Hey all please note that this entire site has moved to this link. Please change your bookmarks to it (the URL is also a helluva lot easier now): marchofunreason.wordpress.com
Thanks!
The Admin (Losers)
(this is the second part in the article ‘Forms of God’. Please read Part#1 before)
Whilst, I am not defending Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion in this article (Dawkins can do fine by himself), I am using McGrath’s critique in an attempt to dispel claims against atheists by reasonable, intelligent apologists like McGrath (who I hope to meet next year).
McGrath, on focussing on memes and ideas, highlights an important point:
So are all ideas viruses of the mind? Dawkins draws an absolute distinction between rational, scientific and evidence-based ideas, and spurious, irrational notions - such as religious beliefs. The latter, not the former, count as mental viruses. But who decides what is “rational” and “scientific”? Dawkins does not see this as a problem, believing that he can easily categorize such ideas, separating the sheep from the goats.
This is a very important point and for reasons like this, I enjoy reading McGrath. Though this point is a bit misconstrued, it is important to note. Which memes are good, which are bad? I think that to ask this question is too similar to saying ‘genes can’t be selfish’. But we must be aware of the position in order to say ‘this is a good idea’ or ‘this should be removed from your mind’. Who is in the position, in our society, to select the good and bad ideas – this is too close to comfort with a Big Brother mentality. Who designates the efficacy of ideas? Essentially, people like myself are saying religion is a ‘bad’ idea and it should no longer be perpetuated through society. I view it as a virus and poisonous to what is otherwise the beautiful human endeavor of attempting to solve societal problems. Dawkins holds similar views (both Dawkins and myself are advocates of Bertrand Russell and Lucretious’ view on religion). McGrath, therefore, is asking: ‘who are you to say this to people?’ We must not confuse this with ‘what do you hope to replace religion with’ or ‘how can you remove something that makes people happy’. These are different questions. The question is focusing on the simple notion of deciding what are good and bad ideas. That’s it.
The reply is based, as always, on evidence. From a purely scientific viewpoint, we can rely on Karl Popper to answer this question (italics are his).
This was a theory of trial and error – of conjectures and refutations. It made it possible to understand why our attempts to force interpretations upon the world were logically prior to the observations of similarities. Since there were logical reasons behind this procedure, I thought it would apply in the field of science also; that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions – conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations; with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation.15
‘Good’ ideas, decided scientifically, are those which survive after being ‘boldly put forward for trial’. Popper is renowned for the dismissal of induction. Induction is ‘a type of nonvalid inference or argument in which the premises provide some reason for believing that the conclusion is true.’ (Britannica) Induction is thus seen in examples where reasoning is applied from the part to the whole, from a sample to a population (‘Paul Hill was a Christian, he was evil, therefore all Christians are evil.’ Plainly incorrect).
In 1934, Popper rejected induction in The Logic of Scientific Discovery16, stating that scientific hypotheses can, at best, be falsified. It only becomes fact when it has undergone strenuous counter-claims and still maintains its implications. After it has survived being ‘boldly put forward for trial’. Thus, the evolution model has undergone numerous counterclaims, but is now seen as scientific fact. This does not mean that any scientific fact or hypothesis is ‘objectively true’. Scientists are averse to using absolutes (though religious believers are not because, if anything is absolute, it is god!) – but we speak about things being to the highest probability. No, we can not say for certain gravity exists – but there is mountains of mutually supporting evidence, from a spectrum of scientists, from different backgrounds to say it is very, very likely to be so. (Hence, it is referred to as gravitational theory, like evolution or germ theory)
These are ‘good’ ideas. Ideas that can be verified by anyone, anytime; utilised for the benefit of everyone; for the furthering of knowledge. The Popperian stance helps to place us on ground that may not be perfectly stable, but still maintains our balance of reason. It is better than pretending the shaking ground beneath us is ‘perfectly’ still, allowing our feet to slip.
But, the common claim goes, science deals with ‘what’ and religion (and spirituality and philosophy) deal with ‘why’. Science can not disprove the existence of god (the 2nd form of god); science can not give us answers to what is a good life, what is a meaningful life; science can not judge beauty in poetry, literature and so on. How then can it this decide ‘good’ ideas from ‘bad’? This theistic reaction is best expressed by Professor John C. Lennox (I have written about him in Belief as Poison) and his example about Aunt Matilda’s cake. Briefly then, our aunt Matilda has made a cake. We can get all the scientists from all fields (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) to give their assessment of it. They could tell us its weight, measurement, acidity, and so on. We can get an incredibly accurate depiction of it – but with all that knowledge, there are questions is beyond the scope science: Why is the cake there? Is it tasty? Is it beautiful?
