(no subject)
This is an essay I wrote...just now, in fact, for philosophy of religion. Read it if you're interested, and start some shit if you're into that. Firstly, some things to consider, in no particular order.
- It's 12 pages long in essay formatting, so...yeah. I can't make it shorter for you, sorry.
- I am a huge fan of both Professor Dawkins and The God Delusion.
- This was written for philosophy of religion, for the sole readership of a professor who is a published philosopher of religion, who does not like Dawkins' works, and who is responsible for all my marks for this unit. Make what you like of that information.
- It was written in about six hours with some editing time, thus lacks references, and...good.
- Because I suck at essays, it reads a bit like an article. I am aware of this, and critique of my writing style is unwelcome. Spelling and grammar corrections are...ok, but keep in mind by the time you read this I will have already left the house to hand it in...three hours before deadline. WHERE THE FUCK IS MY COLUMN??
Question: Evaluate the themes underlying Professor Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion (2006), as well as its intended impact on contemporary religious discourse and philosophy of religion, giving consideration to the 'nature versus supernature' distinction.
Having struggled through numerous texts on pantheism, atheism, and the writings of Professor Dawkins, as well as scrounging for the handful of texts written on the distinction between natural and supernatural conceptions of reality and religious beliefs, it eventually occurred to me that I was taking entirely the wrong approach to this question. I had been, in effect, trying to submit the popular science writing of Professor Dawkins to the rather more stringent expectations of philosophers of religion. I had been ironically committing that same academic sin of which Dawkins himself is so often accused: that of trying to apply an inappropriate measure to a particular concept. In his case, the criticism is of his applying the scientific method to spiritual beliefs. In my own case, it was of trying to submit what is essentially a work of social propaganda to the keen examination usually applied to philosophy of religion. In order to properly understand and examine Dawkins' claims regarding theism, and indeed spirituality in general, one must speak in terms similar to those he is using - not the studied, precise terms of the philosopher, but rather the sensational, evocative terms of the popular science writer; one with a clear agenda in mind, and it is not the same agenda shared by philosophers of religion. Dawkins' aim is not to examine truth; for him, this is the realm of science textbooks, and has already been done elsewhere, by himself and others. In The God Delusion, Dawkins sets out to try and make people care about the truth, as it is outlined in science textbooks, not simply as a matter of interest of even education, but also as a replacement for dangerous, outdated spiritualist traditions.
Dawkins has his work cut out for him, which is the first thing one must understand when approaching his work. His target audience is, simply put, everyone, and he understands his audience well. His style is grandiose, moves swiftly, and is above all confrontational. This is a text aimed not only at the atheist, but at the theist. To the former he is saying “you are not alone,” and to the latter he is saying “your beliefs will no longer go unchallenged.” To whom he is not speaking is even more relevant; he is not addressing fundamentalists, who are unlikely to be swayed by any argument, and he is not addressing philosophers of religion or theologians, whose sophisticated approach to religious beliefs, spirituality and metaphysics leaves Dawkins' works on the matter to appear as little more than crayon scribblings on the back of a packet of cereal. It is a mistake, however, to assume that because of this Dawkins is ignorant of the subject matter he is tackling; rather it should indicate a supreme understanding of his target audience. This is a book for the layman, the casual religious believer, the true agnostic, or the enthusiastic unbeliever seeking an argument in favour of his beliefs. There is little of interest for the amateur philosopher of religion, such as myself, in a text such as this; a fact which occurred to me sharply while studying Spinoza's Ethics. Spinoza was - by the methods of judging such things applied to philosophers - a genius, whose metaphysical beliefs as one of the earliest pantheistic philosophers serve as a central aspect of his philosophy in general. How could a sophisticated man such as Professor Richard Dawkins, a man who has spent his life educating others and producing works of non-fiction which have completely changed the way we view evolutionary biology and genetics, overlook so deep and complex a position as pantheism? Is he ignorant of Spinoza's work? Is he also unaware of Alasdair MacIntyre's enlightening work on the interpretation of ancient texts such as the Iliad, the Odyssey and the Christian Bible? What of the other mystical beliefs he summarily dismisses, such as Taoism and Buddhism?
Following my train of thought thusly, I found my answer - to examine these fields in the fullness which they deserve, The God Delusion would necessarily need to be thousands and thousands of pages long, and it would take a lifetime to fully compile all the relevant knowledge and expertise needed to undertake writing such a volume. The God Delusion is a work of popular science, designed to sway public opinion; it cuts corners, it begs almost as many questions as it answers, deals in sweeping generalisations...yet it achieved exactly what it sought to do - sell a lot of copies, and to widen the cracks in traditional religion's already rapidly degrading credibility in many public arenas.
Dawkins seems to have a clear agenda to not only discredit traditional religious beliefs, but also to offer an alternative - a kind of naturalistic spiritualism. To give an example, he speaks eloquently not only of the empirical data supporting evolutionary theory, but also of its beautiful simplicity and its mind-boggling improbability. This has been a theme within Dawkins' work throughout his career; Unweaving The Rainbow was an almost reverential look at the natural world, from natural selection to the impossibly expansive cosmos. His most recent book, The Greatest Show On Earth, is a beautifully illustrated explanation of evolution by natural selection, designed to be accessible to even the most lukewarm student of scientific theory. The purpose of its publication is ostensibly to educate the uneducated regarding evolutionary biology whilst remaining entertaining to read, and to serve as a kind of standing refutation of creationism. It supposedly has no other spiritual goals - Dawkins has said his piece against organised religions, and has moved on. Or has he? Having spent a great deal of time utterly discrediting biblical accounts of the origins of life in The God Delusion, he has now produced a very impressive-looking alternative - his own naturalistic Genesis, the information on every page already submitted to scientific rigor and extensive peer review, free from any need of scholarly interpretation, condensed and illustrated for ease of digestion by not only those least interested in science, but also those least interested in religion. His next work? A children's' book, designed to instill an appreciation for the value of evidence-based thinking - a more scientific approach to interacting with the world. Dawkins is all too aware of the value of appealing to the youthful mind - he has been extremely vocal in his criticisms of organised religion's employment of child indoctrination, even going so far as to suggest that fiction containing mythical creatures such as fairies and fantasy novels aimed at young people such as the Harry Potter series could have an “insidious affect on rationality” in later life. These literary endeavours combined with some of Professor Dawkins' other projects (such as his efforts to encourage non-believers to discard the term “atheists” in favour of the supposedly less-loaded term “brights”) give the strong impression that the agenda here is not so much simple refutation of organised religion, but a replacement of it.
This idea of a “scientific” religion is not new, and conjures unpleasant images of science-fiction, of Scientology, UFO conspiracy theories and even Marxism, which is no doubt a large part of the reason why Professor Dawkins will go miles out of his way to avoid being explicitly associated with any such ideals. What he encourages in his works - rather than some kind of bizarre science-based mysticism such as that endorsed by Scientologists and Jedi - is rather a transcendent wonder at the “miracles” of the natural world, and faith in the explanatory power of the scientific method to provide answers to our questions - including those questions traditionally reserved for consideration by priests and philosophers of metaphysics. Dawkins does, in fact, make mention of scientists attaining a kind of religious wonder in The God Delusion; in the same chapter where he dismisses pantheism as being nothing more than “sexed-up atheism”.
As I mentioned briefly earlier, Dawkins neatly sidesteps a fair few alternatives to the major monotheistic traditions, such as Taoism, Buddhism, and smaller cults and sects including Scientology. There are a few possible explanations for this; perhaps he is simply seeking to limit his criticisms to those religions most familiar to both himself and his target audience - after all, the Abrahamic faiths make up the lion's share of the world's faithful, and an even larger percentage if one is primarily interested in English-speaking nations, and the predominantly Christian European nations. That doesn't seem to fit, however - what of Hinduism, which Dawkins' hastily includes as being in no meaningful way dissimilar to the monotheisms of his own experience? Is there really so little difference? What of the Advaita and Vedanta schools of Hindu belief, which are far closer to pantheism than the monotheisms of the United States and Europe? Strongly pantheistic, yet one could hardly call them similar to the also pantheistic, “sexed-up atheism” of Einstein and Hawking. Both are pantheistic beliefs, but one is apparently barely distinguishable from organised monotheism, and the other from atheism. Dawkins seems content to split pantheism up into two sub-categories: Hinduistic pantheism in the one, along with Judaism, Christianity, Islam and (oddly) Creationism, and in the other, atheistic pantheism, along with Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and atheism. The former sub-category he effectively labels “religion” and the latter “not religion”. This grossly simplistic sorting method is the sort of thing that makes qualified philosophers of religion such as Philip Quadrio wail and gnash their teeth - and understandably so. So why take so simplistic a sorting method? The obvious explanation is, again, one of brevity - Dawkins is attacking a fairly specific variety of religion, so to go out of his way to examine the myriad variations of pantheistic beliefs is simply not relevant. If this is the case, though, then one must ask why he takes the time to speak out against Creationists, astrologers and psychics, all of whom make up a barely noticeable fraction of the planet's population compared to, say, Hinduism and Buddhism. What justification could there be for ignoring the world's fourth and fifth largest religions in favour of the sideshow comprised of fortune tellers and showmen, who are predominantly little more than actors, working to boost carnival attendance and television ratings? I believe there are two probable reasons, the second of which I will devote more attention to, as it relates directly to the distinction between nature and supernature.
The first possible reason is that Professor Dawkins is attempting to construct a “straw man” of traditional religious beliefs, which he can then easily discredit. By skipping over Buddhism with its doctrines of universal acceptance, lack of transcendent being demanding obedience, encouragement to seek wisdom and knowledge etc, Dawkins has more time to focus on the bloody history of the Catholic church, the barbaric practices of extremist Islam, the horrific figure of old testament Yahweh - in short, the beliefs that support his position. The Hindu pantheon can quite easily be conceived of as a personified, singular over-deity, such as Brahman, for the purposes of including it fairly inaccurately as being open to the same criticisms he aims at traditional monotheisms, while the more pantheistic conceptions can be easily dismissed as being no different to Einstein's brand of pantheism of God being a shorthand for natural laws. This also explains the strong presence of Creationist thought throughout Dawkins' writings, despite the relative rarity of truly creationist believers. Creationism is, by the standards of anyone who is not a creationist, utterly ridiculous - making it a ripe target for Dawkins' derision. A similar argument can be made for his strong stance on psychics and other fringe mystics. Whether this “straw man” argumentative technique was knowingly applied, or applied at all, by Dawkins is a point of pure speculation, as he failed to respond to my correspondence on the matter.
The second - and almost certainly far more relevant - distinction between the two categories is one of explanatory power. Science is primarily (and arguably exclusively) a method of explanation, of ascertaining truths about natural phenomena. If we look at the beliefs Dawkins' deems to be “religious”, we see they all ostensibly offer some form of explanatory power, whether it be the existence of other dimensions to which people can travel (heaven and hell being the two strongest examples), the existence of a supremely powerful being with designs for humanity (Allah, Yahweh, Brahman etc), the existence of spirits with whom we can meaningfully interact (Saints, Jesus Christ, Mohamed, or the deceased in general in the case of “ghost whisperers”) and, perhaps most offensively to Dawkins personally, explanations for the origins of life. As an evolutionary biologist, theories regarding the origin and possible evolution of life are of particular interest to Dawkins, as he is best situated to refute them and they are most likely to come into direct conflict with his own theories. This is also a more charitable explanation for his focus on refuting creationist beliefs in particular, rather than the “straw man” possibility I posit above. I imagine the theory that the planet we live on has only been in existence for six thousand years is as offensive to an evolutionary biologist as the suggestion that Buddhism is not a religion is to a philosopher of religion or theologian.
