Saturday, March 1, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

A God blog

by Ceri Radford, Telegraph

Reposted from:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/arts/ceriradford/jan07/godblog.htm

ceri

You know a book is good when you lug the hardback about with you religiously, even when you start to get shoulder strain. Except with this book, religiously is the wrong adverb.

Yes, I've just finished The God Delusion, and I'm still smitten by Richard Dawkins and his eloquent, enraged geekery.

Not only does he set out to prove that God is a statistical improbability, a pretty ambitious task for any scientist, but he also presses a strong case that religious belief in itself is delusional, repressive, pernicious and potentially no more than an inadvertent by-product of evolutionary psychology.

It's little wonder he incites some strong opinions. One reader commented on Dawkins's online journal that "I renounce my atheism. There is in fact a god. His name is Richard Dawkins", while neo-con firebrand Ann Coulter (who Dawkins initially took to be a satirical character from The Onion) apparently gets a kick out of imagining him burning in hell.

This is not to say that Dawkins is confrontational or deliberately offensive. The tone of his book – and his blog - has persuaded me to the contrary. It's just that he refuses to "don kid gloves" and exempt religion from the rigours of rational, informed debate. It's a pretty refreshing antidote to our hush-hush PC culture.

From the outset, Dawkins robustly argues that the God question is very much within the scientific domain, for "a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without."

He gives a lucid account of how evolution explains such apparent improbabilities as an eye or a wing, then debunks creationistism and its cohort, intelligent design, with the ease of a chain-saw passing through warm butter.

This, I guess, was all to be expected from a renowned Darwinist. What I found more intriguing was the section exploring why religion – so ubiquitous, and yet so useless and wasteful in brute terms of human survival – emerged in the first place. Dawkins explores the theory that faith is a by-product of our tendency to revere and obey authority figures, which can be explained in evolutionary terms: children who follow their parents' orders directly, particularly in relation to walking near cliffs or eating strange berries, are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.

On to the more controversial stuff. Dawkins dredges up bits of the Old Testament that may well be unfamiliar to those, like me, whose knowledge of Christianity revolves around hazy, benign images from the New Testament. There's blood, gore, incitement to genocide, glorification of rape – in fact about everything you might find in an 18-rated video game. It makes me wonder how people can argue that Islam is somehow a barbaric religion and Christianity a civilised one based on their texts.

Dawkins's purpose, though, is not to upset and misrepresent Christians by wrenching unsavoury bits of the holy book out of their historical context, but to make a broader point – we don't get our morals directly from the bible, as we clearly pick and choose which parts are now considered acceptable. So why should Christian morals be allowed to influence political debate? It's a question that has particular resonance with the current fracas over the Catholic Church and gay adoption rights.

As I've said, I admired the book as a whole for its range, grace and intellectual bravery. But that doesn't mean I was entirely without reservations. Dawkins spends a lot of time discussing evil acts committed in the name of religion, but little time disentangling religious motivation from political or economic factors, or acknowledging the acts of charity or goodness directly inspired by religion.

I don't think any of this makes his core arguments less valid, but the book would perhaps have been stronger if he'd made a little more space for the counter-arguments. I also have my doubts about the post-religious utopia he seems to envisage - I suspect Big Macs and Nike trainers will feature more strongly than love of nature and scientific zeal.

But to close on a lighter note. How could you not admire a man with the dignity to respond as follows to an ignominious appearance on South Park, satirical scourge of many a celebrity?

"I'm buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn't have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there is a serious point I couldn't discern it. And then there's the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent."

Posted by Ceri Radford on 25 Jan 2007 at 16:50

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, March 1, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 28 of 28 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #136871 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Well well, maybe I spoke too soon over on the Fleabytes thread about Telegraph opinion pieces...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

2. Comment #136874 by toomanytribbles on March 1, 2008 at 11:12 pm

refreshing.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

3. Comment #136877 by irate_atheist on March 1, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Not a bad article, but I disagree with:

Not only does he set out to prove that God is a statistical improbability, a pretty ambitious task for any scientist.

I'd say this was a trivial task.

And:

Dawkins spends a lot of time discussing evil acts committed in the name of religion, but little time disentangling religious motivation from political or economic factors, or acknowledging the acts of charity or goodness directly inspired by religion.

If RD did this, all the theists would grasp it like a drowning man grabbing a lifebelt.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

4. Comment #136894 by Ducklike on March 2, 2008 at 1:00 am

Yes, a dated (this is now over a year old) but well written review. The comments it received on the Telegraph web are hardly surprising though; typical creationist bunk, the old "How about Hitler / atheist morality" trash, and the "bible is just so good" dogma.