So, to give McGrath some ammo I would say this is his aim. Not to focus on the scientific side of ideas, but where science’s hand has little reach. In the ‘why’ questions. Fine, this is a separate domain (I am dangerously close to dealing with Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA or Non-overlapping Magisteria!). This is not to say scientists should remain silent about these notions because they can not use science to answer ‘why’ questions – on the contrary. This ‘domain’ can still be based on an open-mindedness, scepticism and engaging approach so loved and central to science! This is, without a doubt, a ‘good’ idea.
I have yet to find anyone who disagrees with this: an open mind, an open engagement, dialogue, discourse, debate to further our knowledge in every domain – yes, including the ‘why’ questions.
‘Why’ not?
I have not found any rejection to this claim. We all want to get to the truth, or as close as possible – and why not do this together? Why not grasp fumbling hands instead of battering them away? Even if we disagree, we must be doing this together. Bertrand Russell once said the only way we could prosper as a species is through co-operation. This is a ‘good’ idea.
Why do I think this a ‘good’ idea yet the theistic belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god (the 2nd form again) a ‘bad’ idea? Because theistic religion is about absolutes. And we can not be dealing with absolutes in a world filled with uncertainty. Absolutes are dangerous and lead to conflicts. Why? To answer briefly, they are defined by the very notion that compromise can not be reached. They are defined by the notion of BBE or Belief Before Evidence. Absolutes allow no leeway if they are mistaken, myopic or contrary to other (or better) claims.
People who sincerely believe that apostates must die are by the definition of absolutism (see Mervis’ article) uncompromising in their endeavour. You can not reason or compromise with absolutes – ‘why can’t I drink?’ ‘because the Quran says so’; ‘why must he die?’ ‘because the hadith/bible says so’; or ‘why can’t I play?’ ‘because dad says so’.
And if god is not absolute I do not know what is.
CRITIC: You say we must not confuse the two forms of god, but you have done just that. You can not make a statement like ‘god is… absolute’ and expect us to follow you in your thinking.
Yes, well done. You have caught me! Often in these discussions, critics become hypocrites. I could be accused of doing just that. But allow me to justify, if I may. The notion of god in my last paragraph was theists’ belief in god or form #2. That very god that is the object of their belief (the one I do not believe in) is the absolute. That means, for the religious believer, god is absolute. Our rhetoric would be too long-winded if I had to distinguish between the concept of ‘god’, which I did in the first part of the article, and the entity that exists and is worthy of worship for a theistic believer.
CRITIC: But how can you say that! Was not the very purpose of your article to distinguish between the two ‘forms of god’? Now you’ve gone and dismissed it because it would ‘be too long-winded’. That is a poor excuse.
You are confusing the aim and the method. My aim: to make my readers aware of these two concepts, then when dealing in these discussions decide which is the focus. When someone like Karen Armstrong speaks about god in her books, it is not the ‘form of god’ as the one a preacher appeals to on his knees, crying and waving his hands. For him it is no concept but an actual entity that he believes in. My method: writing in a way that implies the differences, that hopes once readers are aware of the difference they are able to distinguish. In other words, by reading my article it is almost a testing ground for them to be able to distinguish between the two. This article mostly deals with form #2 of the religious believer’s – the one I do not believe in, but one which my opponents do. This is not Form #1.
As was cleverly suggested by my colleague Jonathan Mervis, Form #1 can be thought of as a fictional character. We do not think of Anna Karenina being real, but many have wept for her death. A famous story comes from JD Salinger, the writer of the celebrated The Catcher in the Rye, who once said he was often stopped by readers for a strange reason: The question that kept cropping up was the location of Holden Caulfield (the book’s narrator). Because of Salinger’s convincing prose, readers considered him real! This means the book character had moved from Form #1 to Form #2. This failure of distinction is the mistake religious believers are making (I will take this distinction with fictional characters further in an oncoming article).
CRITIC: But what’s the difference then? You talk about McGrath’s god all the time. It is confusing: does that mean it is a concept for you or is it McGrath’s that you ‘don’t believe in’?
