On Richard Dawkins

From a book review in The New Republic

The betrayal of science that does arouse him to fury comes from religion. Dawkins is an atheist, a strenuous and militant and proud one. He thinks religious belief is a dangerous virus, and that it is a crime to infect the mind of a child with it. He believes that "only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today." He calls religions "dangerous collective delusions," and he thinks that they are sinks of falsehood (most of them have to be, since only one can be true). He especially regrets their public influence. He is made apoplectic by the pontifications of religious "leaders" on such questions as whether human clones would be fully human, made in blissful ignorance of the fact that identical twins are clones of each other.

Religion in England is not terribly demanding. It is not typically to be thought of in terms of, say, the Kansas School Board or the teaching of "creationist science," things about which any educated person should be deeply disturbed. Nor in its native form is English religion a matter of clerics telling you what you can eat or whom you can marry. It is not even a matter of oily frauds on television fleecing the poor and the stupid of their savings. It is seen largely as a set of marginal but aesthetically pleasing rituals: the King's College carol service, a stroll around Salisbury or York, watercress sandwiches and a bit of Elgar. And so it is not really done to dump on English religion too heavily; better to raise your hat to a vicar than raise your fists to him. This puts Dawkins in the somewhat paradoxical position of being an evangelical atheist in a country where evangelicals of any kind are largely mistrusted. At least until recently, his crusading seemed to many people in England a little bit over the top, a touch embarrassing. Surtout, pas de zèle: Talleyrand's excellent motto, goes down well in England, yet Dawkins is zealous.

But he has a good excuse. The religious virus is a cunning enemy, and recent years have actually seen creationist schools creeping into the United Kingdom, while our prime minister, who together with his wife is the beneficiary of a marvelous gene that enables him to believe absolutely whatever he would like to believe, has set up an influential committee for increasing religiosity in the workings of government. (Although nominally a Catholic, Cherie Blair goes in more for New Age nonsense, but as far as I am aware the government has not yet been instructed to consult crystal balls.) Dawkins thinks, and I agree with him, that we cannot afford to be complacent. Even if we have little religious zealotry at home, we do not have to go as far as America or the Middle East to find it. We only need to look across the sea to Northern Ireland to be reminded of what happens once the religious virus takes hold. And Dawkins has a further reason for his zeal: evolution and biology have been and still are frequent targets of those infected by religion. They are areas where what we are--large primates--conflicts most sharply with what such people would like to think of us as being: children of God, little lower than angels, specially anointed. When wishful thinking collides with science, it is generally wishful thinking that wins, and Dawkins is right to be driven wild by it.

Comments

[xavier]

Amy:
Ricard Dawkins is true believer ironically enough. How else does his irreligious zealotry explain his desire to squash even totally innocuous activities like carol signing or walking by churches
Guess he's trying to take up Bertie Russell's mantle. Dawkin can then sneer at the boobs for beliving in a fiction and revel in his superiority. What a sad man who lives such a miserable and stressful life!
xavier

[Christopher Rake]

Like, wow.

I'll never understand why people point to religion as the unique destructive force in history, dwarfed as it is in modern times by the evil of atheistic communism.

From religious wars to Hitler and Stalin and Lenin, human misadventures point to some kind of fatal flaw. In this light Original Sin has always struck me as the best explanation, and one of the Church's most convincing doctrines if you're looking for evidence in the material world.

[Cheryl]

It is always interesting to see how "devout" most atheists are. So committed and downright devoted to their atheism! Fascinating...

[Liam]

Yes, the 20th Century functions as an immense Q.E.D. for the Original Sin Theory, as it were. Particularly coming after the 19th Century.

I wonder how Mr. Dawkins explains the existence of evil; it should not exist in his cosmos, I would imagine...

[Gray Eminence]

Irony upon irony: Atheists devoted to the religion of science -- wrong on the facts (even empirically verifiable ones) and apparently blind to the fundamental irrationality of their own positions.

Fortunately, they defeat themselves by their own arrogance and extremism.

[Donald R. McClarey]

I wish the fool would say in his heart there is no God and free the rest of us from his tiresome rantings. God save us from evangelical atheists who seek to bore us to death with their interminable dronings.

[Cecil]

A twofold reaction:
First, I feel guilty about my inability to pity such objectively pathetic people. They do nothing more than occupy the opposite pole from the Rev. Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" dung beetles, and to sane people of goodwill (whatever their religion) they are about as attractive. Thank God evil isn't always witty or even superficially seductive.
Second--for I long time now, I have wondered why so many otherwise sensible people bother with The New Republic. True, every quarter or so they will publish something arguably worth reading, but to get to it you have to ride out at least ten brown blizzards like this review, and to me, at least, it's just not worth it.

