The God Delusion

The God Delusion January 10, 2010

As readers of this blog should know, I’m no fan of the New Atheists. I’ve found them to be as dogmatic in their statements as any religious fundamentalists. And they don’t attack honest religion – they attack rhetorical straw men made up of the worst of religion. I have not criticized them in ignorance – I’ve read numerous articles and essays by and about them (most frequently Christopher Hitchens, but also Richard Dawkins and to a lesser extent, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett). I felt like I knew what they were doing and why.

But until now, I had never read one of their books. My “to be read” list is long, my reading time is limited, and atheism simply doesn’t interest me. After my post on Karen Armstrong’s The Case For God, a comment by Steve Caldwell got me to thinking that I should read at least one – maybe there’s something in their longer work that’s missing in their shorter writings. And so when Cathy and I went shopping for new calendars, I picked up a copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

After reading it, my opinion of atheism (new or old) hasn’t changed. But my opinion of Richard Dawkins has.

Dawkins gets the scientific facts right. His explanation of evolution and his refutation of so-called “intelligent design” are excellent – I wish I could get some of my creationist family and friends to read them. His rebuttals to the traditional proofs for the existence of God are strong, and his chapter “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God” is convincing. So what’s the problem?

The problem is that Dawkins defines “God” and “religion” very narrowly, using definitions taken straight from conservative monotheists. In reality, religion functions on three levels: the literal, the ethical, and the mystical. Dawkins debunks the literal (Unitarians got there at least a century before he did), points to the human failures of religion to discount the ethical (but he wrote an article and proudly wears a t-shirt saying “Atheists for Jesus”), and writes off the mystical as misfirings of the brain.

In the first chapter, Dawkins quotes Albert Einstein, who said “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.” Dawkins goes on to say “In this sense I too am religious.” But (and this is important) “I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because, for the vast majority of people, ‘religion’ implies ‘supernatural’.” In other words, Dawkins doesn’t want to be associated in any way with people who believe in the literal God of traditional Western monotheism.

I believe in things Dawkins would call “supernatural” because I have experienced them. These experiences were and are personal, subjective and (for the most part) unrepeatable. I have enough training in science and the scientific method (plus a little humility – here if not in all areas of my life) to know that I can’t reasonably expect anyone to simply take my word for it and accept my private revelation as Truth. But these experiences are meaningful and helpful to me, so I order my life as though they were exactly true.

If this associates me with people who believe things that are clearly false and demonstrably harmful, so be it. I’m not willing to throw out the baby of religion with the bathwater of literalism. There is much about religious belief and practice that is good and meaningful – I’d rather fight to reclaim it than to abandon it to the Pat Robertsons and Osama bin Ladens of the world.

I have accused Dawkins and company of fundamentalism. In that I think I’ve been wrong. Here’s a quote from the chapter “What’s Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?”

It is all too easy to confuse fundamentalism with passion. I may well appear passionate when I defend evolution against a fundamentalist creationist, but this is not because of a rival fundamentalism of my own. It is because the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong and I am passionately distressed that my opponent can’t see it – or, more usually, refuses to look at it because it contradicts his holy book.

The New Atheists’ passion for science and against repressive religion is admirable. I might go so far to say it’s necessary, given the need to win over a working majority of people on issues such as science education and gay rights. But their broad-brush approach is overly simplistic and ignores the good so many of us find in our personal and collective religious beliefs and practices.

The literal religion that Dawkins et al rant against is dying, albeit very slowly – its death began 500 years or so ago and will not be complete in our lifetimes. But humans are inherently religious. What ultimately replaces literal religion will not be atheism, but something more akin to the religion of Einstein – the sense that there is something else, something bigger, something Ultimate that we cannot intellectually explain but can intuitively experience.

It’s our job to help build it.

"This definitely resonates with me. Doubt may be human nature, whether we doubt our abilities ..."

You Will Never Be Ready – ..."
"Also: I absolutely burned myself prepping for my first magical working. Glad to know that's ..."

But Seriously, I’m Not Ready For ..."
"I appreciate this sensible breakdown. I must admit, though, that my gut reaction to "Organizational ..."

But Seriously, I’m Not Ready For ..."
"But most people know it's TURTLES all the way down."

What It Means When We Talk ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Very interesting. I share your frustration at the way Dawkins and other NAs narrowly stereotype religion. And I appreciate your delving deeper in the Dawkins book.

  • I've found this distain for New Atheists, while having little more than semantic disagreements with them, quite common from religious liberals. But there really isn't much fire causing all the smoke.

    New Atheists are not dogmatic. Like how a rabbit fossil from the Precambrian would convince an evolutionist that common descent was wrong, if something truly supernatural happened, they would accept it. Dawkins himself has said he is 70% sure there is no God. That's not dogmatic.

    I get that religion is an important word you want to hold on to. I say I'm religious, but not spiritual, myself (or an atheist UU). But I prefer my non-standard definition "to bind together" to the common one. Which says, especially in Christian understanding, religion is belief in the supernatural. If a person says they are a Christian or a believer, but they really don't believe in the supernatural, New Atheists don't have any argument with them. So why are you arguing with the New Atheists?

    To understand that, I think I would have to know what are the things you experience that Dawkins would call supernatural. And how your life is ordered because you believe them to be true. As a Druid and Pagan, I doubt very much that Dawkins would associate you with typical literal monotheistic believers. He might disagree with you, but your baby would be in a crib while the bathwater of literalism is being thrown out.

    Finally as for Dawkins, I think he would entirely agree with you: "There is much about religious belief and practice that is good and meaningful." But he would also say that the good and meaningful part doesn't have to necessarily come from belief. Binding together religion and practice can do just the same work. Dawkins would also agree that "humans are inherently religious." We seek meaning. We just find it from different sources.

    Finally, literal religion is not dying. It is flourishing, in American and in the third world, particularly Africa. Pentecostal/charismatic/full gospel churches are fueling all of the growth of Christianity. It is the non-literal, mainline Protestant and liberal Catholic churches that are dying.

  • NS, my issue isn't the New Atheists' message but their emphasis. The subtitle of Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" isn't "why fundamentalist religion is a bad thing" it's "how religion poisons everything". Their broadbrush approach lumps Buddhists and Baptists, Wiccans and Wahhabis, the Dalai Lama and Pat Robertson into one big stew of malicious morons.

    As I said in the blog post, my opinion of Richard Dawkins changed after reading the book. I understand he's not attacking my religion (or at least, not all of it). But I don't like being relegated to a footnote in the atheist-fundamentalist shouting match.

  • I would place a large bet that none of the New Atheists have said anything against Buddhism or the Dalai Lama. And I would be very surprised if the same didn't go for Wiccans.

    Does your last statement mean you want in on the shouting match? Because Paganism is certainly a footnote on American religion, not that there's anything wrong with that.

  • No, it means I want to be explicitly left out of the shouting match.

  • I am amazed at some of the negative reviews of this book and am doubtful that some of these reviewers actually read the book. I found The God Delusion to be a well-assembled and witty argument against faith. For the reviewers that throw scriptures at him as rebuttal, you might as well threaten him with unicorn attacks, as they hold as much weight–none! This book will not convince those blinded by faith to open their eyes but it reinforces the convictions of those that still hold onto reason. Richard Dawkins does a great job of showing how faith requires the believer to suspend their reason. The fact that so many are willing to do this is troubling and downright scary. I particularly enjoyed his dismantling of the 'uncaused first cause' argument.