The second portion of the book takes the more infamous religious figures and sets them up to show how corrupt religion is. First, Dawkins doesn't seem to recognize a difference between being religious and being fundamentalist/absolutist, as he uses the terms interchangeably. Second, case studies are fine to help fill in gaps when accompanied by some other information, but case studies can very easily be used to justify negative stereotypes in the absence of real facts. Every stereotype has its poster child. I can do a case study on the stereotypical black criminal; it doesn't mean I've proven all blacks to be cutthroat murderers.
In addition, some of the case studies are just plain ludicrous. There is a common (yet completely devoid of fact) charge that Pius XII helped the Nazis slaughter the Jews. The proof? That the pope didn't issue a statement against the Nazis, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews were protected by the Church. We can forgive an academic mistaking action with making statements; however, the leading Jewish figures of the time all commended the Church for her aid.
Then there is the oft-repeated statement that religion causes wars. However, when Dawkins faces the fact that the thoroughly secular governments of Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR and Mao's China are responsible for the biggest atrocities in recorded history, he quickly abandons any possible connection between those governments and antitheism. He is unable to consider that many wars were not fought over religion, but that religion played a role in wars that would have taken place anyway.
For example, the conflict in Northern Ireland is often characterized as a struggle between Catholics and Protestants. The fact is that there are three counties that the Irish (who have a national religion) believe are theirs and the English (who also have a national religion) believe rightly belong to them. The conflict is a geopolitical one. I've not heard of a bombing in Belfast because Henry VIII's fertility issues.
Dawkins mentions the story of Edgardo Mortara, a child of Jewish parents who was baptized secretly and subsequently taken from his Jewish parents. Dawkins avoids dealing with any of the controversy surrounding the incident, including Edgardo's own testimony, because it conflicts with his antitheistic principle. He also states, falsely, on page 312, that no consent is required for infant baptism (Canon 868 in the Code of Canon Law states that in all but the most exceptional circumstances parental consent is required).
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.