This one
took me a while to get in to after reading loads of fiction and if I’m honest,
it hasn’t endeared me to non-fiction writing, even if the subject is borderline
interesting. The edition I read was the 10th anniversary edition featuring
a new introduction. The introduction takes the interesting step of answering criticism
the book has received, not only from religious people but from the
non-religious community as well. The tact taken appears to be any criticism of
the book, even when not biased or based on counter beliefs, is wrong. Because
science. That’s basically the whole book. But what’s wrong with that you say?
Well…
Firstly, the
God Delusion is a published book. As
it is a book, it is designed to be read by other people. If it were me writing
a book with the sole purpose of ‘opening people’s eyes’ I wouldn’t do it using
obnoxious language and inaccessible words. I don’t claim to be the smartest guy
in the world, but I would like to think that I have some semblance of
intelligence and I had no idea what Dawkins is banging on about half the time.
But I suppose ‘religion bad, science good’ wouldn’t sell a lot of copies.
The second
thing is the way in which the book is written. It clocks in at 426 pages
including the afterword by Daniel Dennett – which is yet further posturing over
the ideas contained within the book and how they are right and anyone that
disagrees with them is wrong. The book could have been closer to 200 pages as
Dawkins has an overzealous need to repeat the same point over and over again.
On several occasions, I had to check that I hadn’t misplaced where I was in the
book and that I wasn’t reading the same thing.
Now on to
the subject itself. I did think that the book would be more about why God
doesn’t exist and here’s proof looking at history, but I didn’t factor in that
Dawkins is a biologlist, not a historian so his argument comes from the
biological standpoint. There’s just one massive flaw in his main hypothesis.
Using evolution as an argument against the existence of God is weak. God is
supposed to have created the universe out of nothing. If he has the power and
ability to do such a thing, you would also think he has the ability to create
life with the ability to evolve and adapt. Almost in the same way as humans can
program AI to react to things.
There were
also a few terms I didn’t like and an overall hypothesis that feels very
contrary to the point. The first point is one I don’t quite understand and
revolves around the ‘ultimate bowing 747.’ Why is has to the be ‘the ultimate’
I have no idea. Anyway, the argument goes that if all the parts of a bowing 747
were in a scrap yard and a hurricane blew through it, what is the chance that
the hurricane will put the Bowing 747 together? Essentially this boils down to
if the universe was created by something, due to the complexity of said universe,
its creator must be at least equally as complex. This isn’t an argument for
God’s lack of existence – it’s an, ‘I don’t know but God doesn’t exist.’ It’s
not so much the argument I don’t like but the term Ultimate Bowing 747.
The second
part is where Dawkins goes on to talk about the ‘Mother of all Burkas,’ The
idea being that people are blinded from the realities of science by the belief
in God. Telling people that their beliefs are wrong is one thing, if backed
with evidence, but telling them they are blind to science because they believe
in something is total shit. I know that’s not the science way of saying it but
who cares.
The last
point I didn’t like was the way Dawkins takes credit for converting people to
atheism. Converting is an interesting word, isn’t it? And also there are a few
instances where he describes people, mostly Americans, of being afraid of
coming out of the closet with their atheist beliefs… that’s an oxymoron in
itself but it’s the best way of getting my point across. Writing a book called The God Delusion and trying to convince
people to think the same way as you, is acting in the same vein as the thing
you are trying to dissuade people from doing. It almost makes atheism seem like
its own religion, one that we should all believe in.
Now from the
start I haven’t been a believer in God. I believe that we don’t know enough
about the universe to understand our own creation and we likely never will – in
fact we shouldn’t even be contemplating our own existence – but all this book
does is say that God isn’t real because you can’t know that he is. It’s not an
argument and any evidence we can fathom from our own planet is not a proof of a
lack of God.
Also,
telling people that are blind and stupid probably isn’t the best way to get
them to buy into what you are selling.
That said, I
do agree with the concept even if I think the book goes about it in the wrong
way. If there is no religion, there would be no religious wars, there would be
less barriers towards social interaction and the world would generally be a
better place. At least in theory. Personally, I think the human race is so
destructive that even if we didn’t believe in a multitude of different things,
we would still find other reasons to kill each other. Isn’t that a sad fact of
life? And one that Dawkins doesn’t consider. If you succeed in abolishing
religion, wouldn’t you be afraid of what might take its place? Food for thought.
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins was
published by Bantam Books in 2006. RRP £9.99 (Paperback)
