I recently purchased a copy of “The God Delusion” by Richard
Dawkins. I had been considering reading it for some time. The blurb on the cover by Ian McEwan: “A very important book, especially in these
times… a magnificent book, lucid and wise, truly magisterial” certainly heightened
my enthusiasm.
Unfortunately, the book was a magnificent disappointment. Though it is entertaining, it is certainly not
important, Ian McEwan's views notwithstanding.
The essence of Dawkins’ book is this: old, religious
concepts of God are wrong. Thank you, Richard, for taking 420 pages to point that out. Dawkins defines the “God Hypothesis” as follows: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. He then argues that “God, in the sense defined, is a delusion” and spends the rest of his book ridiculing the ridiculous.
The problem with defining God in such specific and limiting terms upfront is that what masquerades as an argument against theism is not an argument against theism at all, but merely some forms of theism, and already discredited ones at that.
Whether it is delusional to conceive of God as a responsive form of systemic consciousness is not something that Dawkins appears to want to consider. He argues, evasively, that to even begin to reconceptualise God is to commit intellectual heresy, because God has historically come to mean a certain thing and we should not permit the term to drift towards any newer meaning.
This is disappointing coming from an avowed evolutionist.
Why does he run from truly considering a more evolved
concept of God, perhaps by pondering, even briefly, why Steven Hawkins ends his
“Brief History of Time” with the words “For
then we shall truly know the mind of God”?
Dawkins, by contrast, ends his book with an appendix
entitled “A partial list of friendly
addresses, for individuals needing support in escaping from religion.”
His book is not a genuine work of philosophy, but a political
piece penned by an atheist activist. He seeks
to discredit traditional religion in the hope that he might undermine theism
itself. Dawkins knows this is a non-sequitur, but he seems to have been incapable
of resisting a devilishly easy chance to commit it.
Instead of expending his energy rebutting
religion, Dawkins would better serve the cause of philosophy if he attempted a rebuttal
of newer formulations of our oldest beliefs, such as are summarised in the Simunye
Hypothesis, and left the “God Hypothesis” to the dark ages, where it probably best belongs.
I'm a little confused after reading this post. You've pretty clearly stated that you feel Dawkins' reasons for not beleiving in god are irrelevant ("already discredited ones at that") but I'm unclear of your position. Are you inviting me to revive my faith because you can give a "new" definition for god? Or are you supporting disbelief, but for a more relevant reason? To be fair, I must say I haven't read Dawkins reasoning because I've got my own. Just as I discovered while I was a believer, I don't need someone telling my how/what to believe. So, you've figured out something that no one else knows?
ReplyDeleteTo answer you last question first, no, I don't think I've figured out something that no one else knows.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your first question, possibly, though I wouldn't necessarily put it that way.
I'm a supporter of logic and probability-based reasoning. Dawkins gives logic and probability-based arguments against the traditional/historical concepts of God. I don't fault his logic. What I find disappointing is that he hasn't applied his own powers of logic and deductive reasoning to the fact that science clearly suggests that everything in existence posesses the dual nature of being both a whole unto itself while being a part of a greater enveloping system or form.
I believe that the ability of a system or form to be aware of its internal or external environment should be regarded a measure of the “consciousness” of that system or form. As all structural forms experience their environment, from electrons experiencing and reacting to the presence of other charged particles to planets experiencing the gravitational forces of other celestial bodies, so to a greater or lesser extent all systems and forms are “conscious” in a way that is relevant and appropriate to the systems and forms themselves.
However, the relativity of consciousness to a structural form does not justify a conclusion that conscious forms are not themselves also components of other enveloping supra-structural systems or forms and the actions of a sub-structural conscious form may in fact be experienced as an internal stimulus by a supra-structural conscious form. With each enveloping level of form there may therefore be an enveloping level of consciousness with what is experienced at a lower level capable of being measured and responded to at a higher level. For example, the activities of communities of bacteria that colonize the human stomach lining may be experienced by the human host through an awareness of acid build up or ulcers and this awareness may in turn trigger host system immune responses.
A supra-structural form may additionally be conscious of a sub-structural form without the sub-structural form even being aware of either the existence or consciousness of the supra-structural form. Staying with the bacteria example, the host might drink medication which devastates the colony with the bacteria having received no communication from above that they prepare themselves for a flood.
Where a supra-structural form commences a process of adjustment to address any change to its own internal or external environment, the sub-structural form may experience change in its external environment and find itself compelled to act in a way that has value relative to the supra-structural form.
The actions of a sub-structural form therefore cannot be assumed to only have value or meaning to the acting sub-structural form itself and the relative or higher value of a sub-structural form’s compulsive actions may lie beyond the conscious appreciation of the sub-structural form. Transcending supra-structural systemic consciousness is where the God debate should begin but Dawkins doesn't want to go there.
I understand what you are saying and find it a refreshing addition to the route of my philosophical quest - it is a shame that there are so many people closing their minds against your writing. They almost exhibit some form of fear, as if you postulate this all as a precursor to your true purpose of religious and World domination!
DeleteWhilst I have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins he often presents his case in a very emotional way. In so doing he makes his position look a lot weaker. Whilst his arguments are based on logical thought and science they are often unremarkable.
Science alone does not provide many answers but seems to emphasise what you say - that so much happens on so many levels even as much (or as little) as we understand the Universe.
A lot of the people commenting online at the moment seem to miss your point but the fact that you have maintained a calm and articulate response adds to your credence.
Yes, some of the Facebook posts have not engaged in the merits of the discussion, I appreciate your own participation and the questions raised by the commentator above. Best Regards.
ReplyDelete