[Tom Kelty]

For a long time when this issue came up, I would piously point out the fact thatin recorded history, most wars were fought for religious reasons. This kind of confirms Dawkin's thesis. But Mark Twain (I think) said it better. He points out that Christianity has not failed. It has never been given a fair trial. This is as true today as it was when Christ was born. Why is it so hard for us to love one another as He loves us. This love is a powerful daily challenge to everyone and we know we will be judged on how well we live it. Living it is the most powerful wordless sermon possible.

[c matt]

It would seem, rather, most wars were fought for territorial reasons. Religion (as well as nationalism, tribalism and other isms) were used as the excuse, but were rarely the reason.

"I wonder how Mr. Dawkins explains the existence of evil; it should not exist in his cosmos, I would imagine".

Exactly, in an atheistic world (if being true to the philosophy) there is no such thing as evil, or good. Every action or thought is merely indifferent. There is no such thing as morality because, in the end, all things end up nothing. Without any ultimate consequence, actions have no real moral value - it just doesn't matter (kind of ironic for a "material" philosophy).

[Steve]

A quotation that he (Dawkins)provides from Douglas Adams fits him exactly: "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.” I wish he would. Actually true atheists are few on the ground and I don’t think Dawkins is one; I reckon he’s a dedicated wannabe; otherwise why does he get so mad?.
I did a piece on Evolution and God recently and I showed it to the only two atheists I know. One was a retired teacher of teachers. He phoned me and harangued me about religion being an just invention of secular authorities aimed at keeping the population subdued. (Opiate of the masses I assume after Marx) The other one is a retired scientist and beinst my formal education ended at age 18 he jumped on his motor bike and hurtled round to ‘save’ me. He told me that art is not confined to man; apparently Australian bowerbirds are treading on the heels of Rembrandt’s and Monet’s forbears and additionally wolves hold elections, form councils and pass legislation. I was going to ask him who records the minutes but thought better of it so instead I asked about moral absolutes. “There are none,” said he. “What about rape?” asked me. “Aha.” Said he. “It’s all part of the evolutionary process.” ‘Tell that to your wife and daughters’ thought me.
If you want to see what I wrote look here. http://mediaspecialist.org/ssevolution.html

[two cents]

Since Dawkins, I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong), does not hold that the free choice of the will is possible, than why does he get so mad at Christians when they have no choice but to believe as they do (just like him).

[J.B.]

two cents:

Your own statement contains the answer to your question. Think.

[J.B.]

c matt:

It would seem, rather, most wars were fought for territorial reasons. Religion (as well as nationalism, tribalism and other isms) were used as the excuse, but were rarely the reason.

Religious doctrines have been and continue to be a primary cause of war, not to mention all sorts other destructive behaviors.

Exactly, in an atheistic world (if being true to the philosophy) there is no such thing as evil, or good. Every action or thought is merely indifferent. There is no such thing as morality because, in the end, all things end up nothing. Without any ultimate consequence, actions have no real moral value - it just doesn't matter (kind of ironic for a "material" philosophy).

This statement is very confused. First, you conflate atheism with materialism. They're not the same thing. There are many atheists who are not materialists. It is possible to believe both that there is no God and also that there is some immaterial standard of morality. Your statement also contains the unstated assumption that in the absence of theistic morality, there can be no "ultimate consequence," no "real moral value," a claim that also is not necessarily true.

[J.B.]

Christopher Rake:

I'll never understand why people point to religion as the unique destructive force in history, dwarfed as it is in modern times by the evil of atheistic communism.

You, too, and conflating two different kinds of belief: atheism and communism. There is a mountain of evidence that countless people have been motivated by religious belief to commit evil. What evidence is there that anyone has been motivated to commit evil by disbelief in God?

From religious wars to Hitler and Stalin and Lenin, human misadventures point to some kind of fatal flaw.

Yes. Human beings have evolved propensities to both "good" and "evil." It's in our biology. Our social and cultural institutions can either suppress or promote those innate tendencies.

In this light Original Sin has always struck me as the best explanation,

"Original Sin" isn't an explanation at all. Science, and in particular evolutionary biology, offers by far the best explanation of our nature as human beings.

[J.B.]

“There are none,” said he. “What about rape?” asked me. “Aha.” Said he. “It’s all part of the evolutionary process.” ‘Tell that to your wife and daughters’ thought me.

He's probably right. Rape has been observed in many species, including some our closest primate relatives. There is considerable evidence that a propensity to rape is an evolutionary adaptation to enhance the reproductive success of low-ranking males.

[Steve]

Hey, hey, J.B. I was taking about moral absolutes. Don't quote me out of context. Anyway please tell me what our "closest primate relatives" know about good and evil?

