Print
His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel
by David Baddiel
Reposted from:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1971115.ece
I FIND, AS I GROW OLDER, THAT I AM perhaps not as up to speed with the Zeitgeist as I used to be. The rock subculture emo may, I think, have come and gone, and I'm still not entirely sure what it is/was. Web 2.0 is a phrase that I've noticed passing by in newspaper articles as if we all know what it means, but clearly I missed the explanatory one when it first arrived. I have yet – as a full-blooded modern male, I'm ashamed to admit this – to watch a single episode of 24 (although, as is the modern way, I do have the first series waiting for me in a box set, pining for that two-day-solid watching window), but I know that it is already passé, long jumped its shark, and that I should by now have moved on to Entourage. And, worst of all, I have only just started reading The God Delusion.
The pace of cultural debate being what it is these days, it feels, only a year after publication, very late to be reading this and even later to be writing about it, (although not as late as publishing another version of it, as Christopher Hitchens seems to have – although obviously, with my backlog, I haven't read God Is Not Great, and accept that this comment may be unfair).
In my defence, I was waiting until the paperback came out, because my shelves groan with unread hardbacks, left there out of a combination of comfort-concern – one's man-bag is so much less painful on the shoulder with a paperback – and a realisation that easyJet now charges £10 for every 20kg.
Anyway, it's interesting to read a book that you've read a lot about. I'm not just talking about reviews, but a book that caused a big old chattering-classes stir, with responses in The Sunday Times written in the name of God. A book that broke out of the Books pages on to the opinion pages, even on to the news pages. Thus my responses to it are not neutral, but waver upon a median line of expectation.
It is, for example, much funnier than I had expected. Sometimes I'm not sure that this is intended – Dawkins's recommendation in the preface (after a thank-you to his wife, the former Doctor Who companion Lalla Ward, for doing so) that all authors should employ an actor to read their manuscripts back to them before submission ("it must be a professional actor, with voice and ear sensitively tuned to the music of language") made me laugh out loud, bringing to mind how much Nigel Planer's brilliant comedy character Nicholas Craig would salivate at the work prospects that taking up this idea might create. However, I laughed with the author at – but was also surprised by – his use of sixth-form sarcasm. I just wasn't expecting the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science of New College, Oxford, to quote long tracts by theologians and then begin his argument against them by saying: "Yeah, right." I wonder if Lalla got exactly the right Nick Hancock-style intonation.
I also have begun to understand why The God Delusion caused such ire. Logically religion is, of course, nonsense. Attacking it with logic, especially if you are as bright as Dawkins, causes its arguments to disintegrate so quickly that it can seem like bullying, like breaking a butterfly on a wheel. Except that this isn't a butterfly – it's a vast and powerful superstructure. You have to keep on reminding yourself of this when you read the book, because, within its confines, Dawkins seems (and is, intellectually) the high status one.
Nor was I expecting it to give up attacking the idea of God's existence so early (page 189 in the paperback), and turn into an ultra-Darwinian analysis of why religion exists at all. This is the bit that I'm at, and I don't like it as much.
The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose) but surely the key thing about religion is that we have it and animals don't. That is because we have consciousness of death and they don't. Thus we had to conjure religion, "that moth-eaten musical brocade created to pretend we never die", as Larkin puts it. Also, animals feel no need to explain the world; we do. We look at it long past the point where we are straightforwardly governed by our selfish genes, and what drives us are not the basic positives any more but the basic negatives: anxiety, fear, incomprehension, the desperate need to think that we know, to be "right"all the time, and, above all, to be parented – and there you have him, God.
Anyway, I'm off to listen to My Chemical Romance's lastest album. I have a lot to get through.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1971115.ece
I FIND, AS I GROW OLDER, THAT I AM perhaps not as up to speed with the Zeitgeist as I used to be. The rock subculture emo may, I think, have come and gone, and I'm still not entirely sure what it is/was. Web 2.0 is a phrase that I've noticed passing by in newspaper articles as if we all know what it means, but clearly I missed the explanatory one when it first arrived. I have yet – as a full-blooded modern male, I'm ashamed to admit this – to watch a single episode of 24 (although, as is the modern way, I do have the first series waiting for me in a box set, pining for that two-day-solid watching window), but I know that it is already passé, long jumped its shark, and that I should by now have moved on to Entourage. And, worst of all, I have only just started reading The God Delusion.
