No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Deluded about Dawkins (Part I)

I finally got around to finishing The God Delusion recently. I had been wondering what all the fuss is about - what wicked things Richard Dawkins had written that caused religious fundamentalists and "moderates" alike to shriek with outrage and frantically wave the smelling salts under each other's noses. I'm still wondering. I thought the book was overall extremely well written, makes a number of cogent points about the harm religion does, and says many things which religionists may not wish to hear but which are incontrovertible.

I know Richard Dawkins doesn't need me to defend him, but I got so sick of the ignorant and uninformed tirades being written against him from all quarters that I wrote down the following thoughts, just to vent. It's clear to me that many of Dawkins' critics haven't even read the book. Or perhaps they read it like too many people read the bible: with their eyes closed. That is to say, seeing only what they wish to see. Again and again I get the strong impression that what really angers the critics is Dawkins' temerity in treating religion objectively without the elaborate ritual kowtows that are expected from everyone - a good illustration of his basic point that religion has a unique, and unearned, place of privilege in western society which has for far too long stifled criticism of it, however deserved and needed.

One common argument levelled against Dawkins is that he is unfamiliar with the finer points of theology and therefore not qualified to criticize (the speaker's flavor of) religion. This is specious on so many grounds, it's hard to know where to start.

For one thing, Dawkins' critics feel perfectly free to dismiss out of hand the existence of Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl etc. without troubling to acquaint themselves with the minutiae of Viking, Ancient Greek and Aztec beliefs.

Secondly, theology is not the neutral, objective study of either religion in general or a particular religion. Apart from the fact that the concept of theology as generally understood is culturally specific to the Abrahamic religions, theology is primarily about proselytizing - it as seen as an effort to yoke reason in the service of spreading the "good news."

To be a theologian, you start by accepting the "revealed truths" of whichever theological tradition you are associated with, and argue from them to the statement you are trying to prove. And since you started by declaring the central dogmas of your faith off limits to questions and scrutiny, it's not surprising that there's nowhere to go from there, except to indulge in jejune intellectual exercises that are basically rewarmed versions of the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. See Platinga's argument for the existence of a "maximally great being" in the comments thread of this post - obviously it is St. Anselm's weary old argument dressed up in pseudo-mathematical language, but the emperor is just as nude as ever. Clearly, it is more than a little disingenuous to insist that Dawkins buy into the arguments he is opposing, before he can be deemed worthy to oppose them!

Theology is a house of cards built on quicksand. It may be the most elaborate and Byzantine, even beautiful, house of cards ever constructed. But it's still built on quicksand, and I don't need to be a structural engineer to know that it will collapse at the first breath of the fresh air of reason and objective scrutiny.

I'm not saying Dawkins' book is without fault. There are a couple of places where he strikes a jarring note. For example, the label "faith-head" comes out of nowhere once or twice, and I could see how many readers would take offense, believing Dawkins was talking about them. But if I understand correctly, to Dawkins a "faith-head" is someone who believes blindly, and willfully ignores anything that might shake his belief. Such a person is probably a lost cause anyway, and is certainly not going to read "The God Delusion" - his megachurch preacher has probably already told him it's a satanic book, and he'll scream forever in infinite agony in the Lake of Fire if he so much as goes into a non-Christian bookstore that might stock a copy.

Which brings us to another charge - that Dawkins is lumping all believers in with the mouth-foaming fundies. I don't think he is, though he could perhaps have made the point clearer. There are many places in the book where he speaks warmly about religious people like Richard Harries or Zaki Badawi. What they have in common is that they do not put their religious beliefs ahead of empathy for their fellow human beings. I think this is a very important point that goes to the heart of what is wrong with religion. When you follow religion in a blind and rigid way, and place dogma before your fellow creatures, then religion inevitably causes harm, suffering and bloodshed.

Speaking for myself, I have zero respect for the "faith-heads" as described above. I have a little more respect for people who, while still operating in a religious framework, at least try to think for themselves, and smooth off the sharp edges of the belief they were brought up in. I grew up in a very strict Irish Catholic family, and I have family members who are still very rigid and dogmatic about it. Others, however, as they grew older, inevitably encountered situations where holding to the letter of the law would lead to an unjust result, and they decided to fudge things a little in order to do the right thing. They rationalized this with cop-outs about God's mysterious ways, but that's fine; it's actions that count, not talk. Nobody should be considered virtuous just because of what they believe; how they treat their fellow creatures is the only thing that counts. Believing six impossible things before breakfast doesn't make you a moral person, just a gullible one.

The people I have most respect for are those with the intellectual courage to question the framework itself, and transcend it. I make a distinction between religion and spirituality. To me, spirituality is about asking questions, trying to find meaning in our existence. Religion comes along and says, we have all the answers, you must blindly accept them and not ask any questions. At best, religion is a form of spirituality that became rigid and ossified at an infantile stage. But some individuals who are brought up in a religious tradition manage to transcend it and make the transition to spirituality. They may come up with different answers than I would, but I respect them for at least asking the questions and thinking for themselves. Perhaps that's the best thing about religion; it can be a gateway to more genuine spirituality.

But on the other hand, moderate religionists all too often provide cover for the extremists who preach violence, hatred and bloodshed. The mantle (or cheap tuxedo, if you will) of piety gives despicable goblins like Pat Robertson a seat at the table where public policy is written and our tax money is disbursed. When push comes to shove, it seems the moderates will line up with the extremists rather than the atheists who may be much closer to them politically and ethically, but who fail to observe the proper formalities of religious obeisance.

I guess it's the old syndrome of "I against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; my cousin and I against the infidel." After 9/11 and the war against Iraq, no thinking person can deny the danger that fanatical religion poses to civilization, whether it's Osama bin Laden's or George Bush Junior's religion that is invoked while launching the bombs and missiles. But when the moderates should be issuing clarion calls against religious extremism, they are boo-hooing that nasty mean Richard Dawkins is a "fundamentalist" (how many people has he killed? How many bombs has he planted?) and that he is failing to distinguish between lowest common denominator religiosity and the advanced ethereal plane the moderates occupy, so they might as well make it a self-fulfilling prophesy and stand with the extremists against the "new atheists."

While I'm at it, even if Richard Dawkins is trying to "destroy religion" as his critics claim, so what? Dawkins is arguing with his knowledge, his words and his intelligence. If religion can't stand up to that, it's a piss-poor religion to start with. But the religious fanatics are "arguing" with car bombs, suicide vests and machetes, with cruise missiles and depleted uranium. They score points in their "argument" by racking up the body count. There's no question which side the real fundamentalists are on.

On the whole, I greatly enjoyed the book and I am bemused by the wildly disproportionate backlash against it. There are admittedly a couple of places where Dawkins comes across as needlessly confrontational (as when he writes about "Neville Chamberlain evolutionists"), but Dawkins is Dawkins and he wrote the book he had to write, so I am not going to second-guess him.

This post is planned to be part of a series. In the next post, to be fair to Dawkins' critics and make sure I understand their arguments, I plan on reading Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion. I will report back here when finished. Also on my reading list (in fact I've already started it), Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel.

Happy reading!

[Update: added links to later posts]