With two books on the bestseller list raising questions about the validity of belief in God, some observers see a movement they call the New Atheism. If they are right, Richard Dawkins is to New Atheism what Bertrand Russell was to what is now apparently "Old Atheism".
Yet there is a fundamental and significant difference between Dawkins, the author of the bestselling The God Delusion, and Russell. Russell was a philosopher. As such, he approached the question of the existence of God as an interesting exercise in logic and philosophy. Dawkins, in contrast, is an evolutionary scientist at Oxford University. He approaches the subject with an eye honed by scientific analysis and reason. His conclusion: belief in God is a "delusion" because religious faith is a false belief in the face of extremely strong evidence to the contrary.
There is also a difference between Dawkins and Sam Harris, the author of the best-selling Letter to a Christian Nation (reviewed in Part I of this series). Harris provides a condensed view of the problems many people see with Christianity. Dawkins' scope is much larger. He presents a lengthier and perhaps more erudite analysis of not just Christianity but the whole idea of a belief in God. In fact, Dawkins frequently challenges the reader intellectually with his analysis and commentary, particularly when he embarks into philosophical ideas and examines them with a scientific eye.
At the outset, for example, Dawkins even invokes Russell in explaining why he believes agnosticism — the position that it is impossible to know whether there is a God — is untenable. He also devotes a chapter to deconstructing arguments for the existence of God advanced by thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas to C.S. Lewis and, more recently, the mathematical approach of Stephen Unwin
Yet even here the scientific method that permeates this work shows through. His scientific approach becomes stronger as the book progresses. He uses evolutionary principles to show why arguments that life supports the existence of God cannot withstand scrutiny. Likewise, in examining why all human cultures seem to have religion, Dawkins discusses not only evolutionary principles but alleles, memes (a term Dawkins is credited with coining), and memeplexes.
Article comments
1 - DAVE
My man Dawkins. I can't wait to get my hands on his book. Saw him on Avi Lewis on the CBC. Where he presented the doc about the God Delusion and later attended a debate about it following. Can't argue his logic.
"Some of us take our atheism one god further"
2 - john connore
I can't wait to get my mitts on Dawkins new book, remember all thinking men are atheist(Hemmingway)
3 - duane
Suicide bombers are just a fringe effect of religion, if they really are attributable to religion (that might be debatable). On the other hand, religion affects billions of people every day. In some cases, that's good, or, at worst, harmless. But averaged over the billions of believers and/or practitioners, it's a net impediment to the advancement of civilization.
4 - Natalie Bennett
This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States. Nice work!
5 - Calladus
Suicide bombers are just a fringe effect of religion - as are people like Fred Phelps, or minister Paul Hill. Lesser fringe are people who make legislation that gives religious groups the freedom to discriminate or gives them a financial free ride - like H.R. 1815 or H.R. 2679.
The problem with the 'fringe' is that about 30% of America is that 'fringe'. The other problem is that the majority of moderate Christians either ignore the fringe, or make excuses for them, or write them off as harmless.
Moderate Christians are enablers in an abusive codependant relationship with fundamentalists. And America is suffering for it.
6 - Bliffle
I've thought for some time that religious indoctrination of children is abuse.
7 - Karl Priest
Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See Life Science Prize for a list of bluffing evolutionists.
8 - Christopher Rose
Karl, I took a look at the site you linked to and can tell you that prize will never be claimed - by either party.
The reason for that is the set-up of the terms doesn't have any meaning, not because the Theory of Evolution is unscientific.
9 - Mark Saleski
i thought the Bluffing Evolutionists broke up shortly after Woodstock.
10 - Christopher Rose
Naah, that was The Waffling Hippies.
11 - duane
Karl writes: "Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman."
Hey, Karl, the Headless Horseman is NOT impossible. Sure, he can be a bit obstinate at times. And, yeah, he just broke up with his girlfriend. But really, you just have to know how to get on his good side (ask him about his grandkids, for example). Oh, and don't mention the ... you know ... the head thing. He's a little sensitive.
12 - bliffle
Karl is right: evolution is impossible.
I just proved it a few minutes ago. I opened the dryer door and a puff of warm air came out, but when I extracted my clothes a blue sock was missing! It must have been an act of God. It could not have been evolution because no one has shown the progression from sock to hot air, and no one has uncovered any of the Missing Link steps that must exist for a sock to evolve into hot air.
Therefore, evolution is a fraud and God exists.
Oh, wait a minute. There's my sock tangled in my pajama pants. Oops.
Never mind.
13 - Bennett
Hey Christopher Rose or Dr. Dreadful, could you undo this mess?
14 - Bennett
"I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God's existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God."
rafael, with that as your opening sentence, there's really no point in reading any further.
You've heard the "assume" thing, right?
15 - Dan
I think I'm ready to become an atheist. I just need to know where the primordial soup and lightning bolt that spawned the first single celled organism came from.
Is that in the book?
16 - Bennett
Dan, being an atheist takes commitment. I don't know if my 'lack of belief system' is quite ready for that.
As for the primordial thing? Just because something is highly unlikely, doesn't mean it can't happen. Given the time span involved, and the available real estate, somewhere on all of the billions of planets in the universe, I figure it's gotta happen somewhere, eventually.
We humans didn't "get lucky somehow", we are simply the outcome of the unlikely (but law of averages proscribed) event, and the subsequent passage of billions of years.
Intellectually, we humans have developed delusions of grandeur, and parasitic institutions.
17 - Dan
"Dan, being an atheist takes commitment. I don't know if my 'lack of belief system' is quite ready for that."
I hear ya Bennett, A couple of perks us happy-go-lucky agnostics enjoy is we don't need commitment, and we're never wrong.
18 - Bennett
"...and we're never wrong."
There is that.
19 - Dr Dreadful
Saying that being an atheist takes commitment makes about as much sense as saying that deciding not to be a professional tennis player takes commitment.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Bennett:
Hey Christopher Rose or Dr. Dreadful, could you undo this mess?
I assume you mean the ridiculously long comment posted by the chap who apparently thinks copying and pasting entire books into discussion threads is a great way to make friends online?
It's gone.
Rafael:
I've deleted your extremely long comment, which as I indicated above you appear to have copied wholesale from the book Normal Christian Faith, by Watchman Nee. If you are truly anxious for others to know about the book, you would do better to link to a place where it can be purchased - for example on Google Books, where sizeable sections of it can also be viewed online.
Before copying and pasting large chunks of someone else's work again (a simple Google search revealed that Blogcritics is not the only place you have done this) you would do well to take note of the 'copyrighted material' stamp on the bottom right corner of each page.
Assistant Comments Editor
21 - duane
You mean that drivelly nonsense actually got published? As Gonzo would say, oh my stars and garters!
22 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, but did you see who it was published by?
Its appearance in print (all the way back in 1931, it seems) is no more surprising than if a book entitled Emasculate All Belgians were to be published by the I Hate Belgium Press.
(With apologies to any actual Belgians out there for my spurious example. Nice chocolate, by the way. Well done.)