Outline and Review the Arguments and Controversies Generated by Richard Dawkins Recent , The God Delusion - Book Report/Review Example

Outline and review the arguments and controversies generated by Richard Dawkins recent book, The God Delusion: Right from the publication of his first major work “The Selfish Gene Theory”, Richard Dawkins is never free of controversy. While Dawkins is impeccable as a scholar and an academic, most of his detractors are from the religious and conservative sections of the population. Over the years, Dawkins’ works on evolutionary biology have drawn equally vociferous applause and protest. The last in the sequence of his seminal works is “The God Delusion”. In this book, Dawkins strings together powerful arguments in support of a god-free or atheistic way of life. The rest of the essay will delve into the different faces of this scholarly piece of literature in an attempt to gain insights into the arguments and controversies raised by it. Dawkins writes with such passion that he declares that to be an atheist is a “brave and splendid aspiration”. He argues that belief in a religious faith is not only a folly but a sinful one. When explaining to his readers where he stands in the atheist/theist spectrum, Dawkins states “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.” In other words, Dawkins’ atheism borders on agnosticism. An informed reader will find parallels between Dawkins and Bertrand Russell, the latter being an avowed agnostic. Similar to the yesteryear intellectual, Dawkins reasons that all suppositions for the existence of God need to be discredited. Once this is done, arguments supporting the opposing belief (that God does not exist) can be much easier to construct. Following this logical step, the transcendent qualifiers of religious beginnings need to be questioned. Finally, Dawkins proposes that the highest meaning and purpose to a human life could be achieved without involving supernatural conceptions. Further, religion has been the root of much violence and conflict in the history of mankind than any other institution (Baltimore, 2007). However, not all of Dawkins’ arguments are acceptable to all sections of his audience. For example, two arguments in support of traditional views on existence of God are: 1.the “ontological argument”, which says that God exists as a perfect entity by default; 2.and the “cosmological argument” which states that God is the ultimate cause of this universe. Dawkins’ counter arguments to both these points of view are relatively weak in what is otherwise an excellently constructed set of arguments in the book. So is his engagement in opposition to the “design argument”. Similarly, Dawkins makes the mistake of presuming that people come to believe in religious faiths based on rationality and logical thinking. So, while Dawkins’ logic is brilliant and impregnable, the subject being dealt with is not strictly confined to the scientific realm (Matthies, 2006). Further, Dawkins puts forth what could be called the central argument of this polemical work. Dawkins challenges the theologians with this question: “So, who made God? God cannot be the ultimate creator for any God capable of designing a universe, carefully and foresight fully tuned to lead to our evolution, must be a supremely complex and improbable entity that needs an even bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to provide. Hence the God hypothesis is very close to being ruled out by the laws of probability.” (Gefter, 2007) Neat and clever the arguments may be, but many merits of the book are overshadowed by the controversies that it attracts. A sentiment expressed by many reviewers is the lack of reverence Dawkins shows to the religious philosophers in general and Judeo-Christian luminaries in particular. For example, he uses the following adjectives to describe the Christian God: “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”. However, it has to be understood that Dawkins has no personal hostility to the Judeo-Christian school of thought. But since his audience is predominantly European and American, he chooses to pay attention to this one religion for reasons of convenience. Nevertheless, this is not understood by the large number of critics who accuse him of hurting the sentiments of millions of people through the accusations that he makes of their religious faith (Trevor, 2007). Over the last decade or so, religious fundamentalism is seen making resurgence. This not only applies to Islamic fundamentalism but Christian, Jewish and Hindu ones as well. So, the communal relations between the liberal and conservative sections of contemporary societies are getting ever tenser. The last thing the world needs is more acts of terror and violence and brutality. The God Delusion, absorbing and valuable a work it might be, does not help alleviate the existing climate of terror and violence. In this context, the author is contributing to negative sociological outcomes; quite inadvertently of course (Gefter, 2007). A theme Dawkins revisits throughout the book is the crimes carried out in the name of religion. He also points out that when religious people indulge in unethical code of conduct they tend to do so on the dictates of their faith. On the other hand Dawkins asserts that atheists do not base their deviant acts on atheism. In his own words, "Stalin was an atheist and Hitler probably wasnt, but even if he was… the bottom line is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they dont do evil things in the name of atheism". But such an argument does not hold up under careful