God Delusions of Grandeur

Just like all religions, atheism is a belief system. It is so because it forms a set of values that an individual or a group incorporates into its life. Atheism might reject belief in God, but this does not detract from the fact that it is a set of beliefs of great importance to its adherents.

Religious ideas, teachings and principles should always be open for discussion. Debating about ideas enables ecumenism, the collaboration between different denominations and religions. Debate makes people reflect on their own beliefs and others’ perceptions of them. However, there is an important distinction between debating principles and ideas on a general basis, and a direct critical attack of an individual’s beliefs. Beliefs are very personal and significant both to those who have a belief in God and to those who don’t. To march in and claim someone is deluded because he or she has particular religious beliefs is, quite frankly, incredibly disrespectful. This, I feel, is where Dawkins could do better. He is a prominent biologist, clearly intelligent and well-informed in his own subject of evolutionary biology. However, he would also like you to know that he is a militant atheist. This, in itself, is no problem; it is his attacking those who disagree with him that troubles me.

Christianity is only one of many major religions in the world, but even within Christianity there is enormous variation in beliefs. Some Christians are extremely liberal, accepting scientific theories and viewing the Bible as a symbolic, metaphorical account. At the other extreme lie the fundamentalists, who view the Bible as error free and a document to be taken literally, word for word. Between these two lies a vast expanse of beliefs. Dawkins’s arguments only really criticise fundamentalists, but he seems to imply that the entirety of Christianity is fundamentalist. This is simply not true.

He claims that fundamentalists, or all religious people in his view, indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs. This, he says, is child abuse. I would argue that most parents, religious or secular, influence the beliefs and values of their children. Is there any difference between teaching a child your own religious beliefs and teaching your own secular beliefs? Both kinds of parents will see their view as correct; so can they be blamed for doing what they consider to be in the best interests of their child? Arguably, the best scenario would occur when neither theists nor atheists influence the religious beliefs of their offspring so that children can form their own views. Realistically, this is highly unlikely to be realised.

Like Christianity, atheism consists of a rather large spectrum of beliefs, some more fundamentalist than others. Dawkins, with his view that the religious have a “virus of the mind,” probably sits amongst the more fundamentalist atheists. So he is himself a fundamentalist, but fills his entire book by criticising the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians and their unwillingness to see the atheist point of view. I find this very hypocritical. He does not tolerate religion, just as religious people do not tolerate atheism.

Large sections of the “ The God Delusion” focus on the weaknesses of Thomas Aquinas’s proofs for the existence of God and on the weaknesses of the ontological argument, the argument of logic. As Alistair McGrath points out in his book, The Dawkins Delusion, these arguments are over 200 years’ old and pretty irrelevant to most modern believers. Religion, for many, is about faith. This is by definition belief without evidence. To criticise these ‘proofs’ is, therefore, of no consequence to most people. The effort he puts into criticising these old arguments perhaps suggests a lack of understanding of the derivation of faith on his side. However, my problem is not only that he spends so much time criticising these arguments, but that he does so in a mocking tone. To aid understanding of the ontological argument, he creates a hypothetical dialogue written in a very clear and accessible way. But at the end of this, when the hypothetical believer has proved his point, he finishes by saying: “. . . nurny nurny nur nur, you atheist fools.” He is portraying the religious person as childish and unreasonable. Perhaps this is intended to be funny, but I do not find it so. To mock so blatantly views that are so important to others isn’t even remotely humorous to me.

I am by no means suggesting that all religious people are moral or always agreeable. As with everything, there will always be some corruption and immorality. But just as a murderer who happens to be British should not be used to infer that all British people are murderers, one exception may not be used to infer that all religious people are corrupt.

I am an atheist. I expect people to respect that, whether they agree with me or not. Equally, I respect those who have a faith. This, perhaps optimistically, is how I think it should be. People have different lives and experiences, and this influences what they believe. What they choose to believe will make sense to them. Question this as you wish, but don’t insult as Dawkins does.

It disappoints me that such an intelligent and educated man can be so rude and unable to empathise with the perceptions of others. Perhaps, ironically, I think the best way to summarise Dawkins’s views on Christianity is found in the Bible itself:

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” – Matthew 7:3.