This article is entirely focussed on Form #2. The concept of god is dealt with neutrally, by all manner of people. Think about the concept of a perfect island. I could use this concept in writing, drawing, short-story, or a poem. I could use this concept therapeutically to decide what items or people are important. This and the island does not have to exist! Consider, then, me meeting someone who has been to this island. But he can provide no evidence that he was there! No photographs, no rocks, shells, etc. And no one was with him. For him, the island is very real and he is constantly making plans to go back there, taking the appropriate clothes, items and so on. He is adjusting his entire life to be there. For him, the island is real (Form #2). In our discussions I would attempt to understand the island from his writings, talks and so on. The whole time, though, it remains simply form #2 from his belief. He considers that it actually exists but for me it is just a useful concept for poetry, therapy, art, and so on. It need not exist. This is the distinction between ‘god’ Form #1, which I do not deal with except to highlight the silliness of the theistic distinction – and Form #2, which is real for theistic believers.
Can I get back to McGrath, Critic? I’m nearly finished this damned long article.
Now, we can move on to the second argument in TGD that McGrath focuses on.
The main argument of [TGD], however, is that religion leads to violence and oppression […]He is adamant that he himself, as a good atheist, would never, ever fly airplanes into skyscrapers, or commit any other outrageous act of violence or oppression. Good for him. Neither would I. Yet the harsh reality is that religious and anti-religious violence has happened, and is likely to continue to do so.
As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland, I know about religious violence only too well. There is no doubt that religion can generate violence. But it’s not alone in this…
We all know what is coming. The usual listing of the incorrectly labelled ‘atheistic’ regimes. He uses Latin America, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin. But, McGrath shoots himself in the foot:
One of the greatest tragedies of this dark era in human history was that those who sought to eliminate religious belief through violence and oppression believed they were justified in doing so. They were accountable to no higher authority than the state.
And there it is. The replacement of religion with a political regime or the state. As Michael Burleigh has brilliantly argued in his two-volume work on religion and politics17, political regimes learnt their oppression from somewhere. Where do you think that is? The Church and religious commitment. This is mindless obedience to something you consider greater, more powerful than you [god or the state] and which has intermediary agents, who are the sole benefactor of this higher entity’s knowledge [priests or political leaders]. It’s still the religious instinct that must be eliminated!
But before I comment, let me highlight the final few parts of McGrath:
In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is “not the smallest evidence” that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It’s an astonishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda — the elimination of religion. This doesn’t fit with Dawkins’ highly sanitized, idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century.
As I have said time and time again, atheism has nothing to do with the active removal of religious people, institutions or mindsets. Nothing. Atheism is a denial that these things have any meaning in this person’s life. An atheist and a critic of religion is something else. There are numerous critics of religion who are not atheists, like Reza Aslan, Tariq Ramadan, and Paul Davies (who is a Templeton winner, too). McGrath’s statement makes no more sense than saying the Soviet authorities’ disbelief in the Easter bunny or pink elephants caused them to kill, torture and destroy all things religious. I am reminded of the doctrine of wu wei in Daoism that states non-interference. This is part of secular humanism, which most (not all) atheists and myself endorse. The theistic religiosity was simply replaced with a political one – more absolutism flourishing in the minds of its followers. Dawkins is true in saying there are no stats to report the correlation between modern atheism and violence. ‘There are no atheists in foxholes!’ However, as Sam Harris18 highlights there were tests conducted that shows definite implications for inducement to violence from religion.
To give an example, a test was done to see whether in moderate Islamic countries, they endorsed the hadith in dealing with infidels and apostates (the bombs and the virgins, if you please). 77% agreed apostates must die, agreed martyrdom is noble and taking innocent people with you leads you to j’ana (Heaven), and so on, was 77%. Nothing to do with religion? I seriously doubt it.
How on earth would a disbelief in god and dismissal of blind obedience, in rejection of dogma and absolutism, lead atheists to kill, maim, torture, blow ourselves up and so on? McGrath does not explain it because, he, like all apologists, considers atheism a ‘faith’ like any other, finding ultimate display in the regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot (this thanks to semantic obfuscation).
McGrath goes on to highlight an essential part of humanistic causes – that of unifying everyone simply through our humanity. That is something we can not deny. It is a terribly ‘utopian’ ideal, but one that should never be given up on. Dawkins makes the good point that religion only creates ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’. I agree that united in our humanism, we can all be one massive ‘in-group’. But, McGrath rejects Dawkins claim to this by saying:
For Dawkins, removing religion is essential if this form of social demarcation and discrimination is to be defeated. But what, many will wonder, about Jesus of Nazareth? Wasn’t this a core theme of his teaching — that the love of God transcends, and subsequently abrogates, such social divisions?
