The Richard Dawkins Delusion
Not that I have any objection to atheism becoming a mass-market item (complete with product tie-ins and merchandise web-links). Hey, if all atheists had looked like Ariane Sherine, (pictured) no doubt God would’ve died long ago. Still, when I heard Richard Dawkins was behind the banners “There’s probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life” seen lately on London buses, it confirmed what I always suspected: being good at science doesn’t necessarily make you good at philosophy.
First, the facts: most of the planet’s people still believe in some form of deity or supernatural, justice-rendering power. Most of the planet’s people also live in conditions of poverty and oppression. Draw a Venn diagram of the two groups – poor, and believers – and you’d likely be left with close to one circle.
This probably isn’t accidental. Marx wasn’t the first philosopher to notice it, but his description of religion as an opiate for the masses was both critical and fatalistic. A belief in a just god maintained order in an unjust world, by enabling life’s less-privileged few to look to an ultimate rendering.
Curiously, given the contempt in which Darwinists have long held religion, this may have been an evolutionary development. Recent research has shown that people are less likely to cheat on exams if they believe someone is watching over their shoulder. A watchful god was socially useful.
The scientific advances of the nineteenth century, at which heart Darwin himself lay, removed the metaphysical necessity for a god: existence could be accounted for without a divine source. But the social function of a divinity did not disappear so readily, which is why Nietzsche found its death so troubling. Without a god watching over them, who or what would maintain order over society?
In developed societies, the state rose to the task. However, the state has sunk shallow roots in most of the world. In vast stretches of the planet, the state is a partial construct at best, a fiction at worst. Its claim to assure justice is laughable. Indeed, as the state has fragmented in many poor societies, religion has proved a resurgent means for citizens to find a sense of purpose and justice.
Ah, but just imagine the poor, ignorant chap from the Indian subcontinent, labouring in Dubai’s heat all his life to build indoor ski-slopes for the super-rich, separated from his family for years at a stretch, denied basic rights, crowded into zinc shacks with his peers, all to send a dowry for his sister.
He may have once consoled himself with the thought that a better life awaits him in the future. But now, hurray! a bus-cavalry will ride to the rescue and proclaim “Relax Ahmed! There’s no god to save you from this!” Or as campaign organiser Ariane Sherine put it to the Guardian, the message will “brighten people’s days and make them smile on their way to work.” Ahem. I’m beginning to understand why the crucible of so much religious terrorism is found in the world’s Dubais (or Londons, or Madrids) where these two cultures – poor immigrant believers, rich agnostics – clash, leaving the former convinced that their gentle god ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit after all, and that more, er, direct tactics are required.
Philosophers long grappled with this challenge. Sartre spoke of the burden of freedom, the responsibility that accrued to humans of making a now meaningless existence meaningful (not to mention just). Meanwhile, Nietzsche wrestled – however disturbingly – with finding one’s way after the death of god. Will a box of Haagen-Dazs and this week’s X Factor really now do the trick?
The truth is, most folks in the rich world should probably take greater comfort in the slogan “Most people still believe in god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Those of us who really think the world will be better off when that first line changes, would do well to stop relaxing and resume the philosopher’s work.
Posted by John Rapley in Other | January 12, 2009 12:44PM |
January 12th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The truth is, most folks in the rich world should probably take greater comfort in the slogan “Most people still believe in god, …”
I find that statement very worrying, given 9/11.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I suppose Rapley’s point is more that rather than attacking/blaming religion for everything, it might be better to attack poverty. At that point people – liberated from their constricted, fatalistic lives in the economic underclass – will be less disposed to religion. Just telling people to stop being religious without offering any alternative ideologies to justify why they are so abused by the societies they live in, is probably more the cause of terrorist acts than the religion itself. It’s class friction rather than (admittedly silly) religious beliefs.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
i agree with most of this article, but think that the author misses out a big connecting factor – education, or, more specifically, the stimulation of poeple’s cognitive ability; the ability to assess big abstract questions.
i think its fair to say that lots of people who are atheists have learnt and exercised analytical skills through their education to be able to deal with the enormous concepts at issue here to some degree. for example, it’s impossible to imagine yourself not existing, by definition, and this is an issue which only needs addressing outside any religious beliefs.
however, thats not to say that if everyone received a good education full of analytical thought, they would be atheists, but i think it’s worth considering the connection between education, poverty and god, not just poverty and god.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Yes,
I guess 9/11 is the justification of the death of God, eh? Well WWI and WWII were the justifications of the death of government and the nation-state but I don’t see people espousing anarchism. Why not? Because the misuse of a philosophical idea or truth does not make that idea or truth invalid. That’s like saying that if people suddenly started killing all illiterate people, literacy would suddenly be wrong.
Stop using 9/11 as a justification for your own atheistic religion…
January 12th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
ok, it may sound sexist to highlight this, but has Ariane Sherine ingested Marilyn Monroe’s ghost? That voice is ridiculous
January 13th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Money has replaced God. That what most people worship today, but with the meltdown of the financial system and the worlds economy, perhaps we all need to start praying again.