[craig]

"Rape has been observed in many species, including some our closest primate relatives. There is considerable evidence that a propensity to rape is an evolutionary adaptation to enhance the reproductive success of low-ranking males."

Then you're saying it's not a bug, it's a feature?

[Michelle K.]

J.B.--a propensity to rape is an evolutionary adaption? Puh-leeze. Spare all of us the pseudo-intellectual crap and call rape what it is--unmitigated evil.

[Varenius]

JB:

It is possible to believe both that there is no God and also that there is some immaterial standard of morality.

And that standard would be grounded in what exactly?

[Varenius]

JB:

You, too, and conflating two different kinds of belief: atheism and communism. There is a mountain of evidence that countless people have been motivated by religious belief to commit evil. What evidence is there that anyone has been motivated to commit evil by disbelief in God?

Is communism not an atheistic philosophy? It is totally appropriate for him to point to the crimes of communism as an example of evildoing perpetrated by atheists.

As for disbelief motivating evil, despite what you might believe for yourself on the matter, there are other atheists who do take the lack of God to mean that morality is a nonsensical concept and that there need be no limits on their actions. it's easy to imagine where that can lead.

[Varenius]

JB:

He's probably right. Rape has been observed in many species, including some our closest primate relatives. There is considerable evidence that a propensity to rape is an evolutionary adaptation to enhance the reproductive success of low-ranking males.

Which, of course, has absolutely no relevance to the question of its moral nature.

[Maggie]

Hi JB,

Religious doctrines have been and continue to be a primary cause of war, not to mention all sorts other destructive behaviors.

People say this all the time. But is it true? Here are some wars: Vietnam, Korea, World War II, World War I, the Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars... Not one of them were inspired by religion. Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, and Alexander the Great didn't conquer in the name of religion, to my knowledge. The Khmer Rouge, Stalin, Mao, and the leaders of the French Revolution didn't kill in the name of religion.

There are heaps and heaps and heaps of bodies piled up for non-religious reasons.

Sure, there have been some wars fought for religious reasons, but hardly the majority. And that suggests to me that maybe, just maybe, war is something we humans just like to do.

Cheers,

Maggie

[J.B.]

Then you're saying it's not a bug, it's a feature?

In a sense, yes. An evolutionary adaptation that is a feature in one environment may be a bug in another. The classic example is the sickle cell mutation, which is on balance beneficial in environments where malaria is common and harmful in environments where it is not. Similarly, the innate tendencies of human beings to rape, racism, sexism, xenophobia and other feelings and behaviors we now consider evil may be adaptations that enhanced reproductive success in our ancestral environment but that are today harmful. The same may be true of our propensity to believe in supernatural beings, including the Christian God.

[J.B.]

Varenius:

Is communism not an atheistic philosophy?

Communism is a political ideology. If you claim that disbelief in God motivates people to commit evil, show me your evidence. The evidence that religious belief has motivated and continues to motivate atrocity is overwhelming. Countless acts of barbarism, from the Crusades to 9/11, have been explicitly justified by appeals to religious doctrines.

It is totally appropriate for him to point to the crimes of communism as an example of evildoing perpetrated by atheists.

The fact that an evildoer is an atheist obviously doesn't mean that his atheism motivated his evil. You are confusing correlation with causation. Show me your evidence that disbelief in God motivates evil. Show me evidence of this alleged causal relationship between disbelief in God and wrongdoing.

[J.B.]

Which, of course, has absolutely no relevance to the question of its moral nature.

We don't know if there is such a thing as morality in the sense of objective standards of right and wrong, and even if there is we have no way of determining what those standards are. You can no more prove that murder is wrong in an objective sense than you can prove that, say, red is more beautiful than green. But morality in the descriptive sense, in the sense of what people believe about right and wrong and why they believe as they do, is increasingly amenable to explanation through science, and in particular through evolutionary biology. Such explanations are very threatening to many religious people, which is why they resist them so strongly.

[J.B.]

Here's a good primer on the biological basis of morality and religious belief.

[Steve]

The trouble with people like you J.B. is that you lack consistency. Trying to pin you down is like trying to grab hold of smoke. When you look at a mechanism (and that's all it is) such as evolutionary natural selection; you're gonna try and tell us that the principle of Justice and Mercy evolved. Now you know darn well that Justice proclaims the sacredness of all human life from the very weakest and most defenseless to the strongest. Given the way in which evolutionary natural selection is perceived as operating, justice could never have evolved. The first intimation of it would have seen justice eliminated, since by your own rules evolutionary natural selection always works to the advantage of the best adapted organism- i.e. the strongest and fittest and in any competion, the strong win out and the weak go to the wall. But the visible strength of justice lies in its role of defending the defenseless and that role rests with the free will of individual human beings.

