Probably the best takedown of the fat little fart of a book that is Dawkins’ God Delusion is this one, by biologist H. Allen Orr, in the New York Review of Books. It’s well worth reading, whatever your take on Dawkins.
A few quotes will give you a taste of Orr’s bitch-slappery
Dawkins when discussing religion is … a blunt instrument, one that has a hard time distinguishing Unitarians from abortion clinic bombers. What may be less obvious is that, on questions of God, Dawkins cannot abide much dissent, especially from fellow scientists … Indeed Dawkins is fond of imputing ulterior motives to those “Neville Chamberlain School” scientists not willing to go as far as he in his war on religion … The only motive Dawkins doesn’t seem to take seriously is that some scientists genuinely disagree with him.
The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins’s failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. … Having no patience with the faith of fundamentalists, he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians). … The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents.
One of the most interesting questions about Dawkins’s book is why it was written. Why does Dawkins feel he has anything significant to say about religion and what gives him the sense of authority presumably needed to say it at book length? The God Delusion certainly establishes that Dawkins has little new to offer. … Dawkins is obviously entitled to his views on God, ballet, and currency markets. But I doubt he feels much need to pen books on the last two topics.
Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur.
So go read it now!
If you enjoy New Atheist hissy fits, you may also want to read Daniel Dennett’s outraged response to this review, and Orr’s response to it. (They’re both here.) Orr gets off a nice parting shot:
It’s one thing to think carefully about religion and conclude it’s dubious. It’s another to string together anecdotes and exercises in bad philosophy and conclude that one has resolved subtle problems. I wasn’t disappointed in The God Delusion because I was shocked by Dawkins’s atheism. I was disappointed because it wasn’t very good.
But this, it turned out, wasn’t enough for the angry Dennett, who continued the “debate” on TheEdge.org. Orr tried to bring an end to the increasingly unproductive discussion:
Daniel Dennett seems to think that the author of any review he doesn’t like is obliged to spend the rest of his days debating him— even if the review in question was of someone else’s book, not his.
But naturally, as you’ll notice, PZ Myers had to stick his fat little head in as well. (Start at the bottom and read your way up.)
First off, Dawkins deals entirely with God and said existence or lack of. Surprisingly enough, existing falls under the purview of science.
Neville Chamberland school is his reference to those who claim that those who embrace NOMA. Look it up- it IS crap.
Both Unitarians and abortion bombers use faith to believe in God- they are theists. The only reason he uses such a broad stroke is otherwise he’d have to go through each religion, one by one.
I have actually read the “sophisticated reasoning” of theologians… let me be honest- there is nothing there that an inbred hick couldn’t refute. Notice that if they were so useful and effective people would actually use them- they aren’t hard to understand, just a bunch of flowery nonsense language.
He wrote the book because people like Orr exist. And he isn’t a professional atheist- he is a biologist.
Notice that Orr does not ONCE give an actual example from the book of “bad philosophy”, or a “sophisticated argument”. Orr’s review is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Dawkin’s book as it turns out isn’t new or unusual (we have just as good books from… 50 BC actually. On the Nature of Things would be the first example). Of course apologists arguments have moved since then from the originals like “how do you explain why everyone lives in cities and towns?”, “are you denying the divinity of the emperor!” and the like to present day ones… of course some have stayed exactly the same (argument from design).
So every few decades a new book on atheism comes up with the vocab changed to match the current vapid arguments creationists make. The reason there are so many coming out now is because antitheism is hitting its stride- you kill for Allah and people acting “in the name of Christ” enough times and people start to get nervous. Particularly history students.
Anyway I took a look at the debate they had.
The first serious guy is a person who claims that religious language has a special meaning that isn’t encompassed by the ordinary meaning of the words… for those of you who don’t know, if you can’t put something into (Any) words that it is meaningless.
Then there is the argument “God isn’t complex”. Which is a bit of nonsense- Dawkins treats God like any other natural phenomena. Claiming that it is supernatural and thus above the rules is a bit of nonsense. Not to mention a completely fabricated statement- there is no example of intelligence anywhere that doesn’t require complexity. So saying God is simple goes against everything reality has shown us.
Clearly, you have no idea what YOU MEAN by the Word “God”. What makes you think that the Origin of ALL THINGS is a PRODUCT – as are ALL complex things? You atheists don’t think at all! You just emote and dribble nonsense.
Now, this post is actually useful and well-researched, unlike some previous ones I could mention. Keep it up, and for science’s sake cease all the man-yelling-with-a-ciggie faradiddle.
This was a great review! Douglas Adams, indeed!
srsly, though, what are good Dawkins reviews besides Eagleton and this one? Tell me plz
ps Scarlett Johansson is a Scientologist!
here we get in to the conceptual “god”.
