First of all, this book represents a classic example of the sort of thing Christians who expect to engage modern culture on almost any level ought to familiarize themselves with. But not because it's good or convincing, but because people think it is. Of course every atheist or agnostic or God-hater I know thinks this book is tremendous, and at least one former Christian I know of read this book and went off the deep end, convinced his faith was a fraud. The former case is to be expected, but the latter is disappointing and unnecessary in the highest.
The arguments in this book are presented with unbridled arrogance and spotty logic, which makes it hard for the common reader to refute. (And apparently it makes it hard for the "intelligent" ones, too, given the several pages of praise offered at the beginning and back cover of the book.)
One final point before beginning with Chapter 1 is that the paperback version (which I have) has a Preface where Dawkins responds (sort of) to some of the alleged frequent responses to his book. I will deal with these at the end of the review.
Chapter 1 is called, "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer". It begins with Dawkins' usual praise for science and scientists, squeezing everything else out. He quotes Carl Sagan almost immediately, asking:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. (32-33).
This is almost too easy. First of all, what Christian (which, by the way, is the main religion attacked throughout the book) has ever said such a thing as 'My god is a little god"? And which Christians do not proclaim the absolute majesty, grandness and scope of the Universe?
But what Dawkins wants is to make science the one who notices the wonder of the world, complaining about the "transcendent wonder that religion monopolized over the past centuries" (33). This opening chapter is at pains to explain to the reader than whatever Dawkins asserts, or believes, no matter what it is, is based in only science, not faith or religion. What this does for the uncritical reader is put Dawkins on one side (the high road; the intellectual road) and faith and religion on the other. It's a tactic he must establish because his position is absolute that the religious cannot take part in science. This type of exclusivity is par for Dawkins type, who uphold science as the only real arena for scholarly or serious discussion. The length at which he goes to avoid the possibility of God can be clearly seen when he says, "Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain" (34). He doesn't explain how this is possible, just that they do, and if you disagree, well, so much for your theory. If this isn't a faith-statement and a central tenet of the naturalist and Neo-Darwinian religions, I don't know what it is.
This discussion is closely tied to that of the Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism. To say that all thing emerge from nature is begging the question, assuming that naturalism must be true. But supernatualism is not a logical impossibility and to therefore assert that naturalism is true because nature is all there is is tantamount to saying, "I'm the boss because I make all the rules." (But why do you make the rules? Because I'm the boss...) Consider:
Premise 1: IF nature is all there is, THEN naturalism is true.
Premise 2: Nature is all there is.
Conclusion: Naturalism is true.
This is a logically valid argument, known in formal logic as Modus Ponens. (If A, then B. A, therefore B.) This rule of inference says that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. But what is not guaranteed is the truth of the premises, because formal logic is not concerned with truth values. However, it is not necessarily true that nature is all there is. This argument can be, and is, unsound, and to dismiss supernaturalism on these grounds is an unjustifiable position.
As a scientist Dawkins believes he must take this position because it is his job to always search for the natural explanations in the face of unanswered questions, but to simply assert that things "emerge" from a nature that is itself not self-existent is as bankrupt and unhelpful a position as any he seeks to attack.
To be continued...
Atheism is boring.
ReplyDeleteMostly because it's based in arrogance, blanket statements, false premises and illogical arguments.
Which are boring to me.
Maybe I am just a simpleton, but I didn't realize how much you could influence your reader based on the way you addressed the issue at hand. Thank you for helping me read between the lines with Dawkins, keep this up.
ReplyDelete