The Portable Atheist

Title: The Portable Atheist – Essential Readings for the Non-Believer

Editor: Christopher Hitchens

Publisher: Da Capo Press, 2007 (First)

ISBN: 9780306816086

Pages: 499

Religion has been a cause of strife ever since it had claimed divine revelation and moral monopoly over the acts of men. After watching base acts of terror beginning with crusades, Inquisition and witch hunts, we have now reached the level of suicidal jihadi violence. It is refreshing to welcome skeptics into our fold, so that a critical evaluation of cherished ideas take place, to free our future generations from the shackles of blind obedience to whims and fancies of a few mentally deranged men who lived centuries ago. This book is a collection of 47 essays of rationalist thought expressed over two millennia. As the byline says, this book constitutes essential reading for non-believers.

The saga of irreligious writing is set in motion by a fitting introduction by Hitchens that lays the foundation for what is to follow. His style is subtly irreverent, while many atheistic writers are prepared to extend a bit of courtesy and respect to age-old ideas, however flawed. Hitchens attacks them with tooth and nail. In one breath, he compares and equates the value systems propounded by St. Augustine, Martin Luther, Calvin and Osama bin Laden. Stout believers would recoil in horror at the simile of religions becoming a free market of ideas in the modern world. True to his character, Hitchens likens religion to be man’s oldest enemy. Besides the introductory chapter, he had the selection of authors and essays that form the main text. He states the rationale for including the specific author in many of the chapters. But of course, eminent thinkers like Russell, Sagan and Dawkins don’t need any introduction at all. One glaring drawback is that a piece by Hitchens himself doesn’t find a place in the book! Readers are thus denied a very good opportunity to enjoy the razor sharp logic of the book’s editor.

Readers get a delectable treat of essays written by eminent philosophers from all walks of literary spectrum including poets like Shelley, popularizers of science like Richard Dawkins, ancient thinkers like Lucretius, modern thinkers like Spinoza, men of science like Albert Einstein and Martin Gardener and others. Shelley’s scientific temper astonishes modern readers where poets usually divorce their thinking mind from the path of reason as if it does not concern them. Similarly, any doubt on Einstein’s personal belief in god is dispelled by his remark that he believed in ‘Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men” (p.164). Russell’s essay is very enlightening on the futility of race and the generalizations based on it. Scholars demolish the false accusation of believers that atheists repent of their sins on deathbed and believe in god. We read about a staunch thinker who heartily discussed about his firm convictions on atheism till moments before his death.          

Science’s hallmark is its curiosity. Constantly aware of what they still don’t know, scientists strive to elicit knowledge from all spheres of intellectual activity. This is in marked contrast to the ways of spiritual masters as St. Augustine, who comments that “there is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn” (p.363)!

The most serious accusation conjectured by believers against an atheist society is that it would be without morals. This argument assumes that mankind adheres to moral principles out of fear of retribution in the form of eternal damnation in hell. This idea runs very old. Dostoyevsky once said that ‘if god is dead, then everything is permitted”. The fountainhead of morality is presumed to be god and his religion. This very concept is flawed, whose farcical precept is evident from even a cursory look at the proposition. The ideals which led man and his society were evolved very long ago, even before religions began to take hold. If you covet something in your neighbour’s possession, and are ready to go to any extreme to obtain it, the society in which both are members will be riddled with internecine conflicts, making it an easy prey for rival tribes. So, suppression of obviously selfish motives was accepted by all societies in their initial stages of development itself. Besides, if the only thing that prevents you from committing a heinous crime is the fear of divine retaliation on Judgment Day, what kind of a morality is that?

