This is the final episode of the three part special of The Genius of Charles Darwin.
Tags: charles darwin, darwin, dawkins, evolution, natural selection, part 2, part two, richard, richard dawkins, the genius of charles darwin
Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4iOyVQOBr4
Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce2q6RIHEYA
Part Four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88xaDHdjwhg
Part Five: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88xaDHdjwhg
This is part two of the three part series that Richard Dawkins has created to remember his hero Charles Darwin.
Tags: charles darwin, darwin, dawkins, evolution, natural selection, part 2, part two, richard, richard dawkins, the genius of charles darwin
The God Delusion, a 2006 book by British Scientist Richard Dawkins is the exact opposite of a casual read. From the opening chapters, the book challenges the reader to rethink their beliefs and question why they ever thought that way in the first place. This is where the differences between The God Delusion and your run of the mill religious/”inspirational” books begin (and there’s quite a few of them), but certainly not where it ends. The God Delusion is simply not meant for a close minded person, for it requires the reader to do exactly what the Bible or the Quran don’t, and that is to think for themselves.
The book begins by differentiating Einsteinian “religion” and theistic religion. This book intends to debate the former and not the latter. That distinction is one that needs to be made prior to the bulk of the argument. As, the concept of Deism or Pantheism is light years away from theistic religion…though very often they are grouped together as if they are very similar in nature, when in fact they are not. It then addresses the odd cultural norm of respect given to faith. Many people believe things that are a matter of faith should be respected blindly and never questioned. We can debate all sorts of topics, from sports to politics, but when it comes to faith…one must do so “respectfully.” This cultural norm has allowed religion to get away with mind boggling stupidity.
This chapter largely deals with the claim of a god. First it discusses how monotheism is not much of an advancement from polytheism, and how one needs to simply subtract one more god from monotheism to reach a real intellectual stance, atheism. It then dismisses the claim that many folk in America make that the founding fathers were Christians and the constitution was written with a Christian god in mind. That is a claim that’s very often made, yet never substantiated, (as it couldn’t be)…The men who are considered the founding fathers were in fact children of the Enlightenment, and largely could be considered Deists rather than theists. The rest of the chapter is devoted to other such claims which are also false.
The third chapter is rather self explanatory, it deals with various claims made to support god’s existence. These claims include, Thomas Aquinas “proofs,” The ontological argument, The argument from beauty, The argument from personal experience, The argument from scripture, The argument from admired religious scientists, Pascal’s Wager and Bayesian arguments. Most arguments you have heard for god’s existence often take root in those groups, and Dawkins promptly negates all these arguments as being possible to prove god’s existence.
Many people stop right at the point that, “we can’t completely disprove god, therefore we should leave the topic alone.” That is of course is a rather weak thing, because if our ancestors thought the same way, we would still be thinking that lightning was part of god’s will. This chapter provides the reasoning to go from a(n) Agnostic, Deistic or Pantheistic stance all the way to the Atheistic world view.
A common argument for the possibility of the existence of a god is one that states, “religion is a human universal, therefore god must exist in some form.” Again, the premise is correct yet the conclusion is off the mark entirely. That is of course the problem with much of the religious thought, the premise is the search for truth, and the conclusion is that, “I don’t know, therefore god did it…” When will people realize that even if you say “god did it,” that doesn’t explain anything at all. Back to the book itself, in the bulk of this chapter, Dawkins explores the history of religion, its purpose for human survival and its development over thousands of years. It is a very interesting chapter for anyone who is possibly enticed by the argument of its universality.
Another very interesting chapter, very similar to the previous chapter, except with regards to morality. An argument that many religious moderates use is the one from morality. They believe that, without the “great” monotheism’s, we wouldn’t know right from wrong. The moral precepts left by the history of religion is why society on the whole is good, therefore religion might be physically true, but it serves a great purpose. Again, a horrible argument, though a much weaker stance than most others. If you have ever read Dawkins’ earlier work such as, The Selfish Gene, one can get a good grasp of how this chapter starts. Morality is beneficial for individual human survival and, thus evolution by natural selection would keep it going. The argument Dawkins makes is far more complex than just that, and is grounded in more biological facts, but that is the jist of it. He then discusses the argument raised in the book “The Brothers Karamazov,” and that is, “why be good if there is no god.” That is such a despicable question, and an insult to humans, it other words, the question is asking, “Would you murder you neighbor if you knew there was no ultimate punishment?”…If you really are stopped from killing and raping due to your belief in god’s existence, you are not moral, and actually quite the opposite.
Every chapter in this book has been great, and it does not let up here either. This chapter talks about the morality (or lack thereof) within the supposed “good” book. It continues to demonstrate how any decent religious person would have to pick and choose which parts of the “good” book to accept, and which to leave aside. This cherry picking is extremely interesting, as unconsciously, people realize that certain parts are moral and certain parts are immortal. This judgement that seemingly any religious person has is available to everyone. So it is therefore established, religion gets our morality from us, not the other way around. It then delves into the wickedness of the New Testament, often regarded as a much more moral book that the Old Testament. While obviously the New Testament is an upgrade over its predecessor, its morality isn’t very praiseworthy either. The notion of Heaven and Hell that is promoted is a specific aspect in which the New Testament is actually more wicked. It then discusses a few eye opening studies and statistics which really put things into perspective. The chapter closes with refuting the old, “Hitler and Stalin were Atheists…” I wont even give that argument any refutation as it is baseless and false, though Dawkins does quite masterfully.
An earlier chapter advances the view of the Atheist, and this chapter advances the view of the Anti-Theist as well as the justification of vocal criticism of religion. Most readers of this blog will already know why I am personally hostile to religion, and faith in general, but Dawkins adds quite a few more reasons: the religious right and their opposition to the teaching of science, stem cell research and homosexuality. He then articulates a point made by American Author, Sam Harris, and that is how moderation provides a cloak for extremism. The major argument is against faith, as faith is a cop-out of thinking, it allows people to take actions without really thinking them over, or just assuming they are right because god or their preacher said so. We have already seen the disastrous effects that faith can have when met with modernity, and thus the position to oppose religion in the public sphere is advanced as vital for modernity.
This chapter is very similar to my blog post on Child Abuse and Religion, as this is what that blog post is based upon. Dawkins takes issue with the labeling of young children, likening it to a form of child abuse. By not giving a child a chance to label (or not label) themselves, the parents are in effect stunting the child’s growth as a thinker and person. By automatically giving them a label, they make it that much harder for the child to escape the religion later in life. Dawkins often talks about how the Feminists employed a campaign of “consciousness-raising” and that is exactly what this chapter does. We wouldn’t dare call a child of racist parent a racist child, yet we accept that parents can label their own children on their own beliefs. Dawkins does say that we must of course educate children on religion, as one cannot understand modern history without it, but not allowing a child to choose which religion, or even no religion they want to follow is indeed a form of child abuse.
Many Atheists say they miss their former religion, almost like a missing limb. They wish they could believe, but simply cannot given the evidence otherwise and the lack of evidence for god’s existence. They miss the feeling of community and inspiration. They say that only religion can fill that gap, but is that really true. Of course I would affirm it is not true. Religion makes people feel good, and it provides quite a deal of comfort. My personal issue with such a stance is that, it means nothing, just because it feels good means absolutely nothing. Wouldn’t it be much more comforting to know the truth? Doesn’t knowledge of the real universe provide so much more awe and inspiration? I would maintain that it does, and a religious explanation of the universe actually cheapens the truth. This book review is thus over, but I will end with the beautiful ending of The God Delusion By Richard Dawkins.
How should we interpret Haldane’s ‘queerer than we can
suppose’? Queerer than can, in principle, be supposed? Or just
queerer than we can suppose, given the limitation of our brains’
evolutionary apprenticeship in Middle World? Could we, by training
and practice, emancipate ourselves from Middle World, tear off
our black burka, and achieve some sort of intuitive - as well as just
mathematical - understanding of the very small, the very large, and
the very fast? I genuinely don’t know the answer, but I am thrilled
to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of
understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there
are no limits.
Tags: anti-theism, Atheism, christianity, dawkins, deism, delusion, god, islam, Religion, richarddawkins, thegoddelusion, theism
Copyright © 2008 Moiz Khan - The godless Liberal
Powered by WordPress
Subscribe in a reader