Asking The Wrong Question
Asking The Wrong Question
Chapter 1 of "The God Delusion"
(CARROLLTON - TX, Cradle of Civilization) The members of the obscure book club Men on Books (Viris de libris) met to discuss the first two chapters of Dawkins's book, The God Delusion. That was our intent. We got through the first chapter.
Fortunately we had whiskey and cigars on hand.
It is difficult to express the disappointment felt by the members in their reading of these first two chapters. (Chapter Two will be discussed in a follow-up post.) We assumed, based on the press surrounding this book, that we would be reading a very well articulated argument against the belief in God. We were left wondering if we were reading the same book the reviewers had so lavishly praised.
We now look forward to the next two chapters in hopes of finding the well articulated arguments that failed to make an appearance in the first two chapters.
Meanwhile, the first chapter of the book is titled, A Deeply Religious Non-Believer. He provides a quote from Einstein using that terminology which I am assuming is the source of the title. By this title, and the content of the the chapter, I take this to mean that Dawkins is passionate about his Atheism, and I at least got the impression that his main reason for his deeply religious non-belief in a supreme being is his deeply religious belief in evolution. He acknowledges at least being religious regarding Nature, in terms of his defined Einsteinian religion, but rightly concludes that calling himself religious would be misleading (p 40 - all page references are to the paperback edition).
He spends much of this chapter explaining the different ideas to which the word "God" is attached, and at least he did manage to make one thing clear. By "God" he is very specifically referring to "the supernatural" and not to any concept of a god that is essentially explainable in terms of Nature. So, he goes to great lengths to make sure the reader understands that when Einstein or Hawking use the word "God" they aren't referring to anything supernatural, they are instead referring to Nature, and all the natural workings thereof. Well and good. Defining one's terms is a proper starting point.
But in this process we also learn that all the smart, honest people believe in science, evolution, and nature, and that the religious mind is weak (p 38).
In the chapter he also includes a quote from Carl Sagan which he ascribes to Sagan's The Pale Blue Dot, and in which Sagan asks a fundamentally wrong question, and then provides a silly response supposedly representative of his target:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' (pp 32-33)
What is fundamentally wrong with the question? It is dishonest and is a text book straw man argument. In any intellectually honest scientific inquiry the first questions should be, "What do I know is true?" and "Are all the assumptions I bring to this inquiry valid?" Then you might ask, “Do I actually disagree with this, and if so, why?”
An honest question, sans agenda, would be, "Is it the case that most of the major religions of the world have a belief in a small god and that they want to keep their small god? Is it true that the major religions of the world are simply opposed to science and the scientific method?" An intellectually honest attempt to give a representative answer would involve researching their writings and talking to their authorized representatives to at least have a passing familiarity with their actual position. However, we have already learned that Dawkins feels no need to do so as mentioned in a previous post. (This is where he says he does not need to read “Pastafarianism.”)
In order to introduce some semblance of a scientific approach to Sagan's silly question and answer, I would have to ask Dawkins, "Is it true that the major religions of the world reject science? That they don't find scientific knowledge useful? That the scientific view of the Universe is much more majestic and subtle than their prophets said? That they all simply concluded, 'I like my god small and manageable?" To which Dawkins should have to respond, "I don't know, since I don't read Pastafarianism."
Except I rather expect he would simply assert, "Yes, that's all self-evident."
The only religion I know anything about is Catholicism, so I will only speak to what I know. Is Catholicism one of these major religions that believes "My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way"? That rejects science and the scientific method? I am just going to state “No.” In my studies no one has ever put forth any such idea, in fact, quite the opposite. The Catholic Church celebrates advance of human understanding, and recognizes scientific inquiry as a critical human activity. In fact, our rational minds are viewed as a demonstration of how we are made in the image and likeness of God.
What he would have to say about that I will discuss in the post on Chapter 2. I will give you a hint though. It won't involve him demonstrating a damn thing.
The presumptive arrogance of the above quote from Sagan, however, is most certainly not an argument for or against anything. It is simply a dismissal, without warrant, of "major religions" as being small-minded. Without warrant. And it says nothing about the supernatural, which is Dawkins' stated target. So why does Dawkins include it? I don't know.