The book includes two chapters by Ibn Warraq on the Koran and the ‘totalitarian nature of Islam’, which may offend fanatical Muslims. This content might be enough to obtain a ban on many Middle Eastern countries and lapidation for the possessor. A former Muslim and writing under the pseudonym Ibn Warraq, the author critically analyzes the devout contention that the Koran is divinely ordained and finds faults and shortcomings in it. The basic premise of the argument is that the holy book was finalized in its present form only around the 9^th century CE. By this time, the traditions of the prophet (hadith) and the consensus among scholars (ijma) became hardened so as not to allow further accretions. This forced Islam to the cul-de-sac of intellectual mortification and caused it unable to adjust to modern conditions. Ibn Warraq hints that Islam is not relevant in the present day. A curious point to note is that the author even attacks Islam’s strict monotheism, which makes it unique among the comity of modern religions. When multiple gods were removed from popular imagination by the diktat of the new religion of Arabia, lesser gods were said to have been co-opted as jinn, shaitan, ifrit and marid. Isn’t belief in the existence of these supernatural beings accountable as polytheism? However, Ibn Warraq’s arguments cannot be termed as undoubted truths. In many pages, he simply quotes from prominent thinkers as if their opinion is enough to carry conviction.

India is home to fundamentalists of all hues. The mind-numbing cruelty exhibited by Muslim invaders in conquering the country in the Middle Ages has been a recurring theme among them. Leftist historians usually evade the issue altogether, and try to gloss over the details. It would be heartening to note that western thinkers share the perception of nationalist historians. Arthur Schopenhauer, the renowned German philosopher, notes that “the ever-deplorable, wanton and ruthless destruction and disfigurement of ancient temples and images reveal to us even to this day traces of the monotheistic fury of the Muhammadans which was pursued from Mahmud of Ghazni of accursed memory down to Aurangzeb the fratricide” (p.401).

The book is a real assortment of chapters having no link of continuity or style among them. Readers find it difficult to constantly adjust to the tone of various authors in quick succession. Usually, it takes a few chapters to adapt to a writer’s peculiar mode of expressing his opinion. Many chapters are examples of scintillating logic and lucid idea, while a few of them are very harsh on readers, J. L. Mackie’s contribution is one such. The essay is usually only a chapter from an author’s book. This precludes the readers from getting an idea of the background topics already discussed in the earlier chapters of the book. Chapman Cohen’s piece is riddled with references to monism, without explaining for once what it is. The book sports a good index to easily look up references.

The book is recommended.

Rating: 3 Star

God - The Failed Hypothesis

Title: God: The Failed Hypothesis – How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

Author: Victor J Stenger

Publisher:  Prometheus, 2007 (First)

ISBN: 978-1-59102-481-1

Pages: 258

A delightful work with utmost conviction and clarity from a renowned author. Stenger is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. He has authored many books on popular science and atheist topics. This bold new initiative is a commendable one in taking the bull by its horns. Many scientists and scientific establishments keep the refrain that science is not fit for commenting on spiritual or theistic citing incompatibility. Repeated assertions like this impart the fallacious argument with necessary weight to carry it into established wisdom. This is far from the truth, as exemplified many times in this text. What scientists fear most is the drying up of funds for their work and it would be a good idea for most of them to dance to the tune of superstitious sensibilities of the society. Stenger establishes that the concept of God and other mystical ideas can be tested by scientific methodology and pronounce judgement on them. However, simply by reading the title, we get a hint of the outcome.

Science separates chaff from wheat by hypothesis testing. Nonetheless, not every claim can be tested. There are a few conditions which must be satisfied for considering extraordinary claims. They are,  1) The protocols of the study must be clear and impeccable so that all possibilities of error can be evaluated 2) The hypothesis being tested must be established clearly and explicitly before data taking begins, and not changed midway through the process or after looking at the data 3) The people performing the study must do so without any prejudgment of how the results should come out 4) The hypothesis being tested must be one that contains the seeds of its own destruction and 5) Even after passing the above criteria, reported results must be of such a nature that they can be independently replicated (p.24-25). Proponents of creation theory, which can also be tested, do not command the respect of admirers as they once did. Even a schoolboy attending Sunday school probably knows that the mechanism of creation described in the Bible (or any other religious work) does not exist. Intelligent Design (ID) is an alternate theory suggested by creationists when their former theory fell short of teaching in U.S. schools. This developed into a major movement in the 1980s and two judicial rulings in U.S declared teaching ID in schools unconstitutional as it observed that ID is nothing better than creation by God, which ran against the country’s secular credentials. Opposition to this wolf in sheep’s skin is rampant, with a group of scientists claiming that design is too poor to expect from an omnipotent, omniscient being. They cite examples, such as “our bones lose minerals after age thirty, making them susceptible to fracture and osteoporosis. Our rib cage does not fully enclose and protect most internal organs. Our muscles atrophy. Our leg veins become enlarged and twisted, leading to varicose veins. Our joints wear out as their lubricants thin. Our retinas are prone to detachment. The male prostate enlarges, squeezing and obstructing urine flow” (p.69). One would hardly expect such design flaws from an all powerful God.