Who cares? Lao Tzu said ‘repay enmity with virtue’, 300 years before Christ. The Messiah also created wine out of water for a wedding, but did nothing to stop poverty. And why the love of god and not the hope of a stable, fulfilled humanity?
This is perhaps my favourite sentence from any apologist. Made worse because McGrath is sincere and in no way being facetious.
There is little point in arguing with such fundamentalist nonsense. It’s about as worthwhile as trying to persuade a flat-earther that the world is actually round. Dawkins seems to be so deeply trapped within his own worldview that he cannot assess alternatives. Yet many readers would value a more reliable and informed response, rather than accepting Dawkins’ increasingly tedious antireligious tirades.
McGrath feels that he can get through to readers by an analysis of the bible after this paragraph. Brilliant, I say. Use the very same book that justified the murder of millions, the killing of abortion doctors, the oppression of women, etc. McGrath has however ensured us that he would do no such thing.
McGrath says that Jesus does indeed endorse out-group incorporation. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Matthew 10) is testament to this. Samaritans were then considered the ‘out-group’, i.e. ‘not one of us Jews’. Says McGrath in defence of Christianity:
One of the main charges levelled against Jesus by his critics within Judaism was his open acceptance of these out-groups. Indeed a substantial part of his teaching can be seen as a defence of his behaviour towards them. Jesus’ welcome of marginalized groups, who inhabited an ambiguous position between “in” and “out” is also well attested in accounts of his willingness to touch those considered by his culture to be ritually unclean (for instance Matthew 8.3, Matthew 9.20-25).
Of course, McGrath does not address the fact that Jesus did not intend to start a religious movement. What McGrath does not address is why we can not just take this as an example, with Jesus as one of hundreds of moral teachers and leave it at that? Why do we have to add the ‘divine’ element to it? (Jesus does not declare himself divine in any of the Gospels, or even as the ‘Son of God’ except in John19. This Gospel was written and added much later than the Synoptic20. It was bizarrely added probably for the name alone.21)
Of course, to view Jesus as anything other than divine is to view him as a lunatic or the devil. According to CS Lewis, we can not even look at him as anything other than divine. There are only two options: he was god or he was insane22. Very well: I don’t believe he was divine…
I agree there are indeed good morals expounded by Jesus. No one can deny that. But, why do we have to obey or worship a god? McGrath does not say. What is wrong with taking away the good morals, applying it to life and everyone attempting respect and compassion? McGrath does not seem to understand that atheists want this, but see the second form of god (Form #2) – the object of belief that theists worship – as an obstacle. It is this removal stillwith all the beautiful (completely secular) parts that is our aim. I fail to see how anyone can – and I challenge anyone to – deny this. (I hope no once confuses this as an endorsement of Christian atheism, embodied in the ever-strange Don Cupitt).
Here is the final part of McGrath’s (and this) article:
So what are we to make of this shrill and petulant manifesto of atheist fundamentalism. Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins’ crude stereotypes, vastly over-simplified binary oppositions (”science is good, religion is bad”), straw men, and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. Might [TGD] actually backfire, and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer? As the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse commented recently: “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.”
The message of finding and reaching everyone, through the dismissal of traditional absolutes is apparently missed. McGrath seems to think every religious believer is simple, peaceful and pious like him. It has nothing to do with what he or Dawkins believes: but what the beliefs are of those who with weapons, power and absolute ideals (those 77% of Muslims in moderate Islamic countries who think killing you and your family is endorsed by Allah). They pass through the veil of the moderates, who do nothing but lay down the soil from which blooms these flowers of ultimate unreason. The veil and soil we think should be removed.
I must also comment on this apparent ‘ammo’ that McGrath thinks he’s found: the ‘atheist philosopher’ Michael Ruse. I will not go into detail except to take excerpts from TGD itself to remind readers of Dawkins’ view of Ruse. Already we are introduced to Ruse, before McGrath dug up this quote [which McGrath reprints on the cover of his The Dawkins Delusion?]. Writes Dawkins:
[Ruse] claims to be an atheist… [Ruse writes] ‘atheists spend more time running down sympathetic Christians than they do countering Creationists’ […]
Jerry Coyne… wrote that Ruse ‘fails to grasp the real nature of the conflict. It’s not just about evolution versus creationism … the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition
General Montgomery’s First Rule of War was ‘Don’t march on Moscow.’ Perhaps there should be a First Rule of Science Journalism: ‘Interview at least one person other than Michael Ruse’.23
So Michael Ruse is really not one to comment as an ‘atheist’. I do have a lot of respect for Ruse, however, as a big opponent to the Creationist movement in the US. He is a very gifted and lucid writer (his introduction to Bertrand Russell’s Science and Religion is brilliant). But Coyne is spot on in his view of Ruse as an incapable and misplaced atheist commentator.