The pace of cultural debate being what it is these days, it feels, only a year after publication, very late to be reading this and even later to be writing about it, (although not as late as publishing another version of it, as Christopher Hitchens seems to have – although obviously, with my backlog, I haven't read God Is Not Great, and accept that this comment may be unfair).
In my defence, I was waiting until the paperback came out, because my shelves groan with unread hardbacks, left there out of a combination of comfort-concern – one's man-bag is so much less painful on the shoulder with a paperback – and a realisation that easyJet now charges £10 for every 20kg.
Anyway, it's interesting to read a book that you've read a lot about. I'm not just talking about reviews, but a book that caused a big old chattering-classes stir, with responses in The Sunday Times written in the name of God. A book that broke out of the Books pages on to the opinion pages, even on to the news pages. Thus my responses to it are not neutral, but waver upon a median line of expectation.
It is, for example, much funnier than I had expected. Sometimes I'm not sure that this is intended – Dawkins's recommendation in the preface (after a thank-you to his wife, the former Doctor Who companion Lalla Ward, for doing so) that all authors should employ an actor to read their manuscripts back to them before submission ("it must be a professional actor, with voice and ear sensitively tuned to the music of language") made me laugh out loud, bringing to mind how much Nigel Planer's brilliant comedy character Nicholas Craig would salivate at the work prospects that taking up this idea might create. However, I laughed with the author at – but was also surprised by – his use of sixth-form sarcasm. I just wasn't expecting the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science of New College, Oxford, to quote long tracts by theologians and then begin his argument against them by saying: "Yeah, right." I wonder if Lalla got exactly the right Nick Hancock-style intonation.
I also have begun to understand why The God Delusion caused such ire. Logically religion is, of course, nonsense. Attacking it with logic, especially if you are as bright as Dawkins, causes its arguments to disintegrate so quickly that it can seem like bullying, like breaking a butterfly on a wheel. Except that this isn't a butterfly – it's a vast and powerful superstructure. You have to keep on reminding yourself of this when you read the book, because, within its confines, Dawkins seems (and is, intellectually) the high status one.
Nor was I expecting it to give up attacking the idea of God's existence so early (page 189 in the paperback), and turn into an ultra-Darwinian analysis of why religion exists at all. This is the bit that I'm at, and I don't like it as much.
The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose) but surely the key thing about religion is that we have it and animals don't. That is because we have consciousness of death and they don't. Thus we had to conjure religion, "that moth-eaten musical brocade created to pretend we never die", as Larkin puts it. Also, animals feel no need to explain the world; we do. We look at it long past the point where we are straightforwardly governed by our selfish genes, and what drives us are not the basic positives any more but the basic negatives: anxiety, fear, incomprehension, the desperate need to think that we know, to be "right"all the time, and, above all, to be parented – and there you have him, God.
Anyway, I'm off to listen to My Chemical Romance's lastest album. I have a lot to get through.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 91 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #51490 by nancy2001 on June 23, 2007 at 5:36 am
Reading this article can seem like hoisting a toaster on a string bean.Other Comments by nancy2001
3. Comment #51491 by ImagineAZ on June 23, 2007 at 5:42 am
Well, who is this guy? It reads like a book review from a junior high newspaper.Other Comments by ImagineAZ
4. Comment #51494 by bitbutter on June 23, 2007 at 5:55 am
This is a double article post http://richarddawkins.net/article,1319,His-word,David-Baddiel-Times-Online Other Comments by bitbutter
5. Comment #51495 by Damien Trotter on June 23, 2007 at 5:58 am
David Baddiel is a comedian/writer in the UK. He is of Jewish heritage.And nearly a thousand words in his article to say almost nothing. Is this a record? He didn't even bother to inform us of his own stance on religion.
