So what are they saying here? It’s a rather simple point. Christianity has varied wildly over the centuries while atheism has remained simple and unchanged. Then they (incorrectly) apply Occam’s Razor to shave off Christianity and leave Atheism, thus invalidating Christianity as a viable theory; voila!

Well what’s the problem? Again, it’s a simple point. Considering the branches and divisions in Atheism and Christianity as a point of contrast creates a false comparison. In this sense they are treating atheism as a philosophical proposition and Christianity as a religion or worldview. A proper comparison of propositions would be between atheism and theism. Here’s a fixed edit of the image:

What’s more, Atheism can be treated as worldview as Christianity was in the first image, and then we can see that it, too, shares the same fate of schism and division as Christianity has. The atheism of some ancient Greek sects is very different from the atheism of Bolshevism, or the atheism of Bertrand Russell. To say that their atheism is the same is to treat it like a proposition. To do the same for Christian groups would be to say that their theism is the same, which is true.

The book seems to be a call to both atheists and believers to put aside the polemics and try to find common ground; to remember that we are all human and all share the trait of not being able to “see God.” It would be nice if such collaboration was likely, however I forsee many falling back on the old question begging standpoint: “Why should I deign to comport with someone who is wrong?”

Hopefully that’s just the cynic in me.

Alright. This is the first real entry on my iterative analysis of Richard Dawkins’ new book The God Delusion (go here for the first). It’s going to be short, though, because the first chapter really doesn’t say much all that necessary of further dissection. The chapter divides into two sections, Deserved Respect and Undeserved Respect. The first is a clarification between two kinds of religion: “supernatural religion” and “Einsteinian religion”. Einsteinian religion, as Dawkins calls it, is that “quasi-mystical response to nature [that] is common among scientists and rationalists.” ^[1] This type of religion is in juxtaposition to the supernatural religion of “religious people”, and it is the gods of supernatural religion that Dawkins is calling delusional. I’m not sure why he called this section Deserved Respect. Possibly he meant it as a contrast to what gets Undeserved Respect.

What is it that gets this undeserved respect? Why religion, of course. Dawkins provides of litany of areas where religion is provided with unthinking respect that it should not have. Or, rather, it is provided with respect merely because it is religion, and not because of any trait that would make the respect deservéd. That’s actually fine with me. I don’t think we should give respect unthinkingly. Religious ideas should be able to be freely questioned just like any other, and both suppoorters and detractors should have a voice.

Notice, however, that there is a difference between questioning religious ideas and haranguing religious people with sophmoric polemics and pejoratives. The two should not be equated. Also note that a failure to understand why there is generally respect for religion does not mean that, ergo, you should disrespect religion and religious people. It might be the case that people do not merely respect religion ipso facto, but for other reasons as well.

One final note: in this chapter, Dawkins makes the following quote: “Some men think that because they have achieved a high degree of learning in one field, they are qualified to express opinions in all.” ^[2] I’m going to step out on a limb and make a prediction here: By the end of this book we are going to see Dawkins eat those words. I know Richard is a very, very intelligent person; much moreso than I, and I know that his interests probably scale numerous disciplines. But I also know that his professional fields are zoology and biology. From what I’ve seen in other reviews (and this is borne out in the table of contents), he makes philosophical and moral objections to God’s existence. That would be fine, of course, if he were properly a philosopher. In fact, I think it would be fine if were a sailor, or a barista. What’s not fine is making such a complaint and then commiting the very same thing yourself. My bet is that Dawkins’ philosophical objections are going to be the same old rehashed arguments that have been dealt with time and again. Why would he do this? Because those areas of scholarship are not his field.

I don’t mean to say that I’m going to set Dawkins straight every place he’s wrong, but I do hope to provide rebuttals to some of his arguments. I am in no way a professional in the area of philosophy, but it’s where my passion lies. In contrast I don’t have much practical knowledge in the area of evolution and intelligent design, which Dawkins spends several sections on. That’s a topic of study that really doesn’t bear much interest for me, at least not enough to wade through the morass of contending books and papers. I feel if I were to respond in an authoritative way I would most assuredly be coming from a standpoint lacking a solid base of knowledge. So if my critique of the “scientific” sections of his book is sub-par, I apologize in advance. I’m sure there are reviews out there that do his arguments much more justice.

1. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 11.
2. Ibid. 16.

He does this in several ways in the book, each delineated in its own chapter: the university, American culture, politics, science, etc. He points to the shifts and changes through time that show the effects that the deficiency in Christian thinking has had on each institution. At the end of the chapter on the “Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism” Noll makes an aside that I just found too interesting to pass up.

The rest follows after the jump.

He says:

“Evangelical hymnody, often a sensitive barometer to shifting deep structures, well illustrates the intellectual history. Two lovely hymns, separated by only two generations, bespeak the momentous influence of fundamentalism. Both are, in their own terms, entirely appropriate expressions of piety. Both can be sung with a clear conscience. But the use of metaphor is revealing.” ^[1]

The first is a hymn written by George Croly in 1854, entitled “Spirit of God, Descend upon My Heart.” In the first stanza, Croly asks that God make changes in his heart to orient him how he ought to be. Then in the second he describes what he humbly wishes most for his soul:

I ask no dream, no prophet ecstasies,

No sudden rending of the veil of clay,

No angel visitant, no opening skies;

But take the dimness of my soul away.

Upon first reading that quote, I instantly assented to the same wish as Croly. I don’t really want to have great visions, I want my vision to be great. Actually, I’d settle for vision that’s just a little better. What a convicting sentiment. How often do I seek after a “big moment” where I can grasp what’s out there? What I should daily seek is to remedy the “dimness of my soul.” And no, I don’t mean the salvific cleansing available through Christ. Obviously that has been attained already. I mean being transformed by the “renewing of the mind”. The making new of the mind brings metamorphosis (root: μεταμορφ) to the soul.

The second hymn Noll describes is by Helen H. Lemmel, who wrote the words and music to this gospel song in 1922. I think you will find it very familiar:

Turn your eyes upon Jesus

Look full in his wonderful face

And the things of this world will grow strangely dim

In the light of his glory and grace.

What a difference a few generations makes. The key is in the use of the word “dim.” Croly wishes for his dimness to be taken away that he might perceive better. Lemmel wishes to perceive only Christ, and the world outside will grow dim accordingly. Now surely we do wish for Christ to be our all, but an inward/upward focus that ignores the world beyond Christendom denies all that Christ wishes us to be to that world. This is the failure that evangelical fundamentalism fell into. A view of prophecy as the final script to the end of the world killed any desire or felt obligation to explore or understand the world better. A “let go and let God” attitude towards Christian life fostered a world-abandoning mentality that ignored the command to be “salt and light.” And finally, a scripture doctrine that treated the Bible as words linked directly from God’s mouth to the reader excised original cultural relevance and authorly intentions, which then bled over into everyday life. For if you see no connection between the source that provides most of the important information for how you live your life, and the world in which you live it, you will not make the connection between your life and that world, that is to say, you will have no impact on it.

And that is what has happened. While The Scandal is a very good book, it is also a sad commentary on the heritage of American evangelicals, and a stunning indictment for those living today. I haven’t got to the chapters on Hope yet. I suppose I’ll make a more uplifting post then.

1. Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1994. 144.