'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. 2007
I liked this book. I liked it quite a lot in fact. I know a lot people don't and in many circles just the mention of Richard Dawkins is enough to warrant sneers and pompous put downs. Obviously religious people despise him. But more worrying is that many of my close British friends, who I consider to be very educated, cultured and passionately liberal, despise the man also. They sneer at him in the special way they reserve for things that they dislike simply because they are popular. As if success was in itself a complete betrayal of all academic and moral principles. These people act like they are above success and will only watch something if it is completely and utterly obscure.Cont...
posted by Benjamin Nakizo at 11:43 AM
4 Comments:
I’ll get to the book itself in a minute. But it seems that the way people view these sorts of things fall into two camps. One group is of the opinion that something is good, it conveys a message in a clear and understandable manner and it has sold by the millions, infusing a population with its message. The other sees a product that is patronising in its moralising and so bloody obvious it is as if the writer is trying to physically ram their ideas into our heads. Both are patronising to people without Arts Degrees (I.e. people with jobs). The first set believe that the masses need to be told these simple ideas and it’s great that someone has devised a formula they can easily digest. The second set believes the ideas are self evident and obvious to everybody and the author is actually insulting you by writing about them. I find this mindset to be arrogantly presumptive. I believe simple ideas need to be made attractive and purchasable if they are to shape and influence a population. And this is exactly what Dorkins has done. That God isn't real is of course blindingly self evident to anyone with half a brain cell.
What Dorkins does so brilliantly is to remind us that for someone to actually use just half of one of their brain cells is an extremely rare occurrence. He does have an important message to convey. Religion is this absurd medieval hang over that has somehow entrenched itself in our culture and demands special laws and rights that no other absurdity has. This is a rather unremarkable thing to write about in all honesty, but as he keeps hammering the point home you gradually wake up to the sheer scale of our collective madness. Whereas religion is something you have always accepted and been taught to respect you slowly begin to realise it is nothing short of criminal that you have never thought to seriously question it. Why is it considered rude to question someone’s religious belief, when people with far less irrational convictions are considered dangerous and in need of medical assistance? How did this man made delusion become so essential to human existence - and why are we so blind to the power we let something we know to be unjustifiable, have over our lives.
Throughout the book you often hear Dorkins’ arguments and you think 'oh grow up Dorkins'. He makes really juvenile comments sometimes. But he is an accomplished scientist and I believe he is intentionally making these comments to highlight his point. Religion has no defence against even really simple criticisms, none whatsoever, and when religion’s finest speak out in its favour they make Dorkins’ original questioning sound profound by comparison.
Religious thought is in a league of its own. A league so divorced from the game of rational thought that it does not deserve any concessions from rational society. So why does it receive so many?
This book doesn't make you angry at religion. It simply opens up your eyes to the scale of this global con, and makes you aware of just how eager you were to let them pull the cotton over your eyes. You might insist you don't and you've always opposed religion - but have u really? The last time u spoke to a Muslim about belief did you really get in his face about it or did you just politely nod and say 'cool'. We know it’s wrong - yet we accept it! Why?
I was always an opponent of organised religion because it has committed incalculable evil in the world, and from the churches of Arkansas to the caves of Afghanistan it continues to do so. Yet believing myself a liberal progressive sort of guy I was always open to the idea that a man could quite respectably choose to be ‘spiritual’ and believe in invisible friends. This book is good because it advances a position you honestly thought never really needed to be advanced and it makes you feel ashamed at how far we have let ourselves get caught up in our own make believe worlds.
Dorkins’ book represents a small victory for common sense in an age where we seem to be taking our religions way too seriously. ‘The God Delusion’ is important because it says things that we assume went without saying.
Unfortunately the world has got itself into such a state that these things really do need saying again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Personally, I fall into the sneering camp. When the book came out, I saw the title and had a little giggle. Then I had a look at the inside cover, hoping to find out a bit about this Darkins fella. Discovering he was one of the most respected biologists on the planet, my heart sank a little. Why would someone like that WASTE so much time and effort discussing God!? Surely it's a closed topic. He doesn't believe, other people do. Who is the book for?
I've not read the book and don't intend to - why would I? I'm one of the smirking set, and I don't want to give Dawkins any of my money. I've seen the guy on TV and he strikes me as the worst kind of sanctimonious nerd. Then there are the fawning athiests who reverentially discuss his work, with earnest brows and smirkng mouths reserved for 'non-believers'. They have found their Jesus - yes, even athiests need a messiah. It's true! Maybe he's got a right to be like that - according to the book's inner cover he is one of the 'top 3 intellectuals in the world.' The other two are Umberto Eco and Noam Chomsky - two more names I have heard of, but know nothing about.
I like you're point about sucess. That goes across the board, I think; the number of Spielberg haters and Stephen King haters I've met. Their wrath, always, stemming from the fact that they both happen to be very good at what they do - Boo! They are also American - boo!... Firmer grounds for festering discent might come the fact that they are both called Stephen!
Finally, it's your final point that might yet convince me Dawkins' project does have some value; these things are worth saying again because of the times we are living in. Although, there is an alternative.... The teachers are on strike - 20 000 grand starting wage is not enough for these pampered Guardian readers. Lets get the Christsians to take it over - they'll do it all out of the kindness of their hearts!
I appear to have spelt Dawkins, Dorkins. Ha.
£20K a year. 14 weeks holiday. And almost complete job security in a time when people with real jobs are getting made redundant all over the place.
You can see why they're mad can't you.
Post a Comment
<< Home