This focus on explanatory power makes sense when considered in the framework of Dawkins' possible intention of “muscling out” supernatural concepts as acceptable explanations for natural phenomena. Buddhism is not a religion if one defines religion as “a set of beliefs that offer some manner of explanation for the natural world that runs contrary to observed laws of nature”, which seems to be what Dawkins is doing. His oft-cited example refuting agnosticism - that of the teapot orbiting Mars - is telling. He has no real interest in the fairly ridiculous claim that there is a teapot orbiting the planet Mars, because he cannot disprove it; it has no meaningful impact whatsoever on reality as we experience it. Creationism, on the other hand, can be and has been disproved, time and time again. Any time the natural laws as determined by scientific observation come into conflict with spiritual attempts at explanation, Dawkins is on hand with a swift refutation. This is the assertion Dawkins is subtly making: if your beliefs don't offer any explanatory power, then they're not even worth discussing. If they do carry some kind of explanatory force, then they are inevitably inferior to a scientific approach, and thus unnecessary, if not outright harmful. This is what is commonly referred to as “framing the discourse”. This is an odd approach to take, as it essentially leaves science as the only acceptable religion; the other potentially acceptable religions which limit themselves to spiritual concerns are inaccurately labeled as mere “philosophies”. The labeling of science as a religion makes a reasonable amount of sense, if we consider the likes of Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking - indeed, Dawkins himself - and the awe they feel when faced with the unimaginable scale of the natural cosmos, or the transcendental wonder at the complexity of a single-celled organism, scientific endeavour could indeed begin to approach a kind of spiritually fulfilling experience. However, this would not be conducive to Dawkins' argument, which is to paint religion as being anything which is supernatural, nothing more than a deceptive and harmful fiction, directly in competition with the scientific method for the exclusive role of explanatory force for natural phenomena. Anything which seeks to explain spiritual phenomena, of course, is beneath the notice of science. Dawkins would probably add that it should be considered beneath the notice of everyone; after all, what need does one have of tawdry mysticism which can only mislead, when truths as revealed by science are so much more fulfilling? He may have a point there; even if one is to engage in harmless, non-explanatory, but ultimately fulfilling supernatural belief - such as that the consciousness of a loved one will proceed to a pleasant but otherwise unexplained location or experience upon dying - is one not then risking inevitable disappointment when further scientific research inevitably proves such a phenomenon to be impossible? If one accepts science as the only possible explanatory power, then it stands to reason that any method one uses to attain knowledge other than science is unforgivably susceptible to eventual debunking.
This is the inescapable flaw in any supernatural belief, no matter how little it attempts to explain the natural world: any psychological benefit one gains from it is fleeting, at risk of being at any moment blasted away by contrary empirical evidence, and any benefit beyond the purely psychological would require concrete, empirical effects, which is the exclusive realm of science. If one instead places their faith purely in the scientific method, and obtains their sense of wonder and spiritual fulfillment purely from what is certified as being a necessary part of the natural order, one is assured never to be disappointed by coming to odds with the evidence. Dawkins would argue that this should be sufficient for anyone, and is seemingly on a mission to prove his point, having already destroyed any opposing spiritual beliefs with The God Delusion, filled the explanatory vacuum left in their wake with The Greatest Show On Earth, and will sow the seeds of this particular belief among the youth with his next publication, aimed at children 10 to 12 years of age. The distinction between the natural and the supernatural, once merely little more than a difference in terminology, is now one of the most profound cultural and political issues we face as a society. To use an analogy, it is tantamount to the difference between viewing a microwave as a magic box which, when pressed in the correct ritual fashion, will turn uncooked meat into a delicious meal, versus viewing it as a device which bombards whatever is inside it with excited particles, causing the increased energy to heat any liquid water particles within it, cooking it in a very short time. For the purposes of the casual user, there is little difference between the two explanations - in fact, the former may even hold a more fulfilling sense of wonder and spiritual gratification. However, when it breaks in some way and needs repairing, only one of these explanations will allow any kind of understanding of what needs to be done to rectify the situation.
