The God Delusion reading notes
Friday, November 24, 2006
page 80
In discussing the ontological proof of God’s existence, an a priori argument conceived by St. Anselm of Canterbury in 1078, Dawkins makes the following observation: “An odd aspect of Anselm’s argument is that it was originally addressed not to humans but to God himself, in the form of a prayer (you’d think that any entity capable of listening to a prayer would need no convincing of his own existence).” However sound this is logically, the parenthetical remark seems unnecessarily snide.
Later on the same page he refers to the ontological argument as “infantile,” which hardly seems a fair representation of an argument that has exercised some of the greatest philosophical minds of the past millennium, including Bertrand Russell, whom Dawkins frequently quotes with approving commentary. Given this tone, and page 80 provides only one example, the criticism of some reviewers that Dawkins exhibits a sneering attitude toward religious belief is understandable. It does nothing to forward his arguments or ensure a fair hearing among the open-minded.
page 82
Dawkins provides an interesting quote, which he attributes to “something Russell himself wrote in 1946” but for which he does not provide a specific reference. Why?
The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thought? Every philosopher would like to say yes, because a philosopher’s job is to find out things about the world by thinking rather than observing. If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things. If not, not.
page 83
Dawkins provides a nice synopsis of refutations of the ontological argument, citing Hume and Kant. The latter he credits as having “identified the trick card up Anselm’s sleeve as his slippery assumption that ‘existence’ is more ‘perfect’ than non-existence.’ A point, incidentally, that Elly immediately responded with when I described the ontological argument to her. Dawkins goes on to quote both Norman Malcolm and Douglas Gasking, whose amusing ontological proof of God’s non-existence is provided in detail.
page 84
Incredibly, Dawkins refers to an incident when he “once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly,” prefacing this with the comment that he has “forgotten the details.” How convenient. This is nothing short of laziness on the part of both Dawkins, who has the audacity to lay claim to a triumph for which he can provide no details, and of his editor, who let this slipshod off-hand remark stand. The end result demonstrates a lack of respect for Dawkins’ readers, to say nothing of proponents of the ontological argument.
page 86-7
In discussing the “argument from beauty,” Dawkins makes the statement “The argument will be so familiar, I needn’t document it further.” This is a formula he relies on with unfortunate frequency, whether out of laziness or concern that in providing a detailed explanation for the argument he would essentially have to plagiarize a competent philosopher or leave himself open to criticisms from the same are not clear. Additional evidence of careless and overly permissive editing.
“The interviewer was unable to understand how I could choose religious music [as a favored listening selection] without being religious. You might as well say, how can you enjoy Wuthering Heights when you know perfectly well that Cathy and Heathcliff never really existed?” Yes.
Even great artists have to earn a living, and they will take commissions where they are to be had…Its enormous wealth had made the Church the dominant patron of the arts. If history had worked out differently, and Michelangelo had been commissioned to paint a ceiling for a giant Museum of Science, mightn’t he have produced something at least as inspirational as the Sistine Chapel? How sad that we shall never hear Beethoven’s Mesozoic Symphony, or Mozart’s opera The Expanding Universe. And what a shame that we are deprived of Haydn’s Evolution Oratorio.
This is a good point and entertaining too, though Dawkins conveniently overlooks the 1500 years of Western sacred and literary tradition that contributes significantly to the context in which Michelangelo’s work is viewed. Unfortunately, however, Dawkins doesn’t stop here but continues with an observation about what Shakespeare might have written had he been commissioned by the Church (overlooking Shakespeare’s almost certain familial connection with the Catholic church, a rather dangerous alliance in Elizabethan England, to say the least). “We’d surely have lost Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth. And what would we have gained in return? Such stuff as dreams are made on? Dream on.” Sneering again. Dawkins seems further to be positing the three named plays as being anti-Christian, an orientation which certainly would not have been perceived in their original context. An openly atheistic orientation would have been even more dangerous in Elizabethan England than an openly Catholic orientation, surely.
page 87ff
A cogent treatment of how personal “experiences,” seen as revelations or miraculous events by the faithful, can easily be produced by the human brain. “The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don’t present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless.” This is an interesting line of thought and a telling response to personal claims to have seen angels, heard divine voices, etc. The personal experience of practically any reader would support this. My “ghost of Hemingway” photograph from Key West, Florida is an excellent example. (I’ll have to dig that up and post it on the website.) Another example would be noticing crater formations on the moon that appear to present a human face in one form or another, an experience common to most observers who study the moon with any care. Childhood experiences of seeing frightening figures from bed, which later turn out to be shadows or other tricks of light, are a third and familiar example. The whole subject is a line of inquiry that deserves further research. I expect a number of articles and other works have been published on the topic.
page 95
In a footnote concerning a book by Bart Ehrman, an American biblical scholar, Dawkins explains that he names the book only by subtitle because “that is all I am confident of. The main title of my copy of the book, published by Continuum of London, is Whose Word Is It? I can find nothing in this edition to say whether it is the same book as the American publication by Harper San Francisco, which I haven’t seen, whose main title is Misquoting Jesus. I presume they are the same book, but why do publishers do this kind of thing?” Is this forgivable? Dawkins couldn’t be bothered to check a fact as simple as this? And his Houghton Mifflin editor let it slide? Is this supposed to instill confidence in the reader concerning the accuracy of Dawkins’ frequently more complex assertions and references? Still, Dawkins references several interesting works on biblical scholarship in this section that sound interesting to follow up.
page 104
“What if God is a scientist who regards honest seeking after truth as the supreme virtue? Indeed, wouldn’t the designer of the universe have to be a scientist?”
page 106
“The Reverend Green is the character’s name in the versions of Cluedo sold in Britain (where the game originated), Australia, New Zealand, India and all other English-speaking areas except North America, where he suddenly becomes Mr Green. What is that all about?”