DT
Other Comments by Damien Trotter
6. Comment #51505 by oeditor on June 23, 2007 at 7:01 am
>Bringing back the "butterfly on a wheel" phrase is >horrid enoughAnd allowed the subeditor to use it as a headline, ignoring the next sentence where Baddiel went on to say that religion was no butterfly.
Other Comments by oeditor
7. Comment #51515 by Logicel on June 23, 2007 at 7:56 am
First time I have ranked an article below average.Baddiel, do yourself and us a favor and take a long vacation doing something you like, probably nothing. Just do nothing for a week or two. You sound super burnt out.
Not only do not take any books with you, but have some needy group come and haul away all those burdensome books, yet unread, ticking away like a literary/cultural bomb, on your groaning bookshelves. They may appreciate them more than you do or ever will.
Damg, I need a vacation after reading this, it gave me a bout of fatigue.
Other Comments by Logicel
8. Comment #51518 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 8:15 am
This is the bit that I'm at, and I don't like it as much.Guess he's not far enough along to get the "byproduct" argument.
The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose...
Who publishes a book review prior to finishing the book?
What was the point of all that "as I get older, I can't seem to keep up" crap? Apparently he imagines his readers will be sympathetic to opinions based upon laziness.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
9. Comment #51519 by flyingscot on June 23, 2007 at 8:17 am
It never fails to amaze me that people get paid for writing articles like this. Unbelievably bad, and he gets published! He must have some good contacts. What a waste of space. Other Comments by flyingscot
10. Comment #51520 by TIKI AL on June 23, 2007 at 8:36 am
"but surely the key thing about religion is that we have it and animals don't. That is because we have consciousness of death and they don't."Tell that to a pitbull about to enter a bloody dog fighting ring for the last event of the day in South Phoenix, Arizona.
I did find his comments on bookshelf weight management helpful.
Other Comments by TIKI AL
11. Comment #51521 by Orbital on June 23, 2007 at 8:56 am
That's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Other Comments by Orbital
12. Comment #51522 by Robert Maynard on June 23, 2007 at 8:57 am
Jesus guys, it's just a light-hearted fluff piece in an entertainment column..It's arguable whether it was worth posting to the sites newsfeed, but we should be considering its context.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
13. Comment #51527 by Richard Dawkins on June 23, 2007 at 9:19 am
Don't be too hard on David Baddiel. Remember, this was never intended to be a book review, but just a light-hearted column, perhaps a bit like those 'Diary' pieces that people are sometimes asked to write. And I must say I'm particularly grateful to him for remarking that TGD is FUNNY. I don't think any actual reviewers have noticed that! So, thank you for that, Mr Baddiel.Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
14. Comment #51528 by The Wee Flea on June 23, 2007 at 9:23 am
Guys,You need to take a chill pill. He's actually on your side! After all he comes out with the biggest atheist myth of all - that belief in God is illogical!
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
15. Comment #51530 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 9:32 am
Dawkins:Remember, this was never intended to be a book review, but just a light-hearted column...Ah. So it's like an Andy Rooney "Ever notice shoes?" piece.
Note to self: there's "funny ha-ha", "funny eh?" AND "that was meant to be funny" funny.
Well then... carry on.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
16. Comment #51532 by bumgut on June 23, 2007 at 9:46 am
David Baddiel was on a comedy show called 'The Mary Whitehouse Experience' in the mid-90s.In the clips he's the one on the left:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA&feature=PlayList&p=B205D681D3B1ECBE&index=12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMBHZWe2S8&feature=PlayList&p=B205D681D3B1ECBE&index=9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7y0Sb0s6Y&feature=PlayList&p=B205D681D3B1ECBE&index=11
Other Comments by bumgut
17. Comment #51536 by Coel on June 23, 2007 at 9:55 am
To wee flea (David Robertson)You need to take a chill pill. He's actually on your side!
Yeah, but isn't one of your standard complaints that we're not critical enough of atheists?
After all he comes out with the biggest atheist myth of all - that belief in God is illogical!
Then maybe one day you'll come up with a logical argument for the existence of God. If you succeed you'll have managed something no theologian has done in thousands of years. The honest believers admit that it takes a leap of faith.
