Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

The God Delusion II

Entry 703, on 2008-02-21 at 22:24:41 (Rating 3, Religion)

This entry continues and completes my comments and conclusions about Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. The second part of the book concentrates more on morality and the social aspects of religion.

Christians have been waiting for the return of Jesus for 2000 years now. They are obviously convinced he will eventually arrive, but other cults have similar beliefs and we can see them developing. A cargo cult believes John Frum will return on February 15, but they don't know what year. After 19 years nothing has happened but they still continue waiting. OK, so 19 years isn't quite the same as 2000, but its easy to see how these ideas might develop.

Many people believe that religion is necessary to establish an objective morality that people can follow. But the famous Hauser experiments which studied moral right and wrong found a basic moral sense is universal - including for the Kuna tribe who have no religion and little contact with Westerners. The details of the individual moralities differ slightly, but the basics are the same. A set of tests conducted with well known philosopher Peter Singer found no difference between the morality of atheists and religious people. Obviously the teachings of Jesus aren't necessary for people to be moral.

In the US religious belief and political affiliation are closely linked so we would expect to see greater morality in religious and politically conservative areas. But the opposite is true: of 25 cities with lowest crime 62% are in Democratic areas; of the 25 most dangerous cities 76% are Republican. Republican states represent: 12 out of 12 with the highest burglary; 24 out of 29 with the highest theft; and 17 out of 22 with highest the murder.

Many religious people quote Blaise Pascal's famous wager which says that its safest to assume god exists because if he does and we ignore him then we are in trouble and if he doesn't we are no worse off. But they don't tend to mention this Pascal quote so much: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction". History seems to indicate this is true.

Most people think the teachings of Jesus are very positive. But evolutionary anthropologist John Hartung has studied the origin of the texts and believes the sweeping statements, like everyone being able to be saved and everyone should treat their neighbours well, only really refer to Jews. This may or may not be true - we are never likely to know - but the positive aspects of the Christian message shouldn't disguise the more negative aspects of it, and the fact that many other philosophers and teachers have had similar messages both before and after Jesus.

Many Christians believe there is something special about the rules presented in the Bible, but Dawkins points out that anyone can create a list at least as good as those in Bible - and a lot more relevant to our modern society (the Bible is silent on topics such as environmentalism and women's rights). A search of the Internet for atheist sites will show several lists which are far more attractive than the Bible's laws.

The moral zeitgeist shows inevitable change over time and becomes more progressive (despite small setbacks, such as George Bush). And this progress is not dependent on a particular religion. For example Martin Luther King used Christian ideas to force change but Gandhi, who was a Hindu (but also accepted other religions) used similar tactics.

When discussing religion and morality its almost inevitable that Hitler's name will be mentioned. Christians will claim he was an atheist and atheists will claim he was a Christian. Either way he cynically manipulated whatever belief system he followed. I will point out this though: Hitler's biographer said he exterminated the Jews without any problems because he was still a member of the Catholic Church which taught Jews were the killers of Christ.

As science becomes more important and discovers more about the world many believers try to say that the Bible and science are compatible. An American geologist, Kurt Wise, went through the Bible and removed the parts which contradicted science. There was so little left that he found the two couldn't be reconciled. Unfortunately for him he ignored scientific facts and went with religion, but the reality is you can't really logically believe both.

In his 1954 book, Why God Persists, Robert Hinde quotes a Gallop Poll from the US. It showed that 75% of Protestants and Catholics couldn't even name an Old Testament prophet, and more than 67% didn't know who preached the Sermon on the Mount. Also, a large number thought Moses was an apostle of Jesus. Clearly the majority of Christians really know effectively nothing about their own religion. If they are so ignorant, but still believe does that mean the old argument that Christianity is true because so many people believe it can be sustained? Obviously not.

I have often heard Christians claim that there is no such thing as an atheist because they all believe in a god if they are honest with themselves. I claim the opposite: that most Christians really know their beliefs aren't true and just continue believing through habit or for convenience. What about evidence? In a survey of attitudes of atheists in the US 100% wanted no contact with religious hospital staff in the event of their imminent death. That suggests to me that there is no deep hidden belief. But what percentage of Christians are prepared to accept scientific medicine? Just about all of them. I think that shows that people really know what works and what doesn't.

Probably my favourite quote from the book was this by the philosopher Wittgenstein. When asked why people originally thought the Sun orbited the Earth most people will say because it looks like it does. The question then is: what would it look like if the Earth orbited the Sun? Think about it...

Comment 1 (1175) by Anonymous on 2008-02-22 at 05:18:12:

An interesting blog entry but I'm not sure if I agree with everything Richard Dawkins claims here. I think he might be pushing his atheist agenda too much!

Comment 2 (1176) by OJB on 2008-02-22 at 09:26:44:

Well to comment on your criticism I would need to know what you are specifically criticising. Its easy to say "I disagree with Dawkins" and leave it at that. Can you give details? Also, there was a lot of supporting evidence and details in the book which aren't mentioned here. This is just a brief summary and comment. Read the book!

