Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Book review: Andrew Brown on Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

No friend to religion, Andrew Brown nonetheless says that Richard Dawkins’s “incurious and rambling” diatribe against religion “doesn’t come close to explaining how faith has survived the assault of Darwinism, opening with

It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works.

It gets better from there – or worse, I guess, if you bought The God Delusion. Which reminds me to come to the point of this blog: When was the last time Dawkins had an original idea in biology? I don’t mean an idea that works. Hey, I’m not that fussy. I just mean an original idea. Why is he always writing trash about religion now?

Oh, and here is Dawkins’ own comment on his book.

Plus (!) here is further comment from Andrew Brown:

I have just finished reviewing Richard Dawkins’ new book on God for someone else and spent a sleepless night wondering if I should really have been so cruel about it. It’s rubbish, of course; but why say so? What is it about the jeering, smug atheism so well represented on the internet, as well as in Dawkins’ books, that makes me so very angry? Perhaps this is a rage at heresy, since in lots of ways I think he’s right, and our disagreements ought to be quite trivial. But the more I think of them, the more serious they become.

Brown – to his credit – realizes that a book is a bomb if he feels forced to say nice things about it.

Comments
Denyse wrote: "The point of the blog entry is to introduce Brown’s review (plus other extranea), noting the curious fact that a man who agrees with Dawkins that religion can be a danger nonetheless thinks Dawkin’s book is lousy - and would like to have thought it good. Forewarned by several trustworthy sources, I have no intention of bothering with Dawkins’ book myself. A number of books on religion by atheists advance theses that are at least worth considering, as Carl Sachs has pointed out above, and I have read a number of them. have a look at Pascal Boyer, for example. " It would be interesting at some point Denyse to hear what you think about Pascal Boyer. I've read his book too and find it quite plausible. I would agree too that if Dawkins does accept Boyer's hypothesis that religion is some evolutionary by-product (perhaps for a previous purpose that we can longer surmise), then perhaps it does not make much sense to rail and rant at those who hold religious beliefs, since these beliefs are apparenty so in-grained into brain chemistry. Unless Dawkins believes that the only way out is to give peope some kind of cognitive 'shock' or wake-up call to point out how susceptible we all are to these modes of thinking. I dont know - but I intend to read his book and will make my own assessment.John Singleton
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
But then again a child screaming is a little easier to deal with than the fog of theistic evolutionism—probably Andrew Brown would have had no problem with a feel good. niecy-nice tome that in essence came to the same conclusion. What’s worse, Dawkins who at least gives me the chance to be wrong or Boyer who says I have no choice in the matter?Rude
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
Re reading Dawkins's book: The point of the blog entry is to introduce Brown's review (plus other extranea), noting the curious fact that a man who agrees with Dawkins that religion can be a danger nonetheless thinks Dawkin's book is lousy - and would like to have thought it good. Forewarned by several trustworthy sources, I have no intention of bothering with Dawkins' book myself. A number of books on religion by atheists advance theses that are at least worth considering, as Carl Sachs has pointed out above, and I have read a number of them. have a look at Pascal Boyer, for example. The difficulty of responding to village atheism is that it is like responding to a toddler screaming. You can respond, certainly, but not as to a person offering rational arguments for his position.O'Leary
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
If Scientific American has an article on this book, it is probably because John Rennie is the Editor or did they recently have enough sense to can him? I had left 12 unanswered challenges at Rennie's old blog, "SciFi Perspectives," when he found it necessary to close it down completely. Don't take my word for it. Check it out if it is still there. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
"I read as little of Dawkins as possible." Cyrus Noe "He that I am reading seems always to have the most force." Montaigne "Study Nature, not books." Louis Agassiz "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