Other Comments by Coel
18. Comment #51537 by poppythinks on June 23, 2007 at 9:57 am
baddiel says religion is nonsense, then likens it to a 'butterfly on a wheel' (with dawkins playing 'bully'), then says it is a 'powerful superstructure'......er...i sense a slight conflict or two here....
perhaps being brought up in a jewish family may have something to do with it.
jews tend to stick together because of the holocaust, and are told they are 'deniers' or anti-semitic if they find judaism 'nonsense'.
i have been called all those things, but i can still reconcile atheism with absolute disgust of the jewish holocaust, (and all other holocausts) without having to take part in religious rituals
(superstitious nonsense).
i would encourage david to finish reading dawkins
and also read hitchens, as they can only give him
more courage to be himself, and see religion not as a fragile butterfly, but the tangled web of superstitious and horrendous practices it really is.
Other Comments by poppythinks
19. Comment #51538 by Coel on June 23, 2007 at 10:10 am
baddiel says religion is nonsense, then likens it to a 'butterfly on a wheel' . . . er...i sense a slight conflict or two
Hi Poppy, note the words "can seem like" in what Baddiel said; when you read that whole paragraph properly there is no contradiction.
I think quite a few people here are reading Baddiel too superficially (though it does look like he doesn't understand memes).
Other Comments by Coel
20. Comment #51541 by Tim Marsh on June 23, 2007 at 10:38 am
Dr. Dawkins,For what it's worth, I thought The God Delusion was delightfully funny.
It has even found its way into my vocabulary, to the point where as a response to highly obvious 'why' questions, I have taken to responding in my best 'Richard Dawkins' accent, "Why indeed?", as a nod to your section on the importance of teaching comparative religion.
Other Comments by Tim Marsh
21. Comment #51547 by TedWak on June 23, 2007 at 10:59 am
Thanks to Prof. Dawkins for adding some much-needed perspective on this piece. Though one may well ask why it's posted here in the first place (is it an automatic thing?) when the kneejerk response is to trash it mercilessly.The "butterfly on wheel" phrase may be overkill but of course Baddiel is saying his first reaction to The God Delusion is that its arguments are overkill ... until he remembers what has been and continues to be wrought in name of religion.
This is one of the recurring themes of critics who basically agree with Dawkins but find him a bit impolite. By lumping all believers together, we find the doddering C of E country vicar whose three regular parishioners are two blue-haired ladies and a scottie suddenly in league with a wild-eyed Muslim suicide bomber.
Interesting, though, he looks to traditional psychological/sociological explanations for why people believe, not evolution.
But give the man a break.
TW
Other Comments by TedWak
22. Comment #51549 by The Wee Flea on June 23, 2007 at 11:02 am
17. Comment #51536 by Coel"Yeah, but isn't one of your standard complaints that we're not critical enough of atheists?"
Sure - but I didn't mean that you have to crucify those who deviate even slightly from the True Faith!
"Then maybe one day you'll come up with a logical argument for the existence of God. If you succeed you'll have managed something no theologian has done in thousands of years. The honest believers admit that it takes a leap of faith."
Sure - but to save repetition have a look at my 'Dawkins Letters - challenging atheist myths' (unless of course you are one of the 'beleivers' who refuses to buy or read anything by heretics!). Never been one for the leap of faith argument - is that not what atheists do?
As regards advising him to read Hitchins. Please! 'God is not Great' is a dreadful book compared with TGD. At least RD has his scientific ability to compensate for his lack of knowledge about theology. What does Hitchins have?
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
23. Comment #51550 by BillySands on June 23, 2007 at 11:03 am
Wee free,homophobia is illogical as is your belief that the pope is the antichrist
Other Comments by BillySands
24. Comment #51553 by Robert Maynard on June 23, 2007 at 11:14 am
I didn't mean that you have to crucify those who deviate even slightly from the True Faith!David, you are again running up against the problem that atheism does not have any doctrinal cohesion from which to 'deviate'.
