 |
| From: http://godswillchurch.com/2012/12/ask-an-atheist-why-are-atheists-seemingly-angry/ |
If religion were simply a private affair
providing consolation, guidance to one's life, and hope for eternal existence;
or it were kept within the circles of like-minded followers, this book wouldn't
have been necessary. While several religions exist with focusing on the
personal spiritual needs and not on the dispersion of the Supreme Being's
presumed wish (see Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and to some degree perhaps
Buddhism), many of today's major religions advocate their own belief systems as
the only praiseworthy ones. On the small scale the result is proselytizing but
on the large scale the consequences can culminate in worldwide religious
violence--a key menace of our days. Therefore, I consider Dawkins' book timely
and of extreme importance.
Although Richard Dawkins has a theoretical
aversion to the idea of supernatural power itself, his main vexation and the
reason for writing this book seem to be his concern about the spill-over of
religious zeal from the personal level or domains of small groups to the global
scene. When a handful of major religions with close to a billion members and
tremendous destructive technology at hand face off against each other ready to
fight for their one and only true way of life, the question comes naturally: is
this for real? Is scoring brownie points with a never seen supreme judge or the
promise of various heavens worth the risk of exterminating life that came about
by the grace of a yet unknown and therefore mysterious force or process? Does
it really matter that much whether the circumstances that brought us together
on planet Earth came from this or that god or simply from the physical reality
of the Universe?
Although these questions seem important to
religious people, for an agnostic or a forbearing atheist they could be ignored
altogether. Unfortunately, certain religions leave the door open for extreme
interpretations of the above questions and thus allow the sprouting of groups
that would stop at nothing to establish the supremacy of their world view. This
is why staunch atheists have declared war on religion and this is why even
agnostics and less hardcore atheists should join forces with them.
To his credit, Dawkins discusses that
staunch atheists may seem to fall into the same class as the religious fanatics
because of their readiness to pick any fight to eliminate irrational thinking.
However, he draws an important distinction between religious extremists and
"hell-bent" atheists, like himself: although their allegiance to the
cause is very similar to religious devotees, atheists would never resort to
violence in the name of "atheism." Can we say the same about
religions that produced the crusades, the inquisition, the murderous conversion
of natives to Christianity, the recent religious hostilities between Christians
fractions in Ireland, between Muslims and Hindus in India, or, hard as it is to
believe, but recent deadly collisions between Buddhists and Muslims in a few
Asian countries?
Dawkins classifies people into seven
incremental categories from unconditionally religious to absolute atheist.
Surprisingly for me, in this ranking he places himself in the sixth, and not
the seventh category: a god may exist with a very low, but not zero
probability. He never explains why, as an atheist, he would assign any
likelihood at tall to the existence of god. Is it possible that, in the face of
emerging statistical views of reality reflected in both thermodynamics and
quantum mechanics, he cannot justify making an absolute statement? Indeed, at
one point in the book he calls god a scientific hypothesis and this may hint at
the answer to his surprising self-categorization.
I am aware of all the controversy that
this book has generated. For one, I mostly enjoyed Dawkins' reasoning about
religion based on scientific modus operandi, that is, reproducible observations
and testable predictions. He expanded the Darwinist principle of gradual
development by natural selection from biology all the way to the social sphere
including culture and spirituality. In a section on "memes" he
acquaints the reader with the elemental unit of "social norms," such
as culture, spirituality, and expected behavior. It is not an easy notion to
grasp and the book doesn't have room for in-depth scrutiny of this relatively
obscure new field. Although the concept is not generally accepted in social sciences,
memes seem to fit in Dawkins' Darwinist approach: they follow certain rules of
genetic inheritance although with far less fidelity than genes do. Dawkins goes
on to suggest several religious memes that increased the survival likelihood of
religions such as the promise of eternal life (who wouldn't go for that?),
eliminating blasphemy (eradicate the opposition!), and the notion that to
understand certain theses of religion may destroy the theses itself (see the
virgin delivery), etc.
Dawkins addresses several lines of
arguments for the existence of god starting with Thomas Aquinas's five
aposteriory "proofs." Then, he moves through the ontological argument
based on the notion that "nonexistence" is less perfect than
"existence." After several more stops he finally arrives at Stephen
Unwin's application of Bayesian probability theorem with an apparent 95%
likelihood that god exists. I particularly enjoyed the way he discounted
Pascal's Wager, a presumed argument for a revengeful Christian God that I heard
more than once in real life debates. In Dawkins' opinion, this wager promotes a
"feigned" belief based on practicality as opposed to a genuine trust
in god. Here he aptly refers to his good friend's, Douglas Adams' book, the
Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. Adams' fitting humor should secure at
least a faint smile even from the most religious readers.
One interesting insight into how religions
may have evolved is the so-called "Cargo Cult" of a few South Pacific
islands. On those islands a peculiar belief system developed and evolved within
one generation, as if a gene with extreme survival value would have taken over
the population. What survival benefit could have this cult offered to its
followers to spread out so fast? Dawkins doesn't attempt to give an answer.
Nonetheless, the brief history of the Cargo Cult is one of many
thought-provoking sections of the book.
Dawkins' ultimate intent is to reveal the
"king's clothing" on religions in general. However large sections of
the book are directed specifically at Christianity with much less scrutiny of
Islam and Judaism, minimal references to Buddhism and none to Hinduism. He
offers critical review of various Christian religious claims and practices
including moral superiority, the power of prayer, the value of blind faith,
belief as source of happiness, etc. He even ventures into well-deserved
critical interpretations of selected chapters of the Bible. Dawkins treats the
horrific events of the Old Testament with particular harshness, but he also
finds plenty of objectionable teachings in the New Testament. Among the most
disturbing Christian dogmas with great impact on society, Dawkins discusses its
sanctimonious stand against abortion while accepting and even encouraging the
killing of fully developed human beings in various situations such as
"just" wars. (I can't help reflecting here on the latest such "just
war" approved by masses, although not all, of the American religious
community, including the Born-again Christian President. Hundreds of thousands
of Iraqis, having nothing to do with the American victims of 9/11, were killed
in that war, the infamous Operation Iraqi Freedom.)
On the surface, the book seems to have a
distinctive flavor of anti-Christianity for which the author has received a lot
of flak. Christian scholars have discounted the book as the failed attempt of
an amateur with no theological background to explain Christianity. Indeed, well
read as Dawkins is, he cannot compete with those who spend much of their lives
on studying the almost impenetrable lattice of various Christian texts.
However, most of such critics have missed Dawkins' point. He never claimed to
offer a critical review of the itty-bitty details of Christianity. Rather, he
attempted to discredit the foundation of all religions since their basic
premises are untenable in the face of observational experience and deduction,
that is science. Despite claims to the opposite, the book is not any more
anti-Christian than it is anti-Buddhist or anti-Bahá'i. Dawkins simply uses the
religion he knows the best as an example to dissect religion in general.
I do see however an inherent weakness in
Dawkins' emphasis on the Abrahamic religions. With this approach he introduces
a certain imbalance to the narrative and thus dilutes the intended main message
which is arguing against the existence of "supernatural power" using
scientific deliberation. At any rate, what is the point of getting into a
dispute over Abraham's readiness to sacrifice Isaac and other Biblical
nightmares when the author considers the very existence of god little more than
a fidget of overactive imagination or worse, a deliberate attempt to control
people's mind?
Does religion enjoy undeserved respect in
today's societies? Dawkins and my personal experience have convinced me that in
it does. Perhaps the most obvious attempt to keep a well-regarded place for
religion in society is NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magistaria), a proposition that
acknowledges the role of science in the "empirical realm" but
reserves the ultimate meaning and moral values of existence for the realm of
religion. This, and similar attempts to appease science and religion with each
other, don't sit well with Dawkins. Although in the case of NOMA I happen to
agree with his viewpoint, his rigidity to accept people's longing for a
supernatural power doesn't serve his cause well.
There are many religions, some more
benevolent and therefore more respectable than others. Several Asian religions
advocate nonviolence and a sense of true sanctity of life even to the extreme,
that is, not to kill even an insect. I think that despite their underlying
scientifically unapproachable tenet these religions would have deserved at
least a genial nod from Dawkins for their overall benevolence. It wouldn't hurt
the author's case either if he acknowledged that even more violent religions
such as Christianity and Islam, have respectable aspects to them. There have
been certainly countless great minds in history with Abrahamic convictions who
have made important contributions to humanity. To his credit, Dawkins does give
vague recognition to religiously inspired art.
Without going into more detail of the
ample material in the book, I want to praise its rich repository of scientific
thought, abundant references, and the great example it provides for scientific
inquiry. In this spirit I took the liberty to conclude this review with a
critical observation.
The desire to believe in a supernatural
power (could we call it the "Supernatural meme?") has been innate to
humanity in its first 1 million year or so of evolution. Despite his firm
commitment to Darwinian evolution and application of the Darwinian principles
even for social and spiritual progression, Dawkins doesn't seem to consider the
possibility that religion itself, with such deep roots in humanity, is a
natural extension of a Darwinian-like evolution. As such it should be given a
chance for its own evolutionary process. Dawkins even goes as far as
considering god a "scientific theory;" and I am willing to buy it.
Although there is not as strong empirical support for god as for traditional
scientific theories, let's say the Big Bang, nonetheless, it would deserve the
same treatment once Dawkins labeled it as such. As knowledge accumulates, one
would expect that the concept of god will undergo changes in our mind just as
species changed over the millennia. Eventually we should reach a point where
sufficient evidence may be gathered to repel the whole idea of god--or else,
god will reveal itself to empirical probing.
During the evolutionary process of religion I see only one
concern a scientific atheist should have: the danger that dogmatic anti-knowledge
fractions of religion will succeed in putting a stop to knowledge acquisition
and thus interfere with the natural process of spiritual evolution. Therefore,
the scientific atheist, like Dawkins, should not focus as much on how low the
likelihood of god's existence is rather, on the high likelihood of danger
coming from fundamentalism that, without a hint of questioning, takes its
exclusive god at face value.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment