Reflections

Having read Dawkins' bestseller, I've decided to pen down some thoughts for further reflection. I was deeply impressed by his style of writing and breadth of knowledge. He expressed ideas with much clarity, and his wickedly satirical sense of humor made the reading very pleasant. He also demonstrated some knowledge in fields outside his expertise, but his misrepresentation of Christianity left me wondering if his ideas about cosmology and chemistry were inaccurate too. All in all, I enjoyed the experience of reading it and I'm glad I've finally picked up this book. Can't tell people that I'm a student of religion if I don't read this eh?


1. This paperback edition of Dawkins' book started with refutations of criticisms received from the hardcover editions. He began by refuting this criticism. "You can't criticize religion without a detailed analysis of learned books of theology." (p. 14) I agree with him on this point. I have many friends who watch soccer matches and criticize the players, managers and referees without playing soccer for themselves, and often, their criticisms are valid.

However, I would like to point out that without a 'detailed analysis of learned books of theology', one risks misrepresenting religion. This point becomes clear when one reads chapter 3. Dawkins oversimplified Aquinas' arguments, trivialized personal experiences, and failed to understand the nature of Scripture. This made his criticisms against them less meaningful than I would prefer.

2. "More generally, as I shall repeat in Chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." (p. 152) I understand where Dawkins is coming from. The pious are often taught about humility, about knowing one's place in the universe, and about accepting the finiteness of our brains. Add a hint of slothfulness to the equation, and Dawkins' criticism will be fully justified. A point for me to watch against.

However, my agreement with Dawkins ends when the object of study is God. Adopting Stephen Wykstra's response to the problem of evil, I would point out that the fact that we cannot understand God and his origins (if any), far from being a reason to think it unlikely that God exists, is just what we should expect to be true if God does exists.

3. On Pascal's Wager, Dawkins pointed out that "There is something distinctly odd about the argument, however. Believing is not something you can do as a matter of policy. At least, it is not something I can do as an act of will. I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me actually believe if I don't." (p. 130) What deep insight! This more or less sums up the tensions between Catholic and Protestant (mis)understandings on the issue of salvation.