You're also comparing derisive commentary to an ancient method of execution so intensely painful the word 'excruciating' was invented just to try and relate to it, but (quite worryingly) this is the least of your problems.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
25. Comment #51554 by VanYoungman on June 23, 2007 at 11:31 am
Wee Flea and Billy;If you ever stop posting your delightful repartee, I will start believing in a god again, perhaps Dan Dennett.
Somebody should start a fund to send these two to the AAI Convention in September. It would be a huge draw.
Other Comments by VanYoungman
26. Comment #51556 by the great teapot on June 23, 2007 at 11:40 am
@ the wee flea.I will dispense with politeness, as you have. Which part of the Thor, Tooth-fairy, Teapot, analogy do you not understand you f***w**. Your trivial arguments cut no ice on this website, you represent the infancy of human thought. David Ike means as much to the average thinking Briton as your Jesus Christ. Wake up and smell the coffee.
He's got a pineapple on his head, a pineapple on his head ....
(Bring back fantasy football.- If you google and read this David I loved the show, and would love to see it back- And if you do read this, which is your Team? - I 've always assumed Spurs, I suppose that makes me a racist SOB)
Other Comments by the great teapot
27. Comment #51560 by The Wee Flea on June 23, 2007 at 11:51 am
Hi Billy,Something is missing here! What does this thread have to do with homophobia and the Pope? You are just a wee bit obcessed (by the way for the record - I think homophobia is a sin, and I do not think the Pope is the anti-Christ - indeed at this very moment I am reading his latest book on Jesus and throughly enjoying it - makes a pleasant change from the atheist tomes I have been digesting!).
The great teapot - thanks for that incisive, intelligent and devasting bit of logic. I assume you think that your post represents the maturity of human thought?! I think I'll end for Mars....
Meanwhile back to David Baddiel - you should be grateful to him. It's yet another pro Dawkins article in The Times and yet more publicity for TGD. What more could you ask for?
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
28. Comment #51561 by The Wee Flea on June 23, 2007 at 11:53 am
Sorry - I should also have pointed out that Baddiel is right (and RD himself has posted on this thread thanking him for it) - TGD is funny. It's humour is what makes it a much better book than it would otherwise have been.Other Comments by The Wee Flea
29. Comment #51564 by reggiedixon on June 23, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I have a feeling that this is a case where if you don't get the context and the background then you shoot off in the wrong direction and get it all wrong.Baddiel is a rather good comedian who doesn't strike me as someone who takes anything seriously, if you are aware of his work then you will have noticed my reference just then.
I liked this article because I read it with Baddiels's voice and mannerisms in my head. Its not a deep, intellectual tome but then it doesn't need to be - as he says :
"Logically religion is, of course, nonsense"
Which actually sums everything up rather neatly in a lot less words than is usual on this site which I am beginning to tire of due to repetition from people like FleaBrain trotting out the usual nonsense.
Plus Baddiel says another thing that I agree with namely you don't need any flash theory to explain religion - "basic stupidity, wishful thinking and gullibility" explains it just fine.
Other Comments by reggiedixon
30. Comment #51567 by the great teapot on June 23, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Wee Flea ,the most notorious thing about Xians is their lack of sense of humour, a close second is the scientists (lack of) sense of humour. I don't expect to see you or Richard Dawkins in the humour section of my local waterstones for quite some time.Wee flea ,when you look in a mirror do you have reflection?
Other Comments by the great teapot
31. Comment #51575 by posiedon on June 23, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Just when you're enjoying yourself, up pops wee free, wee flea, David bloody Robertson.He has more nuisance value than a Scottish midge.
Here's a little ditty for you pastor, I'm sure you'll know the tune.
And here's to you, David Robertson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, David Robertson
Heaven holds a place for those who pay
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)
We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files
We'd like to help you learn to help yourself
Look around you, all you see are sympathetic eyes
Stroll around the threads until you feel at home
And here's to you, David Robertson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, David Robertson
Heaven holds a place for those who pay
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)
Hide your buy-bull in a place place where no one ever goes
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes
It's a little secret, just the Robertsons affair
Most of all, you've got to hide it from the kids
Coo, coo, ca-choo, David Robertson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, David Robertson
Heaven holds a place for those who pay
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidate's debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose
Where have you gone, David Robertson?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)
What's that you say? David Robertson
jeebus christ has left and gone away
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)
Other Comments by posiedon
32. Comment #51576 by the great teapot on June 23, 2007 at 12:49 pm
If only they would hide it from the kids.Other Comments by the great teapot
33. Comment #51587 by Coel on June 23, 2007 at 2:57 pm
To wee flea (David Robertson)
Sure - but to save repetition have a look at my 'Dawkins Letters - challenging atheist myths' (unless of course you are one of the 'beleivers' who refuses to buy or read anything by heretics!).
