The God Delusion: A Critique

[Admiral Valdemar]

Found online from a talking head, I find this is becoming an increasingly common response to Dawkins' work and all secular people concerned about religion in our lives today.

For religion to be a positive force for good, it must be rescued not simply from extremism – faith as a means of exclusion; but also from irrelevance - an interesting part of our history but not of our future. Too many people see religious faith as represented in stark dogmatism and empty ritualism. Faith is reduced to a system of strange convictions and actions that, to some, can appear far removed from the necessities and anxieties of ordinary life. It is this face that gives militant secularism an easy target. It mocks certain of the practices and traditions of organised religion which they define as ‘faith’. ‘Faith’ is to be found in the cassocks and the gowns and the rituals.

Reading the Dawkins book – The God Delusion – I am struck by how much the militant secularist and the religious extremist need each other. The God Delusion is a brilliant polemic but rests entirely – as does the more reasonable The Blind Watchmaker - on the view that those who believe in God believe in Him as a means of exclusion, as a frightening, irrational piece of superstition and mumbo-jumbo which then justifies the unjustifiable.

To be fair, people of this view do respect some of what is done in the name of faith, but believe it could be done and done better in the name of humanity, without the encumbrance of faith. I agree that you don’t need to be religious to be good – a true statement but which itself often then becomes one that can exclude religion from the idea of doing good – a very different proposition. For the less militant secularist the notion of faith is at best harmless but misguided; and the role of religion at best expressed in beautiful churches, in religiously inspired art, in all the history and culture of countries when religion was dominant. This aesthetic or historical view of religious faith sees faith as an interesting part of tradition but with little or no contemporary relevance.

Again, I agree: belief in God can be about superstition, or fear – how many of us make promises to God when frightened, only to forget them when the danger passes? But if that were all faith was, it would never have lasted or deserved to.
So why despite it all does faith persist, why has it not disappeared with the advent of modern science and technology; why despite all the aspects of organised religion and unorganised religion that put people off, does religious faith continue to be a focal point for millions as to how they lead their lives? Why does it continue to inspire works of supreme self-sacrifice and selflessness?

This is because, along with all the doctrine and theology, the practice and the ritual, at the core faith represents a profound yearning within the human spirit. Indeed it is why we talk about the spirit.

Faith answers to the basic, irrepressible, irresistible human wish for spiritual betterment, to do good, to think and act beyond the limitations of selfish human desires. More than that , it is rooted in a belief that the impulse to do good or try to, is not utilitarian or self-interested but is about putting aside self, in being aware of something bigger, more central, more essential to our human condition than self. In this, the ‘other’ is not to be rejected still less excluded, but embraced as more important than you or me. And people of faith believe we are driven or guided to this end. For those who feel in this way, God is not some wise Old Man up in the sky, but the true source of life. God is selfless love, merciful and an infinite dispenser of Grace.

Organised religion seen in this light, is, then, not about arid ritual but a collective demonstration of faith, a coming together of people who believe in the power of God’ s mercy and love, who believe that it is of universal application, and who in coming together symbolise that communion with God and with fellow human beings.

In this way, Faith guides our lives, knowing our weakness and granting us strength.

Faith corrects, in a necessary and vital way, the tendency humankind has to relativism. It says there are absolutes – like the inalienable worth and dignity of every human being – that can never be sacrificed. It gives true moral fibre. We err, we do wrong, we sin but at least we know it and we feel the compunction to do better and the need to seek God’s forgiveness.

Faith is a living and growing belief, not stuck in one time in history, even if for those of faith at some point in history our own religion began, but moving with time, with reason, with knowledge, informed by scientific and technological discovery not in antithesis to it, as well as directing those discoveries toward humane ends.

Faith is not something separate from our reason, still less from society around us, but integral to it, giving the use of reason a purpose and society a soul, and human beings a sense of the divine.

This is the life purpose that cannot be found in constitutions, speeches, stirring art or rhetoric. It is a purpose uniquely centred around kneeling before God.
For those of us of faith, this is what it means. And whilst we should not foist our belief on others, we should not be ashamed either to assert it or be proud of it. For us, faith is not an historical relic but a guide for humanity on its path to the future. A faithless world is not one in which we want ourselves and our children to live.

