The God Delusion

Title: The God Delusion

Author: Richard Dawkins

Publisher: Black Swan 2007 (First published 2006)

ISBN: 978-0-552-77429-1

Pages: 420

This was a book I was looking for, for the last few years. Nothing has contributed to Rationalist movements worldwide more than this volume written by perhaps the greatest living icon of humanism and scientific thinking. Dawkins is incomparable if you compare his literary range and breadth and depth of external references. This book is no exception to this rule as is evidenced by the long list of supporting data at the end of it. It is also the product of Dawkins’ untiring war on organised religion and the undeserving respect they forcibly demand from an unwilling society. The meek surrender of the state and civil society to the illogical ranter of adherents of religion morally infuriate the author and through the clever use of fitting examples and pathbreaking logic, succedes in imparting the indignation to the reader.

Dawkins begins with a caveat that no respect is going to be granted to religion throughout the book. Illogical religious actions are accorded the sanction of law, if it could be shown that such an action constitutes free practice of even an esoteric sect. U.S. has particularly fallen for this fallacy which is a grave concern when considered in conjunction with the fact that the country abounds with fanatics of all hues. The public respect given to organised religions which are unhesitant to kill and smash obstacles which come their ways is misplaced and imprudent. The mayhem resulting from the publication of a few cartoons on Prophet Mohammed in a little known Danish journal is a case in point to demonstrate the depth of intolerance and disregard to freedom of expression guaranteed to citizens in an enlightened society. Three cartoon which were really offensive – but were not published in the journal – were given widespread publicity by some mullahs who had availed political asylum in Denmark itself. Such hatred is the result of irrational belief, which the author inspects next in turn. Various beliefs, from outright religious practice to agnosticism is examined and laid threadbare. However, one gets a feeling that he is unduly harsh on agnostics who are called fencesitters in a truculent attack. However, to put things in their right proportions, Dawkins acknowledges different flavours of atheists, some of them very close to being atheists themselves. He also concludes that the concept of God can be put under the investigative rigour of science and that there is no evidence of it.

We come across arguments favouring the existence of God in many forms. Some appeal to the aesthetic sense, claiming how a thing of beauty could come about without the overarching divine supervision. Scriptures and personal experiences are also frequently cited as ‘evidences’. The greatest shot in the arm for such people is usually the acquiescence from religiously inclined scientists themselves. But none of these stand the vigour and rigour of scientific scrutiny. Personal experience is uncertain testimony as the brain – which is really a computer providing a simulation of the outside world, based on sensory inputs – is quite capable of presenting miraculous results when in fact nothing particularly spectacular has had happened. Dawkins claims that among the achievers in science, religiously minded people are small in numbers and puts forward the idea that as intellect and IQ increases, a tendency is seen in people to shun religion. However, this is not conclusively proved and is anecdotal evidence at best. Creation of the universe and life is claimed to be the handiwork of God, since no explanation is foreseen by its proponents to unravel the mysteries of ‘irreducible complexity’ found in animal body parts like the eye or molecular flagellar motor. This means that the organ will cease to function if any one of its components put together by the creator is omitted. Dawkins convincingly trashes the idea, by demonstrating variations of eyes in every intermediate flavour among the fauna. The eye will work in a reduced capacity even without cornea! The development of these organs is the result of natural selection which goes one step at a time, but eventually reaches pinnacles of locally adapted lifeforms. However, origin of life cannot be explained in this way, which must surely have been a one-off event, which is not totally improbable, considering the vastness of the visible universe. But it definitely occurred, otherwise we wouldn’t be here to contemplate about it.

How did religions evolve? What advantages they possessed in early human settlements? The author says it was a byproduct of a genetic behaviour which is essential for survival. Children obey without demur authority figures such as parents. This is indispensable to impart accumulated wisdom to the young minds. This practice was continued through adult stage by obeying a tribal elder’s religious incantations. Good morals are sometimes attributed to spring from religion which is an unsubstantiated assertion. The morals exhibited in some chapters of the Old Testament like the books of Genesis and Judges (described in detail in the volume) as performed by great elders like Abraham and Joshua seem immoral by today’s standards. Anyhow, we can’t judge ancient people with the enlightenment of a future age. The zeitgeist moved on, irrespective of what religion professed along the centuries, moving us towards the present age. This shows that the morals are not a product of religious thought. All religions permit employment of slaves and suppression of women as moral acts, but these are abhorrent in the present-day world. Dawkins also successfully counter the claim that atheists like Stalin and Hitler had killed millions. Stalin was definitely an atheist, but Hitler’s religious proclivities are more dubious. He expressed catholic sentiments many times in his career and the Roman Church supported him throughout the World War. A list of several such instances are given.

A great injustice pointed out by the author is the characterization of children along religious lines of their parents. Descriptions like Christian children or Muslim children should be realized to have as ridiculous a connotation as atheist children or liberal children. Instead, they should properly be called children of Christian parents or Muslim parents and like wise. When this term is used, not only it posits the situation clear, but has the added advantage of making the children realize that they have a choice when they reach thinking age. Transmitting religious ideas to children early on is equivalent to abusing them. Children and later grown up people also find consolation in god. There are two ways to give consolation, either materially – like providing warm clothes to a person shivering in cold, or psychologically. Science is capable of providing the first variety and peoper mental awareness will take care of the latter.

The book is a manifesto of atheism. Religiously minded people may better avoid this book, if they desire to remain where they are at present. This is particularly effective when the author takes on the argument that morals come from religion. He makes mincemeat of opponents on this particular issue, by citing extensively from Old Testament and clearly drives home the point. Dawkins’ sharp humour is evident most vividly in describing the following passage from the Bible, “’Thou shalt have no other gods but me’ would seem an easy enough commandment to keep: a doddle, one might think, compared with ‘Thou shalt not covet they neighbour’s wife’. Or her ass. (Or her ox)” (p.276) – the hastily added parantheses made me roaring with laughter. Even while despatching cartloads of criticism to scriptures and religion, the author keeps a good sense of proportion and intellectual balancing by acknowledging the literary merit in them and preserving some cherished traditions through some harmless rituals. At the same time, the conviction is still stressed, that we can still give up belief in god without losing touch with a treasured heritage.

What can we point out as the weak links in a book by Dawkins? Not much, presumably. His efforts to explain origin of life on Anthropic principle (the conditions on Earth was suitable for the emergence of life, among the billions and billions of planets and that’s why we are here) are understandable, but attributing it to the origin of eukaryotic cells and consciousness is stretching the point too far. It must be acknowledged that our knowledge about these still consist of some gaps which may be expected to be filled in the near future. Even if science cannot claim the honour for the time being, religion is not at all a contender for the slot.

The book is highly recommended.

Rating: 4 Star