Casey Rain asked in a deleted thread (damn you, Flipmo) why I think The God Delusion is a flawed book. I thought about it and here goes. Thanks for the question. Casey, you're one of the good guys.
StreetHop is--to quote one of my favorite bands--an inverted world. In the real world, I find myself arguing with the Christians around me regularly. As Christopher Hitchens has said, "I have probably sat up later, and longer, with religious friends than with any other kind." And so it is with me. They're interesting people and I envy their faith. I know it's unpopular for an atheist to say, but I deeply wish I believed in God. On StreetHop, on the other hand, I find myself sometimes defending the moderate position, and cringing at the kneejerk religion bashing that goes on here. It's funny. Let me get into the book.
Anyway, I have many reasons for finding fault with the book:
1) He's making it seem like atheism is a scientific hypothesis.
2) He is incredibly smug.
3) He is British.
No, but really:
Atheism is just as flawed a theory as religion. Neither is provable. The reason I come down on the side of atheism is that it seems to me the safest bet. Why would I be so specific in my ignorance as to imagine a personal God? Most thinking people can come to this conclusion on their own, and it's the reason why religious people often question their faith. True faith stands up to criticism, they will tell you. But faith is not a logical thought. I know that sounds hokey, but being formerly Roman Catholic, I can tell you that God is a gut feeling, not something you can nail down in a dissertation. That's why The God Delusion is flawed. That's why the Bible sucks. If God exists, God is not the Bible. And since atheism exists, it should not be spoken for by The God Delusion. Atheism and God must be moving, thinking things if one is to believe in either of them. To have created this world, though, God must be somewhat uncaring, somewhat imperfect. I think that's why the Jesus story resonates so deeply with so many people: seeing God as a flawed human being seems perfectly natural.
Religion is a life-saver for some people. Atheism has been life-affirming for me, but I cannot claim that it has saved my life. Many religious people rightly claim that Christ, Muhammad, or just plain God has literally saved their lives. That makes faith a powerful force for them. The most convincing thing an atheist such as myself would say to that is: the benefits of religion do not make it legitimate. I couldn't agree more. There's also the fact that religion kills and has killed millions (billions?) of innocent human beings. Correct. That's part of the reason I think we would be better off without it. But we wouldn't be better off with chaos, which, in simple minds--which are plentiful in this world, if you haven't noticed--is the only alternative. And it matters what they think, even if they don't think much. So I say let them have their comforting Christ. There's nothing wrong with it.
But, as Sam Harris has written, maybe there is. I like his contention that moderate religious people give credence to radicals, and so allow all this murderous nonsense to continue. No disagreement here, but he's not being fair. Moderate religious people aren't murderous thugs. They aren't hurting anyone. It's like calling people who voted for George W. Bush war criminals. The fact that the president was a war criminal has no bearing on the character of innocent farmers in Ohio who voted for him. They were wrong, sure. But they are not murderers. It's been said by many better minds than mine, but you can't blame religion on the faithful. Not all of them, anyway.
As I've said before, atheists and agnostics need to tread lightly. They are fighting the most contagious school of thought in the history of the world. And, to rebut something I read on this board, there is most certainly a fight going on. The fight is necessary, but poorly handled thus far by atheists. There's very little populism amongst atheists, very little pandering. Why? Because you're better than they are? No you're not. Stop thinking that way. You will never win over the aforementioned Ohio farmers that way, and despite what you think, you need those people. They are not beneath you. You and I need atheism to become as commonplace as it is on this message board. If, like Richard Dawkins, you strive only to convert the elite, then what is the purpose? The elite already believe that God is dead. Stop preaching to the converted.
One of the reasons for the stagnation on this board is that most of our opinions match up like jigsaw puzzles. It's no fun if all of the intelligent people here want to "bash religion until it's gone." It's also impractical and stupid. React to the world as it is. Be practical. My point is, I'm not trying to justify religion. I hate it as much as you do. But I hate blind fundamentalism more; it's the reason I soured on religion in the first place. We should try to be moderate, to be better than they are.