Other Comments by Ducklike

5. Comment #136897 by Matt7895 on March 2, 2008 at 1:23 am

Wait, this is from the 'Telegraph'? I'm a bit startled to find this in Britain's most conservative broadsheet. But pleased, too.

Other Comments by Matt7895

6. Comment #136911 by Dr Nev on March 2, 2008 at 2:51 am

Well It's a pretty good article but I'd have to agree with 3. Comment #136877 by irate_atheist

Other Comments by Dr Nev

7. Comment #136915 by Steve Zara on March 2, 2008 at 3:05 am

Comment #136877 by irate_atheist

Not only does he set out to prove that God is a statistical improbability, a pretty ambitious task for any scientist.

I'd say this was a trivial task.

You optimist!

I think you assume a wide understanding of terms like "statistical improbability"! Much of the battle is education about how to use such words, the public not really knowing anything, and with theologists feeling that they can use words like "simple" as they wish.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

8. Comment #136919 by seqenenre on March 2, 2008 at 3:08 am

"His name is Richard Dawkins", while neo-con firebrand Ann Coulter (who Dawkins initially took to be a satirical character from The Onion) apparently gets a kick out of imagining him burning in hell."
I am having some problems here with the English language (I am Dutch). Who held whom for a character from the Onion. Did Coulter think Dawkins was a character from the Onion or did Dawkins think Coulter was a character from the Onion?

Other Comments by seqenenre

9. Comment #136926 by Mr Happy on March 2, 2008 at 3:21 am

I think the reason for spending little time "acknowledging the acts of charity or goodness directly inspired by religion" was that you don't need religion to inspire acts of charity or goodness: and people would do more good if they weren't wasting their time deciphering ancient texts and praying.

Other Comments by Mr Happy

10. Comment #136927 by zoomlines on March 2, 2008 at 3:21 am

@seqenenre - RD thought Ann Coulter was a character from the Onion.

Other Comments by zoomlines

11. Comment #136936 by GordonHide on March 2, 2008 at 3:51 am

As far as Ann Coulter goes, I think she must be an atheist who has decided she can make more money out of duping the religious and, as a bonus, bring Christian apologetics into disrepute.

Other Comments by GordonHide

12. Comment #136979 by GBile on March 2, 2008 at 4:48 am

This is a strange conclusion:

I also have my doubts about the post-religious utopia he seems to envisage - I suspect Big Macs and Nike trainers will feature more strongly than love of nature and scientific zeal.

Is Ceri Radford suggesting here that religion gives people 'love of nature' and 'scientific zeal'? I suspect that the 'love of nature' that most believers have is rather shallow and that 'scientific zeal' is often discredited by them, because the outcome often challenges their beliefs.
For the rest it is well worth noting that she got the right 'message' from TGD.

Other Comments by GBile

13. Comment #136986 by Forti on March 2, 2008 at 5:07 am

I'm adding 'geekery' to my list of favourite words now.

Other Comments by Forti

14. Comment #137018 by agn on March 2, 2008 at 6:30 am

Good article, but:
"It makes me wonder how people can argue that Islam is somehow a barbaric religion and Christianity a civilised one based on their texts"

I do not think this lady has even read the Quran.

The Quran is a paranoia-inducing text that has nothing of the (fairly minuscule) redemptive passages of the Bible, and is intensely preoccupied with the sadistic punishments in the afterlife.

People think Christianity is (or was) obsessed with Hell, but it comes nowhere close to the obsession with Hell in the Quran. Every single page is filled with "and they'll be cast into fire", "they are to be flayed over and over again" (skins resewn inbetween) and so on.

The hatred is palpable and dominant in the Quran, it is just an under-current in the Bible (not that that makes the Bible and iuts messages morally uplifting in the slightest).

Other Comments by agn

15. Comment #137029 by 4horsefins on March 2, 2008 at 7:06 am

If the author reads these posts, Richard has answered the question of religious people doing good because they were religious, on several occasions. Sam Harris speaks brilliantly about this topic at bigthink.com recently.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

16. Comment #137064 by Darwin's badger on March 2, 2008 at 9:11 am

GBile, I think she's referring to RD's love of nature and scientific zeal, not religious believers'.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

17. Comment #137264 by Neil Schipper on March 2, 2008 at 3:18 pm

GBile @ #12,

She's saying that people migrating away from the belief that "there is a god, and I must follow his law and worship him" are not necessarily going to become nice and rational, but that their behaviour will often be influenced by the desire for fast yummy food and having nice, cool stuff. In other words, she's not optimistic that less religion will be associated with a huge reduction in greed, gullibility, and herd-like behaviour.

Other Comments by Neil Schipper

18. Comment #137277 by Richard Morgan on March 2, 2008 at 3:40 pm

There's blood, gore, incitement to genocide, glorification of rape â€" in fact about everything you might find in an 18-rated video game.

And 18-rated video games are very popular with the under-18s!
Saying things like this is going to encourage thousands of unhealthy teenagers to start reading the Old Testament.
And you can bet your booties that someone, somewhere is working on the video game version of Sod'em and Gomorrah!

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

19. Comment #137281 by Diacanu on March 2, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Richad Morgan-

Well, there's already those violent "Left Behind", games.

Other Comments by Diacanu

20. Comment #137327 by Double Bass Atheist on March 2, 2008 at 4:49 pm

This is a very refreshing article.

Diacanu -
I was in a local video store the other day and saw "Left Behind, The Movie." It stars Kirk Cameron (but of course!)
I guess I had no idea this was a movie! Stupid book series, yes, but a movie?!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190524/

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

21. Comment #137443 by Eric Blair on March 2, 2008 at 9:55 pm

"Dawkins spends a lot of time discussing evil acts committed in the name of religion, but little time disentangling religious motivation from political or economic factors, or acknowledging the acts of charity or goodness directly inspired by religion."

I think it's important to note that Dawkins acknowledges TGD is a polemic, not a scientific or "balanced" work in all its elements (though it contains many sections that are scientific in all but tone).

On the other hand, Dawkins often says he is pursuing truth in his discussion of the existence of God, not practical or political goals. This may apply to God but not to his analysis of religion.

While he brings to this study a fine mind (one of the best around today), his field is not anthropology or history - which provide the best lenses to scrutinize the role of religion in society. And, it must be said, he does come to the subject seeking to confirm certain answers.

On the Bible vs Qu'ran (which is worse?) debate, from my limited understanding I think the Q is probably worse in its directives regarding treatment of non-believers. More important, though, is the point Ayaan Kirsi Ali has made that Islam is yet to go through an equivalent of the Enlightment, which means it has not yet sought to re-interpret its dogma in the light of reason (as has Christianity to a limited extent) nor has it at all embraced the notion of a secular state overshadowing religion.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

22. Comment #137451 by Teratornis on March 2, 2008 at 10:47 pm

That's almost certainly true if human talents remain completely beyond the reach of scientific meddling as they have been thus far. Humans have been sociobiologically programmed to be more interested in things like sports, sex, celebrities, and of course food.

If civilization does not collapse first (for example, in the first critical decades after peak oil), I expect science to be the first belief system that actually expands its habitat of suitable minds. Religions are mere opportunists that exploit the naturally-evolved human capacity to believe nonsense. I expect science to figure out how to actually change human brains to give them more capacity to think scientifically.

Currently, science does nothing to increase the underlying scientific aptitude of people. We still depend on the occasional rare genius to fuel the enterprise of science.

When it comes to recruiting and training scientists, we are still very much like diamond hunters, who must trek all over the world and dig up mountains of ore to find a few prized gems. New technology can produce artificial diamonds that are so good, the only way to distinguish them from natural diamonds is to note their lack of flaws. Science needs a way to mass-produce artificial scientists who are as good as a Prof. Dawkins.

Science needs to advance beyond its current hunter-gatherer phase and learn to manufacture intelligence. Science needs to experience its own industrial revolution.

Other Comments by Teratornis

23. Comment #137464 by Shuggy on March 3, 2008 at 12:13 am

teratornis:

Currently, science does nothing to increase the underlying scientific aptitude of people. We still depend on the occasional rare genius to fuel the enterprise of science.

When it comes to recruiting and training scientists, we are still very much like diamond hunters, who must trek all over the world and dig up mountains of ore to find a few prized gems. New technology can produce artificial diamonds that are so good, the only way to distinguish them from natural diamonds is to note their lack of flaws. Science needs a way to mass-produce artificial scientists who are as good as a Prof. Dawkins.

Science needs to advance beyond its current hunter-gatherer phase and learn to manufacture intelligence. Science needs to experience its own industrial revolution.

While science does nothing to make humans think more scientifically, it has done wonders in the last few decades to make it possible for humans to think more scientifically.

I'm thinking how very literal-"thinking" computers force us to think about what we really mean, because they will do what we ask, if we know how to ask for it.

Also, high-speed, stop-motion, microscopic and telescopic TV, video, movies and Internet, etc have brought the previously unseeable into view of not just scientists but ordinary people. I admit that to a very large extent, people have blown the opportunities these present (Did any Huxley, Asimov or Vonnegut predict how porn and violent games would dominate computer usage?), but not all, and not always.

Other Comments by Shuggy

24. Comment #137520 by GBile on March 3, 2008 at 4:00 am

Badger and Schipper.

Thanks for responding and clarifying Ceri Radfords statement.

I am not pessimistic about a post-religion era of 'trivial living'. The 'hour of power' might then very well be people studying nature, discussing scientific findings, exploring new technologies etc.

Other Comments by GBile

25. Comment #137532 by Johnny O on March 3, 2008 at 5:17 am

Whilst I like the article I'd like to point out...

It's over a year old and was written not long after the release of the book, when everyone was still reading it after receiving it for Christmas.

Other Comments by Johnny O

26. Comment #138083 by Teratornis on March 3, 2008 at 9:54 pm

In reply to comment #137464 by Shuggy:

While science does nothing to make humans think more scientifically, it has done wonders in the last few decades to make it possible for humans to think more scientifically.

The situation is analogous to someone figuring out how to mass-produce violins that are genuinely as good as the finest Stradivaria, and selling them in unlimited quantities for $10 each.

It wouldn't matter much if you could give every human on earth his or her own Stradivari. The vast majority of humans would not be able to play them very well. Only a few humans have the ability and desire to learn. The strictly limited supply of high-quality stringed instruments we have now may be almost adequate for the similarly limited supply of virtuosi to play them.

It's nice to have better tools, of course. But if we do nothing to improve human ability to use tools, we will end up vastly under-exploiting the great tools we have. A mind will become an increasingly terrible thing to waste.

I'm thinking how very literal-"thinking" computers force us to think about what we really mean, because they will do what we ask, if we know how to ask for it.

Computers force us to think about what we really mean to computers.

I agree this is a useful exercise. It's something of an antidote to the slippery, watery world of shifty humans, where nothing is ever quite what it seems to be or says it is.

Online communication between humans offers a similar opportunity to figure out how to craft statements precise enough to say what we want to say without the real-world crutches we are used to (facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, etc.). Once again only a small fraction of humans make much headway with it.

Also, high-speed, stop-motion, microscopic and telescopic TV, video, movies and Internet, etc have brought the previously unseeable into view of not just scientists but ordinary people. I admit that to a very large extent, people have blown the opportunities these present (Did any Huxley, Asimov or Vonnegut predict how porn and violent games would dominate computer usage?), but not all, and not always.

Asimov's computer predictions were, in retrospect, laughable, not that I think my predictions of 50 years from now will be much better.

Lots of science fiction depicts violent epic battles, so I doubt the guys who wrote that stuff would be very surprised by video games. Obviously the appeal of vicarious violence increases when adolescent males can see it instead of merely reading about it. Animation beats imagination hands down, once the animation gets up to a certain level of quality.

I don't know if any of Asimov's contemporaries got any closer. Back then, science fiction was all about exponentiating materials and energy.

Some later writers began to move toward the information leg of the wealth triad, I gather, as its real-world importance began to grow. The three basic ingredients of wealth, which are interchangeable with each other to a surprising degree, are: materials, energy, and information. Hubbert's curve means material and energy are likely to get steadily more expensive for at least the next two decades, while Moore's law means information is likely to keep getting cheaper.

Future technology is going to be about relentlessly analyzing things and getting rid of every bit that isn't necessary. Thereby zeroing in ever more accurately on the Aristotelian essence of what we want, as opposed to the accidents.

Other Comments by Teratornis

27. Comment #142297 by mixmastergaz on March 12, 2008 at 9:19 am

Replying to Matt (post No. 5)

I wouldn't say the Telegraph is Britain's most conservative newspaper (although it depends how you define 'conservative'). I usually read the dear old Torygraph on Fridays (generally I take the Indie or the Grauniad) and find it to be a much less conservative read than either the fucking Daily Mail or the unconscionable Daily Express (which I would never actually buy you understand, but I'll flick through abandoned copies of either on the train in a spirit of 'know thine enemy'). The Telegraph compares pretty favourably with the Mail and Express. Actually, parts of 'Mein Kampf' compare pretty favourably with the fucking Daily Mail (there, I've said it again; now I feel a bit better) or the hateful Express, but you take my meaning...

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

28. Comment #143232 by _J_ on March 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm

That is refreshing. Though I lean more toward the Guardian, I read the Telegraph a lot. A lot of good journalism in there, and it occasionally persuades me to attitudes I wouldn't have expected to hold. But then it occasionally turns into an objectionable five-year-old-child of WWI-era parents, and gives gibberingly mental coverage of issues like the 'cybrids' embryo research.

This was a really good piece, and if I saw Ceri, I'd buy her a drink (and not only because she shares a name with someone I used to be hopelessly in unrequited love with). Although 'a chain-saw passing through warm butter' is not the way to renovate a cliche. 'Now, I want a little butter; I'm very lazy; what would be the easiest way to slice a bit off without, say, splattering it all over the wallpaper? Oh yes, I know...[R-VRRMMMM...]'

Other Comments by _J_

Reload Comments | Back to Top