If people of different faiths can co-exist happily, in mutual respect and solidarity, so can our world. And if faith takes its proper place in our lives, then we can live with a purpose beyond ourselves alone, supporting humanity on its journey to fulfilment.

This is from Tony Blair.

Comments? Anyone care to spot fallacies?

[Phillip Hone]

So why despite it all does faith persist, why has it not disappeared with the advent of modern science and technology; why despite all the aspects of organised religion and unorganised religion that put people off, does religious faith continue to be a focal point for millions as to how they lead their lives? Why does it continue to inspire works of supreme self-sacrifice and selflessness?

Why does racism persist, even after the claims of most racists have been completely refuted by science? Why do many cling to racism, if only cryptically, if it is so often attacked in public and stigmatized? Why do people continue to preform selfless and personally damaging acts to achieve their racist goals?

[HemlockGrey]

The problem with the "nebulous faith is an inspiration for the betterment of mankind" is that it's not at all necessary. Secular ideology can accomplish the same exact thing, with the added benefit of a strong belief in the capacity of humankind itself to rise above baser instincts without the need of a infinite fount of wisdom. Mankind's well-being can be embraced as an inclusive, greater goal without the necessity of a Supreme Being and all the attendent baggage that goes along with it.

[brianeyci]

This argument is probably the best argument a religious person can trot out for faith. Unfortunately, it is not enough.

Point out that religion may provide a moral compass, but atheists can have moral compasses too, without the extra hypothesis of a Supreme Being. Sometimes, a concise argument is the best.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I get really annoyed at the way some people label Dawkins as a militant secularist. If Dawkins is militant, then the Christian Right must be freakin' Adolf Hitler with the entire Wehrmacht marching right into Europe.

[Vaporous]

The God Delusion is a brilliant polemic but rests entirely – as does the more reasonable The Blind Watchmaker - on the view that those who believe in God believe in Him as a means of exclusion, as a frightening, irrational piece of superstition and mumbo-jumbo which then justifies the unjustifiable.

No, you clueless pillock, if rests entirely on the idea that there is no God or supernatural. Anything else that follows is entirely secondary to what reality is. Focus sing on anything else is just an excuse to spout subjective bullshit about respecting other peoples views.

[SCRawl]

I get really annoyed at the way some people label Dawkins as a militant secularist. If Dawkins is militant, then the Christian Right must be freakin' Adolf Hitler with the entire Wehrmacht marching right into Europe.

I'm pretty sure that Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I get really annoyed at the way some people label Dawkins as a militant secularist. If Dawkins is militant, then the Christian Right must be freakin' Adolf Hitler with the entire Wehrmacht marching right into Europe.

I'm pretty sure that Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.

A rather unfair self-description, in my opinion, considering what it takes for his opposition to be labeled 'militant'.

[Knife]

Pfft, starts right off with a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

For religion to be a positive force for good, it must be rescued not simply from extremism – faith as a means of exclusion; but also from irrelevance - an interesting part of our history but not of our future.

True religion must be saved from the extremists.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Pfft, starts right off with a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

For religion to be a positive force for good, it must be rescued not simply from extremism – faith as a means of exclusion; but also from irrelevance - an interesting part of our history but not of our future.

True religion must be saved from the extremists.

Right, because extremist proselytizing is the only possible source of religious harm. I guess when my great-grandfather tried to resolve shitty wiring in his house that was dangerously close to water pipes by placing a fucking crucifix on the wall overtop them, that was exactly the same sort of potentially lethal idiocy a person who doesn't believe in supernatural powers is capable of.

[Darth Wong]

Whenever I see this argument, I take pains to point out that the juxtaposition of morality and religion is far from universal among religions. In fact, one of the most famous non-Christian religions in history is the ancient Greco-Roman mythology, and while this obviously doesn't occur to most Christians, that mythology made no attempt whatsoever to treat morality as a teaching of the gods. In fact, that mythology often portrayed the gods as jealous, spiteful, capricious beings, in many ways morally inferior to humans. Morality is not something handed down from the gods or their anointed prophets; it is something that derives from the simple trait of human kindness.

In short, religion has nothing to do with morality. Like the lovely spot of land in the town square that the church appropriated for itself, morality is a part of the human cultural landscape which Christian churches have been squatting on for nigh two thousand years. It was there before the church, and if the church were to leave, it would still be there afterwards.