You cant treat God as entirely natural, dismiss it in the analysis or nature, and dismiss it as “super”natural. The natural world is what we know of it in our reality. We do not know the entire scope of reality in the space-time around us. thus we may call it super natural or “God”.
You cannot neccarilly say that:
” if you can’t put something into (Any) words that it is meaningless.”
Languages, including the languages of math and science only exist in the scope of human understanding and comparison.
It would be arrogant to say that what is just beyond our grasp of understanding, is meaningless or non existent. in fact, we may never know how small are grasp of understanding of the Nature universe is.
“God” may encompass what we do and do not understand… which is the point of many Unitarians and pantheists…
You cannot lump this in with abortion bombers.
DAWKINS must think a chimp is his poppa THE CHIMP SHOULD FEEL INSULTED
>Surprisingly enough, existing falls under the purview of science.
Science deals with those existent things that can be examined through methodologically naturalism. If you assume metaphysical naturalism you can say science is exhaustive, but a proof of that’s got to be philosophical, not scientific.
And where that position gets really muddy is that there are things that at least some people might say exist that aren’t subjects of science. Do numbers or circles or likeness or ideas exist? What about justice? Or beauty? Or truth? Or time? Or consciousness? Consciousness isn’t a subject of science (and don’t pretend it’s a subject of neuroscience, neuroscientists don’t even know where to start in trying to study it). Would you like to say consciousness doesn’t exist?
Theology is a branch of philosophy, not science, so just as with consciousness and those other things, while understanding within it must be informed by science, the topic itself is not subject to it.
Unquestionably the best post here.
@ Seasick Seagull – i think your poppa was a chimp.
Yeah, as a bloviating philosophy major (okay, it was a minor, I admit it alright!) it is glaringly obvious that Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, et al, all these guys don’t know the first thing about modern/postmodern philosophy. They seem to operate on this 18th century positivist/empiricist mentality that scientific reduction is unlimited in its applications, which is ridiculously uninformed and ultimately regressive. Apparently they have never read Popper, Merleau-Ponty–well, the list goes on for days. And granted I respect that Dawkins is incredibly smart and well-read, but like all these guys, their practices certainly don’t reflect it. If anything, their behavior reflects more of an exploitation of Atheism as a political lever, rather than any inclusive examination of its attributes. While one appreciates the “hygienic effect” of their writings, it really only plays into the antagonistic dynamics of discourse these days, and they need to just shut their hypocritical traps. Atheism is not “new,” unless it is just a byproduct of political discourse and your run-of-the-mill group-think culture. Real Atheists should take a stand against so-called “new” Atheists; or at least we ought to have a conversation. Obviously I don’t have very positive views on them, likely because their greatest disrespect is not to theists/Christians, but to other Atheists.
The review is not the most damning evidence against Dawkins in anyway. Dawkins and Atheist like him are speaking up for a cause they believe in from their angle of the belief. While most Atheist stay closeted or quite in the face of religious intolerance and the poisoning of science and schools at the hands of the people who use organized religion as the social narcotic that it is. Beleive what every you need to but allow all to speak on it and since Dawkins is a loud voice he will have many critics as does any public figure. Most people are looking for a point of veiw to validate their own and Dawkins point of veiw is the Atheistic Lion rather than the Lamb that is easily dispached by the religious media.
Dawkins is finished anyway after his cowardly refusal to debate Craig. And the humiliation he received at the hands of people like John Lennox.
Yes. Dawkins is a big jerk.
Great post! I am a former atheist. I first started considering being religious when I discovered I did not like the company of my fellow atheists! Individually they can vary, but as a group, they are rude! Unfortunately a lot of bad people become atheists so they can dispense with shame and morality.
Have you been to Dawkin’s web site? His constituents there give atheism a bad name!
Madalyn Murray O Hair was 100 times more yapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyapyap than Dawkins and nobody remembers her!
Amateur Atheist? As apposed to professional – professional what?
Professional opinionated jack ass ?
What is the point ?
If you don’t believe in anything why institutionalize it ?
So we can kill the table eaters in the name of almighty science?
@ William Pinn You wrote: “Unfortunately a lot of bad people become atheists so they can dispense with shame and morality. ”
Don’t leave out those of religion…nonetheless, some of the so-called “New Atheists” that I know of do have that in common. They’re less eloquent in their beliefs/opinions against “God” and prefer to rail about the evils of prominent religious or vaguely religion affiliated institutions/figures throughout history. There is never any in depth analysis or attempt at understanding who, what, when, and why, nor any attempt to mitigate an extremely volatile & prejudicial bias against religion. At some point, the “faithless morality”argument is dropped as a segway into more laudable territory – an easily verifiable and respected position, except when it’s too often followed by the notion of “nothing is right or wrong” (oxymorons!) along with other ill-conceived ideas…that rape, murder, theft, torture, violence, etc. are all “natural” responses to insurmountable biological urges and somehow “not as bad” as the Christians/religious nuts make of it.
