'Relusion' and the Existence of God: I - Dawkins

For a long time since my A-Level studies, having coming to hear of Dawkins' argument in 'The Selfish Gene', I became interested in reading in book, "The God Delusion" and interested in learning more about the complex question that has been answered (or attempted to answer) by philosophers for centuries. In more recent times, with my mother studying at the Maryvale Institute and my father working there, I came to learn of Father Thomas Crean's book, a Catholic response to Dawkins, and I am interested more so now in analysing these books and taking some view from science and religious perspectives on the existence of God.

This is what I will look at over the next 2-3 blogs in this section, looking at Dawkins, Crean and my own conclusions. It will be very brief and concise, and in no means is it a critical dissection of religion, or science to the question, but my own thoughts on a few of the views that really do stand out.

From the title of these series of blogs, I will first demonstrate by what is meant by 'Relusion'. As Dawkins says, it is a delusion, but when one believes in religion, it is a delusion (I'm not quite sure how you can call religion a delusion), and thus it is a 'Relusion'. However he did choose to omit using Relusion as the title of his book.

Parts of his argument that really stood out for me from a criticism point is three fold:

1) There is no such thing as a Muslim/Christian/Jew etc. child. It is a child of Muslim parents.
2) His book is a dissection of religion and has converted many to atheism.
3) Science is based on fact. Religions (notably Christianity) has changed its viewpoint on certain issues (eg. Pope Benedict XVI abolished long accepted 'limbo') and the contradictions in doctrine and standpoint shows it cannot be true.

In response, I have to say that:

1) Perhaps it is perfectly valid for Dawkins to say that the child lacks the intelligence and reasoning required to call themselves under the name of a religion. Indeed, Louis Theroux's television documentary on America's most hated family shows that a child activist involved with the family in the Baptist church showed that the child cannot defend why "fags" are wrong.

But, in a way, isn't it tantamunt to saying, a dog born in a barn does not make it a horse? Or in other words, a child to Pakistani-born parents born in England does not make that child English?

In any case, the Louis Theroux example I explained as a atheist stance against religion is a straw man argument. The point is, a child can define themselves Catholic, or Christian, or Orthodox Jew, or Jewish. It doesn't water down the integrity of religion if people who follow them don't follow the doctrines blindly. Isn't that after all what we were born for? To think independently. Whether we follow a religion or not, not following a religion would really not make any difference. We should not shudder at the idea of a child being called a "Muslim child", but rather applaud. Religious reasoning aside, it is still socialising children in morals and they are still being brought up to rationalise what behaviour is wrong.

2) Dawkins book as a dissection of religion, is simply not true. First, it is important to recognise that unlike Crean's book, Dawkins is written for a mainstream audience. As a result, where Dawkins has quoted references, he does fail to in other places of importance where he uses polls, statistical data. It is hard then, from this point to take the book as complete fact. Fact again, brings me to my most important point against Dawkins.

3) It is an assertion made by Dawkins that Science is always right. This again, is not true. It does not take a genius to acknowledge science once had the consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. Even Dawkins recognises this and I can't help but see a contradiction in him saying science is in effect, a search for truth, but this is something I don't think can be truly understood by human civilisation. I forget the name of the sociologist (Comte comes to mind, but if anyone can enlighten me, please do) who said that science is simply a paradigm, a consensus that eventually will be replaced and will keep being replaced throughout the test of time. Fact is simply something that is beyond our understanding, and science or religion considered it does take a kind of 'leap' of faith either way to accept a given issue (take Global Warming as an example) as fact. 'Smoking can cause lung cancer' is seen on cigarette packets, and this is what science does, cause and effect relationships. But you cannot derive fact from what is commonly held belief. Fact from this view is something subjective and it is out human independence in our morals, belief that will always remain. It is just simply impossible that we can universalise an argument even if the evidence is overwhelming, there will always be some sort of resistance. Science has and is not perfect, and I'm not saying religion is either. I will deal with Crean's Catholic response in my next blog.

Criticism aside, Dawkins brings some very persuasive arguments to the table, concerning psychology, the history of religious scripture and its validity among others that I really do encourage you to read it. His book however does not tear religion into shreds, and he does claim an aura of superiority because his Beoing 747 argument (that it is very, very very unlikely God exists) goes mainly unanswered by theologians. Perhaps it is because he is a biologist first, a theologian and philosopher last. Relevant his points may be, the facts are it does not destroy Religion as a source of people's direction in life.

In my next blog, I will discuss Crean, before moving on to my own thoughts. I just have one final observation: Religion and Science, can be seen as Dawkins says, at odds with one other. But if science is the predominantly accepted understanding of human life and the universe, then to me I wonder why at all Dawkins is bothered or feels threatened by religion.

Perhaps he is wrong? ....