The God Delusion pt 1

My basic plan is to jot down a few initial reactions as I read through "The God Delusion". Later on I hope to work through the various issues raised by the book in a more detailed way, but I don't want to get too bogged down at this stage - I do have other things to do! Because I'm just jotting down some thoughts, I'm sure that I will misread, misinterpret and misremember things on occasion, but I'm not afraid of being corrected where necessary.

It's an important exercise, as I wrote about in the "Richard Dawkins and the Johari Window" post. As someone who asks others for a hearing on significant issues and seeks to bring about some change in belief and behaviour, it is only right for me to give others the same chance to speak to me.

So here goes. Chapter 1....

Dawkins' rightly begins by clarifying what sort of God he is talking about, since there are so many divergent images that people have in their minds when the read, hear or speak about "God". He shows "deserved respect" for the metaphorical god (god is a metaphor for the Universe in all it's complexity) or pantheistic god (God is the universe - we are all part of god), perhaps even for the deist god (god got the universe going but does not interfere in its operation - the clockmaker god). None of these 'gods' are the God that he is attacking in the book. He is going after the supernatural, interventionist, personal God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Making the distinction is important. Too many Christians (including preachers) are quick to grab quotes from intellectual luminaries like Alfred Einstein and claim his support for our belief because of things he said about "God". It does not give intellectual credibility to our beliefs when we deliberately or accidentally misrepresent the views of others.

There is an interesting quote from Carl Sagan which concludes "A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed to us by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."

That has always been my experience of Christianity. Certainly it has been what Louie Giglio has been tapping into with his presentations such as "Indescribable" and "How Great is our God" which utilise the latest images of and information about the grandeur of the Universe to bring a fresh appreciation for the incredible nature of the Creator God. Of course, to say that they are the creation of this God is a statement of faith, not science, but nevertheless it is one example of how religion has been enriched by the discoveries of science.

The second part of chapter 1 is concerned with the "undeserved respect" which mainstream religions receive in society. Dawkins takes aim at the many concessions and privileges which religious institutions and dogmas receive which are not afforded to non-religious organisations, demographics and ideas. The obvious product of this is that religion becomes a tool for wielding illegitimate influence and power. All sorts of abuses and injustices can follow.

Of course as a Christian I want my views to be respected by society and I want to be free to live according to my beliefs and express them publicly. Am I willing to extend that same courtesy to others? Sadly many Christians (and people of other faiths) can be quite ungracious in this regard. I need to be able to express my disagreement with other religious and non-religious ideologies and movements, and I need to be able to tolerate it (and even listen respectfully) when others express their disagreement with my views.

Dawkins goes on to list some of the worst examples of 'religious' violence and intolerance. I agree with his condemnation of these episodes, but I would disagree that these should be categorised as religious. There are all sorts of sociological & historical factors involved. I would agree though that in some cases religion has been the trump card played by people with a vested interest in cultivating hatred & violence.

At the same time, it is unfair to suggest that intolerance and hyper-sensitivity are the norm for religious people.

In my culture for example, the name of my precious Saviour is used as an acceptable expletive. Yet you don't see me attempting to blow up T.V. and radio stations where this sort of language is being broadcast! Generally, I ignore it as a learned behaviour which is not meant to cause me any personal offense. The best I can do is ask people around me to respect my feelings on the issue in the same way that I try to avoid causing offense to them.

However reasonable and responsible the majority of religious people may be, there will always be a minority who are sufficiently militant or aggressive to provide ammunition for some people to conclude that such behaviour is the product of their religion. Violence and aggression make the news, but people coming together in communities and living out their faith in harmony with one another isn't the stuff of headlines.

endnote: SBS Television programme "Insight" recently hosted a discussion on faith-based schools, which included a discussion on interfaith dialogue and respect, as well as the difference between education and indoctrination. It's worth a look, including the discussion that arose online afterward. Go to http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/in_good_faith_547814
the discussion is here: http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/do_religious_schools_unite_or_divide_the_community_547825