Ok, it took me a long time to get round to it, and I know that the whole of the rest of the Western World did it ages ago, but I have just finished reading Richard Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’. Whatever your faith or none, I can thoroughly recommend the book. I chuckled my way through Dawkins and you don’t normally laugh while reading science or logic or theology texts (not that those categories can adequately describe the book’s contents). It was a stimulating, entertaining, passionate, and challenging read.
Dawkins describes how after 9/11 in the US, and after 7/7 in the UK, many people agonised to find an explanation for the seemingly puzzling behaviour of the suicide bombers. That’s an issue many people in Germany are asking today following the recent revelation that at least two of the suspected terrorists were German citizens. But as Dawkins points out - in one sense the key to the puzzle is relatively simple. The people were simply acting out things that they really believed. They weren’t necessarily weird or strange people. They had just adopted a belief system and were then carrying it out in the best way they saw fit. They were following their religion.
The doctors who recently tried to blow up Glasgow Airport spent most of their working lives caring for the sick and saving lives. They were ‘normal’, compassionate people. What lead them to attempt mass murder was their faith.
The inconsistencies that many of us would feel uncomfortable with were not a problem to such believers. Unquestioning allegience (and of course, they are trained in unquestioning allegience) to a god or a holy book enables reason to be subdued so that the supremely inhuman (and ironically, arguable irreligious) acts can be carried out.
Although it is mainly faith inspired acts of terrorism make the big headlines, let’s not forget that acts of faith are leading to, what can only be regarded as, ‘counter-intuitive’ behaviour all the time. A group of Christians recently decided to follow their master’s commands to go and make disciples of all nations. They weren’t particularly fanatical, just wanting to do what the good book says. The problem was that the nation they tried to make disciples in was Taliban dominated Afghanistan. The 23 Korean Christians may have been sincere and naive, but surely they must have known that their mission was dangerous. Two of them were killed by the Taliban and the remaining 21 were eventually released. Both sides can claim they were just following their faith.
On a lighter note, I was dumbfounded to learn this week of the fate of two Nepalese goats. Officials at Nepal’s state airline were having technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 aircraft and had to suspend services. Two goats were sacrificed at Kathmandu airport on Sunday in front of the aircraft in order to appease the Hindu sky god Akash Bhairab. The technical fault has now been fixed and flights have been resumed.
The power of belief is such that people capable of understanding the science behind a modern aircraft engine can also tolerate religious practices attempting to appease a deity by a sacrifice of goats. Initially the juxtaposition of two worlds seemed so strange to me. But then I realized that to some people in Nepal it might seem odd that an educated Western culture still tolerates official religious ceremonies celebrating the appeasement of a deity by the sacrifice of his own son.
‘The God Delusion’ has helped me become more aware of my own blindness about the strength of religion in my own culture. It has also been a powerful reminder that ’sincere’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘right’ - however much cultural pressure there is to confound the two.
As one brought up in the Christian religion and now a devout atheist, I have to struggle to be understanding of people in the grip of - to me, stupid - religious beliefs.
However, a reading of Chuang Tzu reminds me that all arguments have to be based on some viewpoint and that this has to be assumed in order that discussion can even begin. I think that no matter how logical and “scientific” we may be, we inevitably entertain notions that are incomplete or are distortions of the truth or are even plain wrong. There is no way to guarantee that on any issue we are in possession of the exact and complete truth. Science itself gropes slowly towards knowledge like the proverbial blind men examining an elephant.
Debunking religious myths and superstitious beliefs may be a good thing to do but for many people, their religion meets a need that nothing else can and this makes it virtually impossible for them to give up their beliefs. Dawkinesque campaigns may be good fun (for atheists) but they ultimately serve little practical use unless they provide believers with an alternative. For example, for me, the idea that I will cease to exist when I die is neither frightening nor tragic but I would not like to try to sell that philosophy to religious believers rejoicing in the promise of eternal life.
SilverTiger, thanks for your comment. I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say. The templates that we use to make meaning help us cope with life and we become emotionally attached to them. That was one reason why I held onto my own Christian template for so long.
However, having read Dawkins I am still trying to get to grips with the notion of militant atheism - and I suppose the above blog was a first, tentative foray into that area. As I understand Dawkins, he has two basic points: God is a delusion; religious people do dangerous things and therefore closet atheism isn’t good for society. Because of a belief in eternal life, religious people are trying to commit mass murder.
I am probably what Dawkins would call a “closet atheist”, then, because I explain my views when the question arises but do not force them on others. I think it is as wrong to shove my atheism in people’s faces as it is for them to shove their religion in mine.
What is bad about religion is not religion per se (there are a lot of wacky beliefs in the world and we are quite fond of some of them) but the harm that religion does. However, non-religious movements also often do harm while religious movements often do good. I therefore think we should concentrate on counteracting the harm, whoever does it, rather than on hounding believers for their belief.
Dawkins is an intelligent man and I admire the books of his that I have read (I haven’t yet read Delusion and may perhaps admire it as well when I do) but religious people can be intelligent too and their arguments are not as fragile and naive as some atheists like to claim. All philosophical arguments are based on premisses that have to be taken for granted and cannot be proved by the argument itself. This applies to atheists as much as it applies to religious believers.
I would like to see a world where people honestly study evidence and draw sensible conclusions from it, revising their conclusions as necessary. Any system of thought that limits exploration and imposes a set of predetermined tenets is bad and militant atheists are often as guilty of this as religious believers.
If someone looks at the world and concludes (as did my dentist) that its features are evidence for the existence of God then we have to attend seriously to the argument, not dismiss the arguer as stupid or insane. I would rather be treated by a good dentist who believes in God than a dentist who shares my philosophy but wrecks my teeth.
SilverTiger, where did “forcing my views on others” come from? I certainly wouldn’t want to do that. I think skepticism and a willingness to revise in the light of evidence is good and what Dawkins argues for.
I too would rather be treated by a good dentist who happens to be a Christian rather than a bad one who happens to be an atheist.
I know religious people can be intelligent too. I have three degrees and was a practising Christian for over 30 years.
I suppose the ground where I am beginning to move to is:
1) A willingness to consider evidence and change views if necessary is the best place to be - and probably what distinguishes Dawkins from many in the religious camp.
2) Any world view that is not based on good evidence and is extreme is likely to be dangerous (religious/atheistic) and should therefore be resisted and challenged - rather than simply tolerated or regarded as quaint and untouchable (simply because it is religion/belief/cultural).
I suspect we may be in more agreement than your comments and my replies suggest.
athinkingman: SilverTiger, where did “forcing my views on others” come from?
It came from me explaining my outlook, i.e. that I don’t believe in forcing my ideas on others.
I didn’t consider that there was any great disagreement between us. I was simply making some points I think are important.
As I have explained elsewhere, I don’t see atheism as a belief (it is simply a refusal to accept an unlikely claim unsupported by any reasonable evidence) and I therefore do not see any reason why atheists would campaign to spread their views. On the other hand, that they would campaign to draw attention to abuses, religious and otherwise, is perfectly reasonable.
There is certainly room for a book that explains the atheist world view (Julian Baggini’s Atheism is a good one and has the merit of brevity) as long as it is non-polemical and concentrates on explaining what the atheist thinks and how he justifies his thoughts rather than on debunking other people’s ideas.
[...] elsewhere about the power of faith that causes people to see things that aren’t there, and do some very strange things. Part of me wants to think, if anything helps the dangerously ill, and does no harm, then what is [...]