I’m having a rather confused intellectual reaction to a book I haven’t yet read. I’ve read reviews, balanced and otherwise, of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. I’ve listened to an atheist and a Jesuit priest discuss it and have been surprised at the vehemence with which they both attacked it and the concord they found in doing so. Just the thought of the premise of this book has me intrigued — Dawkins aims to make atheists of us all.
I suspect that this book may induce violent physical reactions in me — I can see myself, quite clearly, being tempted to throw it at solid, immovable objects — to go with the intellectual ones, but I don’t want to not read it. I’ve placed a request for it at the library but I may be waiting a while, as I’m fourteenth in the queue. I’m quite prepared to wait. And I’m quite prepared for whatever beliefs I do hold to be challenged. I might even discover what it is that I do believe.
In the meantime, the discussions I’ve heard and read have me asking the sorts of questions that I suspect I may not be able to answer, not in any informed way, any time soon. Questions like: Can science really explain everything thing and if it can’t, what can? If it can, does that invalidate my sense of awe and wonder when I look at a rainbow or watch a baby sleep? Does it negate my feeling that miracles can, and occasionally do, happen? If I have faith in any sort of unexplainable, higher power am I being illogical and stupid?
Really, these are just initial, uninformed reactions. When I do read the book, the questions it raises for me will probably be entirely different.
And for now, while I go off and pondered the age old questions, I leave you with this…
As D and I drove around the South Island of New Zealand each bend in the road presented us with a new, breathtaking vista. Mountain ranges of inexplicable beauty. Lakes so blue they hardly seemed real. Fjords and sounds so otherworldly I had to pinch myself to believe I wasn’t dreaming. I acknowledged that science could tell me how they were formed. But I wondered why it occurred in such a comparatively small space.
It was, I said, almost enough to make me believe again in a monotheistic, capital-G god. Almost.
Right. This is going to be a long one. First of all, I read about the book several times and decided not to read it. I hate proselytising people or books or, well anything. I think he’s missing the whole point.
Science is about explaining the mechanics of the world, about how things work, not about why (in any other sense than simple causality.) Religion is about the big why, about giving meaning to whatever happens and exists. It used to be about how as well, but I think we can agree that the scientific how is a hell of a lot more convincing that the religious how.
I distrust any scientist who says there is no god. There is never enough evidence for the non-existence of anything. The fact that science can’t prove the existence of god, or angels, or leprechauns, or ghosts could just as well be the result of a lack of the right tools. I wonder how science would react if they suddenly found a way to prove, beyond scientific doubt, that there is a god. Would it be a triumph or an embarrassment?
And I don’t think people who believe in a higher power are stupid. They choose to attach more value to the countless human experiences of divinity than to the (for now) lack of scientific proof. By the way, knowing exactly how a sleeping baby works wouldn’t make my sense of wonder any less, on the contrary.
Being a person who has innudated himself with science for the past six year (gads! almost seven!), I have to agree with Edwink — science seems a bit stuck in declarations of what is and what is not, when it is really just a study of patterns and sequences. If we can’t find the pattern, either through observation or through non-direct means, science is too quick to rush to the conclusion that the subject is a null subject.
Its some of the same reasons I have fallen out of favor with the science community — I question the “facts” as presented. From what I understand about this material, its just another person drawing coorelations that may or may not exist and standing behind the protection of “science” when questioned about the matter. In other words, another messiah — this time in the name of anti-faith.
It is a mistake to confuse opinions with fact, and I am afraid I will have to bow out of reading this tract myself. I’ve seen too many simple things that science fails to explain, I hardly think that the nature of deity can be proven or disproven in one book.
I don’t disagree with either of you, not in any fundamental way. The only difference is that I am going to read this book.
I wasn’t interested in reading it, not at all, not initially. And I’ve still got time to change my mind on whether I will. But…
In order to dismiss something as being irrelevant to my beliefs (or admit it as being relevant) I have to have some understanding of what it is I am choosing to dismiss or admit. Why should I dismiss, out of hand, someone else’s opinion simply because it doesn’t appear to fit with my current set of beliefs? It’s as simple — or as complex — as that.
Let’s just say I’m coming from a position of distrust in both science and religion as the source of all answers. Why? What I learnt, growing up in the Catholic faith, was that religion was incapable of answering all of the questions that I ask of myself and the world. As for science? In Year Ten we were introduced to physics, chemistry and biology as distinct and separate streams, each claiming to have the answers. We were told one day, during a physics class, to build a simple circuit, following a diagram and using components that had been tested and were known to be functional. I put my circuit together, like everyone else in the class. Unlike everyone else, I couldn’t make mine work. The light wouldn’t light. The class geek tested it. The teacher tested it. Components were swapped out and back in. It still didn’t work. By all the laws of physics it should have worked. And yet, it didn’t and wouldn’t. And even science couldn’t explain why (or should I say how) it didn’t. I have rarely accepted anything as fact, without question, since…
Edwinek — If science were to prove the existence of a deity, I think that it would be claimed as a triumph in public (Hey, we just proved something we thought was impossible to prove. Yay us! Yay science!), while in private there would be panic (“Oh. SHIT! What have we done?”) as what is currently believed to be known is rejigged to fit with the new knowledge.
Mick — he’s not seeking to prove or disprove the nature of a deity. In his mind he has already done that and is assuming that as his starting position. He’s a fundamentalist of a different stripe. His goal, as I understand it, is to convince readers of what he sees as the evil, danger and potential for destruction in blind faith in the mono-theistic three and thus that the only rational stance is atheism. As you said “another messiah — this time in the name of anti-faith”. I’m simply curious about his arguments.
And the moment I stop being curious, stop asking myself the questions, that’s the moment I believe I’ll die, just a little bit…
I agree with him completely about the dangers of blind faith and organised religion. But I think atheism is just as irrational as faith. The only rational stance would be to admit that you just don’t, and can’t (for now) know.
Edwin, I really don’t disagree with you. Or with him about blind faith. As I said, I’m curious. He hopes to convert people to atheism in much the same way as fundamentalists wish to convert people to their faith. As Mick said — “another messiah…”
Oh, but I didn’t think you disagreed with me, that last comment was just an affirmation.
It just occurred to me that if there is a god, he or she must get a lot of joy out of always staying just a bit ahead of science. Out of creating a new particle just when science thought it was almost there. Must be fun.
That is such an appealing thought
I just hope s/he is sitting in a plush, red armchair, glass of Irish whiskey (or drink of choice because who am I to second guess a god) close at hand, taking great delight in watching mere mortals trying to keep up.
[...] or at least try to get further than four pages into the preface, seeing as I’ve been waiting since early December for this book to come to me from my local library and I’ve only two weeks in which to read it [...]