I do know he believes Scientists are smart and Religionists have weak minds. Ok, he thinks they are stupid. I can only presume that the intent of this chapter is to plant the idea that religious belief is idiotic so that he doesn't have to actually address religious belief in the rest of the book except to wink and say, "Typical religious 'thought'". In fact it is necessary that he do so, as he has not spent any time seriously trying to understand the arguments of those he opposes. Which means he cannot argue against their thought. He doesn’t know what they have to say. He must insist they are stupid. Because.
I would like to close this chapter review by looking at Dawkins' concerns over the privileging of religion. He provides an example in support of the idea that religion gets a free pass in the US. The example concerns a 12 year old boy (James Nixon) wearing a T-Shirt that was opposed to Homosexuality, Islam, and Abortion. Dawkins spends time showing that the kid won the right to wear the shirt through the courts. Dawkins objected to the reason he won the right:
The parents might have had a conscionable case if they had based it [their lawsuit] on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. But they didn't. Instead, the Nixon's lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion. (p 45)
Just for proper reference, here is the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You will note that Dawkins' complaint, simplified, is that Nixon's lawyers had the audacity to use the First Amendment, instead of the more "conscionable" use of the First Amendment. He also caricatures this as a case of legalized discrimination against homosexuals disguised as a case in defense of freedom of religion. Note, he is equating the wearing of a t-shirt by a 12 year old (now solely focused on the “homosexuality is a sin” part) as Discrimination, a legal and technical term under Constitutional law and for which the wearing of a t-shirt by a 12 year old simply does not apply.
Should I be concerned that Dawkins, who, after all, is a noted biologist and well-respected in his field, and not a Constitutional lawyer, misunderstands and misconstrues the application of technical terms in a field of which he is ignorant?
Well, yes. How not?
It just matters. He is drawing conclusions and trying to convince his readers based on arguments about things he doesn’t understand. Should I care if he misconstrues and misapplies terms and concepts and draws erroneous conclusions in other areas in which he has no expertise?
Yes I should.
You will also note that the First Amendment specifically calls out Religion under its protection, so Dawkins may be upset that Religion has preferential treatment in the USA, but it does so by law, and by the way, none of this addresses the supernatural. Nevertheless, there is an irony I want to point out.
Immediately after this example of the privileging of religion, Dawkins gives another example involving the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Denmark circa 2006 (p 46). He goes to great lengths to describe how the cartoons were used by some Muslims to deliberately foment unrest and cause property damage and murder. He is rightly upset about this, but he has a special anger for those folks who "...expressed 'respect' and 'sympathy' for the deep 'offence' and 'hurt' that Muslims had 'suffered...''' (p 49). Dawkins does say that he is opposed to offending or hurting people just for the sake of it. But, he further says that "All politicians must get used to disrespectful cartoons of their faces, and nobody riots in their defense." This is at least a tacit defense of those who printed the cartoons of Mohammed.
Let's reverse these two examples of 'privilege.' Suppose the 12 year old wore a t-shirt expressing anti-Muslim sentiment (which in fact he did.) Would Dawkins then be supporting the kid's right to wear the t-shirt since it pokes fun at religion?
I’m guessing he would.
Suppose the Danish paper published cartoons slandering Gays. Would he tell gay folks to "get used to it"?
I’m guessing he would not.
Note one thing. So far, all his discussion has been about religion and the things people do in the name of their religion. But, this is not an argument against the supernatural, which he says is his target. It is a comment on human beings and the things they do. And, based on his comments about the murderous aftermath of the publishing of the cartoon of Mohammed, he apparently feels that if not for religion, the world would be a sane and rational place and everyone would just get along.
That's an open question. But simply convincing everyone that God is not real won't take away convenient excuses for stupidity and violence. I am perhaps pessimistic when I say that it is more likely that people will find some other way to justify their actions. In fact, in a secular world, this is already happening. People are blaming their environment, their social status, their education, their historical ties to slavery, their lack of privilege, etc. for all their failings and bad actions. This is hardly the sole province of religion. And says nothing about the supernatural…
We will have to talk about Chapter 2 in the next installment. Will an argument against the supernatural show up?