Why is it that one of the top critics of religion should be a biologist? Could it be that a deep understanding of biological evolution through natural selection really does lead one inexorably to atheism? If so, creationists might actually have reason to fear the inclusion of evolution in school curricula. Better not let them read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion then, because that's one of the core messages of the book.
Which is funny, because Dawkins writes that he very much would like to reach those raised in a religious environment, but are a little unsure about the whole thing. "If you are one of them, this book is for you."
Of course, it doesn't really matter, because the vast majority of his readers are bound to be like me (and probably you), people who have already rejected religion, organized or otherwise. Just like Daniel Dennett does in Breaking the Spell, Dawkins claims to be doing his best not to infuriate potential readers who believe in some kind of god, But it's hard to take seriously passages like this:
It is in the light of unparalleled presumption of respect for religion that I make my own disclaimer for this book. I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently than I would handle anything else.
when the very next words in the book are:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser....
and so on and so on.
All of which is fair comment. But it does suggest that the only people who won't find those two passages too much to swallow will be those already sufficiently familiar with Dawkins' work to know what he meant by "any more gently than I would handle anything else." Indeed, I doubt anyone who considers him or herself a devout Christian will be able get past that last section. So what is Dawkins really up to if not converting the faithful?
I suspect it all comes down to the connection between evolution and atheism. Like most people who consider themselves reasonable observers of the culture wars between rationalism and religion, I tend to dismiss the notion that anything that science comes up with carries any implications for the question of god's existence. At least, I do when engaged in debate with someone for whom the answer is a positive one. We all want to ensure that evolution is not mistaken for theology. Especially in the classroom. Just because we believe in natural selection, that's no reason to assume we're atheists. Given that half of America believes in some form of creationism, the last thing we need is to raise suspicions that our efforts to defend evolutionary theory are actually part of a campaign to turn all children into unbelievers.
Not that that would be a bad thing, but it's certainly not a strategically wise move. And yet, here we have Prof. Dawkins making the case, over and over again, that anyone who has been "enlightened" through exposure to the explanatory powers of natural selection will be better equipped to spot the logical and evidentiary flaws in the arguments for the existence of a god.
In other words, natural selection -- and presumably any well-elaborated and established scientific concept -- should challenge belief in the supernatural. This was the case for little Richard Dawkins, who says his own rejection of religion began only at the age of 16, after being educated in the ways of Darwin. It's not quite the same as saying "evolution will make you an atheist," but it's pretty darn close. To wit:
... although Darwinism may not be directly relevant to the inanimate world -- cosmology, for example -- it raises our consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology. A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance and, teaches us to seek out the graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity.
And a few pages later:
Darwin raises our consciousness in other ways. Evolved organs, elegant and efficient as they often are, also demonstrate revealing flaws.... our consciousness is also raised by the cruelty and wastefulness of natural selection. Predators seem beautifully 'designed' to catch prey animals, while the prey animals seem equally beautifully 'designed' to escape them. Whose side is God on?
I'm not taking issue with these elegant and efficient arguments. Dawkins is nothing if not relentless and his logic inescapable. I'm just trying to see things from the point of view of someone who doesn't already buy into the author's worldview. And I strongly suspect that many such readers (few in numbers as they may be) will be forced to conclude that the ways of science and the ways or the church are anything but non-overlapping magisteria. If Dawkins is correct to apply science to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everthing, then evolution will leave no room for a god. I'm on board, but it's not going to go down well with the faithful.
(At this point, some may recall Michael Ruse's notion of "evolutionism" as propounded in last year's The Evolution-Creation Struggle in which Ruse accuses more ardent defenders of natural selection of turning Darwinian theory into something more ideological and less scientific, but I think that would be a mistake here, as Dawkins remains firmly rooted in the language of science.)
The other core message in The God Delusion is that almost every argument for god's existence suffers from the "ultimate 747 infinite regress." Each argument appeals to the existence of a supernatural prime mover or first cause that by definition would have to be more complex and less likely than the unlikely circumstances that invoking god in the first place is meant to explain. Many pages are devoted what amounts to the old conundrum of "so where did God come from?"
At times it seems like overkill, although considering how dense most theological reasoning seems to be, it's probably necessary. I still don't quite follow Anselm's ontological argument, for example, despite Dawkins' best efforts to sort through it. As Bertrand Russell said, "it is easier to feel convinced that [the ontological argument] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."
Again, it seems unlikely that Dawkins -- or Dennett or any other atheist -- will convince many theists of the error of their ways through logic and wit alone. He may even do some (minor) damage to the efforts to convince pious school trustees that evolution poses no threat to religious sensibilities. But any reader of a religious bent who does have the courage to tackle The God Delusion will almost certainly be in for a mind-blowing ride. It's also a fun one, thanks to Dawkins' up-to-date source material, including PZ Myers' Pharyngula and other blogs, hot-off-the-press books like Dennett's and Sam Harris' The End of Faith, and his own experiences making the documentary, "The Root of All Evil?"
And, as always with Dawkins, even those of us who have already read mountains on the subject are bound to learn something new. I, for one, didn't realize Matthew and Luke give conflicting numbers of intermediate generations between King David and Joseph. Guess my eyes must have glazed over for a moment.
- Log in to post comments