I have been reading the 2007 paperback version of Dawkins’ The God Delusion. This is worth noting because this revised paperback edition contains a new preface from Dawkins where he responds to some of the chief arguments that have been levelled against his controversial book, originaly published in 2006. And controversial it is; The God Delusion inspired both adulation and detestation, from people on all sides of the religious divide. Some atheists adore Dawkins for his refusal to pander to childish religious doctrines; others revile him for his “fundamentalist” attitudes and lack of compromise. I should point out at the beginning of this review that I am an atheist, and share Dawkins’ distaste for the religious mindset which teaches the virtues of faith without evidence, but will attempt to take the book on its own terms. The fact that I felt the need to make that statement, Dawkins would say, speaks volumes about the privileged place religion occupies in our cultural consciousness. Would I feel so nervous about commenting on a book on Communism, or fascism? Of course not, and yet I do where religion is involved. It is part of Dawkins’ chief argument that religion has afforded itself a deference we do not allow to other forms of belief as a way of insulating itself against criticism. We must “respect” religious views as “sacred” and “sacrosanct” – an attitude Dawkins despises, and one which – if I allow myself a little polemic of my own – is currently having a real and substantially negative impact on civil rights and equality in the world at this very moment in time. While the religious community continues to campaign against gay marriage, while women still struggle to become priests, while abortion doctors are killed and threatened, while www.godhatesfags.com exists, while women in Islamic societies are still stoned to death in “honour killings” and cannot leave the house unaccompanied by a man, while the Pope still contributes to the spread of AIDS through his false messages about condom use – while these such things are part of our world, there is a place for writers like Richard Dawkins.
Onto the book itself. Two things must be made clear at the outset. One – Richard Dawkins is a zoologist and biologist, not a philosopher. Two, The God Delusion is a polemic. Neither of these facts is a criticism, per se. Yet we must acknowledge that Dawkins is writing outside of his comfort zone, outside of his speciality – and frankly, it shows. The chapter where he elucidates the classical arguments for the existence of God (ontological, teleological, cosmological, etc) skirts over them and offers only a superficial reading of, say, Anselm (it so happens that further reading of these arguments doesn’t do much to increase their believability). The fact that Dawkins feels compelled to offer definitions of terms like “a priori” and “a posteriori” underlines that he is writing for a general audience, not a philosophical one. There is a rigour and strictness to philosophical writing that isn’t present in this book (compare this book to the Phenomenology of Spirit or A Theory of Justice), which is, instead, a polemic. A welcome polemic, in my opinion, but a polemic nonetheless. And let’s be clear: the scope of this text is giant. Within barely 400 pages, Dawkins attempts to: explain what God is; explain and demolish the arguments for God’s existence, explain why God almost certainly does not exist; account for the development and continuation of religion within human beings; explain the origins and purpose of morality and why we do not need God to be moral; and explain why religion is a poisonous force in the world. A tight, focussed philosophical tract this is not. A doctoral supervisor would advise, “scale it down, Richard. Scale it down.”
Is this a problem? That depends on how one approaches the book. Dawkins makes clear that he wants to engage with the kind of mainstream religion which is actually practiced by the majority of believers in the world, not the rareified theology of Bonhoeffer or Duns Scotus. Alvin Plantinga’s response to Dawkins makes this error (among others): Tielhard de Chardin means nothing to the average Christian in, say, Alabama; and “classical theology” is, for the most part, of no use to Dawkins as it takes for granted the very existence of God which Dawkins is questioning. Data and anecdotes abound about the likes of Pat Robertson; whom, in the cultivated theology colleges of Oxford, may seem like a sideshow of fringe Christianity, but who actually represents a mainstream view of religion in America. It is this mainstream view – the Christianity of Bush, Robertson, Ted Haggard, of money-grabbing televangelists and creationists who advocate teaching the Flood in science lessons – it is this which Dawkins has in his formidable sights. I will not take Dawkins to task here for his philosophical arguments (strong in places [the problematic complexity of God or the "ultimate Boeing 747" argument, in which Dawkins posits, subverting the concept of "intelligent design", that a complex intelligence such as a theist God, capable of interacting in the physical world, must evolve and cannot spontaneously occur] and weaker in others [morality]), but instead point out that it is much more than the strict philosophy of religion which is under fire in this refreshing, spirited and deadly book. Dawkins rails against the indoctrination of children into religious lives, he bemoans the teaching of “faith” as a virtue rather than questioning and doubting, he decries attitudes which are content to let “mystery” and “that’s just how God is” be valid thoughts which end discussions; he makes a good case for the way in which “moderate” faith, and the artificial respect it is afforded in society, fosters a cultural climate where true religious fundamentalism, the really evil kind, can flourish. While Dawkins stutters somewhat to explain the origins of morality, he is pititless in his analysis of why it certainly does not come from God – at least, not any God who is part of any religion I’ve ever heard of.
The God Delusion is not a perfect book, but it is an extremely important book. It has opened up avenues of debate which bring me great joy; it has begun to chip away at the unearned, assumed privilege of faith. It is a passionate defence of the scientific method and evidence-based conclusions. It mercilessly annihilates superstition, irrationality, wishful thinking and the concept of faith without evidence. I applaud it.
