Dawkins Thus Far (if you enjoy that kind of thing)

I'm not that far into The God Delusion, so I'll reserve final judgments until I get through his argument. So far, however, I have noted that he delves far too deeply into the intent of the authors of works he cites either to support his assertions or in order to debunk religious ideas.

Regarding his approach to "NOMA," Gould's proposition of 'non-overlapping magisteria,' which states that, "the net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap..." Dawkins writes that he "cannot believe that Gould could possibly meant much of what he wrote," presumably because he thinks Gould is in agreement with him, and only offering the proposition that on the question of the existence of God, scientists can neither confirm nor deny, they "simply can't comment on it as scientists," in order to placate an unworthy but belligerent adversary. Perhaps this is so... perhaps Gould has even stated this was the case. But if not, then why raise the issue, and if so, why not cite it? Whether or not Gould really meant what he wrote, I mean really really meant it, for reals, I think is beside the point. The question is does the argument hold sway? Is it correct? Is it flawed, and if so, is there any way to state it more accurately, and if not, can we debunk it? Surely that is the real test, and one need not go on defending the intentions of the man whose ideas one is disputing. I'm sure he wouldn't have taken it personally.

Perhaps, since this is not the crux of his argument, such rhetorical flare is forgivable.

But then concerning those theists who support this idea of NOMA, he begins again, citing a ridiculous double-blind study (truly ridiculous, mind you) meant to determine what effect, if any, intercessory prayer had on the sick. When predictably the study failed to show positive results for prayer, the study was criticized, and Raymond Lawrence wrote that responsible religious leaders would 'breathe a sigh of relief' that no such evidence was produced, Dawkins asks, "Would he have sung a different tune if the Benson study had succeeded... maybe not, but you can be certain that plenty of other pastors and theologians would." Ah yes, the infallible, "you would have fallen into my logic trap if only the facts were different" argument. True enough.

What actually concerns me more than the fallacious pursuit of the argument is what seems to be his entire approach. He constructs his adversary out of many diverse opinions and when one fails to deliver what he assumes it will, he shifts to another source. I suppose it is common to utilize many opposing voices in order to show that one is taking a holistic approach, but on the other hand, on highly complex belief systems, it cannot be responsible to shift between the views of those who share nearly nothing in common in their separate approaches to religion. Might it be more effective to take on each argument separately, and to separately show each to be mistaken? Perhaps this is not the way to a best-seller. Might I begin conjecturing on intention here? Perhaps not germane.

To be honest, I think part of Dawkins' argument--the part that states that the question "Does God exist?" is a scientific question, and is therefore subject to scientific inquiry--is dead-on correct. Of course, the problem then becomes how does one define the parameters for God. Dawkins seems to take the approach that the most widely held belief is the most logical to be tested. But this is not science. There is not so much consensus as we might imagine... even so, go for it. Although other parameters will also be difficult. We have to stipulate that order and structure and such are not evidence of a God. Neither would evolution, not gravitation, nor any other natural phenomenon be considered such. (And I think it is not just perfectly reasonable, but absolutely necessary that they shouldn't be, by the way).

Hmm, okay. I'm not a scientist, so much. I don't know where to start looking for a scientific way to test for God in a system that seems, by design, to exclude Her. But if God is in all things, surely there is some way to set that experiment up... perhaps we're not to that point yet.

I also buy into another part of his argument (and have been making a similar argument for years) that just because you can put together a question in a proper grammatical structure doesn't mean it's a worthwhile question to pursue. I'd apply that to the "Does God exist?" question. Not to say that the question of God's existence can't be worthwhile. It just seems to me, not so much. My reading on this question in particular, while not encyclopedic by any means, is rather extensive, and I've yet to find an approach that satisfies. Does God exist? Well, let me chase my tail around on that for 30 or so years and let you know what I come up with... Yes, probably. No, probably not. And I'm not sure. All defensible, all difficult to come to, and their importance is weighted heavily on the reader's understanding of the consequence of belief (I might write another tome or so about this topic, so instead I'll just wrap up).

Dawkins suggests pursuing moral choice and cutting out the "middle-man" (his word for God or religion--he uses them interchangeably in some ways that he probably ought not). On this, mostly, I think he is dead on. What is the impetus for the human desire for moral action. It seems to me to have been produced evolutionarily. Fine. And when I suffer, I pray for comfort. Fine. And when I am at the beach, I am either thinking of density, and refraction/reflection, gravity, and the curve of the earth, or I am thinking of the elusive heart of God... Fine. What's the problem? Why so upset? Unless you are not arguing against belief in one thing, but against irresponsible belief in anything... again, I'm on board.