Comment 3 (1190) by WF99 on 2008-02-25 at 10:12:46:

I'm a bit disappointed with the excessive Bible bashing that I read here, even if it is rooted in truth. Regardless of its effects, it's still a literary classic and masterpiece, on par with Homer and Virgil. The Old Testament stories (Jacob, Ruth, Jephthah) are gems when read imaginatively. And while Jesus didn't have the corner market on morality, his sermons are still good compasses. (And Paul once wrote that there was "neither Jew nor Gentile" in the religion.)

On the topic of Christians not knowing Christianity: many claim to be Christians only because of family lineage. Most of the U.S. population is "Christian" according to the polls, but, according to a morality survey, I'd doubt that.

Comment 4 (1191) by OJB on 2008-02-25 at 14:00:41:

I agree, and Dawkins also makes this point in his book. Maybe I didn't emphasise that point in this brief overview but I totally agree that parts of the Bible do make interesting reading when viewed as mythology or philosophy.

I also agree with your analysis of how many people who label themselves as Christian really are. Especially in a country like the US where atheists are intensely distrusted its just counter-productive to admit you don't take the religion that you profess to believing that seriously. That's why I often reject the notion that we must take religion seriously because so many people believe it. How many of those people really believe?

Comment 5 (1295) by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 01:40:56:

OJB - here's another book for you: Answering the New Atheism.

From the link: "Review: Answering the New Atheism is a superb exposé of the Dawkins Delusion. Systematically and lucidly, Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker dissect and dispose of the fundamental errors that riddle Dawkins attempt to demonize the divine. Dawkins has declared a jihad against religion and his main weapons are diatribe and caricature. But the authors refuse to respond in kind and instead turn to reason, the one tool that Dawkins seems to disdain. As readable and humorous as it is rigorously reasoned, Answering the New Atheism is the best antidote in the marketplace for Dawkinitis. --Roy Abraham Varghese

Product Description: The essential book for dismantling Richard Dawkins' atheistic agenda. Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker collaborate to debunk Dawkins' theories and show how inconsistent and illogical his conclusions truly are. This is the definitive book for college students or faithful Christians hoping to answer Dawkins' claims and assert the logic and beauty of their faith."

Comment 6 (1306) by OJB on 2008-03-21 at 10:47:33:

Looks interesting. Have you read it yourself? For that matter have you read Dawkins' book? I'll try to find the time to read it, but my spare time is in short supply (too much time debating with you maybe! :) The last two books I "read" were audio books on my iPod, but I am reading two real books in my spare time as well. Neither related to religion.

Comment 7 (1344) by SBFL on 2008-03-30 at 21:58:47:

Sorry, not much of a book reader. Too much time on Internet, work, or with wife.

Comment 8 (1363) by OJB on 2008-03-31 at 19:37:47:

Try audio books from somewhere like audible.com. I've listened to two and a half books in the time I have had the time to read one. I listen on my iPod while driving, walking from place to place, etc. Its a good use of time!

Comment 9 (1373) by SBFL on 2008-04-01 at 21:44:03:

"I listen on my iPod while driving"
- Remind me to tick the insurance box next time I pick up a rental at Dunedin airport!

Comment 10 (1382) by OJB on 2008-04-02 at 11:56:35:

Its true that there is a small distraction factor when listening to podcasts but its usually not that much different from listening to a radio or conversing with passengers. Sometimes though the podcast gets a bit intense and the distraction factor might increase. One audiobook I listened to was about quantum entanglement and it was reading out maths formulas which I was trying to visualise while driving. I don't know if I really knew where I was then!

Comment 11 (1396) by SBFL on 2008-04-13 at 22:44:46:

Well then I assume you were playing the iPod through the car radio, and not with earphones in ears.

Comment 12 (1404) by OJB on 2008-04-14 at 20:51:40:

Errr, no. Why would I play through the radio? The earphones block out extra noise (like the rest of my family, for example). And, before you ask, I can still hear the other cars honking at me and the cop's siren!

Comment 13 (1408) by SBFL on 2008-04-16 at 00:15:25:

Tut, tut, OJB. I'm definitely ticking insurance when in Dunedin. iPod in ears while driving is definitely a no-no, despite what you think you can still hear.

Comment 14 (1415) by OJB on 2008-04-16 at 14:24:08:

Using iPod earphones is bad? I didn't realise that. Its so hard to keep up with what's dangerous nowadays. In fact, there are so many things which are alleged to be dangerous that I've lost interest.

I have had the misfortune to be involved in a few car accidents over the years (including one which was quit serious) but I don't think I could attribute any of them to being distracted by iPods, phones, etc. In fact, I could blame one on speed and the rest had no obvious cause.

The odd thing is that I have never had an accident while driving quickly in one of my higher performance cars. Its only while driving quite slowly in other vehicles that I've had problems. Yes, its anecdotal, but interesting.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.