Friday 21 September 2007

The Atheism Publishing Bandwagon

The Wall Street Journal notes that "promulgating atheism has become a lucrative business. According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, in less than 12 months atheism's newest champions have sold close to a million books. Some 500,000 hardcover copies are in print of Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion" (2006); 296,000 copies of Christopher Hitchens's "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (2007); 185,000 copies of Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation" (2006); 64,100 copies of Daniel C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"; and 60,000 copies of Victor J. Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does not Exist" (2007). "
 
But do people read these books? Or is it like Tom Wright said about the God Delusion that it was a book that when you put it down, it was very hard to pick up again!
 
I've not heard of the last one by Stenger. By even Dawkins standards it is over the top. Even though Dawkins suggests that God is highly improbable, he does not say that his case can be "proven".
 
Sam Harris is even more of a Ranter than Dawkins:
 
''We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad,' 'psychotic' or 'delusional.' '' To cite but one example: ''Jesus Christ -- who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens -- can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?'' The danger of religious faith, he continues, ''is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.''
Dawkins, writing in the Times, says Harris is not being over cynical! Dawkins himself has this argument:
 
"You say you have experienced God directly? Well, some people have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn't impress you. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, distinctly heard the voice of Jesus telling him to kill women, and he was locked up for life. George W. Bush says that God told him to invade Iraq (a pity God didn't vouchsafe him a revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction). Individuals in asylums think they are Napoleon or Charlie Chaplin, or that the entire world is conspiring against them, or that they can broadcast their thoughts into other people's heads. We humour them but don't take their internally revealed beliefs seriously, mostly because not many people share them."
 
Dawkin's then goes on about the brain's power to create illusions, concluding: "I say all this just to demonstrate the formidable power of the brain's simulation software. It is well capable of constructing "visions" and "visitations" of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication"
 
This shows just how close Terry Tommyrot was!

 

Tommyrot: Of course, there's no shortage of liars in the world, and undoubtedly some people who claim to have had these 'Richard Dawkins experiences' are deliberately telling fairy stories, but, you know, the human brain is a very, very complicated thing… and conjuring up an imaginary Dawkins would be child's play for it. Christopher Robin had Binker. I had the slimy custard man. I suspect that something very similar is happening with people who claim to have seen a Richard Dawkins, or heard his voice, or felt his touch.

 
Tommyrot: I didn't say that. Of course, there's no shortage of liars in the world, and undoubtedly
some people who claim to have had these 'Richard Dawkins experiences' are deliberately telling fairy
stories, but, you know, the human brain is a very, very complicated thing… and conjuring up an
imaginary Dawkins would be child's play for it. Christopher Robin had Binker. I had the slimy custard
man. I suspect that something very similar is happening with people who claim to have seen a Richard
Dawkins, or heard his voice, or felt his touch.
2
Richard: But the books aren't evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins either?
Tommyrot: No, of course not! As a scientist, it is no answer to the problem of 'where did these inane
volumes come from?' to stick a label on them that says, "Richard Dawkins".
Each book is a simple re-arrangement of only 26 letters. Even a child should be able to see that, with a
little random shuffling of vowels and consonants on a computer, one can arrive at all sorts of patterns
like that. Working out how each letter got into the place that it did is the business of science. Claiming
that Dawkins-did-it puts an end to an inquiry that promises to give us a full and satisfying explanation
of how these books came to be, without the need for invoking a discredited Dawkins-of-the-gaps-type
hypothesis.
Richard: But some people might point to the fact that the letters are arranged in definite patterns,
spelling out sophisticated chains of arguments, and that this is a clear mark of intelligence, not random
accident.
Tommyrot: If there were some kind of intelligence behind these books, then, judging by their contents,
it is obviously a pretty poor one; we would hardly have lost much worth having by not believing in
Richard Dawkins or in what his books have to say.
The scientific view of the matter is beautifully simple and invigorating: the works of Richard Dawkins
are nothing but a collection of fortuitously ordered a's, b's and c's, recombined from previous patterns.
There is the Latin alphabet, there are the nonsense poems of Edward Lear, and there are the works of
Richard Dawkins, and the one developed from the other, through a series of random typing errors…
though admittedly we haven't got all of the details just now.
Richard: You admit that science hasn't got the answers to where they came from, then?
Tommyrot: I haven't got all the answers, science is working on it.
Richard: But can you be sure that science will get all the answers?
Tommyrot: If science doesn't have the answers to where they came from, then, sure as hell, Richard
Dawkins Religion doesn't. If a Dawkins designed the books, then who designed the Dawkins? Just tell
me that.
……
Richard: Moving on now, Dr. Tommyrot. In your book, you have described the Dawkins revealed in
the literature as a "an ostentatious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious,
vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic bully'.
Tommyrot: Yes. That seems fair enough to me.
Richard: Now some people might say that's going a bit over the top.
Tommyrot: Read your Richard Dawkins, if you think that. Just read it. Read 'A Devil's Advocate'.
Apart from finding no evidence whatsoever for an intelligence hiding somewhere beneath the
3
paragraphs in the mystical realm of blind faith, you will discover, on the other hand, plenty of
intolerance and bigotry in every chapter; all of these very good reasons to have nothing whatsoever to
do with this Richard Dawkins' religion.
……
Richard: Doctor Tommyrot, you have described this wide-spread belief in Richard Dawkins as a
dangerous delusion – but what's especially dangerous about people believing in the existence of
Richard Dawkins, if it makes them happy?
Tommyrot: Well, for one fairly obvious reason: these people believe any book which has Dawkins'
name on the cover, and these books say a lot of very silly things. Belief in Dawkins has been
responsible for filling the internet with non-sequiturs, caricatures, strawmen and vitriol. Those of us
who walk the heights and dare to doubt the assertions of this "smarter than thou" religion find
themselves subjected to a modern inquisition – consisting mostly of journalists and spotty teenagers
who believe.
Dawkins' disciples are militant, they are organised, and they're out to convert you and me. Yes, I
would certainly call this a dangerous delusion. If there is a Richard Dawkins, he has a lot to answer for.
Richard: In summary then, Dr. Tommyrot, what would you say is your main objection to the Richard
Dawkins belief?
Tommyrot: My main objection is simply this: people are following a delusional Dawkins who is
telling them what to think and believe, when they should be following me.
……
Richard: Well, our time's up. Thank you very much, Dr. Tommyrot, for joining us this morning to talk
about your latest book, 'The Dawkins-Delusion', published by Banter & Twaddle and available from
our website for £19.99.
Ok. Our next item for today is…

No comments: