Just as any sound scientist declares the potential shortcomings in a research paper, a critic ought to admit their bias. I am an atheist. I would describe my atheism as nearly mirroring that of Dawkins, and his book didn’t cause my sense of nonreligion to wax or wane. That said, The God Delusion did call my atheism into a much needed self scrutiny. Dawkins’ inherently provocative and declarative style of writing lulls the reader into analysis and, likely, a sense of re-affirmation. In the right context, it can draw atheism out of it’s occasional and incorrect stance as unquestioned belief, and rightly seat it alongside scientific theory. In Dawkins’ mind, a belief in nonbelief must be questioned - and ultimately chosen.
One of the foremost facts that shapes Dawkins’ position is his stance as a philosopher discussing religion as a science. And I should mention that I have some apprehension about this. Perhaps as a sign of my generation, I often have trouble finding philosophy to be relevant to our increasingly science-driven lives. Philosophy, like religion, is increasingly relegated to the dregs of academia. With the exception of ethics (which I consider a subcategory of sociology and human evolution) philosophy is quickly losing it’s toehold in our everyday lives. I think that authors like Dawkins and Dennet are trying admirably to reestablish philosophy as relevant in our daily existence. And while this is laudable, I can see Dawkins occasionally falter with his presentation of scientific data. On an equally curious note, his offerings of anecdotes and hypotheticals are frequently on par with actual research. As someone purporting science to be the ultimate and best source of information, he deviates frequently from a scientific stance. To quote Dennet:
People who want to study religion usually have an ax to grind. They either want to defend their favorite religion from its critics or want to demonstrate the irrationality and futility of religion, and this tends to infect their methods with bias.
Breaking The Spell Daniel Dennet (Pg. 32)
With his alternations between self aggrandizing name-dropping and reviling descriptions of religion, the author ostensibly falls frustratingly into the category of the latter. His voice often fails to convey maturity, despite my personal desire to find otherwise.
Another position that Dawkins takes for granted is the assumption that, after the presentation of his argument and the relevant facts, the educated reader has no choice but to agree that religion equates with falsehood, and that a nonsupernatural existence is the only option. The sway of organized religion may be waning, but I sincerely doubt our ability to feel and act on spiritual feelings is. This is not the official religion abhorred by Dawkins, but it is an offshoot of it we cannot afford to ignore. It is a way of living that many of my equally educated peers seek solace in. It speaks volumes about the role religion and our sense of the supernatural plays. The unspoken assumption that a belief in the supernatural is no longer necessary or beneficial to our lives should be questioned. I believe it plays an unavoidable role much like war, alcohol or our infatuation with salty foods.
As my own addition, I’d like to posit that the major religions of today are a byproduct of our natural tendency to anthropomorphize our surroundings. As neurally plastic children, information has been historically disseminated through learned adults. Our human minds are wired strongly to listen to our elders - to learn their messages directly through oration, and indirectly through praise and punishment. Our survival as children, and as a species, has depended upon this vital transfer of information. Show me a child that does not have vivid memories of parental praise or punishment, and I will show you a sociopath. I suspect that although we must all grow into adulthood, this instinct does not fully leave us, but instead delves into abstraction. It consequently shapes our views of the impartial universe which we inhabit. The God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity provide the direct transmission of a societal code through their holy books, and construct a reality in which good and bad deeds are accordingly punished in an abstract afterlife. We find signs of meaning in unfortunate or auspicious events. We are wired to.
No comments:
Post a Comment