In his final paragraph, McGrath writes:
Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support.
This is once again a focus on Dawkins’ tone. I am always amazed when someone says this about a writer (as an English major, I am forced to study such trivial things. Exciting, I know). How can Dawkins be saying something loudly in a book? It is the reader who initiates it into his or her own conscious, rendering the tone in his or her own mind. Thus, when we see written: ‘Get down!’, most people automatically ‘hear’ it screamed. This is justified, as it is commonly stated in that way. But what McGrath means is not volume but attitude or tone. I read somewhere that it is commonly known that there are two different TGD’s – one which is offensive, angry, full of fire-and-brimstone and the other that is coolly argued, logical, well-researched and drives a good argument against religious belief. Too often, readers confused passion for ‘dogmatic fundamentalism’ (I was once yelled a point by a very passionate friend when talking about ‘free will’ but that doesn’t mean he was being dogmatic - just passionate).
And there is nothing wrong for a writer to be ‘confident’ about what he writes. McGrath himself is confident and that is always admirable in a writer – we can’t be fumbling when we are dealing with either concept (Form #1 & #2) of god.
Finally, he ends off (as I will, dear reader):
Dawkins’ astonishingly superficial and inaccurate portrayal of Christianity will simply lead Christians to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about — and that his atheism may therefore rest on a series of errors and misunderstandings. Ironically the ultimate achievement of [TGD] for modern atheism may be to suggest that it is actually atheism itself [that] may be a delusion about God.
Very cute, but not accurate. If McGrath wants a deeply held understanding of Christianity, as well as a critique, he need only read the works of the amazing Bart Ehrman or Geza Vermes. But, just as we do not have to be experts on the Loch Ness monster to dismiss it, we do not have to be experts on the theistic god to dismiss him.
CRITIC: Rubbish. You can’t just go about dismissing something if you don’t know anything about it. McGrath has shown how myopic Dawkins’ view of Christianity is. If Dawkins wasn’t so myopic, he might see the beauty or justification for belief.
No. Because the premises for belief are all the same. The justification for any element that atheists do not believe is rendered through faith. Anything else is adopted on a purely secular level. Anything beyond this is dismissed. Thus we do not need a knowledge of it, especially when the justification is cyclical and rests in the bible. Or when those justification rests in those moments that strike the Roman Catholic Church to suddenly announce that, for example, there’s no more Limbo. What on earth could we gain by reading the hundreds of books on the doctrine of trinity? Nothing. There are more important, immediate, and naturalistic aspects we can focus on: such as violence, unreason and oppression. Anything that is beyond the naturalism paradigm is dismissed – we do not need to be involved in angels, gods, faeries. There are more important, real and scientifically verifiable things that we can focus intelligently on.
CRITIC: But surely you need an understanding of what you are opposing? You can just say ‘oh it’s all supernatural’ and say ‘we don’t deal with it because we don’t deal with supernaturalism’. You won’t convince (or convert, you bloody evangelist!) if you don’t extend your discourse to those domains that are may not be important to you, but ARE important to believers: namely, the supernatural domain.
Very true. As a psychology student, I am trying to understand the notion of religious belief. I have been doing that for years – as anyone has! We all try to understand those strange creatures called humans that we are surrounded by. But, our aim as critics of religion (antitheists?) and secular humanists is to highlight that we do not need the supernatural elements to live, interact or be fulfilled. In fact, we can come closer to unification if we remove those layers of faith and supernaturalism, which are based purely on faith in things that are absolute. We can be united through domains that are secular. In domains that are actually so basic and simple that the most resounding opposition is based mostly on how simple it is! People do not want that. They don’t want simplicity being the be-all and end-all of their lives. They want the Tarot cards, the astrology, the gods. They need to know they mean something, that there lives are part of some central universal scheme or ‘god’s plan’.