For quite a lot of people, God is only needed for them in times of crises. As soon as the good times are back they forget God. According to the Bible, the Israelites were often guilty of that.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Dawkins and Rapley are both wrong. Dawkins has become hugely condescending and superior these days and Rapley has hooked right in. I preferred it 20 years ago when atheism was misunderstood as ‘evil’ rather than these days when it’s misunderstood as ‘arrogant’. Some people like to live fantasy lives believing life has meaning and God loves them without worrying about deeper issues like the so-called burden of freedom. So what? Like others have pointed out before me–religion itself is not condemnable simply for what is done in its name. And this is coming from an atheist.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Preach it to me Atheist.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I agree with Nick, ‘Money is the new God’ and agree with Vollrath.
Religion is STILL the route of all evil…
January 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Story development:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7832647.stm
January 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
@ Rantersparadise. It’s ‘root’, baby, root.
January 18th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Atheism and Humanism is on the increase and a good thing too if i might add.
You have to read ‘Richard Dawkins: How a scientist changd the way we think’
Richard Dawkins knows a tad or two about philisophical argumentation kore than you think. He is renound for being an ‘intellectual plumber’. His favourite philosopher is Baruch de Spinoza. Read his argument for panentheism is his book ‘ethics’.
If Spinoza and Aquinas were to have an intellectuual fight i know who would win. The five ways have no grounding if the universe is eternal. There is no need to postulate an eternal deity if the universe is eternal itself. In any case science has proved that the universe, or at last is constituents are eternal, the second law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
You mention “the social function of a divinity” and seem to suggest that if you can make a case for believing these fictions on the grounds of community cohesion or some personal psychological benefits it is right to continue to indoctrinate a gullible populace. There would be a case for well informed, intelligent atheists to tolerate religion amongst the educationaly challenged if it did cause said group to behave better. Experience tells me this is not the case – quite the opposite as we can see from the acts of violence perpetually carried out by people with conflicting religious views. Whilst agreeing that atheism has no better answers we can be sure that religion has had its turn and, whether or not it is true, it fails and we should search for something better.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Sorry Rapley, but I don’t need a god to be looking oover my shoulder to do the right thing.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 am
Will
The universe is eternal? I didn’t know that was proven yet, if it was then there would be no need for Sir Roger Penrose to state that if the big bounce theory is true that it would prove the universe is eternal, or that the multiverse theory if proven true essentially throws god away. No Will, it has not been proven to be eternal yet, it is only proven that energy seemingly is eternal.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Reminds me of that episode of Red Dwarf where Kryten puts up with absolute servitude because he believes at the end of it he’ll go to silicon heaven.
Surely the solution to this is to strive towards more and more equality in society. This article seems to ignore that as a solution and instead insists people with mild secularist views should keep schtum in case they’re views take away the hope of the poor! Yeh, because I’m sure someone working in the Dubai heat on ski slopes for the rich is really going to be offended by a few ads on busses in London! That will surely be the final straw for him?!
The suggestion that mild secularism may lead to terrorism – and the none too subtle implication that these adverts could also spark terrorist feelings – is interesting. And here’s silly me thinking that was because of religious fundamenalism! I’m glad that’s been cleared up!
It seems, since this author is now “beginning to understand why the crucible of so much religious terrorism is found in the world’s Dubais (or Londons, or Madrids)” these ads have so much more power than anyone could have imagined! The author, by implication, couldn’t see why during the Iraq war, four years after 9/11, with much of the middle east in a mess and with young British Muslims being brainwashed by *religious* fundamentalists London was attacked. But when some light-hearted adverts on the side of busses are revealed three and a half years later, suddenly the light turns on inside his head! Remarkable!
Why don’t such authors just accuse Dawkins et al. of causing world poverty, causing the Asian tsunami, causing the hurricane in New Orleans or anything else they want to throw at them because it seems nothing is beyond the realms of possibility at the moment. These adverts, Dawkins, and Ariane Sherine obviously hold much more power than any of us suspected!
Or maybe, just maybe, this is yet another example of over the top hysteria over what are pretty mild adverts. I thought this had got to its extremes when people started accusing Dawkins of being fanatical, but it seems I was wrong.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Ok love the banner, but on a philosophical level if one says there’s probably no god, one could just as speculatively say there probably is a god.
For me Richard Dawkins actually is less of a philosopher than you think. If he is renound for being an ‘intellectual plumber’, then for me I would not employ him, or take his arguments seriously on an intellectual level, because he’s a ‘cowboy intellectual plumber’.
Love the banner because it makes people think.
There probably is no god – but there might be
October 25th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Clearly, you’re missing the point of the God Delusion. Dawkins very decidedly rejects your assertion that we can replace god with ice cream and TV. Rather, it’s the rejection of magical thinking that will be replaced by rational thought, leading to improvement of one’s very existence, and ultimately the improvement of human society universally. It’s also quite disingenuous to expect that one cannot improve one’s enjoyment of life through rational thinking. I find much enjoyment in furthering even the slightest understanding of the real world. If such knowledge can be used to improve my situation, or that of my family, friends and neighbors, that’s all the better. God is still unnecessary.
February 11th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Wassup, magnificent web page although a touch sluggish each time I explore it, it will be quite possibly my internet service, I am unsure. Regards
March 21st, 2011 at 3:10 am
nice one dude…
September 13th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
I would love to meet Richard Hawkins, the man is such an inspiration.