Okay, here we go again! This statement is two-fold actually, for I am continuing this blog series, and due to a computer glitch, I am re-writing this blog! Wow, that is frustrating! Anyway, for those of you who haven't read the first installment, I will give some background info. I am reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, professor of biology at Oxford University. As most or all of you readers know, I am Christian, so it is my natural disposition to critique his book, but in the spirit of Mr. Dawkins... I will examine his book with a scrutiny that any scientific hypothesis undergoes! I must say that I will try and be as objective as possible, and when I'm not being objective, I will disclaimer.
Okay, so I have some compliments to get out of the way. Dawkins is very good at keeping the attention of his readers, and employs that ability very well, it seems as if he might use it to hide some serious issues with his arguments. Also, his use of testimony is very good, it makes this book read more like a novel than an academic work, although I don't think this book is meant to be read like an academic work. Dawkins gears it more toward the general public. For lack of better terminology, I would even coin him an atheist evangelist, I am almost expecting him to start a network; the ABN or Atheist Broadcasting Network! He will be trying to get donations... and claiming the Flying Spaghetti Monster told him he needed to get $8 million or the world would be destroyed in a mess of noodly, saucy, permaseany goodness. Okay, disclaimer... that was uncalled for, but I am merely employing Dawkins own tactics! Engage the readers, and attack the actual person, not their argument! Dawkins does this countless times... he claims the evils of religion are clearly evident by the "bloody" history of religion. I would definitely have to agree that Christianity alone has had a bloody history... but not because of the essence of Christianity but the condition of the human heart! Dawkins says that becuase of religion the world is permanently stained with the blood of the innocent. Religion is the ultimate evil according to Dawkins. What could be more clear? The crusades, countless squabbles within Northern Britain and Ireland, and even the 9/11 attacks are all rooted in religion. He's right... to an extent. The common thread with all of these things is a connection to a theistic marker. But I would, without a doubt in my mind, say that these things were not directly caused by the worldview, except maybe the 9/11 attacks, but the crusades...no, nor the squabbles in Europe! No, these things were an epitome of hypocricy! The crusades do not adhere to any of the things taught in the Bible... they came about because of the evil of human nature. If you examine the Bible, you won't find anything that says kill a bunch of muslims, rape and murder their women and children in an attempt to regain the holy land! That is asinine to propose that it is the Bible which supports massacre! The Catholic church at that time did... but not the Bible. Look to the source when critiquing, not perversions of said source. No the fruits of Christianity are love and peace. There is some battle that will have to take place, but it is of a super-natural nature. The fruits of atheism are of a contrary nature, however. When taking atheism (naturalism, or the worldview that all that exists is what we have, by product of evolution... the most common of secular worldviews) to its logical conclusion, we arrive at the antonym of love and peace, destruction and desolation. Thats preposterous though! Well, if there is absolutely no basis for morals- which atheism proposes, for morals are merely social constructs designed at opressing the masses- than nothing is wrong! Murder has absolutely no consequences, it is merely the puting out of organic life(chemical reactions). When taking atheism seriously, it is inevitable that one would arrive at nihilism. Nihilism is the position that absolutely nothing matters. Death is just as desirable as life, for in all reality there is little difference. It is clear that one of the most horrific and destructive events in the history of humanity is birthed by such a philosophy, the Holocaust. Destroying millions of people based purely on the premise of furthering the evolution of humanity. Hitler was a huge fan of Nietzsche and Darwin, both main contributors to nihilism. Also, does the Atomic bomb ring any bells. You are all smart enough to connect the dots on this one. Does this make sense? If I'm going to examine diamond, why would I examine cubic zirconia? I should go straight to the source, not a cheap imitation.
So, if religion is only promoting bloodshed and war, what about all of the missionaries doing peace and relief work in some of the poorest parts of the world? Are they promoting war and destruction? Or are they promoting peace and love? Missionaries raise funds for themselves so they may go over to the antonym of American life, in order to love the people in the worst parts of the world. Clearly they are creating nothing but destruction. This is not to imply however that atheists and secular people aren't helping out in humanitarian efforts. The peace corps is full of good intentioned atheists wanting to help out those less fortunate than they, but so are Christians and Hindu's and Buddhists, etc. Dawkins just tries to ignite a hatred against religion under the banner that religion promotes death and destruction.
Another interesting thing that I noticed is Dawkins obsession with proving the actual stance of Albert Einstein on religious matters. It's like Dawkins thinks there is a battle for Einstein... whoever wins the battle wins the war. If theists prove that Einstein actually believed in an intelligent designer than apparently everyone will convert to theism. But if Dawkins can prove that Einstein was actually atheist entirely and subscribed solely to evolutionary theory, than atheists win the battle! He constantly misquotes Einstein, for instance, he takes an interview of Al, by a well known Christian, as an example that Al doesn't believe in God. Al says " I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." (emphasis mine). Here Einstein is saying he doesn't believe that God is intimately involved in the affairs of humanity, but he is not saying that he doesn't believe that there was an initial creator. Einstein himself says, "I am not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." (quoted in Glimpses of the Great by G. S. Viereck [1930]) Dawkins says, plain as day in chapter 1 that Einstein is a pantheist, but the funny thing is that Einstein says he isn't. I find that a little ironic, don't you? But I still think it unimportant what faith Einstein adhered to, just because a smart person believes in something doesn't mean that I will follow suit.
Okay, it's late, and I'm tired and am quickly approaching (if not past it already) the point of incoherence. So, I shall quit while I'm broken even... lol. Thank you for actually reading all of this, if you have! I would greatly appreciate critique... I helps me to become a better writer, and a better analyst! Anywho, I want to get up in the morning so... goodnight!
No comments:
Post a Comment