The Richard Dawkins Delusion
In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins asserts his belief that there is no god and inveighs against religion and religious people. However, instead of attacking the irrationality of others, it seems Mr. Dawkins should examine his own beliefs. Every philosophical system involves certain unfounded beliefs. Premises are accepted on an irrational basis. From these irrationally posited axioms conclusions are inferred on a logical, rational basis. On a logical, factual basis, then, atheism is really no more defensible than are the various religions that Dawkins attacks. As far as such arguments go, there might or might not be a god or gods. There is no factual proof yea or nay. So neither Dawkins nor his opponents have any rational basis for deciding this issue. Nevertheless, despite the fact that beliefs often have little to do with rationality and supporting evidence, we all do hold certain beliefs. Belief is an unavoidable aspect of human behavior. It's in our natures. That is, human beings naturally perceive and interpret reality in certain ways. More than two centuries ago, Kant convinced most philosophers that this was the nature of belief and reason. Mr. Dawkins has irrational beliefs, just like anyone else. And yet, even though I believe many things simply because it is my nature to believe them, on the philosophical level I still choose to reject belief. I try to avoid all beliefs that I actually can avoid. But I do find some unavoidable. For example, I can't help believing that I'm sitting here typing these comments (perhaps someone else could?). I prefer the attitude of the agnostic, or, more broadly, of the skeptic. The most succinct expression that I have seen of my idea of skepticism is given by Sextus Empiricus in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism: "There are some who think that they have found the truth, the so-called dogmatists, such as Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. On the other hand, Clitomachus, Carneades, and the other Academicians assert that the truth is impossible to find. But the skeptics go on searching." I place my faith in skepticism. To go on seeking the truth seems more hopeful than to give up finding it. I also think it less arrogant than claiming to know the truth about things that may be unresolvable. And, given that I can't avoid believing things, it seems best at least to subject my beliefs to an ongoing reevaluation. In this way, I can perhaps avoid some false notions that would otherwise possess me. I attempt to apply this philosophy in all contexts. Here, the existence of god is the topic (one to which I personally devote very little thought). Mr. Dawkins seems to think that he has found the truth regarding this issue, which places him with Aristotle, Epicurus, and the Stoics. Most of Mr. Dawkins' claims about the non-existence of god seem to constitute beliefs of a religious nature. In other words, he expresses undoubting faith in notions that seem unprovable. Most people's religiosity seems to arise out of childhood experience. If a small child is taken repeatedly to a Baptist church, the resulting adult will probably be a Baptist. The same is true, as we are all aware, for Catholic churches, Jewish synagogues, Buddist temples, and so on. On this basis I would say that a young Dawkins was probably exposed to the proper environment to produce his sort of religion. If he now chose to reevaluate his beliefs, perhaps they would be altered. But for my own part, I will go on searching.
Disclaimer: Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented on the pages of this website, Macroevolution.net and its maintainers cannot be held responsible for the correctness of that information, nor for any actions made on the basis of information provided by this website.
|