Ultimately, telling people that there’s (a large probability) nothing is ‘up there’, ‘after’ or ‘before’; that they are the outcome of blind evolutionary forces beyond comprehension (Orgel’s 2nd Rule: evolution is smarter than you) – is difficult, to say the least. But, to allow people to continue in vanity (‘my life means something to the universe’) will not help anyone. Your life may not mean anything to the universe in which you were created, but you can make your life meaningful. We can all do this through a combination of recognizing our stances as humans, as agents capable of respect and compassion. The veils of faith and supernatural beliefs need to go, so that we can find the pure-human hiding in fear; to bring him or her to face the light of reason and truth. To show them… well, there’s really nothing to be afraid of.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
The first thing I recommend is to read The God Delusion (Dawkins) and The Dawkins Delusion? and The Twilight of Atheism (both McGrath).
For a brilliant summary of the usual claims against the ontological argument, Blackburn’s Think and Warburton’s Philosophy: The Basics are brilliant introductory reads. More in depth accounts, from both sides, can be found by reading Anselm’s writings.
For an understanding of Mary Midgley, read her paper (which became a book of the same name) entitled Evolution as Religion: Comparison of Prophecies, in Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion, Vol. 22, NO. 2 (JUNE 1987) PP 179-194). This is one confused lady. At least its clear she is not a Creationist. I think her and Professor John N. Gray (Black Mass) are in similar dodgy positions considering religion.
Reza Aslan has written a brilliant history and development of Islam, entitled No God But God. It was short-listed for the Guardian First Book award. It is a brilliantly written book by a very intelligent man.
For further information in memes, it is best to ‘begin at the beginning’. Richard Dawkins first outlines it in The Selfish Gene. The idea is then carried forward by Daniel Dennett in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. There are numerous websites, were the idea of memes is still hotly contested. Given its application to religion-as-meme, it would make for interesting reading. Of course, this entire idea is the crux of The God Delusion – but there are better expressions from other writers.
Russell’s views on religion can be found in many of his writings, but captured best in Why I am Not a Christian, in Routledge Classics. In it can be found his debate with Father FC Copelston, a cornerstone of religious dialogue. It is here that Russell dismisses the notion of ever finding out the Truth of the first cause (every man has a mother, but it doesn’t mean that humanity as a whole has a mother)
Sir Karl Popper is a brilliant intellectual, for an understanding science. Not being a scientist himself, he helps to bridge the gap for an understanding of this domain. Don’t be misled: just because he was not a scientist, does not mean his impact was not revolutionary. His dismissal of induction and advocating of high probability is the current paradigm that all science, including psychology, follows.
Michael Ruse has many fantastic books on the nature of evolution, creationism and science in general. A reading of Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies is a good start.
NOTES ON SOURCES
1. Dennett, D. (2006) Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. London: Viking.
2. Dyer, W. (2000) You’ll See it When You Believe It. London: Arrow Books.
3. Warburton, N. (2004) Philosophy: The Basics. Revised 3rd Edition. London: Routledge.
4. Blackburn, S. (2001) Think. Oxford: Oxford University Press
5. McGrath, A & McGrath, J. (2006) The Dawkins Delusion? London: SPCK Publishing.
6. Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion. London: Bantam.
7. McGrath, A. (1999) Twilight of Atheism. London: Rider & Co.
8. Thompson, D. (2008) Counterknowledge.
9. Eherman, B. (2002) Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Rushdie, S. (2007) Step Across this Line: Collected Non-Fiction 1992-2002. London: Vintage.
11. Cornwell, J. (2007) Darwin’s Angel: An Angelic Riposte to the God Delusion. London: Profile Books.
12. Berlinski, D. (2007) The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. New York: Crown Forum.
13. Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. 2nd Ed 1983. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Dennett, D. C. (2004) ‘Some Useful Oversimplifications’ in Freedom Evolves. London: Penguin. Pp. 26-27
15. Popper, K. (2007) ‘Science: Conjectures and Refutations’ in Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge. Pp. 60 – 61
16. Popper, K. (2006) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
17. Burleigh, M. (2006) Earthly Powers. London: Harper Perennial.
Burleigh, M. (2007) Sacred Causes. London: Harper Perennial.
18. Harris, S. (2006) The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason. London: Free Press.
19. Bower, C. (2005) Open Mind, Closed Minds and Christianity. Valyland: Aardvark Press.
20. Armstrong, K. (1996) A History of God. London: Mandarin.
21. Hitchens, C. (2007) God is Not Great. New York: Atlantic.
22. Lewis, CS. (2006) Mere Christianity. London: HarperPerennial.
23. Dawkins, R. (2006) ‘The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists’ in The God Delusion. London: Bantam. Pp. 67-68.
