You shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but you can tell a lot from what comments make it on the back of the book. So it is with New York Times bestseller The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Observe the following review from Philip Pullman: "Many religious leaders are men who, it's obvious to anyone but their deranged followers, are willing to sanction vicious cruelty in the service of their faith." While it is ironic that those who would defend relativism shroud themselves in the robe of self-righteous sanctimony, this book is not one of reason. It is one of hate.
It is not a hate caused by someone who has done you grave harm such as killing your family. It is not even a hate caused on some petty slight because you got cut off in traffic. It's a deep-seated hate that consumes and overwhelms. It is a hate without explanation; it is blind and irrational. Dawkins does not present a case for atheism - he presents a polemic for antitheism. His first principle is that religion is a grave harm to humanity, and he then proceeds to fit the facts around that principle.
The book itself is separated into two main components. The first is a philosophical attack against religion and the existence of God. The second is a long series of case studies showing the supposed harm of religion on humanity. Dawkins is clearly an intelligent and rational being, but throughout the book you can see the struggle between his reason and his irrational hate. Unfortunately for him, the hate usually wins out.
The first portion of the text is rather unremarkable and boring, as it contains many of the same arguments that have been hashed and rehashed for centuries. However, one argument stands out: that those who hold God exists have argued from "personal experience" that God exists — they know He has touched them somehow in their lives. Dawkins responds by saying that some people experience pink elephants.
With one swift stroke, not only has Dawkins dismembered any proof for religion, but he has annihilated the entire body of human knowledge. Imagine using the argument that some people see pink elephants in a courtroom to discredit a witness on the stand. It is nothing short of intellectual laziness. There are criteria to judge which experiences are credible and which are not, and that includes religious ones.
Dawkins himself brings up the alleged miraculous apparition in Fatima, Spain, where thousands saw the sun dance in the sky. He disregards "collective hallucinations" as a legitimate explanation, but then quickly runs away from dealing with the event. For that matter, he ignores many well-documented miracles revolving around Mary or the Eucharist. He simply accepts the facts that support his point and tries to disregard the rest, while his rationality can't completely ignore the unfriendly facts that continue to surface.
Article comments
1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Nice review, John. You made this sound like a book Chris Rose would love to have... As for me, I'll stick to my Bible... I paid for it already.
On a different topic; what is your take on the kidnapping of the Mortara kid?
2 - John Bambenek
Honestly, I don't know. I read Mortara's statement on the issue and some of the other stuff. It looks like the kid was stuck in the middle of a political conflict and possibly used by both sides as a club. At first glance, it's hard to tell what was BS political spin and what was legit. It doesn't appear anyone was innocent however.
3 - zingzing
"The book remains a rehash of pop philosophy and loosely strung-together anecdotes, half-truths, and outright falsehoods."
ahem. which book?
also, i don't doubt that your hatred for this so-called "antitheism" informed your reading and your review.
like anything involving belief and a community, religion has done a lot of good and a lot of bad. it is responsible for a lot of good, but, as you point out (in a different context), maybe that would have happened anyway. people should be good to people. that's what's worth taking from the bible.
it is also responsible for a lot of bad. religious persecution does not happen without religion. the battle between palestine and israel is most certainly about land, but it is fueled by religion. the "war on terror" is about western influence in the middle east, but it is, again, not without religious hatred.
he has a point to make. of course, he is going to use those facts (be they real or perceived) that back up his point. it's also a book on religion. books on religion do not usually look at things from more than one angle, now do they?
4 - John Bambenek
Which book?
It's a freaking book review, the name of the book is in the title.
5 - beepbeepitsme
RE Dawkins Richard Dawkins - Speaks in Lynchberg Virginia
6 - Irony Alert
"The book remains a rehash of pop philosophy and loosely strung-together anecdotes, half-truths, and outright falsehoods."
Exactly like every article ever published by John Bambenek, academic "professional."
7 - zingzing
john, master of the oblivious: "Which book?
It's a freaking book review, the name of the book is in the title."
no, no. think a little. what other book is "a rehash of pop philosophy and loosely strung-together anecdotes, half-truths, and outright falsehoods?"
thas right. maybe "irony alert" was more right than he thought.
8 - zingzing
did you bother to read the rest of the comment?
i'm surprised you actually read this book... but i bet you coulda written the review without actually having done so.
9 - Col. Mustard
I'll guess the Bible in the Library.
10 - mn
"For that matter, he ignores many well-documented miracles revolving around Mary or the Eucharist."
sapienti sat. dawkins might be unfair and harsh, but this review is anything else but rational.
11 - Derwent
"Dawkins never mentions that the religious give more in charity, volunteer more, and are generally active in trying to make their communities a better place to live."
I assume this is simply an assumption. Even it it were true - and I won't take your word for it that it is - one mustn't mistake correlation with causation.
Indeed, even if it were true AND the reason these people gave more to charity etc. was because they were religious, that would have no bearing on the truthfulness of their belief systems. I could give away everything I own for the sake of the poor, but that would not prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. And if the ONLY reason I'm being generous is because my imaginary boss the FSM tells me to be, I don't see how that really makes me a more moral person.
As for "making our communities better places to live" - a somewhat ambiguous goal - by what stretch of the imagination do you believe that atheists don't do this? Do you think we all want to live in squallor, surrounded by violent, drug-dealing rapists, ignoring the plight of those less fortunate than oursleves?
Really, if you are going to critique someone's objectivity and rationality you should make sure your own house is in order first.
12 - beepbeepitsme
They may give more to charity because they are pooping their pants about a non-existent hell.
13 - Nathan Zimmerman
In the review, you claim that "it contains many of the same arguments that have been hashed and rehashed for centuries." However, most of the replies he has to philosophical arguments for god are arguments that simply do not work... They are arguments that have been refuted and left behind.
I am not saying that there are no good arguments against the ontological argument. I am saying that there are no good arguments in Dawkins' book against the ontological argument. He puts Gaunillo's famous criticism of the "perfect island" in terms of a flying pig. Anselm had a response to that nearly 1,000 years ago.
If you're going to try to debunk religion, you should probably use arguments which haven't already been shown to be faulty.
For further analysis of the problematic logic within Dawkins' polemic.
14 - Christopher Rose
There's no need to bother with any refutations of philosophical arguments for god - or any other type of argument either. The simple fact is that there is no evidence for the existence of any gods at all.