There was one person who tried to convince me and others (over dinner no less) that indirect enjoyment of sexual relations between minors and adults, and of women in bondage would not be illegal nor viewed as “wrong” if the prevailing culture would just “open their minds and free themselves from the oppressive clutches of religious lunacy. ”
Of course this is just an anecdote but it is based upon observable facts about reality. My curiosity about politics and social issues regularly places me in contact with all sorts of people including these types of “extremists”. Most of them cite the “Four Horsemen” as their philosophical mentors and mutter amongst themselves about the “new movement”.
It just goes to show that virtually ALL people/groups regardless of their pure and noble intentions can become corrupted along the way.
Jesse said: “They seem to operate on this 18th century positivist/empiricist mentality that scientific reduction is unlimited in its applications, which is ridiculously uninformed and ultimately regressive.”
I’d add “repressive”, too. Maybe Dawkins et al are not suggesting indoctrination, but their desire to do away with religion – not just let it develop or die of its own accord – certainly sounds repressive to me. They don’t really seem to value freedom of thought or expression if it happens to take a n0n-atheist path (hmm, a-atheist maybe?) or, for that matter, if it is atheist but isn’t frothing-at-the-mouth anti-faith like theirs. They don’t seem to draw any distinction between organised religion and private belief – and someone who talks about people as being diseased or depraved for holding religious/spiritual beliefs is NOT someone I’d ever want to have political power.
Atheism is all about social equity. It’s cool to be an atheist right now, so in order for those cute girls to ‘ooh’ over you, ya gotta bone up on the high priests of Atheism.
When something else make girls think you’re all ‘academic’ and shit that’ll be the newest social equity.
It wasn’t that long ago when it seems all my friends came back bragging about their trips to Nepal and India. Now its the newest ‘I hate Jesus’ book that comes on the shelf.
I’m guessing it’s going to be who owns the smallest most economical diesel car is going to be the newest social equity.
Richard Dawkins and his positivist scientism can bite my post-new athiest butt.
I know many many intelligent athiests who will have nothing to do with this disgusting brand of charlatanry. Fundamentalism and positivist “atheist” scientism are two sides of the same coin.
Here’s to a hilarious definition of dawkins on urban dictionary : An act of extreme hubris and hypocrisy, in which someone vehemently opposed to something uses the exact same methods and arguments as the object of their scorn to achieve their own ends.
Example:
Odd Christian, Right Wing Fundamentalist: “I`m so PRO-LIFE I`m willing to KILL doctors who carry out abortions!”
Cynical Welshman: “Really? how very Dawkins of you.”
“While most Atheist stay closeted or quite in the face of religious intolerance and the poisoning of science and schools at the hands of the people who use organized religion as the social narcotic that it is.”
What? Where the hell have you been? In Europe, in no way shape or form is atheism “closeted.” Hell, even in the US it’s not. Do you seriously believe that atheism is some supressed minority in this day and age? Maybe in the middle of the Congo, but in modern society? You’ve got to be kidding me.
New Atheism is just a religion, except I’d say worse. It’s not the atheism I have a problem with, it’s that when anyone who calls themselves an atheist, he/she is automatically branded as one of Dawkins’ lap dogs. And it’s not the non-atheists doing this. I’m beigining to think that New Atheism is just as much a cult as New Age cults are.
mchelle09, what the hell are you talking about? Did you base those assumptions via episodes of House M.D.?
So… where’s some more ad hominem vitriol Mr. Blog?
This post was great. But to call dude a professional is just ridiculous..
If Dawkins and his “new Atheists” ever got political power I would have to join a bloody revolution against them. Why? because they would be the worst kind of Soviets, all those that don’t think their way are deemed to be diseased, corrupt and mentally and dangerously ill, “non” persons, ubermenschen to be subjected to incarceration, torture, mutilation and ultimately death. Yes that is their ultimate conclusion of their logic. think I exaggerate? Add up the writings and worse those of the acolytes, especially the Dawkins arse lickers on his site. And whether you are deist, theist, agnostic, unsure or anything else, even atheist but not in full agreement you would sooner or later be forced to be “re-educated”. Over my dead body – up yours Dawkins!
I hate you all! When I rule the world I will shut down this site and exterminate all who oppose me starting with relgious people and then atheists and agnostics who oppose me and then anybody else left. Yeah cause unlike those religious bigots Im full of love and light. yes sir Im a bright. yes I am. Im a bright. Now ten times fast. bright bright bright… oh lost my train of thought.
oh yes Im a bright, Im a bright…maybe one of these days Ill really believe it.
signed.
Dawkins.