Well I've read it (or at least the letters on your website). I didn't see anywhere a logical argument for the existence of God. It seemed to be along the lines of "Motherhood, apple pie, peanut-butter and jelly are all nice things that exist, that proves there is a God".
Never been one for the leap of faith argument - is that not what atheists do?
Nope.
Other Comments by Coel
34. Comment #51588 by Coel on June 23, 2007 at 3:03 pm
To wee flea (David Robertson)As regards advising him to read Hitchins. Please! 'God is not Great' is a dreadful book compared with TGD. At least RD has his scientific ability to compensate for his lack of knowledge about theology. What does Hitchins have?
Umm, passion? But I agree, I prefer the likes of Dawkins & Dennett. Good read though, if you like polemics. Oh, and since so very little theology is based on evidence, why is lacking knowledge of it a disadvantage? If the debate is centered on evidence (as it should be), the theology is nearly all irrelevant.
Other Comments by Coel
35. Comment #51589 by Corylus on June 23, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I have to say I actually like David Baddiel!He comes across as a bit 'laddish' but he also seems a remarkably sane, funny and kind individual. (He got quite cross recently at being sent books written by Jewish writers to review simply because of his Jewish heritage).
Ok, he appears to buy into the strange idea that kicking balls about is a subject of deep gravity and importance, but other males I respect seem to go for this also, so I won't hold it against him. (Maybe I should write a book of my own. "Manchester United is not great: football poisons everything??")
He really should have done some research on his byline though. This comes originally from Pope, and it is often quoted when people put massive effort into crushing what is puny and unimportant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_breaks_a_butterfly_on_a_wheel%3F
Unfortunately, in relation to Dawkins this is a bad move. Mary Midgely trotted this out in relation to her criticism of the Selfish Gene. (RD if you are listening I am sorry for dragging up ancient history).
This can be an unbelievably arrogant allegory if put into the wrong hands.
Other Comments by Corylus
36. Comment #51593 by IQHQ on June 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm
The tone of this post correllates with a point i've been wanting to make on here for quite a while, and so allows me to finally make it.Needless to say, the logical arguments against religion are really very facile, and evidence for this fact is provided by the extent of the frustration atheist contributors feel when faced with an unflinching faith-head.
As Baddiel remarks in this article, it is the contemplation of death (and the fear this invokes) which caused us to invent religion in the first place. This is a relatively uncontroversial point, and accords well with our common sense.
If indeed this is true, and humanity NEEDED religion, then what convinces you lot that we have shed such a need by this stage in our evolution? What makes you think we will ever be rid of it?
For a species which shares circa 97% of our DNA with chimps, there will always be those who veer towards the chimp side of the intelligence variant, and whose inferior intellect dispose them towards the fake securities and easy answers provided by religions. Since this is so, I bid Professor Dawkins (or, indeed, any of you) to explain the roots of his argument's vehemence. There is no doubt that you are CORRECT. Everyone on this site can see that this is so, but that is surely because we are collectively quite an intelligent bunch. Not everyone will be able or prepared to accept the consequences of your arguments.. do you just respond "so what"? shouldn't we be compassionate to those who NEED religion in a similar way that we are compassionate to less intelligent animals? (Apologies faith-heads!) Surely shouldn't the satisfaction gained from seeing the world through our refined and developed perspective be enough without us needing to have others see sense too?
