Richard Dawkins revitalises the atheist movement in this seminal treatise on the irrationality of religion and the dire consequences it has caused humanity. Before reading on, I wish to warn. The intention of this piece of writing is to review a book and hopefully spark enough interest for you to go and read it. Religion is a contentious issue which may arouse strong reactions. I am not presenting any personal views here, I merely intend to summarise the points Dawkins makes in his book.
Refusing to accept the commonly held assertion by many scientists that religion is beyond the realm of science and therefore affords no more discussion, Dawkins outlines his God hypothesis. Whether God exists or not, is in fact a statement of fact, one that can be proven or not and as such, the role of science in this question becomes essential.
Through his book, Dawkins examines and sequentially dispels arguments for the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas presented his ‘proofs’ of God in the thirteenth century. Broadly summarising, he argued that as nothing moves by itself but by a prior mover and that as nothing is caused by itself but by a prior causer, then the something which made the first move and the first cause must be something that we shall call God. However, as Dawkins espouses, these points rely upon infinite regress, from one thing to something prior and then something before that until it must stop at God. But why should we decide to stop and why stop at God? And if so, what happened before God? Why is God immune to regress?
The argument of design is the primary argument used today. That the world is so complex, so intricate, so beautiful that only God could have been responsible. I summarise an ironic Australian philosopher who Dawkins quotes:
God is the most formidable and incredible creator
The most marvelous achievement imaginable is the creation of the world
This achievement would be more impressive, if the creator was disabled
The greatest disability is non existence
Therefore an even more formidable and incredible creator than God would be one that had the most disability, that is, one that doesn’t exist.
This idea of improbability is the main argument surrounding design and God. It is so improba
A common assertion amongst creationists is that something so beautiful, perfect and complex is too improbable to have come into existence by chance and must have been due to a creator (the 747). However, this assumes that the only alternative to chance is design. For an object to be designed by a higher being then the problem of who designed the designer arises. The scientific alternative is natural selection and
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal once stated that, though God’s existence may be incredibly unlikely, we probably should still believe in Him because of the consequences for being wrong. When believing, if you are right then you’ll get eternal bliss and if you were wrong then it doesn’t really make a difference. However by not believing, if you are wrong then you’re setting yourself up for eternal damnation. Would you risk it? Of course, this wager is fraught with flaws. You can’t just make yourself believe and rock up to Church every week. Surely, if you were pretending, then an omniscient God would see your insincerity. Also, why would God only be pleased with belief? Why would He not reward kindness, generosity, humility or sincerity? Would God appreciate rigorous skepticism, blind faith or cowardly bet hedging most?
I haven’t finished the book yet, yes I am a slow reader. Once I do complete it I will give you more snippets of what I believe to be a well written, critically rigorous, strongly researched and referenced, superbly constructed argument. Interposed with humour, Dawkins writes intellectual stimuli for the fundamental existential topic of our times.