StreetHop is--to quote one of my favorite bands--an inverted world. In the real world, I find myself arguing with the Christians around me regularly. As Christopher Hitchens has said, "I have probably sat up later, and longer, with religious friends than with any other kind." And so it is with me. They're interesting people and I envy their faith. I know it's unpopular for an atheist to say, but I deeply wish I believed in God. On StreetHop, on the other hand, I find myself sometimes defending the moderate position, and cringing at the kneejerk religion bashing that goes on here. It's funny. Let me get into the book.
Anyway, I have many reasons for finding fault with the book:
1) He's making it seem like atheism is a scientific hypothesis.
2) He is incredibly smug.
3) He is British.
No, but really:
Atheism is just as flawed a theory as religion. Neither is provable. The reason I come down on the side of atheism is that it seems to me the safest bet. Why would I be so specific in my ignorance as to imagine a personal God? Most thinking people can come to this conclusion on their own, and it's the reason why religious people often question their faith. True faith stands up to criticism, they will tell you. But faith is not a logical thought. I know that sounds hokey, but being formerly Roman Catholic, I can tell you that God is a gut feeling, not something you can nail down in a dissertation. That's why The God Delusion is flawed. That's why the Bible sucks. If God exists, God is not the Bible. And since atheism exists, it should not be spoken for by The God Delusion. Atheism and God must be moving, thinking things if one is to believe in either of them. To have created this world, though, God must be somewhat uncaring, somewhat imperfect. I think that's why the Jesus story resonates so deeply with so many people: seeing God as a flawed human being seems perfectly natural.
Religion is a life-saver for some people. Atheism has been life-affirming for me, but I cannot claim that it has saved my life. Many religious people rightly claim that Christ, Muhammad, or just plain God has literally saved their lives. That makes faith a powerful force for them. The most convincing thing an atheist such as myself would say to that is: the benefits of religion do not make it legitimate. I couldn't agree more. There's also the fact that religion kills and has killed millions (billions?) of innocent human beings. Correct. That's part of the reason I think we would be better off without it. But we wouldn't be better off with chaos, which, in simple minds--which are plentiful in this world, if you haven't noticed--is the only alternative. And it matters what they think, even if they don't think much. So I say let them have their comforting Christ. There's nothing wrong with it.
But, as Sam Harris has written, maybe there is. I like his contention that moderate religious people give credence to radicals, and so allow all this murderous nonsense to continue. No disagreement here, but he's not being fair. Moderate religious people aren't murderous thugs. They aren't hurting anyone. It's like calling people who voted for George W. Bush war criminals. The fact that the president was a war criminal has no bearing on the character of innocent farmers in Ohio who voted for him. They were wrong, sure. But they are not murderers. It's been said by many better minds than mine, but you can't blame religion on the faithful. Not all of them, anyway.
As I've said before, atheists and agnostics need to tread lightly. They are fighting the most contagious school of thought in the history of the world. And, to rebut something I read on this board, there is most certainly a fight going on. The fight is necessary, but poorly handled thus far by atheists. There's very little populism amongst atheists, very little pandering. Why? Because you're better than they are? No you're not. Stop thinking that way. You will never win over the aforementioned Ohio farmers that way, and despite what you think, you need those people. They are not beneath you. You and I need atheism to become as commonplace as it is on this message board. If, like Richard Dawkins, you strive only to convert the elite, then what is the purpose? The elite already believe that God is dead. Stop preaching to the converted.
One of the reasons for the stagnation on this board is that most of our opinions match up like jigsaw puzzles. It's no fun if all of the intelligent people here want to "bash religion until it's gone." It's also impractical and stupid. React to the world as it is. Be practical. My point is, I'm not trying to justify religion. I hate it as much as you do. But I hate blind fundamentalism more; it's the reason I soured on religion in the first place. We should try to be moderate, to be better than they are.