[SCRawl]

I get really annoyed at the way some people label Dawkins as a militant secularist. If Dawkins is militant, then the Christian Right must be freakin' Adolf Hitler with the entire Wehrmacht marching right into Europe.

I'm pretty sure that Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.

A rather unfair self-description, in my opinion, considering what it takes for his opposition to be labeled 'militant'.

Well, that's how it goes, isn't it? Atheism is by its very nature a solitary belief (or, rather, non-belief) system; we don't usually band together to get the word out and convert others. Dawkins actually does make the attempt, and wants the rest of us to do the same. And I probably would, too, if I had half the brains that he does.

I suppose that there's a more neutral term available than "militant", but hey, if RD thinks the shoe fits, I'm not going to be the one to tell him he's wrong.

[Darth Wong]

The double-standard is infuriating, but what are you going to do? It's considered "moderate" for a preacher to stand up and say that the reason for all the social problems in the world is that people are not close to God. This is merely another way of saying "blame the heathens and atheists for everything". But if an atheist should say that religion is bad, never mind blaming it for every goddamned social problem in the world, he's "militant".

In order to be a "militant" Christian, you have to be literally militant; people won't call you that until you start talking about kicking undesirables out of the country by force.

[Buddha]

The double-standard is infuriating, but what are you going to do? It's considered "moderate" for a preacher to stand up and say that the reason for all the social problems in the world is that people are not close to God. This is merely another way of saying "blame the heathens and atheists for everything". But if an atheist should say that religion is bad, never mind blaming it for every goddamned social problem in the world, he's "militant".

In order to be a "militant" Christian, you have to be literally militant; people won't call you that until you start talking about kicking undesirables out of the country by force.

You should be thankful that the concept of being the reincarnation of a famous saint or personage from the Bible isn't found in Christianity. They would be milking it dry for all it's worth, and still find a way to be militant in addition to their 'look at me!" dog and pony show. This is a reality in places like Tibet where they (the tulku) make up the majority of those in power and use it to their own advantage with scared shitless peasants.

[TithonusSyndrome]

In order to be a "militant" Christian, you have to be literally militant; people won't call you that until you start talking about kicking undesirables out of the country by force.

You should be thankful that the concept of being the reincarnation of a famous saint or personage from the Bible isn't found in Christianity. They would be milking it dry for all it's worth, and still find a way to be militant in addition to their 'look at me!" dog and pony show. This is a reality in places like Tibet where they (the tulku) make up the majority of those in power and use it to their own advantage with scared shitless peasants.[/quote]

There's a lot of Buddhist beliefs that Christianity only wishes it had access to. Since "life and death are the same in Zen", there's no problem sending men to die for any old cause you please, which is probably why at least in part that Chinese officials have been finding caches of weapons in Tibetan monasteries.

[Surlethe]

The "religion is the source of morality" argument is not only wrong, it's also a big fat red herring. Morality has nothing to do with whether or not religion is true. The problem is that when people accept that morality is indelibly linked to religion, they will outright refuse to consider the possibility that religion is wrong, because that will leave a moral vacuum.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I've been replying to a lot of people who seem to be siding with the fruitcake who wrote this piece in the first place. I've borrowed a couple of arguments from here, so there may be a bit or repetition, but since you can't view this forum unless registered, I'll post it:

Vald, what I meant was not that I think the book is bad (as you say, I haven't read it), but I can't listen to a man who slags off other people's opinions with every line.

So you're okay with other people voicing their opinion, so long as it isn't something criticising something else and supported by empiricism?

You could say to your friend:
"Your band can certainly play music, but the genre isn't really to my taste."

Or you could say:
"I hate your band. The music is crap."

Dawkins is in the latter category.

Total strawman. Subjective taste in music is NOT analogous to pointing out the serious flaws in religion.

He just seems determined to tell everyone else that they're wrong in the most fascist tone he can muster.

Which you would know from reading his work, yes? If you had read anything, you'd see that he doesn't come out and say "All Christians are fools and deserve to be hung from high". That you do think that, says to me you've been had by the same people who throw the term "militant atheist" around a lot without considering its meaning in context.

For me, it doesn't matter what he's saying, it's the way he says it that makes me dislike him, and thus his opinion.
If anything, I see his attitude as simply attention seeking, he's being so blunt and rude so people will listen, and that's just childish.