John Singleton // Sep 24th 2006 at 11:06 pm Denyse, I’m assuming from your post that you haven’t actually read the book yet. Before you and everybody else here declare it a ‘bomb’ perhaps you should exercise a little critical thinking and read it first? After all, even the critics over at Panda’s Thumb did actually bother to read Jonathan Wells’s new book, didn’t they? Comment by John Singleton — September 24, 2006 @ 11:06 pm I understand your criticism and perhaps you're right. But at what point is one obligated to read an entire book whose premise one rejects and which is even panned by the author's own co-religionists, before criticizing excerpts from said book? In any case, most people understand Darwinist thinking better than Darwinists understand ID thinking, since we swim in the Darwinist pond. Even reading the Wall Street Journal, I get regular doses of Darwinist speculations! When's the last time you read an article by an ID supporter in the New York Times, or your local paper?!russ
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Richard Dawkins and all his atheist followers, which are legion, constitute living proof for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. They are "born that way" or "prescribed" to use my term. I used to think he was just a Darwinian charlatan like Paul Kammerer was for Lamarckism. Kammerer, when finally exposed, committed suicide by the way. Now I am convinced that Dawkins is not only a charlatan but a deranged, frantic charlatan lashing out blindly at imaginary enemies. His first book, The Selfish Gene, was pure fantasy, exactly as was Darwin's first book, and all of his subsequent efforts, like Darwin's again, have become progressively more delusionary. The most prolific writers on the subject of evolution have always been sedentary, arrogant blowhards, cemented firmly to endowed chairs at some of our most prestigious institutions like Cornell, Oxford and Harvard, where they found it necessary to produce several linear feet of shelf space to present their mindless drivel to a naive and willing audience of "prescribed" mentalities who were deaf, like most pure white cats, to what Einstein called the "music of the spheres." "We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled." Montaigne The five major students of organic evolution, every one a real practicing scientist, a leader in his field, have each found a single volume sufficient to present their convictions concerning the greatest mystery in all of biology. These, with many others, have provided me with the basis for A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Here are my five major sources, in chronological order. Genesis of Species by Mivart, 1871 Nomogenesis by Berg, 1922. The Material Basis of Evolution by Goldschmidt, 1940. Basic Questions in Paleontology by Schindewolf, 1950 in German, 1993 in English. The Evolution of Living Organisms by Grasse, 1973 in French, 1977 in English. These five books consume a mere eight inches of shelf space in my library, yet there is more real science in any one of of them than in all the science fiction produced by Dawkins, Mayr, Provine and Gould combined. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
I very much like the spirit and letter of the second Brown essay ("A leap of understanding," from the Guardian). Moreover, Brown at least senses that Dawkins' position is incoherent: if religious beliefs are evolutionary adaptations, as Boyer and Dennett have argued, then berating people for having them makes as much sense as berating beavers for building dams. (One imagines an exasperated Dawkins shouting at the beavers, "Don't you see you're not going to stop the river from flowing?!") In other words, Dawkins can be a firebrand, militant atheist in the Voltaire/Mencken mold, or he can accept a naturalistic story about religion, but he cannot do both -- at least not without doing the hard conceptual work that Dennett and Rorty have started to do, and which Dawkins has shown no interest in doing at all.Carl Sachs
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
I will read the book and post a commentary if someone is willing to buy it ;) and send it to me plus another 50 bucks to read it.tb
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
"It’s just possible that he may have some genuine good points that those of a religious persuasion coud learn from." No. When you say things like- bringing your kids up in a religious home is child abuse, you lose any chance to speak on the issue. When you say the holocaust never happened, you lose your chance to be heard on that issue. When you claim racial makeup makes you superior to others- you lose your chance to speak on that subject. When your career is based on attacking religion with inane statements every few months, like Dawkins- you lose your chance to speak on the issue. A man can only say so many idiotic things before you're allowed to call him a fool and not have to read his new book to do so.JasonTheGreek
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
I don't believe in Dawkins. I adhere to adawkinsism. :Dtodd
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
It’s just possible that he may have some genuine good points that those of a religious persuasion coud learn from. Of course, logically it's possible. It's just not likely.Jaz
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
