The trouble with picking up a book like The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is that I now feel compelled, obligated somehow to him, to answer his general assertion that those who believe in God suffer, more importantly, cause others to suffer, under a harmful delusion.
I am not overly interested in science. I am fascinated by nature, but in much the same way that I love music. I don't necessarily wish to know how it works, I just enjoy the end result.
Having the question put to me, however, a few retorts leap to my mind; Antonin Scalia's biting sarcasm in describing the cunning deceit the disciples of Christ employed in order to have themselves crucified upside down, boiled in oil, or exiled to Patmos (talk about selfish motivation); the simplistic yet persistent question of the origin of that first indefatigable molecule ( I have heard artful and exceeding scientific attempts to explain away the origin of species, but only disinterested conjecture on the origin of life); or my own conversion experience, which Dawkins lists as the least convincing proof offered by theists.
This, by the way, could fill a whole book by itself, probably not written by Dawkins.
If he insists that I be a skeptic such as he is, believing only what I can personally experience, in regarding my supernatural experience versus his entirely physically explainable life, then, having been overwhelmed with my "own reality" wouldn't it be irresponsible to accept his in lieu of mine?
Anyway, I find myself doubting whether he has considered the implications or full consequence of his conclusions.
For example, despite the accolades of courage with which atheists and evolutionists glad-hand each-other, (they don't need no crutches, an irony in itself, after painting such a pitiful picture of delusional Christians suffering under the crushing burden of God, it hardly then becomes courageous or altruistic to deny God, in fact, it's only the selfish thing to do) I am wondering whether Dawkins is honest enough to admit that his life has as much meaning or future as a pile of dung.
And now I am sounding like the cool rationalistic Dawkins who alternately refers to God as sex-obsessed, misogynistic and sadistic, harsh words indeed for someone whose only misdeed has been not to exist. I do understand that his epithets are directed more at me, as one who has created God, than at God Himself. Still, his vitriol retains a curious forcefulness, and at best seems several notches below level-headed.
I digress, however. Indeed, I excel at digressing.
The original course I set out on is that if Dawkins is as intellectually honest as he says he is, he will find absolutely no meaning in life, for it was never anticipated, produces no results, and has no end other than procreation, which [PG-13 warning] derives its only pleasure from its result; offspring.
It's either a mind-numbing chicken-egg conundrum or way over my head.
In other words, he will be the most shiftless, positively uninspired atheistic apologist on the face of this pointless, coincidental earth. He will, as a natural result, have no use, in fact, no tolerance for music, art, poetry or beauty of any kind, and if he does, he will be at a dissatisfying loss to explain why.
Furthermore, he will cease to be, will have never become, the God-debunking zealot that he is.
We would only know his opinions on the matter if we were able to observe his thoughts, as he never would have had the motivation, the eagerness, or the God-given hatred of God to write down his thoughts. Or, had he, simply as a means of monetary pursuit, if we are to find his crusader's motives suspect, this again would end in confusion, since the pursuit of wealth is only an offshoot of the pursuit of happiness, which is unavoidably an offshoot of the pursuit of meaning.
Maybe more later.
Book Review: Peace for Today
1 year ago