Gee, it wouldn't have anything to do with a touchy subject that has often been punishable for debate in public by death now, would it. Perhaps you should consider that dissent from kow towing the religious line is the de facto state of affairs on this planet. How dare Dawkins actually come out and say "Sorry, but your belief is irrational and not necessary for moral goodness". We can't have sacred cows attacked by logic and reason now.

What your argument boils down to is you can't accept an argument against something so major in society that has gone on for so long without real resistance and whereby the argument can only point out bad things.

I'm just tired of the atheists hero-worshipping Dawkins just because he's got the nerve to be a dick to everyone.

Which, again, you'd know from reading his work, yes?

Personally, for the most part, I think that's a good critique, I agree with what Tony's saying, for once.
As far as I'm concerned, he's managing to find the middle ground that Dawkins seemingly can't accept.

So you agree that it's perfectly okay to use faith on people who don't want it if you feel it is necessary in your own opinion.

Well that's just great. It's good that you see no problem in telling a country to bend over and take a personal, religious viewpoint that affects millions of lives, but when a single "militant atheist" points out that religion is flawed, that's "[being a] dick to everyone".

And you might want to look up the golden mean fallacy. This middle-ground bulls**t assumes both sides are equally valid. Here's a new concept: perhaps one side can be flat out wrong. As religion is about morals, deities, science, culture and various other things.

I agree, a lot. I don't think he has the right to demand respect and an audience for his beliefs when he denies that to other beliefs. And atheists here at uni who I've spoken to thinks the same too - we agree with some of his points, but we really don't like the way he expresses them.

Please point out where Dawkins is denying religionists their belief or drop that accusation.

I can only expect the athesists you know are more akin to borderline agnostics/weak theists given that same behaviour is something I've come across from like minded people.

Put it this way. A pastor can come out and say the reason society is ill is because people aren't closer to God. That's basically saying all the heathens are the reason for the problems in the world and need to be sorted out. But an atheist is labelled militant if he happens to point out the bad practise of religion and how it is NOT necessary for a well knit and functioning society. A Christian or Muslim etc. are only considered militant when they start requesting people start being removed from the country by force or places getting bombed. [AV: Thanks, Mike. Needed a better analogy to my old one.]

That's a lovely double standard people are openly supporting here.

Very much agree with both of you. Dawkins is over-rated. I don't see why people make such a fuss about him. I struggled reading The God Delusion, not because of the content but simply becuase i found him so arrogant and so disrespectful. I respect his views but most certainly not the way he presents his ideas and his manner.

Why does religion deserve respect? Your horrible grasp of this concept of free speech is showing here. Let me point out another "militant atheist's" opinion.

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'.

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.

It's rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that's grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise—that's a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is. In the case of an idea, if we think 'Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity', what does it mean? Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

Whoever that guy is, he needs to get off his high horse and show some respect.

[PainRack]

I'm failing to see the link between the emotions the author raised, spirituality and the existence of God, religion and religious revelations.
Sure, we wish to be connected to a bigger good, to belong, to do good and all that. Spiritual emotions are needs as well as a way in which we express ourselves to others and connect to a group, but what the hell does this have to do with the existence of God?

It simply means we have these needs and these means. It says absolutely nothing about the veracity of god.

[Covenant]

I get really annoyed at the way some people label Dawkins as a militant secularist. If Dawkins is militant, then the Christian Right must be freakin' Adolf Hitler with the entire Wehrmacht marching right into Europe.

I'm pretty sure that Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.

I'm fairly certain he doesn't, since he has said on multiple occasions that athiesm is nonbelief, and it's not feasible to be militantly not having something. I could be wrong and attributing that thought to someone else, but I don't think Dawkins has ever self-described himself as Militant or wanted to be described that way by others. It's nearly always used as a pejorative.

[SCRawl]

I get really annoyed at the way some people label Dawkins as a militant secularist. If Dawkins is militant, then the Christian Right must be freakin' Adolf Hitler with the entire Wehrmacht marching right into Europe.

I'm pretty sure that Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.

I'm fairly certain he doesn't, since he has said on multiple occasions that athiesm is nonbelief, and it's not feasible to be militantly not having something. I could be wrong and attributing that thought to someone else, but I don't think Dawkins has ever self-described himself as Militant or wanted to be described that way by others. It's nearly always used as a pejorative.