In the author’s incessant tirade on superstition, good explanatory work of world beyond matter is produced. Effectiveness of intercessory prayer on patients is examined in some detail. Very few experiments were done in the scientific way and those don’t prove positive effects. Mind and soul are the results of electrical interactions in human brain and there is no reason to believe that they continue after death. So a God who endows manking with immortal, immaterial souls can’t exist. The argument that since the universe exists, there should exist a creator too, is erroneous. Author argues philosophically that to maintain ‘nothing’ requires outside intervention and presence of ‘something’ indicates there is no creator.

Another popular misconception is that since the universe appears to be finetuned for life, probably it was made so by a creator or designer, but this argument is fundamentally flawed. If the physical constants and parameters are so optimized for life, why is that life is tied to this blue speck of Earth in the vast universe? Probably such blue specks or similar planets may exist  somewhere in the universe, but human travel to such far off places is restricted by life-threatening radiation permeating outer space like gamma rays or cosmic rays. The only conclusion we can infer from this is that, whatever the universe is designed for, it is just not fit for life. In the trillions of galaxies, stars and planets, just one – a single entity – became the abode of life is the result of pure chance. The author also examines the truthness of biblical prophesies in some detail and concludes that they have not been fulfilled and merely represents the state of knowledge at the time of writing. However, this chapter seems to be not doing justice to the title.

Another common argument for creationists is that our moral values come from God and if we reject him, we stoop to debased morals. A clear and deserved thrashing is meted out to this flimsy point. Men, born and brought up in a social milieu develops moral precepts which naturally take root in any society. The Golden Rule summarizes the nature of human interactions in society, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. This is construed as a teaching of Christ in the sermon on the mount. However, this maxim is present in other ancient texts too, some of them not religious, like 1) In the Doctrine of the Mean 13, written about 500 BCE, Confucius says, “What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others.” 2) Isocrates (c.375 BCE) said, “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others” 3) The Hindu Mahabharata, written around 150 BCE, teaches, “This is the sum of all true righteousness: deal with others as thou wouldst thyself be dealt by” (p.198). To the consternation of people who regard Bible as the fountainhead of virtue, it allows and regulates slavery as shown in these lines, “When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh, he shall go out free, for nothing (Exodus 21:2 Revised Standard Version)” and “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone (Exodus 21:4, RSV)” (p.202). The Church condemned slavery in 1888, when all Christian nations had abolished it. The U.S. civil war was caused by the insistence of southerners to continue slavery claiming that it is not immoral, showing the Bible as evidence. Likewise, morals also did not originate in religion. Protomorality is seen among animals too, like sharing of food and helping injured members as sometimes displayed by dolphins, apes, monkeys and elephants. This trait is innate in humans and provide good survival value in a society. This is further accentuated by cultural evolution and social harmony which provides the basis for our sense of right and wrong. Religion has absolutely no place here.

The book is extensively well referenced and the rich source material is a good starting point for many a journey to the depths of superstition and how to wipe them out. The book is outstanding in its frontal attack on religious baggage and facing it at full throttle. What many scientists had feared to do, Stenger had achieved in a masterful stroke. It is easy to read and is a good page turner.

The book is highly recommended.

Rating: 4 Star

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