Another related point refers to your dismissal of religion's "carrot and stick" approach to coercing people into behaving in conformity with a certain moral code. You say, "isn't that a pretty abyssmal reason to be moral? I accept this point and also agree that morality has an evolutionary origin. Yet, my point centres not on how you and I (relatively intelligent men) respond morally to shedding our religion, but rather upon how less educated men and women may. We live in an age where we are surrounded by an anti-intellectualism of philistine proportions. Can you not see how nihilism may be a natural reaction to such people losing faith? Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.
Other Comments by IQHQ
37. Comment #51594 by IQHQ on June 23, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I just realised that I must add this one additional note to my post:When, in response to the "it feels good" argument, you respond "Ah yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true or not", you overlook the fact that after your scathing attack on religion's logical foundations, it may just not provide the comfort and solace it once did. Put differently, the solace it provides depends upon people being able to belive in its veracity.
Other Comments by IQHQ
38. Comment #51596 by Russell Blackford on June 23, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Pffff @Richard (post 13 on the thread).Cf: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1250
.... where I said:
This project could have gone wrong in so many ways, but The God Delusion is lucid and enjoyable, sometimes passionate but never shrill, certainly not stodgy, and frequently laced with cunning humour. It confirms that Dawkins is one of the supreme communicators of ideas writing in the English language.
Admittedly, I didn't use the word "funny", but isn't "frequently laced with cunning humour" near enough?
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
39. Comment #51597 by almax on June 23, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Re comments 36 and 37So you recommend that we leave the 'faith-heads' in peace with their deluded but harmless views, while we luxuriate in our smug righteousness. Unfortunately THEY won't leave us alone. Only someone with 'the delusion' thinks that they can eternally survive driving a plane through a building, or that a supernatural being authorised their expeditionary war.
If I'm going to be killed because of someone's else's belief, then I'd prefer that that belief had at least the merit of being true.
Other Comments by almax
40. Comment #51598 by Russell Blackford on June 23, 2007 at 5:00 pm
My post above raises an interesting point, though. Am I literally the only actual reviewer of the book who wasn't tone deaf when reading it? I don't know what that would tell us, if so, but it's a bit troubling.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
41. Comment #51601 by IQHQ on June 23, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Almax, with respect, that is a pretty lame and predictable response to my post.
Other Comments by IQHQ
42. Comment #51603 by almax on June 23, 2007 at 5:20 pm
ThankyouOther Comments by almax
43. Comment #51604 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 5:32 pm
IQHQ:Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.Well. Good people don't need God to be good. Sociopaths generally feel that they are God. And for the weak who fall somewhere in between, fear of society's reaction to antisocial behavior is probably our best deterrent.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
44. Comment #51606 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Russell Blackford:Am I literally the only actual reviewer of the book who wasn't tone deaf when reading it? I don't know what that would tell us, if so, but it's a bit troubling.Hmm. I seem to recall a couple of strongly positive reviews. Can't remember if humor was mentioned specifically.
Listening to TGD on my iPod, I laughed out loud. I'm not sure I could have reviewed TGD. Finding fault on some point appears de rigeur, and I'm afraid I loved the book too much to bother. I'd have written something sounding like adoring fan mail. *shudders*
Other Comments by Dr Benway
45. Comment #51615 by Yorker on June 23, 2007 at 7:25 pm
35. Comment #51589 by Corylus "Maybe I should write a book of my own. "Manchester United is not great: football poisons everything??"
Hey, good idea Corylus and not too far off the mark, go ahead and write your book, this is one male who would buy it. I dislike the football business -- it stopped being a game years ago -- almost as much as I dislike religion!
Other Comments by Yorker
46. Comment #51630 by wardsie on June 23, 2007 at 9:46 pm
"The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection..."I see that the gibbons have started talking. It's true it's true. Evolution happens.
Other Comments by wardsie
47. Comment #51635 by Downunder on June 23, 2007 at 10:40 pm
re: The God DelusionIt seems to me that anyone who uses the lack of "a logical argument for the existence of God" as a logical reason to be an atheist, is having-us-on, or is rather narrow-minded or childish. A certain mental development is required to realise that religions of whatever creed are only human efforts, not a God's, to guide the masses through their individual lives. The life span of a human is utterly insignificant compared to that of our planet and the universe. I congratulate Dawkins for using his "God" given talents to stir, those who listen, into vigorous discussion about religions; congratulations for being able to make a living from it and for doing it nicely. Discussions are more civilised then generation after generation of stupid wars.