JasontheGreek wrote: "I think you can, from his past statements, his past books, and his overall attitude (plus the general thesis of the book) discount him as a dogmatic radical atheist with little to know true knowledge of religion without ever touching this book." Don't you think though it's a good idea to read what your opponents actually say rather than make sweeping presuppositions? Aren't you just falling into the trap of confirmation bias (which ironically is actually one of Dawkins's arguments against religion). It's just possible that he may have some genuine good points that those of a religious persuasion coud learn from. I could make the same sweeping kinds of statements against Ann Coulter just based on her book reviews, but at least I have bothered to read some of her work for myself.John Singleton
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
By the way- why does SciAmerican have an article on this book? I thought science said nothing of the existence of God and was completely agnostic. Try this project- look through the issues of the major science magazines, see how friendly they are toward atheist writers...see if they're as friendly to openly Christian scientists/science writers. You'll see that science, as practiced by people who always have biases, isn't free from its own biases, nor can it ever be. Go to any book store and check out the science magazines- you'll see they make statements about ultimate purpose all the time. The universe has no point and similar statements can be found often in modern scientific magazines, sadly enough, since we're always told science can say nothing of God or religion or purpose or 'ought,' etc.JasonTheGreek
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
I think you can, from his past statements, his past books, and his overall attitude (plus the general thesis of the book) discount him as a dogmatic radical atheist with little to know true knowledge of religion without ever touching this book. On top of all of this- even the other hardcore atheists are attacking the book and the man's overall attitude- you know there's little reason to even pick it up. I've never read a white supremacist book, but I can assure you it's filled with garbage.JasonTheGreek
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
Denyse, I'm assuming from your post that you haven't actually read the book yet. Before you and everybody else here declare it a 'bomb' perhaps you should exercise a little critical thinking and read it first? After all, even the critics over at Panda's Thumb did actually bother to read Jonathan Wells's new book, didn't they?John Singleton
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
Dawkins: "A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence." Sounds like a perfect description of the belief that RM+NS can explain all of life's complexity and diversity. With enemies like Dawkins, who needs friends?GilDodgen
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
The results of intercessory prayer are indistinguishable from those of chance. I love the way these athiests make these unsubstantiated claims. The account that I heard over the weekend about a person being clinically diagnosed with fullblown AIDS and then being medically declared free from AIDS following intercessory prayer must be one of those "delusions" us Christians are so prone to. I wonder if the attending Dr was delusional as well?Ford Prefect
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
"In his broad thesis, Dawkins is right. Religions are potentially dangerous, and in their popular forms profoundly irrational. The agnostics must be right and the atheists very well may be. There is no purpose to the universe. Nothing inconsistent with the laws of physics has been reliably reported. To demand a designer to explain the complexity of the world begs the question, "Who designed the designer?" It has been clear since Darwin that we have no need to hypothesise a designer to explain the complexity of living things. The results of intercessory prayer are indistinguishable from those of chance. "
Too bad Brown here sounds almost as clueless as Dawkins. The laws of physics? What has this to do with God? There's no purpose to the universe? This is fact? I thought science said nothing of purpose and especially ultimate purpose? Seems he would disagree and sees physics and Darwinism as showing NO purpose. Contradiction alert. I abhor this sort of arrogance. Worst of all- all sane people realize that first causes demand no explanation. Who designed the designer is an absurd question. It's a first cause- it need not be explained. Brown sounds like he's probably rather dogmatic himself.JasonTheGreek
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
Brown's review makes me wonder if Dawkins even read Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained. If he had, he'd think that there are very good reasons why religion cannot go away. Dawkins, based on Brown's review, sounds like Richard Rorty -- someone who just wants to get Western culture to adopt a different self-understanding. But Rorty, while appealing to Darwin, does not -- to his rebounding credit -- seek to back up his recommendations with "because science gives us an absolute conception of the world, that's why!"Carl Sachs
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply