The God Delusion
January 14th, 2010
Email this article to a friend
After hearing everyone talking about this bestselling book, I was finally compelled to read The God Delusion
1. The existence of God is a scientific question. You can’t say that science is completely separate from religion, because a universe with a God would look very different from a universe without one.
2. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. The Boeing 747 gambit is an argument for intelligent design, saying that the odds of higher life forms emerging by chance are roughly the odds of a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard and happening to assemble a Boeing 747. But attributing the design of a complex world to God doesn’t solve the problem, because the creation of a God capable of such design would have been an even more improbable event.
3. Natural selection gives a much better explanation of the world by use of a “crane” rather than a “skyhook,” or creating complexity by building on lower layers rather than from a miracle.
4. There is almost (he does give that concession) certainly no God, and belief in one in spite of the contradictory evidence qualifies as a delusion.
This part of the book is very strong, and frankly, you don’t need reasoning nearly as sophisticated as his to argue the point.
I was raised as what you might call a casual Christian. It was our affiliation by default, but I think we all knew it was made up. Actually, until I saw Religulous in 2008, I had no idea the whole Bible was meant to be taken literally. For those who don’t know, the universe was created by the Big Bang, snakes can’t talk, dinosaurs were real, and Jesus did not reincarnate as bread.
Even if you interpret the Bible metaphorically, it still doesn’t make sense. God commits random acts of genocide, then says “Thou shalt not kill.” He’s omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, but prefers to take a completely hands off approach to running the world, lest his existence be revealed. He created (at least some) people with rational minds, then gets offended when they don’t believe in him without evidence. He loves everyone, but he’ll send you to hell if you’re gay or you eat the wrong apple or work on a Sunday.
(And for those who wonder how I can say this while entertaining the possibility of phenomena such as Akashic record reading, keep in mind that not believing in something full of ridiculous contradictions is very different from automatically rejecting everything we can’t see.)
But I was wondering why Richard Dawkins would write this book. Yeah, I knew I would agree with a lot of what he said, but why put so much effort into refuting something that’s so obviously false, and which does no harm if not taken to extremes? Why not live and let live?
I changed my mind when I read about some of the anti-atheist and pro-religious discrimination Dawkins talks about. Some examples:
- When an atheist asked for police protection for his peaceful protest of an anti-vaccination group, eight different police officers independently refused to protect him, or even threatened violence against him.
- The Supreme Court ruled that members of a particular New Mexico church can take hallucinogenic drugs because they believe that it connects them to God. Meanwhile, doctors believe that medicinal marijuana can prevent blindness in glaucoma sufferers, but apparently that’s not good enough. (Though New Mexico legalized medicinal marijuana after the book was published.)
- A twelve year old student wasn’t allowed to wear an offensive t-shirt to school because it violated the school’s policy against harassing homosexuals. The student’s lawyer got him a religious exemption from the harassment policy, on the grounds that homosexuality conflicts with his Christian beliefs.
We’ve been conditioned to think that all religious beliefs are automatically untouchable. If stuff like this is happening, maybe it’s time to question that.
This book is more constructive than I was expecting. As opposed to just being anti-religious, Dawkins claims that atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled, and the benefits potentially gained from religion can be better gained in other ways.
However, this part of the book needs to be greatly expanded to do this topic justice. Before reading the book, I thought, “OK, it’s a delusion. But is all delusion bad? What about the placebo effect, where a sugar pill cures a disease because the patient believes it will?” I don’t think he answered this question well enough.
Share your thoughts. Is all delusion bad? Is religion OK? Is atheism OK? Do people have the right to their own religious beliefs? Do other people have the right to say that their religious beliefs are stupid? What happened to the separation of church and state in America? Is mainstream religion a direct threat? Is it an indirect threat, in that it provides a breeding ground for extremists?
January 14th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Hi Hunter,
I believe in God/The universal Soul/whatever you want to call it, but they’re my personal beliefs and nothing to do with my arguments. I had some problems with Dawkin’s book.
The arguments against God are mostly arguments against the God of the Bible, which to me is like saying Food is bad for you because candy is bad for you. The bible was written and publicised by the church not by God.
Most of the arguments in the book while perfectly sound are rational arguments against faith. That doesn’t make sense to me. You can’t argue rationally against faith. He isn’t arguing against the existence of a God, he is rather arguing against the arguments that people make pro God.
You can neither prove nor disprove God. You can’t argue against faith. You either have it or you don’t. I believe you can use words and sound logic to make arguments against/for anything you like. That still doesn’t make it true.
The only thing that matches faith is faith, and the strongest sense of faith in Richard Dawkins book is faith in his own arguments, which is as it should be.
I do agree with his points about the bad side of religion, but that’s nothing against God, thats about people, primarily their behaviors and their misuse of religion for their own ends.
I have no bad feeling against anything in Dr Dawkins book. I have my own faith but I’m not so attached to a Universal truth as to get upset when it’s threatened. I felt when reading the book it was kind of redundant. I expected my faith to be challenged or threatened in a way that might challenge me to re evaluate but that wasn’t the case. It had nothing to do with faith at all.
Sorry, I’m rambling, but on a positive note I believe we all have faith of some kind. It’s what drives us forward and gets us up in the morning. A logical mind or a logical argument for existence makes you a computer. We’re not computers. Whether we like it or not we all have faith in something, be it ourselves, or a future, or a God or whatever. As long as it’s a faith of love, and non threatening and is positive then it’s all good
January 14th, 2010 at 8:10 am
I’ve never heard about the book, so thanks for reviewing it. I have a rather complex theory (means it’s not much clear to me yet) but I think we should look at the universe if we want to find answers.
The question is: does it matter to search for answers? For me is yes, but at the same time I don’t expect any to exist, because there’ll always be something else behind. That’s why I think a god can’t exist, because a god can’t automatically be its meta-god. Does this make sense?
January 14th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Hunter, you are sticking your neck out here. I’m sure there will be some fire bellowing forth from someone at some point.
As someone firmly in the atheist camp [no Christian god, Hindu god(s), unnamed god, etc.] I agree with your summary of the book. It is solid, but by no means earth shattering. What was new about it was how mainstream it became.
Is all delusion bad? As someone who considers himself to be ultra-rational it isn’t surprising that I say yes. All delusions that obscure reality prevent us from truly creating an enlightened human society. This does not mean I think religion should be outlawed or legislated against, as I am completely for people making their own decisions even if it is the wrong one. It does mean that religion should be kept out of schools and government. I am very dismayed that the wall between religion and state is crumbling.
@Shane
I have absolutely no faith. No I do not consider faith in something real (yourself, others, a country, etc.) to be the same, as faith in something ethereal. These are very very different things.
“As long as it’s a faith of love, and non threatening and is positive then it’s all good.” – Though, I could agree to this in theory (it would be nice), we both know in practice human beings could never limit themselves like this. Thus, belief/faith will never be all good, or even mostly good. So, we will blunder forward and continue to hurt others for the foreseeable future.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:50 am
I dont think the issue really is about ” Is there a GOD or not ” I think the issue is
How we as humanity have defined the term ” God ”
That in itself is the cause of much war and division
January 14th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I read the book a while back, and whilst it was fantastic to have someone write out the logical reasoning that underpins a lot of how I see the world, I did find faults in his writing. There are times where Richard Dawkins errs towards mirroring religious fundamentalists – making leaps of logic and hasty conclusions that support his thinking – at least in the book he does. It may be due to restraints on how much he can fit in one book, but it weakened his arguments for me.
Just a quick 2cents worth.
January 14th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
From what I gather from this article, the author doesn’t seem to define the concept of God clearly, but just assumes we know what he means. And what he means is primarily the Judeo-Christian concept of God, the old guy who made the world in seven days. And I agree with you Hunter, this concept is as stupid as it sounds and not worth writing a book about.
However, if you define God as the intelligence that governs the universe, yes, I know (not believe) there is such thing. It’s omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
So am I an atheist or believer? Depends on the definition. Generally speaking, I’m kinda sick and tired of people (even intelligent people) spending time discussing something without clearly defining what they are discussing about.
Religion has been a way to practice spirituality in an organized manner. When the overall level of our spirituality was underdeveloped, this worked. And even today, if it still works for someone, congrats. But many of us are growing up to the point we don’t need it, that we can have a direct communication with “God”. Each person is free to choose what works best according to the level of their spiritual development.
Akemi, the Akashic Record Reader
January 14th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
It is interesting to see people using arguments that are clearly and comprehensively set aside in the book to argue against the point of the book. Particularly the “Not my god”, deist vs theist, faith in reason, and the argument from personal experience.
If one is happy to live life under certain delusions and that provides are more satisfactory life than otherwise I don’t really have any issue with it provided that delusion doesn’t lead to interferance with other people’s lives.
That, I think, is the point of writing the book. Too many people, acting on their delusions, are trying to undermine many good things about the world and that is unacceptable. Similarly a great many people are taken advantage of because of their delusions. That is similarly out of order.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:52 am
@ Shane, the book was definitely about logic and not faith. But logic is a lot easier for me to understand, which I guess is why the book appealed to me. I acknowledge that faith can be a good thing, but I’m not exactly sure how and why, and particularly when it conflicts with logic. I might need to read a book about that.
@ Oscar, I expect we’ll be looking for answers for a long, long time (theory of everything, what happened in that tiny fraction of a second right after the Big Bang, etc). But the search for answers makes life interesting.
@ Chad, I’m surprised there hasn’t been any backlash already. I continue to get angry comments on my Japan vs. America posts, but I just delete them from the moderation queue before they’re even published. I agree that religion shouldn’t be outlawed – that would be a disaster. And I think that instead of just being anti-religion, we should ideally suggest something to better fill the gap that religion does, perhaps secular humanism.
@ Jon, there have been plenty of wars between people who agree about the existence of God, and just disagree about the specifics. I don’t know how we can ever get all theists to agree on that. But Dawkins is saying it doesn’t matter which God you’re talking about, his arguments still apply.
@ James, I didn’t see these leaps of logic you’re talking about. Do you have an example off the top of your head?
@ Akemi, he says it doesn’t matter which God you mean because he’s talking about all Gods, but he really seems to be focusing on personal gods like in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. What you’re calling “God” in quotes – is this what you refer to as “source,” and is this the stuff that’s in all of us? I knew you believed in something omnipresent and omniscient as far as the Akashic records go, but I didn’t realize you believed in something omnipotent.
@ Andrew, he did say in the beginning that he was arguing against any and all Gods, but I found his arguments to be mainly addressing a certain kind of God. For example, he doesn’t seem to consider the possibility of “gods” that are largely powerless and had nothing to do with creation. Anyway, the fact that such arguments come immediately to mind in the comments section here must be why he discusses them up front. I agree that people can have their beliefs and everything could be fine with that, but unfortunately too many people are using them to take advantage of others.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:33 am
By saying ” it doesn’t matter which God you mean because he’s talking about all Gods,” he is unconsciously (problem) defining his God as the personalized God many religions talk about. And clear and conscious definition is better than unconscious definition.
Yes, in my definition, God is the same as the Source, and the universal intelligence. It’s omnipresent, in all of us and all around us. It’s omniscient — it’s the intelligence of all. Omnipotent– it’s the power that creates everything.
So why does it let the devastating earthquake happen? Whey doesn’t it prevent it with its omnipotence? Yes, God is very off hand. It lets us have all kinds of experiences. It left me killed in persecution. Which left me dragging in negativity for a few lifetimes. Aaaagh!
But then, if God intervenes, we don’t get to learn. Like a spoiled kid whose parent intervene all the time. That is not the plan of this Earth experiment. Death is temporary, learning is eternal.
Akemi
January 15th, 2010 at 2:57 am
He does make a clear distinction between deist and theist philosophies; however there is little need to argue against a non-interventionist god because people who think there may be some controlling force somewhere have no reason to use that god as an excuse to air theor prejudices.
The (logical) problem with a non-interventionist god, or gods, is that their presence is unnecessary. Sure, they might exist, but so might a million other things for which there is no reason to think really exist. Once you remove the power of god or define god to mean something other than what we traditionally mean you either make the meaning so bland as to have no meaning at all or you are just using logical tricks to justify your faith in a baseless feeling or instinct.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
God may not intervene what we humans perceive as bad, but God does work with us. Think, for instance, of cases in which people heal so-called incurable diseases. God does work miracles.
The way we can work with God and tap into its almighty power is sometimes called the law of attraction. However, just like “God”, the name LOA is confusing. You can call it the power of belief or creative visualization or faith or whatever. What matters is there is supreme intelligence and power, and there is a way to work along with it.
January 15th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Or, with the billions of humans that have existed and do exist, and the fact we are all a little different from each other, some of us have developed or have had mutations that predesposed us to having a better chance of fighting off cancer, AIDS, etc., or in Usain Bolt’s case to run really really really fast.
From my perspective I have yet to see or read about a true god-like “miracle.” They all seem to be just events beyond our understanding at this point. Just like germs, computers, radio signals, etc. were beyond the Romans understanding. We are only scratching the surface of science.
I always liked Arthur C. Clarke’s statement:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Or, in our case it would be any sufficiently advanced science we don’t know yet.
By the way, I completely accept your beliefs for you Akemi. However, since we always seem to be on the opposite sides I decided we should continue the trend. Take care.
January 15th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
“What matters is there is supreme intelligence and power” – except that there is nothing that suggests that there is. There is no good reason to come to that conclusion.
January 15th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Andrew,
You or anyone for that matter are free to stay in the way you think. I am not here to convert anyone and I respect everyone’s free will. My role is to help those who are seeking Light. If anyone wants to stay in the dark, please feel free to so so.
January 15th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Akemi, if everyone who believed was like you (seem to be) I would have that same respect. Unfortunately granting that respect automatically to groundless belief, taking the view that one belief is equal to another, is one the biggest problems the world faces because so many other people use that respect, or lack thereof, as a sheild for their hatred. As a race we have provided that respect far too freely and now it is assumed that belief gets an automatic pass against logic simply because it is “my belief”. It is no longer enough to let belief go because it is personal. If one makes claims about the existence (or non-existence) of something then they should expect a response and to be required to defend their stance.
As to the existince of light and dark, I would characterise both sides as murky. The benefits of believing in something that is self-evidently untrue are as hidden to me as I am sure the benefits of denying what is self-evidently true are to you.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I have read this book also, and to speak to the debate between Andrew and Akemi, I don’t personally think Dawkins addresses the definition of God that Akemi is describing very much at all…that was my issue with the book too – his arguments work best against a very traditional Judeo-Christian view of God…and also his arguments against religion do not work well against non-theistic religions like Buddhism (although he says he addresses Buddhism, his categorization is very limited and only accounts for a very limited number of Buddhists).
All that being said, Hunter – I appreciate your review of this very much, as I actually read a fair amount of atheist writing myself, including Raising Freethinkers, which is a kind of parenting/schooling guide for agnostoc/atheist parents. Many people are shocked by this because my own beliefs might best be described as ‘new age’, but I agree with what you said about rejecting organized religion not being the same thing as rejecting the unseen entirely. And personally, the foundation for ethical living put forth by many atheists resonates much better for me than most religions ‘rules’ and doctrines…
January 17th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I view religion as, in part, serving as a philosophical and moral framework. Faith need not be required if a state of values can be wrought from critical thought alone.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
For someone who doesn’t want to believe in God, there is no proof that ever could possibly convince him or her that God is real (the same, of course, can be said for someone who wants to believe there is a God.) We believe what we want to believe, regardless of evidence.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I think it is sad that so many people blame “God” for the actions and definitions laid out by the people who claim to follow and represent “God”. I can no longer define myself as a “Christian” because I don’t agree with much of the doctrine however I attend a Christian church because I love what my church stands for and the work that we do (this is an open and affirming church). As a volunteer escort at an abortion clinic I stand before “Christians” all of the time who threaten my life and go against everything I stand for as a spiritual being. However, I would never equate them with God and transfer that anger to my creator.
I believe for many people these kinds of Christians end up as the representation of “God/The Source/The Divine etc. I am just as frustrated as my Atheist friends and despise all of the same things about Christianity as they do but I do not translate this to being a good reason to hate God. Not to mention the religions mentioned are all the same God. Judaism/Christianity/Islam are all referring to the God of the Torrah. This book would only be reviewing God in this form.
I don’t believe that faith is necessary in a persons life in order for them to be a good and moral person. All of my Atheist friends inhabit all of these wonderful characteristics and I love them dearly. However, I find that there is a little something extra from having alignment in your mind, body and spirit. A little something wonderful that makes life so amazing. It is almost indescribable. I do not say that a person is wrong to not want to have a spiritual life, but I do believe that if they find this alignment that they will find the proof that they are looking for. Yet I would never fault or criticize them for not doing so in this lifetime.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Lowell, that’s very true, an atheist who decides there cannot be any evidence is clearly in the wrong, just as a believer who refuses to accept the flaws in evidence and sees everything that happens as further evidence. I think most of the prominent atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al. are interested in truth more than in atheism itself.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Jennifer, what you describe is why I dislike all organized religion, but is by no means why I don’t believe in a god.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 am
First I must separate my spiritual experience from religion. Religion is always a groups interpretation at a period of time. Spirituality is my one on one experience with my Creator.
I like the simple approach. Ask the obvious. I knew I was on the right track when any instructor in any course told me I asked to many questions, the chink in their armor. When in religion class I asked why all the leaders wore robes and didn’t dress like us? They said “Because it is how Jesus dressed.” Like an idiot I responded “Yeah but everybody wore robes back then.” I wasn’t invited back.
So, here’s how I see it. I don’t understand my Creator but my creator knows His creation and LOVES it just as any inventor, designer, songwriter, engineer, artist, chef, parent loves their creation. Imagine creating something (Man) that is allowed to make a “Choice” to love you (the creator) freely. My Creator desires me, to show me what I am capable of and all I have to do is ask Him to show me and He has. A computer with access to it’s developer and able ask “Why do I feel, do or want these things?” and an answer comes.
The other area of conflict for me has been miracles outside of me? Evil removed from an environment that shook many people. Unexplainable phenomenon!
January 24th, 2010 at 7:32 am
“Respect those who seek the truth, fear those who have found it”. Dawkins and others are right to point out the destructive consequences of rigid religious beliefs. What they fail to mention, and what the history of the last century has clearly taught us, is that when atheism is elevated to an official dogma, it becomes just as destructive, as it did in the Soviet Union under Stalin, or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, or North Korea to this day. Honest questioning of religious assumptions is healthy, but total rejection of all belief only leads to other forms of extremism.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
[...] sure to check the book review of the controversial The God Delusion, by my friend Hunter Nuttall. I think the discussion in the comment section is very interesting, [...]
January 31st, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Hi, I found you through Akemi’s blog
I used to be an atheist, and I think atheism is a great mindset. I think most people who believe in God could do with questioning their cultural conditioning more, perhaps. Most atheists I’ve known have seemed to me to be more conscious than the mainstream, if only for their slightly marginalised status which helps them seperate themselves from the collective insanity. (Minority groups are often more interesting to me, for that reason. The challenge of being different in a world that demonises difference is a great way of waking up and putting some soul in a person).
However, I believe in God now – and actually, the evidence I’ve been shown I could consider “scientific”. But I wouldn’t want to argue about it, because I think this is a very touchy point, and if someone is really interested they should come with humble curiosity rather than the attitude of needing to defend their viewpoints or automatically assuming that a believer is the same as this idea of believer they have in their head.
I intend to write a blog post detailing my view on God one of these days, though
I feel that Dawkins is a warrior and maybe he could do with chilling out. But it was interesting to read how you thought this book was constructive. I flipped through it once but it didn’t catch my interest. I don’t need to debate this stuff. If I get into a debate, it’s “me vs. you” and no-one really exchanges ideas or information, they just work out better and better ways of defending and attacking based on the viewpoint they are predisposed to having. BEFORE debating, perhaps, they’ve been open to real exchange of ideas and information. But while they are doing it? Brick wall.
Well, thanks for getting me to think. I like all this stuff I wrote and I’ll post it in the Steve Pavlina forums to get some more juice out of it, if you don’t mind
Warm regards – I’ll be following you with RSS
Andrew
January 31st, 2010 at 8:39 pm
[...] God Delusion – a discussion I wrote this comment on a blog discussing Dawkin's "The God Delusion". I thought these were some interesting thoughts on atheism as a context I could share. Enjoy and [...]
February 24th, 2010 at 9:12 am
[...] sure to check the book review of the controversial The God Delusion, by my friend Hunter Nuttall. I think the discussion in the comment section is very interesting, [...]