WAKE-UP all of you, you'll be dead before you know it. The Universe lives on, for ever. Eternity is beyond our human dimensions, so is the comprehension of the universe, let alone the concept of a God. What are we arguing about? Are we allowed to have different concepts? Must we all back the same team because only one team will be the winner?
To all ATHEISTS: forget about religion, forget about God, it are mere pebbles along the track, concentrate on what is LIFE. To ALL: find out where life comes from and where life goes back to. Why are we here? I have had 80 years sofar, and have found my answers in "My God", I'll name him "Mod" for short, short also for modified. Life is on loan from Mod and goes back to Mod. Mod is omniscience, omnipresent, omni-dimensional, omni-everything, intrinsically beyond our intelligence. Study the UNIVERSE, infinity, evolution and science. Discover and do not waste your intelligence & energy on arguments about religious details. We should learn from history that religious fanatics cause wars. If killing of innocents is condoned in wars, let us end swiftly and humanely those fanatics who start wars. Teach all to live and let live with mutual respect.
Dawkins' world-wide attention may be "God sent"! Now that is a new tack to help the dogmatic believers.
By the way, of the many comments I have glanced through on this web site, IQHQ's seem the best, may be because we have J.S.Bach in common.
Other Comments by Downunder
48. Comment #51655 by humanpowered on June 24, 2007 at 1:21 am
What is it about the internet that compels people to speak so utterly rudely to one another? I really wish that I didn't have to read things like "well, that's ten minutes of my life that I'll never get back!" or "wow, what garbage". Please, stop. Ego is so distasteful, and it especially nauseating when one puts down others in an attempt to make themselves seem superior. It is the equivalent to listening to something substantive and responding with "you're ugly".There is much to discuss. Practice civility for the sake of the bigger goal-learning from each other.
Would anyone like to comment on the author's specific observations/points?
Other Comments by humanpowered
49. Comment #51657 by reggiedixon on June 24, 2007 at 1:33 am
Downunder : I confess I found what you wrote utterly baffling. I have no idea whether you are or are not religious. All I could discern was that you seem to think that people who by definition don't believe in things for which there is no evidence should "Wake up" and invent their own personal ones with the apparent justification that the universe has been around a long time. Wouldn't it be better to wait for the scientific answers ? Yes we will all die but I plan on reaching the end of my years with my opinions based on solid, peer-reviewed, repeatable, testable evidence.Other Comments by reggiedixon
50. Comment #51674 by Coel on June 24, 2007 at 3:42 am
To IQIQIf indeed this is true, and humanity NEEDED religion, then what convinces you lot that we have shed such a need by this stage in our evolution? What makes you think we will ever be rid of it?The fact that in several European countries (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, France, UK) about half the population are not at all religious, and the fact that these countries are as good places to live as anywhere, suggests that humans do not "need" religion and can do without it.
Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.That is not a "simple fact", it is a highly dubious assertion. Even the less educated and less intelligent still have the same moral nature in their basic biology that the rest of us do.
Other Comments by Coel
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #51485 by edge100 on June 23, 2007 at 5:30 am
Wow, what garbage.My favourite bit of all:
Bringing back the "butterfly on a wheel" phrase is horrid enough, but the rest of this is utter crap.
Attacking religion with logic causes it to disintegrate, but not really because religion is a "vast and powerful superstructure"? If your buildings collapsed as easily as religion, we'd all be in for it. But then again, buildings do tend to collapse (and take 3000 lives with them) when religion gets involved...
Also, it seems he hasn't finished the book. I usually enjoy actually reading the book before providing a criticism, but that's just me.
But the thing is, we ARE driven by our selfish genes. Which is not to say that we cannot escape the influence of our genes, but the pull is powerful.
What I'm getting from the argument here is not so much that god exists, but that it's convenient and useful to us that we pretend that he is. Yes, a fat lot of good that has done us to this point...
I prefer to live here in the real world, where this is all there is.
Other Comments by edge100