The God Delusion

Or, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, for Atheists.

I'm several chapter's into Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, one of the handful of Atheist texts coming out to much publicity lately. In Darkins' defense, I was warned it wasn't a great book. I want to be open to critique of my theism, but I'm going to have to find it elsewhere.

Dawkins sets up the books premise by asking that we imagine a world without religion, a world with no 9-11, no crusades, no Taliban. But thus far, it doesn't feel that he's compelled by a moral revulsion to the holy war and patriarchy that seems so deeply embedded in theism (and a message that would get easy sympathy from me). He seems to be more motivated in his writing by the pathetic idiocy of anyone foolish enough to believe. His sneering contempt for religion feels driven by his contempt for stupidity and intillectual weakness, rather than his concern for the well being of the rest of us.

In all sincerity, I can't remember the last time I read a work this objectifying and stereotyping of any group of people. As a religious person, and a religious leader in particular, I feel Dawkin's loathing of me on every page, for my participation in the Taliban's suicide bombings and the Televangelists fleecing of millions. Any hope of being seen for who I am seems lost in this text.

I was struck by how the Washington Post review of God is Not Great (another book, which I have not read), applies seemlessly to Dawkin's work as well:

"Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn't know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about "Negroes" -- with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery. But it is Hitchens who is the naïf. To read this oddly innocent book as gospel is to believe that ordinary Catholics are proud of the Inquisition..."

Dawkins' nievite about the role religion plays in the world seems best summed up by an odd editorial oversight in his introduction. While he's inviting us to imagine a world without religion, he invites us to "Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues." He seems sincerely unaware of the broad implications that without religion, there would be no ancient (Buddhist in this case) statues to blow up.