few of these ordinary or puzzling passages. Most of the book was wonderful. And I encountered many arguments that were ingenious and elegant. They have captivated my mind ever since I finished the novel. And I would like to discuss my favorite here.
In my opinion this argument is Dawkins’s best rebuttal against any possibility of rational religious belief. It begins with the theists claim that “without religion, one cannot be good, or even want to be good.” Religious people state that the bible is the true source of morality; and that if you don’t believe in god, you can’t truly be moral. When atheists try to point out that the bible is not entirely moral itself by saying
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”
the moderate religious population likes to “protest that the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac should not be taken as literal fact”. And this is the point where Dawkins completely undermines religious faith. He says that if we are able to selectively decide which parts of the bible to accept and which to ignore “then we must have some independent criterion for deciding which are the moral bits: a criterion which, wherever it comes from, cannot come from scripture itself and is presumably available to all of us whether we are religious or not” (275). By doing so, Dawkins proves that humans do not get their moral consciousness from the bible directly, and that atheists are no less moral than theists. By being able to decide which parts of the bible are indeed acceptable and which are vicious, the religious person reveals that he does not need the bible to determine his morals.
Such an argument is without a doubt both ingenious and elegant. In only a few sentences Dawkins has thought of a rebuttal to theists that is entirely convincing. It removes the bible as the source of all morality from our lives, an act that would rock the religious world if everyone were exposed to the novel.
i properly formatted the description of the god of the old testament in my word document...
ReplyDeletedamn you, blogspot!!!