Updated for clarity: despite the oppobrium leveled against Dawkins by his critics, there is no sense in which he hates Christians or other religious people. What he hates is the instituion of religion, and supestitious beliefs which keep people in fear and ignorance who might otherwise be happy. And it is important to note: Dawkins himself denies that religion is “the root of all evil.” It is one of the causes of human misery, and by Dawkins’ account a primary cause; but it is not the only cause.
The time for writing about The God Delusion was a month ago, but time and money conspired to keep from reading it until this past weekend. So even though I doubt that I have anything to say, I’m going to say it anyway.
We’re all familiar with the book, right? If not, here’s a precis: Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and almost certainly the world’s most important atheist, has written a book of armchair philosophy that seeks to be the manifesto of contemporary naturalism. There is quite literally no aspect of religious belief or practice that Dawkins does not address, attack with logic and science, and thereby eviscerate.
It should be no surprise that I loved the book, but that’s not to say that it’s perfect; indeed, there are two overriding flaws throughout the book, one significant and one minor. The significant flaw is one of tone: Dawkins claims that he is writing for believers, but the book smacks of preaching to the choir. I’m certainly not going to join in the chorus of naysayers declaiming him for being too mean: on the contrary, I think the great sin of modern atheism is that most of us aren’t nearly mean enough. But I can’t really imagine anyone being convinced by this book for the simple reason that I can’t imagine most people reading more than a few pages. The ideal reader, I suppose, is the fresh skeptic, the “fence-sitting agnostic” to use Dawkins’ phrase, who hasn’t quite committed to atheism, but is looking for a reason to do so.
The second flaw is one Dawkins confesses to, and that is that his grand manifesto of anti-religion is in practice only anti-Christian. This is, we are told, because Dawkins is most familiar with the Christian God, and he expects the same of his audience; implicitly the reader is invited to apply the practices of the book to any supernatural order of thinking, and it seems unsporting to put much emphasis on this.
Anyone who has spent much time in atheist circles, including Dawkins’ previous books, will likely recognise most of the arguments presented: there aren’t that many scientific arguments against the probability of God, and any decent naturalist could come up with several on his or her own. What makes The God Delusion such a delight to read is how endlessly articulate and often funny Richard Dawkins is. No surprise to anyone who has read The Blind Watchmaker or The Ancestor’s Tale (this latter is perhaps the most personally inspiring book I’ve ever read). As the author makes clear in his largely rhetorical final chapter, this is because scientific atheism is a source of endless joy and even comfort for him; this is why The God Delusion is extremely accessible and readable in a way that a “proper” philosophical treatment rarely is.
I will not go through the entire book, but instead focus on two chapters, one weak and one quite strong. “Why There Is Almost Certainly No God” is, I think, the weakest link of the entire book, not because it is inaccurate but because it is redundant. The rest of the book is largely concerned with the ramifications of a Godless world, and why such a thing is desirable; it is in this chapter that he takes dead aim at the Thing Itself. When I say it is redundant, I mean that Dawkins-the-biologist seems unwilling to bend too far from his comfort zone – that is, evolutionary argument against a personal God – and when he does so it is with considerably less passion and wit than the book shows elsewhere. Because of this, he tends to overstate the evolutionary argument, begging the question: if it fails to convince the reader the first time, will it really work the third time? Again, this is not to say that his argument fails or is illogical; just that the writing in this chapter is of a considerably lower quality than elsewhere.
The far reverse side are the chapters on “What’s Wrong with Religion? Why Be So Hostile?” and “Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion.” In the current climate of political correctness and tolerance, these are much the most important chapters in the book, even as they are the chapters that leave Dawkins open to being targeted as an athiest fundie, as on a recent (disappointing) episode of South Park. Do I think that it will change anyone’s mind? I’m not sure. What I think it might do is turn “soft” atheists into “militant” atheists, and I can’t see how that is a bad thing.
Dawkins arguments are straightforward and unassailable: the majority of awful things that humans do to each other spring, at some remove, from religion. And in the seven pages that, in my opinion, completely justify the book as a whole, he explores how religious moderates – the people whom we are told to embrace as allies – are ultimately enablers for people who blow up buildings, kill doctors, and tell children to hate other children. I cannot do the argument service in this space, but I found it compelling and a little heartbreaking.
The important thing to bear in mind is that Dawkins, despite the stereotype, is not an angry person preaching violence, he is sad that the world has ceded so much authority to such a dubious authority. It is not an eliminationist text, but one that hopes to raise consciousness. Dawkins has no hate for theists, only pity, and while this may be “smug” (for some strange reason, this is the new catch-all slur against smart people), it is a far cry from the cries of “deranged!’ that seem to dog the author. Does the book preach to the choir? Yes, maybe. But every embattled minority needs its manifesto, and the atheist community is lucky that our was written by such an undeniably erudite man as Richard Dawkins. Despite a few imperfect moments, The God Manifesto receives my unqualified recommendation to any unbeliever, or anyone sympathetic enough to want to know how our minds work, and why.