I watched a video on ted.com a few weeks ago in which Dawkins was espousing the virtues of militant atheism. Check it out here. Just a little before the five-minute mark he says:

Now it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, but I want to assure you that that's not what I'm about to do...no, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism.

He later calls upon the atheists in his audience -- particularly the wealthy ones -- to come out, and oppose the big spenders on the side of religion. The whole talk is called "An Atheist's Call to Arms".

Now what does that sound like to you?

[Darth Wong]

He later calls upon the atheists in his audience -- particularly the wealthy ones -- to come out, and oppose the big spenders on the side of religion. The whole talk is called "An Atheist's Call to Arms".

Now what does that sound like to you?

It sounds like exactly what I said earlier: people are so inured to the double standard that they don't get what you're saying unless you exaggerate it on the atheist side. In order to get atheists to donate as much money to a political cause as ordinary Christians do every week, you need a "call to arms".

Or, to put it another way, if we use the definition of "militant" that Dawkins has been forced to use in order to get a rise out of people, all Christians are "militant".

[SCRawl]

He later calls upon the atheists in his audience -- particularly the wealthy ones -- to come out, and oppose the big spenders on the side of religion. The whole talk is called "An Atheist's Call to Arms".

Now what does that sound like to you?

It sounds like exactly what I said earlier: people are so inured to the double standard that they don't get what you're saying unless you exaggerate it on the atheist side. In order to get atheists to donate as much money to a political cause as ordinary Christians do every week, you need a "call to arms".

Or, to put it another way, if we use the definition of "militant" that Dawkins has been forced to use in order to get a rise out of people, all Christians are "militant".

I certainly don't mean to disagree with what you're saying. My point was merely one of nomenclature: Dawkins himself is clearly not put off by his efforts being described as "militant atheism", and it isn't a big jump from there to making him a self-described "militant atheist".

Of course, there's no mystery about where the double standard comes from: belief in a supernatural god is very much the status quo, logical arguments be damned. Never mind that religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) should be private; if they were, the concept of "militant" in this context would be irrelevant.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I certainly don't mean to disagree with what you're saying. My point was merely one of nomenclature: Dawkins himself is clearly not put off by his efforts being described as "militant atheism", and it isn't a big jump from there to making him a self-described "militant atheist".

Of course, there's no mystery about where the double standard comes from: belief in a supernatural god is very much the status quo, logical arguments be damned. Never mind that religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) should be private; if they were, the concept of "militant" in this context would be irrelevant.

This is simply down to the way the religionists have turned the term around to be, as stated, a pejorative that applies to atheists who don't bend over backwards and question religious influences in our lives. If that is what Dawkins, you and myself along with others on here fall under, then that's just the way it is. I'd sooner adopt that title and win support, even if the thing conjures up images theists find daunting, than simply acquiesce and fall back in line.

It would seem to be another meme that only serves to further the image of any atheist attacking religion with logic and reason, however well supported in their arguments and however softly they criticise, as being an ogre with a club. How often do we hear the "You can't claim ALL Christians are like Phelps" or similar retorts to any questioning of the current status quo?

This is pretty much the struggle I'm having on another board, where it really brings people out of the woodwork when the debate is on all religion and especially when it involves Dawkins or anyone who publicly voices dissent. Those people have no respect, clearly, and should learn not to say anything if they have nothing nice to say.

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm pretty sure that Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.

If 'militant' simply encompasses declaring one's atheism and not buying into the outdated mindset that criticizing religion is off limits then such term is accurate.

I had the fortune of meeting Dawkins about two weeks ago. He's extremely smart, well spoken, warm, and way more respectful to the theist than they ever deserved.

[SCRawl]

I'm pretty sure that Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.

If 'militant' simply encompasses declaring one's atheism and not buying into the outdated mindset that criticizing religion is off limits then such term is accurate.

I had the fortune of meeting Dawkins about two weeks ago. He's extremely smart, well spoken, warm, and way more respectful to the theist than they ever deserved.

I can't say for sure what Dawkins means by it, but as I posted above, he seems happy with the label. As others have noted, there is a clear double standard for religious/nonreligious militarism. Theists have to practically start a crusade in order to earn the label, while atheists have to merely be public in their position.