|
Review of “The
God Delusion”
by Barry Weisleder / February 2007
“The
God Delusion”, by Richard Dawkins (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, New
York, 406 pages).
Although
humanity is more secular in outlook than ever before, religious
fundamentalism remains an ideological bulwark of the imperial agenda, and
sadly, also a refuge for the oppressed. Christian opponents of abortion and
stem cell research in the U.S. are in the front ranks of enthusiasts for
the Iraq war, capital punishment, and George W. Bush.
In
Canada, proponents of public funding for religious schools, of
anti-abortion laws, of more money for cops and prisons, including benighted
Tory government ministers like Stockwell Day (who stated his belief that
the universe was created 5000 years ago), unite in their hatred of gay
marriage, feminist autonomy, quality public child care, and environmental
protection.
Arcane
religious ideologies, so out of step with modernity and strivings for human
freedom, are frequent intruders into the public decision-making process.
But why should we be surprised? Such an acute expression of the ideological
crisis and social polarization of society is part and parcel of life under
the decaying world order known as late capitalism. Recognition of the
malaise, however, does not imply that we should passively accept it.
A
good antidote to the irrational essence of religious excreta is “The God
Delusion”, by Richard Dawkins, a science professor at Oxford University.
Dawkins caused a stir in Canada last fall when he appeared on a CBC-TV
Newsworld debate show and instantly became a lightening rod for the
thunderbolts of evangelists, rabbis, mullahs, and other soothsayers who
tried to label him an arrogant dictator and an intellectual terrorist.
His
crimes, evidently, were to demand an end to religion's privilege of place
in the media, cultural institutions, and government, and to request equal
time for the argument that religion is unhealthy for humanity and the
world. The fact that his book went to number one on the bestseller charts
really rankled the defenders of blind faith.
Dawkins,
trying not to take himself too seriously, makes the case that it is
impossible to know absolutely whether God exists, only that the existence
of God is extremely improbable.
He
defines an atheist as “somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the
natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking
behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body, and no
miracles—except in the sense of natural phenomenon that we don't yet
understand.”
Early
on he quotes Albert Einstein, who theists often wrongly claim as one of
theirs: “Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very
imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with
mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even
naive.”
Some
philosophers who wish to cling to a thread of mysticism argue for the ’lazy
God’ theory, akin to the notions of the 18th-century deists: God created
the universe, then stood back and let everything take its own course. Of
course, this doesn't make much of a case for worship or prayer, since the
deity is decidedly inactive, unoccupied, and superfluous.
But
like all other God theories it still begs the really big question: who or
what created God?
All
matter, including all forms of life, is traceable back to atoms in space, a
big bang, the super density of a black hole, the crystallization of stars
and planets, and so on. All development proceeds from the simple to the more
complex. Dawkins puts it this way: “A God capable of continuously
monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the
universe cannot be simple. His existence is going to need a mammoth
explanation in its own right.”
The
theist argues there is no need to explain. God was always, and is forever.
It is a matter outside of, and beyond the realm of science. But since the
onus is on believers to prove what they believe, this argument is a not
very artful dodge.
Theists,
bereft of scientific proof for their beliefs, often find it more convenient
to go on the offensive. ’Intelligent design’ proponents (who seek to
re-write school science textbooks) aim to put a sophisticated face on hokey
creationism. Some argue thusly: How could complex life, including complex
organisms like the human eye, occur? If not by design, did they occur just
by chance?
Dawkins'
retort is poignant: “Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural
selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative
at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who
designed the designer?
“Chance
and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical
probability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one
regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution ... a solution of
stunning elegance and power ... natural selection is a cumulative process,
which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the
small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so.”
“The
creationist completely misses the point, because he ... insists on treating
the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. He
doesn't understand the power of accumulation.” To illustrate his point,
Dawkins goes on to discuss the primitive eye of the flatworm, and the
somewhat more complicated eye of the nautilus, as steps on a continuum.
“The
God Delusion” would be glaringly incomplete without paying a lot of
attention to the various ideologies of delusion. He examines the huge
scriptural contradictions within Christianity, and suggests that this is
also the case for the multitude of other religions. He excoriates the
vicious cruelty sanctioned by faith—the intense bigotry, oppressive discrimination,
and blatant female and child abuse perpetuated in its various names.
For
the purposes of generating a civilized society, Dawkins maintains, humanity
has no need of the irrational crutch of ages; we are quite capable of
respecting individual and collective rights on a secular basis—in fact,
humanity is much more capable of doing so free of religious baggage.
The
book is brimming with delightful quotes that promote critical thinking:
“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.”
Dawkins
cites “Woody Allen's perceptive whine: ’If it turns out that there is a
God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him
is that basically he's an under-achiever.’”
Alas,
Dawkins is not a historical materialist, which is evident when he strays
into the realms of politics and sociology. He tends to reduce national
oppression to a matter of pure religious bigotry.
Whether
it concerns Irish nationalists in the British-occupied Orange statelet, or
Palestinians under Zionist occupation, or Arabs and Muslims suffering
harassment in North America, Dawkins fails to see, or at least to explain,
that in capitalist class society the ruling elite fosters bigotry to justify
social inequality, to lower their costs, to maximize their profits, and to
divide so as to rule.
He
does not attempt to explain the origins of Christianity, Islam, or any
religion as an expression of distinct class interests at their genesis. One
must look elsewhere for that, such as in Karl Kautsky's seminal
“Foundations of Christianity” (1908).
“The
God Delusion” is an informed, articulate, humanist response to irrational,
reactionary ideologies. It does not purport to be a guide to the new world
that free-thinking humanity yearns to create. Nor should it be regarded as
an impediment to collaboration with Liberation Theologists,
anti-imperialist Muslims, or anti-Zionist Jews. But it is an important
component of what activists need today—ammunition against the Empire.
|
