I saw this book in the bookstore months ago and knew that I would be reading it sooner of later but that I was backed up on my reading. Well, yesterday I picked it up and began reading and let me tell you that so far it doesn't disappoint. I've read up to page 23 but already the author, (Richard Dawkins) has made some intriguing points. This will be the first of many posts on the book.First of all I want to share a great quote from Carl Sagan on the matter of a supernatural "God:"
Carl Sagan put it well: '...if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.'
This quote pretty much sums up my attitude about and toward a "God." However, I would add the following: My personal view of a "God" is most closely to that of a pantheist (if I have to delve into definitions). I try not to put limits upon such a force. Even though I do not believe in a supernatural "God" I do believe in an Unfathomable "God-force."
I think that such a force is so Enlightened that it is not limited to a permanent body (as my friend David alludes to in my cross-post at my Buddhist blog). That all sentient beings and non-sentient things have a piece of this "God-force" within "their" very DNA and molecular structure. I call myself a "Buddhist" to make it easier for people that think in structured, dualistic 'religious' terms. However, as a "Buddhist" I see that there really is no such thing as a "Buddhist" or "Buddhism" as both are always changing--as are all things according to the Buddha. Being a student of "Buddhism" I promptly looked up "Buddhism" in the index of the book and found this lonely reference.
And I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions but as ethical systems or philosophies of life.
I do not believe in a "God" that can be conceivable to the average theist either and I would submit that Dawkins believes the same. That his belief in science is a 'religion' but as the below quote explains, he purposely does not call himself 'religious' because that word is loaded with centuries of preconceived ideas.
He seems to be a pantheist:
Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs it's workings. ...Pantheism is sexed up Atheism. He then goes on to quote Einstein's religious beliefs and agrees with them: 'To sense 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.' In this sense I too am religious, with the reservation that 'cannot grasp' does not have to mean 'forever graspable.' But 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.'
James: After reading this quote I sank my teeth into the first, real meaty issue of the book. That being the idea that anything religious deserves an abnormal amount of respect and even a state of untouchability. He gives a couple of great examples regarding this issue:
I have previously drawn attention to the privileging of religion in public discussions of ethics in the media and in government. Whenever a controversy arises over sexual or reproductive morals, you can bet that religious leaders from several different faith groups will be prominently represented on influential committees, or on panel discussions on radio and television. I'm not suggesting that we should go out of our way to censor the views of these people. But why does our society beat a path to their door, as though they had some expertise comparable to that of, say, a moral philosopher, family lawyer or a doctor?
James: This is an excellent point. Abortion for example is a medical issue and not a religious issue. Sure religions have a right to be against abortion but why should a religious belief influence our laws that are supposed to be independent from any religion? Especially if we believe in a separation between church and state? Religions have a right to be free from governmental imposition of beliefs but the government has a right to make decisions based on science, reason and sociological data rather then on faith, based on what an arguable, mythical, "man in the sky" tells us to belief or do. History has tried many, many times to run government by religion and it has made a serious mess of things. That was one of the major reasons that the American revolution took off and was so successful. If religious groups are going to be invited to discuss and decide major government and political issues then they should lose their tax exempt status.
Here's another weird example of privileging of religion. On 21 February 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody else has to obey, against the taking of hallucinogenic drugs. Faithful members of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal believe that they that they can understand God only by drinking hoasca tea, which contains illegal hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine. Note that is sufficient to believe that the drug enhances their understanding. They do not have to produce evidence. Conversely, there is plenty of evidence that cannabis eases the nausea and discomfort of cancer sufferers undergoing chemotheraphy. Yet the Supreme Court ruled in 2005, that all patients who use cannabis for medical purposes are vulnerable to federal prosecution (even in the minority of states where such specialist use is legalized). Religion, as ever, is the trump card. Imagine members of an art appreciation society pleading in court that they 'believe' they need a hallucinogenic drug in order to enhance their understanding of Impressionist or Surrealist paintings. Yet, when a church claims such an equivalent need, it is backed by the highest court in the land. Such is the power of religion as a talisman.
James: This is going to be a great book.
9 comments:
I'm about 2/3 through the book and love it. Dawkins is very intelligent and articulates his viewpoint very well. Once I finish the book, I'll try and do a detailed review. I've already been using several of his arguments in religious discussions on other blogs.
I find that of the major religions many share the same beliefs/mores. Perhaps God is just our way of trying to tap into our higher selves. I have never understood why organized religion won't condone individual relationships with "God". Oh yeah, it dilutes their power.
Perhaps I'm being judgmental here, but I don't think I'll ever be able to appreciate Dawkins's work--not on its actual substance, admittedly, but because of his attitudes of how religion should be treated in society.