scrutiny. For instance, the entire orthodox priesthood was abolished by Stalin during his dictatorship. To declare that such a radical and unreasonable act had no relation to his affiliation to atheism is a gross overstatement. Later in the book, he asks, "Why would anyone go to war for the sake of an absence of religious beliefs (atheism)?" But in the context of modern history many a war, revolt and revolution were started independent of religious grounds. The French Revolution and the Chinese invasion of Tibet serve as cases that expose Dawkins’ factual error. The following passage is another example of Dawkins’ incorrect generalizations: “With notable exceptions, such as the Afghan Taliban and the American Christian equivalent, most people play lip service to the same broad liberal consensus of ethical principles. The majority of us dont cause needless suffering; we believe in free speech and protect it even if we disagree with what is being said." (Moore, 2006) But ultimately, The God Delusion overstates its arguments in opposition to religion by attributing responsibility with it for everything that goes wrong in the world. Dawkins mentions how religion had negatively impacted political negotiations. He pinpoints to the long-running Israel-Palestinian conflict, the India-Pakistan rivalry, and the causes of terror strikes on September the 11th, 2001. But the roots for all these international conflicts lay in cultural, ethnic and socio-economic foundations, and not strictly a religious one. As a matter of fact, Israel is a very modern secular nation (irrespective of what Dawkins perceives as the truth). Similarly, the partition of Indian subcontinent into Indian and Pakistan states would still have taken place without factoring religion in the equation. What was a more powerful force in the latter case is ethnic hostilities and not theological differences. In the same vein, though the perpetrators of 9/11 terror strikes were Muslim, the uniting factor among the terrorists is their common Arab identity and their grievances toward United States’ policies toward states in the region. Hence, at times Dawkins places too much weight on religious factors in international conflicts. As a result, the views expressed by him in The God Delusion do not go down well with political analysts. It has to be admitted that Dawkins’ expertise is in the realm of science and not politics (Moore, 2006). Controversial and approximated some of Dawkins’ view points might be, the book is till a valuable tool in understanding modern society and its sociological order. For instance, the author’s insights about our education system are quite valid, especially in relation to religious instruction. Amid so much uncertainty themselves, preachers impose mythical biblical stories and values on children under their purview. The God Delusion does a stellar job in condemning this. In Dawkins’ own words, “Children are natural theologians, wanting everything to have a purpose--wanting to believe that clouds exist so flowers will get rain. Teaching them religion as if its claims about the past were undisputed exploits the childs unformed power of critical thinking, and lessens the value of any future spiritual beliefs. Its ridiculous to teach children the story of the Loaves and Fishes, or any such item, as history, though it might be. Children should be taught, "This is what scripture says about our past, and whether this true is one of the big questions of life. You must decide for yourself whether you will believe these claims."” (Cook, 2006) In sum, The God Delusion is a much needed piece of scholarship. Its value lays not so much in the light it throws upon a historically controversial subject, but in its ability to bring religious faith to the public debate. The reader would have spent his/her time well if the book entices him/her to set course on a journey of spiritual introspection. In this respect, The God Delusion is a valuable addition to Richard Dawkins’ impressive array of meritorious works, and an essential read for anyone concerned with sociological realities of modern times. References: Cook, M. (Oct 30, 2006). The divine comedy. New Statesman (1996), 135, 4816. p.58(2).  Asquith, I. (Jan 19, 2007). Reading for pleasure: Edinburgh University Press Ivon Asquith on Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. . The Bookseller, 5264. p.22(1).  Angel to take on Dawkins.(BOOK NEWS) (Book review). (June 29, 2007). The Bookseller, 5287. p.12(1).  Matthies, B S (Nov 15, 2006). Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Library Journal, 131, 19. p.75(1).  The God Delusion. (August 21, 2006). Publishers Weekly, 253, 33. p.62(1).  Misbegotten sons; Religion. (Sept 23, 2006). The Economist (US), 380, 8496. p.93US.  Gefter, A. (Sept 22, 2007). It depends on what you mean by God: now angels are being called into the war over science and belief. But they are powerless unless the two sides agree on what religion is.(Book review). New Scientist, 195, 2622. p.53(1).  Moore, C. (Oct 7, 2006). A voice crying in the wilderness. Spectator, p.NA.  Trevor, W., Moorehead, C., Dexter, G., Judd, A., Baker, S., Evans, L., Lewis, R., Moore, C., Taylor, D J, Connolly, C., Sumption, J., Ridley, J., Hillier, B., Taylor, A., & Marnham, P. (Nov 24, 2007). Books of the year: a further selection of the best and worst books of the year, chosen by some of our regular contributors.(CHRISTMAS BOOKS 2)(Book review). Spectator, 305, 9355. p.48(3).  Baltimore, D. (Jan-Feb 2007). A defense of atheism.(The God Delusion)(Book review). American Scientist, 95, 1. p.75(2). Read More