Evidence for God from Science

The Economist wrote:MISBEGOTTEN SONS

Richard Dawkins has long trumpeted the rationale of science. Now, at 65, he has finally marshalled a lifetime's arguments against believing in God.

“THE GOD DELUSION” is an irreverent book. The author, Richard Dawkins, accuses Jesus of having “dodgy family values”. And don't get him started on the God of the Old Testament, “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”.

Mr Dawkins is an atheist, an evolutionary biologist and an eloquent communicator about science, three passions that have allowed him to construct a particularly comprehensive case against religion. Everyone should read it. Atheists will love Mr Dawkins's incisive logic and rapier wit and theists will find few better tests of the robustness of their faith. Even agnostics, who claim to have no opinion on God, may be persuaded that their position is an untenable waffle.

Like several other anti-religious volumes of recent years (“The End of Faith”, “Breaking the Spell”), Mr Dawkins's book is partly a reaction to the September 11th attacks. These have been portrayed as essentially religious acts. Whatever the hijackers' political or social motivations, it was religious faith that ultimately turned them into killing machines. They believed they were doing God's work and would be justly rewarded in the afterlife.

It is easy to denounce such deluded zealots, but what relation do they have to ordinary, “sensible” religious people? The problem, as Mr Dawkins sees it, is that religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion. (Why is it easier for a Quaker to avoid combat duty as a conscientious objector than someone who simply deplores violence?) Furthermore, the argument goes, any positive aspects of religion can be replaced by equally beneficial non-religious substitutes.

As a prelude to these contestable claims, Mr Dawkins examines the interesting question of why religion is so widespread. Worshipping deities would seem to be an irrational and wasteful habit, yet it has been found in all cultures. Wouldn't natural selection have got rid of religious tendencies if religion were clearly bad for humans after all?

Not necessarily. Mr Dawkins advocates the idea that religion is a by-product of mental abilities that evolved for other purposes. One form of this theory is that children are “programmed” to believe anything their parents tell them, which is quite sensible in light of all the useful information parents can share. But this system is vulnerable to becoming a conduit for worthless information that is passed on for no other reason than tradition.

However, this does not explain the special appeal of religious ideas as opposed to any bizarre ideas. Religious thoughts must be especially compatible with human psychology. “Religion has at one time or another been thought to fill four main roles in human life: explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration,” writes Mr Dawkins, enumerating the four targets of his logical firepower.

He shows that religion does not provide a satisfactory explanation for anything. Here his arguments are well-rehearsed and finely honed from decades of combating American fundamentalists. This section will appeal to anyone who ever wondered, if God created the universe, who created God?

As for exhortation, he argues that in practice, religion is not a legitimate source of morality. If it were, Jews would still be executing those who work on the Sabbath. Where morality actually does come from is less clear. Mr Dawkins suggests the source is a combination of genetic instincts, which evolved because morals allowed humans to benefit more efficiently from co-operation, and a cultural Zeitgeist.

For some people consolation and inspiration are genuine benefits of religion, as even Mr Dawkins will allow. But these functions can and should be fulfilled by other means, he says. This is the most problematic part of his thesis. In his case contemplation of the natural world does the job; his final chapter is an ode to the perspective-altering discoveries of modern physics. But only a minority will find as much consolation in quantum physics as in the prospect of reuniting with their dearly departed in heaven.

Even if it is granted that religion should be expunged, how does Mr Dawkins suggest this could be done? Buy his book as a Christmas gift for one's religious friends? Obviously, many people will never be persuaded; that is precisely the nature of faith. The actual plan is twofold.

First, Mr Dawkins wants to subvert the mode of transmission between parent and child. He calls a religious upbringing a form of indoctrination and equates it to child abuse. He wants to encourage a change in the Zeitgeist, so that when people hear the words “a Catholic child”, or “a Muslim child”, they will wince, and ask how a child could already have formed independent opinions on transubstantiation or jihad.

His second and related plan is to energise atheists, whom he regards as being in the same situation as homosexuals were 50 years ago: stigmatised and unelectable to public office (in America, at least). Mr Dawkins dreams of a day when atheists are as well organised and influential as Christian conservatives have become. If nothing else, his book should help bring the atheists out of the closet.

There are few surprises in The God Delusion. Dawkins is a gifted writer who is able to popularize scientific concepts, and he writes with an acerbic style that fits his purpose in this volume. His condescending and sarcastic tone set the stage for what he hopes will be a devastating attack upon theism.

....................................

Though The God Delusion is intended more as an attack upon theism than as a defense of evolutionary theory, the framework of evolution is never far from Dawkins' mind. In his opening chapter, he argues that most legitimate scientists--indeed all who really understand the issues at stake--are atheists of one sort or another.

....................................

In one of the central chapters of his book, Dawkins attempts to accomplish two simultaneous purposes: to undermine the intellectual movement known as Intelligent Design and, in a twist of its logic, to suggest that belief in God is itself a refutation of the very notion of an intelligent design. As Dawkins sees it, "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." As he sets out his case, he denies that there could be any legitimate basis for belief in God. The very notion of a supernatural agent flies directly in the face of his presuppositional naturalism. Therefore, by definition, such a God cannot exist and those who believe in such a God prove their intellectual inadequacy or gullibility.

....................................

In a sweeping rejection of biblical Christianity, Dawkins expresses outrage at the morality of both the Old and New Testaments. "I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellant. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity," he asserts. Dawkins would dispense with the Ten Commandments and replace these with a new set of commandments more attuned to modern times. Among his proposed commandments are these: "Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business;" "Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species." Another of Dawkins' commandments hits close to home: "Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you."

....................................

The tone of the book is strident, the content of the book is bracing, and the attitude of the book is condescending. Nevertheless, Dawkins insists that his strident attack upon the faith is limited to words. "I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement," he insists. He even allows that "we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions" of organized religion, "and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals," he asserts. Nevertheless, all this must be done without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions." Further: "We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage."All this raises more questions that Dawkins answers. If belief in God is so intellectually abhorrent, why would anyone want to retain the traditions associated with these beliefs? Why does Dawkins acknowledge that all this amounts to "a treasured heritage?" It must be because, in the end, even Richard Dawkins is not as much of an atheist as he believes himself to be. If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead, why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it? A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing.

faithinware wrote:Dawkins just has another point of view, to which God isn't included. That doesn't mean that we need to believe the same. Faith is just belief in God regaurdless of any evidence there is to convince us to believe differently. In most cases, faith is a good thing. It is the fear of misuse of such activity that gives men like Dawkins and Harris a reason to write against these types of activities.

faithinware wrote:I have to say godslanguage that you portray Dawkins falsely.
Dawkins never claims to know everything my friend. You unfortunately are sadly mistaken. Dawkins has Faith in science "confidence in science". We all do. Or have you ever flown in an airplane?