In reality freewill and justice are different aspects of the same thing. Neither can exist without the other. Justice is the only object of freewill and freewill is the only means by which justice is achieved. Without freewill there could be no such thing as justice and of course without justice, free will would be an absurdity. The two are bound together like husband and wife. Why don't you try this out on yourself. Using no more than 55 words (the length of the Lord's Prayer) write down a definition of evolutionary natural selection. Now using not more than another 55 words define Justice. If you've got any sort of brain you should be able to see that the two definitions are opposites; they're incompatible. Try as long as you like, you'll never be able to show justice evolving which of course begs the question of what it evolved from and if it did then maybe we should be able to clone Justice. Yay, we're about to be able to clone the perfect society; so how come this "march" toward perfection results in so much bloodletting. And by the way if you can't define either justice or natural selection in less than 55 words; I suggest you head back to English class. The next time you and Richard Dawkins and all your ilk use the toilet, your first task should be to empty your head in it.

[c matt]

JB:

Where to begin? Like Steve says, you are as consistent as smoke. Show me the evidence for war caused by lack of belief in God? Several are pointed out- lack of belief in God means lack of of belief in human dignity which is what all the wars mentioned above were caused by, regardless of what they were for.

The Crusades were not "caused" by religion; they were caused by Muslims attacking and enslaving Christian people. Talk about conflating correlation and causation.

Then lets move on to morality - first, you tell me there is a possibility for moral absolutes within an atheistic framework. Yet you have not been able to point to one, and in fact, have denied just about every example offered as an absolute. Prove it - show me one. The point, J.B., if there is no God, nothing, then what does it frikkin' matter from a moral point of view if I feed the poor or feed you to my shotgun? At the end of it all, I am just dust either way. How can any course of conduct have a moral difference from any other? You can't prove it.

[craig]

The world according to J.B.:

#1: "It is possible to believe both that there is no God and also that there is some immaterial standard of morality. Your statement also contains the unstated assumption that in the absence of theistic morality, there can be no "ultimate consequence," no "real moral value," a claim that also is not necessarily true."

#2: "Similarly, the innate tendencies of human beings to rape, racism, sexism, xenophobia and other feelings and behaviors we now consider evil may be adaptations that enhanced reproductive success in our ancestral environment but that are today harmful."

#3: "We don't know if there is such a thing as morality in the sense of objective standards of right and wrong, and even if there is we have no way of determining what those standards are. You can no more prove that murder is wrong in an objective sense than you can prove that, say, red is more beautiful than green. But morality in the descriptive sense, in the sense of what people believe about right and wrong and why they believe as they do, is increasingly amenable to explanation through science, and in particular through evolutionary biology. Such explanations are very threatening to many religious people, which is why they resist them so strongly."

Quote #1 asserts that there is an immaterial moral standard existing apart from God. Quote #2 asserts that the moral standard is based in avoidance of "harm" (which is left undefined), and that it changes as the requirements of evolutionary success change -- if it helps the species to survive, it's moral. Quote #3 asserts that the moral standard is purely descriptive of what people think at a point in time -- if people believe it's moral, it's moral.

The above assertions contradict one another; they cannot all be right.

[Tom Kelty]

We are all in awe of his genius but it is sad to realize how empty and frightening it must be to live in a void with no answers to life's conundrums. And how does he deal with anomalies in the natural order? Does he meditate on the periodic table? He lives a heroic struggle with his illness and gives much to all. I do not comprehend much of his work but I can sense his efforts to bring these huge truths down to my level. Why is it he will only accept some impersonal force as the source of life? Does a personal God have to be malevolent?

[Don]

He probably has not seen a true Christian, and from some of the replies I have seen here, it seems to me he would not find the love Christ taught about in the Gospels. If anything, you should see the experience of learning about him as an occasion to better yourself by living the Gospel more faithfully, rather than wondering saying to yourself "he is going to hell, while I am going to Heaven".

[Samuel Kirk]

After reading all the comments of the theists here, and their frantic lashing out at Dawkins and J.B., I feel sorry that none of you will every understand how pathetic it is that you need to believe in a supernatural being who needs to be worshiped. What does your god explain? Nothing. He is clearly contrived from the egotistical needs of men.

By the way, Hitler was a catholic and extremely superstitious to the end. Stalin spent six years in an Orthodox seminary and was also obsessed by the occult.

Another fact: probably 80% of scientists and educators are closet atheists in the U.S. They are the people who have given you the knowledge and ability to save lives and cure illnesses.

Another fact: Atheists are a subgroup of naturalists (i.e., those who believe that all that exists in the natural world). As one of them, I see us as part of the natural world and not some toy of your god. We are part of the natural world and someday we will understand our place in it. Your belief in a supernatural being is but an aberration on the way to a deeper understanding of who we ( and the universe are).