As a Buddhist, I recognize that it is not beliefs that matter, but one's actions. If, for example, one advocates against the death penalty, it does not matter if one does this because of religious beliefs, ethical qualms, or legal questions. The motivation does not matter so much as the actions of opposition do. Even the label "Buddhist" is just that--a label, and it is meaningless unless it drives one to positive actions. Someone who does evil while claiming to be Buddhist is far worse off than someone who does good while claiming to be Christian, and so forth.
Dawkins, on the other hand, ultimately buys into the lie that drives the extremist factions of Christianity and Islam--one's beliefs matter more than one's actions. Dawkins, from what I have read, would not want allies in, say, opposition to the death penalty if they had "incorrect" beliefs. It's "legitimate" to oppose it for purely ethical reasons, or for legal ones; it is "illegitimate" to do so for religious reasons, as the passages you quote indicate.
(Of course, Dawkins's materialism is so passionately held and evangelized that it becomes a kind of religion itself--yet he escapes the "religious" label why, exactly? Because he says so? Because he's right? Well, if Dawkins is correct, then the Buddha was wrong to speak of concepts such as rebirth, which clearly cannot be true in a materialistic universe. But that's aside from the point.)
The trouble, of course, is that we live in a world where religion exists, and is deeply significant to the majority of people. When we speak of issues such as abortion, or the death penalty, then humans will naturally be curious as to what religious people have to say on the subject. Should we make laws based solely off of those beliefs? No, but to deny them entirely is to oppress information.
That is the point where Dawkins moves into extremist territory, honestly. He advocates, repeatedly and passionately, making it illegal for parents to teach their children any religious beliefs (and, by the by, includes Buddhism in that list of "illegal" faiths). He suggests that parents who teach their children anything but atheistic materialism are subjugating their children to abuse. Given the current American laws on abuse, that means that, in his perfect world, the overwhelming majority of the American population would be in jail for child abuse.
Dawkins, then, crosses the line from secularism to state-imposed materialism. Somehow, an imposition of a singular point of view on spirituality and religion would magically cure society of most, if not all, of its ills. How this can be true, when many atrocities have been committed which have nothing to do with religion, isn't said--it's simply assumed (or accepted on faith, if you like).
At that point, I find it impossible to simply accept what Dawkins teaches, as I'd find it impossible to accept spiritual guidance from members of the Religious Right.
~daur izre~
Dbackdad:
I look forward hearing your review.
Fashion Girl:
Good points.
Daur Izre:
I think that Dawkins very much agrees with you and I that actions matter more then beliefs. He's a scientist after all and science is all about actions and testable theories. I highly doubt that he'd disagree with someone who agreed with his position on say, war simply because they were "religious." I think the man is smarter then that. If you have evidence otherwise I'd love to see it. :)
I also recognize that the label "Buddhist" is just that--a label and I made note of that in the post.
He states several places that his point isn't to offend but rather to express his views. His main goal is to educate people on atheism and argue that it deserves just as much respect as any religion does.
As I quoted Dawkins in the post,he DOES admit that he is religious in a sense. However, refuses to use the term "religious" because it conjures up ideas of "faith based" religion. Where as his "religion" is more of a science based belief system. They may not be "traditional religious beliefs" but they are beliefs that he sticks to religiously.
As I stated in my post I don't see Dawkins as wanting to keep religious leaders from expressing their views on moral issues. However that he wants to make sure that there is a balance between religious views and scientific views on important issues relating to society.
Specifically on the issue of abortion I posted Dawkins ideas about freedom of religious speech in a debate: I'm not suggesting that we should go out of our way to censor the views of these people.
I haven't seen any evidence that Dawkins wants to make it illegal for parents to teach religion to their kids. State imposed atheism. Besides, how would one enforce such a radical view?? However, if you have some evidence that he believes that I'd love a link to that.
In this book he expresses his opinion that it is more important to teach kids how to think then what to think. For example, teaching them religion but also stressing that they have a right to choose what they want to believe. He doesn't say anything about making teaching your kids religion illegal.
The important point is that it is "their" privilege (kids) to decide what they shall think, and not their parents' privilege to impose it by "force majeure."
Of course there is no way to enforce this opinion nor should there be.
'...if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.'
I like this quote. This is the best way I've heard a concept such as 'God' being discribed.
Jackal:
I agree.
I've come to believe in "god" as a unifying force found in every living thing. Personification seems pointless as we will each project our own personalities into our "god".
I believe in god. I just don't believe in religion.
The book sounds interesting.
I read the book a month or so ago and enjoyed it thoroughly. I've been a devout atheist ever since I can remember, and scientific materialism holds more than enough wonder, so I guess that puts me in Dawkins' camp.
Lynne:
Well put and very similar to what I believe.
Shrimplate:
Yeah I'm pretty much in his camp as well. I've been impressed with this book.
Post a Comment