Very Gradual Change We Can Hope For

So I finished The God Delusion yesterday by Richard Dawkins. From watching previous documentaries he has been in, such as The Root of All Evil and The Four Horsemen, and having visited The Richard Dawkins Foundation I was familiar with his unapologetic atheism before I cracked the spine* of his book. And to be perfectly honest, before reading his book I found the extremity of his position to be somewhat of a turnoff; the intense vitriol of the language he spews at religious followers almost discredits the "reasonable" side of atheism. The result of which was that I was somewhat apprehensive about how the book would resonate with me and thus wasn't leaning towards one response over the other.

Having finished The God Delusion I can now confidently say that Dawkins certainly has the evidence to back up his extreme beliefs—to an extent. His arguments for evolution and natural selection are confident and backed up by numerous scientific studies and observations. After tackling the 400-plus pages, no one with a rational, logical mind would disagree with the validity of evolution as an explanation for our 21st century existence.

My problem with Dawkins' rhetoric is his failure to definitively disprove the existence of God. Although he does an excellent job of demonstrating the fragility of the Bible as a source of evidence, this in and of itself is not enough to prove that God doesn't exist. However unlikely it is, there is always the possibility that God is out there and just did a piss-poor job of getting his written word out there. Dawkins seems to rely on the excellence—and excellent it is—of his argument for evolution as a mechanism to disprove religion. But, the existence of a better explanation doesn't completely nullify the former belief. Dawkins himself admits that he can't disprove the existence of God. And while I agree with him that the onus of proof should be on religion, and not the other way around, I suppose that I was expecting a bit more of a convincing argument from such a noted intellectual.

Where the real strength of the book is, in my humble opinion, is Dawkins' ability to illustrate the harm caused by even moderate religious sympathy. Having already forsaken my own belief in a higher power,  this was also the aspect of the book that contributed the most to my own personal understanding of the divide. I have always disagreed with the uneducated belief of my religious peers, but felt that eventually they would allow themselves to shed the dogmatic instruction of their youth and emerge as Plato's philosopher into the light of reason. It was only after Dawkins so succinctly argued against the mere labeling of a child by religious affiliation did I not realize how truly difficult it is to undo the intensive indoctrination we are exposed to as youth. How is one who grows up being labeled a Catholic child ever to tackle the ensuing identity crisis association with discarding one's religious beliefs?

The most disheartening part of the whole situation, for me, is when I apply Dawkins' arguments to our modern context. In light of the current religious extremism not only in the Middle East, but in Middle America, the cause for rational views towards spirituality is more pressing than ever. Two years ago, an impetus for change swept across our southern neighbor demanding a retraction of the status quo. Quickly, posters began to symbolize the beliefs of those who would no longer accept the wrongs that had been committed in our name. And with that in mind, I can find no more fitting way to end this piece than by sharing my favorite meme of that poster (to use another of Dawkins' famous terms) to draw attention to the cause of intellectual freedom and the quest for a secular society.

*Disclosure: I don't crack spines. In fact I loath the practice and have even trained my husband not to do so. I just like the expression.