This may seem a ridiculous example, but when viewed as a kind of ham-fisted simile in which the microwave is the human race, and the button-pressing rituals become public policy decisions, the situation is slightly less comical, which is the kind of situation Dawkins is trying to address. Dawkins uses the broad-brush term “religion”, and it's synonym “supernaturalism”, as buzzwords for anything that is, in essence, counter-natural, or counter-empirical. For a philosopher of religion, this is an over-simplification of terms that already have very specific and useful meanings, the corruption of which for any purpose can only make detailed conversation about religious matters more confusing and easily misunderstood. resulting in a fundamental misunderstanding between two coherent schools of thought, tackling two very different problems. In short, to criticize The God Delusion from a philosophical standpoint is a fool's errand - as I spent the last several weeks discovering - and it is equally nonsensical to treat it as a work of philosophical critique in its own right. It is a work of social propaganda, an attempt to influence the zeitgeist away from what is, in the eyes of at least one Oxford professor, a very dangerous and counter-productive road. Time will tell whether Dawkins' conception of a Utopian society devoid of any need for supernatural beliefs is possible, or even desirable, but in the meantime those engaged in the search for a deeper understanding of religion's role in human consciousness and culture will have very little to gain from The God Delusion, and very little of philosophical use is implied about theism by Dawkins' crusade to replace it with his own brand of scientifically verifiable spiritualism.
- It's 12 pages long in essay formatting, so...yeah. I can't make it shorter for you, sorry.
- I am a huge fan of both Professor Dawkins and The God Delusion.
- This was written for philosophy of religion, for the sole readership of a professor who is a published philosopher of religion, who does not like Dawkins' works, and who is responsible for all my marks for this unit. Make what you like of that information.
- It was written in about six hours with some editing time, thus lacks references, and...good.
- Because I suck at essays, it reads a bit like an article. I am aware of this, and critique of my writing style is unwelcome. Spelling and grammar corrections are...ok, but keep in mind by the time you read this I will have already left the house to hand it in...three hours before deadline. WHERE THE FUCK IS MY COLUMN??
Question: Evaluate the themes underlying Professor Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion (2006), as well as its intended impact on contemporary religious discourse and philosophy of religion, giving consideration to the 'nature versus supernature' distinction.
Having struggled through numerous texts on pantheism, atheism, and the writings of Professor Dawkins, as well as scrounging for the handful of texts written on the distinction between natural and supernatural conceptions of reality and religious beliefs, it eventually occurred to me that I was taking entirely the wrong approach to this question. I had been, in effect, trying to submit the popular science writing of Professor Dawkins to the rather more stringent expectations of philosophers of religion. I had been ironically committing that same academic sin of which Dawkins himself is so often accused: that of trying to apply an inappropriate measure to a particular concept. In his case, the criticism is of his applying the scientific method to spiritual beliefs. In my own case, it was of trying to submit what is essentially a work of social propaganda to the keen examination usually applied to philosophy of religion. In order to properly understand and examine Dawkins' claims regarding theism, and indeed spirituality in general, one must speak in terms similar to those he is using - not the studied, precise terms of the philosopher, but rather the sensational, evocative terms of the popular science writer; one with a clear agenda in mind, and it is not the same agenda shared by philosophers of religion. Dawkins' aim is not to examine truth; for him, this is the realm of science textbooks, and has already been done elsewhere, by himself and others. In The God Delusion, Dawkins sets out to try and make people care about the truth, as it is outlined in science textbooks, not simply as a matter of interest of even education, but also as a replacement for dangerous, outdated spiritualist traditions.
Dawkins has his work cut out for him, which is the first thing one must understand when approaching his work. His target audience is, simply put, everyone, and he understands his audience well. His style is grandiose, moves swiftly, and is above all confrontational. This is a text aimed not only at the atheist, but at the theist. To the former he is saying “you are not alone,” and to the latter he is saying “your beliefs will no longer go unchallenged.” To whom he is not speaking is even more relevant; he is not addressing fundamentalists, who are unlikely to be swayed by any argument, and he is not addressing philosophers of religion or theologians, whose sophisticated approach to religious beliefs, spirituality and metaphysics leaves Dawkins' works on the matter to appear as little more than crayon scribblings on the back of a packet of cereal. It is a mistake, however, to assume that because of this Dawkins is ignorant of the subject matter he is tackling; rather it should indicate a supreme understanding of his target audience. This is a book for the layman, the casual religious believer, the true agnostic, or the enthusiastic unbeliever seeking an argument in favour of his beliefs. There is little of interest for the amateur philosopher of religion, such as myself, in a text such as this; a fact which occurred to me sharply while studying Spinoza's Ethics. Spinoza was - by the methods of judging such things applied to philosophers - a genius, whose metaphysical beliefs as one of the earliest pantheistic philosophers serve as a central aspect of his philosophy in general. How could a sophisticated man such as Professor Richard Dawkins, a man who has spent his life educating others and producing works of non-fiction which have completely changed the way we view evolutionary biology and genetics, overlook so deep and complex a position as pantheism? Is he ignorant of Spinoza's work? Is he also unaware of Alasdair MacIntyre's enlightening work on the interpretation of ancient texts such as the Iliad, the Odyssey and the Christian Bible? What of the other mystical beliefs he summarily dismisses, such as Taoism and Buddhism?
Following my train of thought thusly, I found my answer - to examine these fields in the fullness which they deserve, The God Delusion would necessarily need to be thousands and thousands of pages long, and it would take a lifetime to fully compile all the relevant knowledge and expertise needed to undertake writing such a volume. The God Delusion is a work of popular science, designed to sway public opinion; it cuts corners, it begs almost as many questions as it answers, deals in sweeping generalisations...yet it achieved exactly what it sought to do - sell a lot of copies, and to widen the cracks in traditional religion's already rapidly degrading credibility in many public arenas.
Dawkins seems to have a clear agenda to not only discredit traditional religious beliefs, but also to offer an alternative - a kind of naturalistic spiritualism. To give an example, he speaks eloquently not only of the empirical data supporting evolutionary theory, but also of its beautiful simplicity and its mind-boggling improbability. This has been a theme within Dawkins' work throughout his career; Unweaving The Rainbow was an almost reverential look at the natural world, from natural selection to the impossibly expansive cosmos. His most recent book, The Greatest Show On Earth, is a beautifully illustrated explanation of evolution by natural selection, designed to be accessible to even the most lukewarm student of scientific theory. The purpose of its publication is ostensibly to educate the uneducated regarding evolutionary biology whilst remaining entertaining to read, and to serve as a kind of standing refutation of creationism. It supposedly has no other spiritual goals - Dawkins has said his piece against organised religions, and has moved on. Or has he? Having spent a great deal of time utterly discrediting biblical accounts of the origins of life in The God Delusion, he has now produced a very impressive-looking alternative - his own naturalistic Genesis, the information on every page already submitted to scientific rigor and extensive peer review, free from any need of scholarly interpretation, condensed and illustrated for ease of digestion by not only those least interested in science, but also those least interested in religion. His next work? A children's' book, designed to instill an appreciation for the value of evidence-based thinking - a more scientific approach to interacting with the world. Dawkins is all too aware of the value of appealing to the youthful mind - he has been extremely vocal in his criticisms of organised religion's employment of child indoctrination, even going so far as to suggest that fiction containing mythical creatures such as fairies and fantasy novels aimed at young people such as the Harry Potter series could have an “insidious affect on rationality” in later life. These literary endeavours combined with some of Professor Dawkins' other projects (such as his efforts to encourage non-believers to discard the term “atheists” in favour of the supposedly less-loaded term “brights”) give the strong impression that the agenda here is not so much simple refutation of organised religion, but a replacement of it.
This idea of a “scientific” religion is not new, and conjures unpleasant images of science-fiction, of Scientology, UFO conspiracy theories and even Marxism, which is no doubt a large part of the reason why Professor Dawkins will go miles out of his way to avoid being explicitly associated with any such ideals. What he encourages in his works - rather than some kind of bizarre science-based mysticism such as that endorsed by Scientologists and Jedi - is rather a transcendent wonder at the “miracles” of the natural world, and faith in the explanatory power of the scientific method to provide answers to our questions - including those questions traditionally reserved for consideration by priests and philosophers of metaphysics. Dawkins does, in fact, make mention of scientists attaining a kind of religious wonder in The God Delusion; in the same chapter where he dismisses pantheism as being nothing more than “sexed-up atheism”.
As I mentioned briefly earlier, Dawkins neatly sidesteps a fair few alternatives to the major monotheistic traditions, such as Taoism, Buddhism, and smaller cults and sects including Scientology. There are a few possible explanations for this; perhaps he is simply seeking to limit his criticisms to those religions most familiar to both himself and his target audience - after all, the Abrahamic faiths make up the lion's share of the world's faithful, and an even larger percentage if one is primarily interested in English-speaking nations, and the predominantly Christian European nations. That doesn't seem to fit, however - what of Hinduism, which Dawkins' hastily includes as being in no meaningful way dissimilar to the monotheisms of his own experience? Is there really so little difference? What of the Advaita and Vedanta schools of Hindu belief, which are far closer to pantheism than the monotheisms of the United States and Europe? Strongly pantheistic, yet one could hardly call them similar to the also pantheistic, “sexed-up atheism” of Einstein and Hawking. Both are pantheistic beliefs, but one is apparently barely distinguishable from organised monotheism, and the other from atheism. Dawkins seems content to split pantheism up into two sub-categories: Hinduistic pantheism in the one, along with Judaism, Christianity, Islam and (oddly) Creationism, and in the other, atheistic pantheism, along with Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and atheism. The former sub-category he effectively labels “religion” and the latter “not religion”. This grossly simplistic sorting method is the sort of thing that makes qualified philosophers of religion such as Philip Quadrio wail and gnash their teeth - and understandably so. So why take so simplistic a sorting method? The obvious explanation is, again, one of brevity - Dawkins is attacking a fairly specific variety of religion, so to go out of his way to examine the myriad variations of pantheistic beliefs is simply not relevant. If this is the case, though, then one must ask why he takes the time to speak out against Creationists, astrologers and psychics, all of whom make up a barely noticeable fraction of the planet's population compared to, say, Hinduism and Buddhism. What justification could there be for ignoring the world's fourth and fifth largest religions in favour of the sideshow comprised of fortune tellers and showmen, who are predominantly little more than actors, working to boost carnival attendance and television ratings? I believe there are two probable reasons, the second of which I will devote more attention to, as it relates directly to the distinction between nature and supernature.
The first possible reason is that Professor Dawkins is attempting to construct a “straw man” of traditional religious beliefs, which he can then easily discredit. By skipping over Buddhism with its doctrines of universal acceptance, lack of transcendent being demanding obedience, encouragement to seek wisdom and knowledge etc, Dawkins has more time to focus on the bloody history of the Catholic church, the barbaric practices of extremist Islam, the horrific figure of old testament Yahweh - in short, the beliefs that support his position. The Hindu pantheon can quite easily be conceived of as a personified, singular over-deity, such as Brahman, for the purposes of including it fairly inaccurately as being open to the same criticisms he aims at traditional monotheisms, while the more pantheistic conceptions can be easily dismissed as being no different to Einstein's brand of pantheism of God being a shorthand for natural laws. This also explains the strong presence of Creationist thought throughout Dawkins' writings, despite the relative rarity of truly creationist believers. Creationism is, by the standards of anyone who is not a creationist, utterly ridiculous - making it a ripe target for Dawkins' derision. A similar argument can be made for his strong stance on psychics and other fringe mystics. Whether this “straw man” argumentative technique was knowingly applied, or applied at all, by Dawkins is a point of pure speculation, as he failed to respond to my correspondence on the matter.
The second - and almost certainly far more relevant - distinction between the two categories is one of explanatory power. Science is primarily (and arguably exclusively) a method of explanation, of ascertaining truths about natural phenomena. If we look at the beliefs Dawkins' deems to be “religious”, we see they all ostensibly offer some form of explanatory power, whether it be the existence of other dimensions to which people can travel (heaven and hell being the two strongest examples), the existence of a supremely powerful being with designs for humanity (Allah, Yahweh, Brahman etc), the existence of spirits with whom we can meaningfully interact (Saints, Jesus Christ, Mohamed, or the deceased in general in the case of “ghost whisperers”) and, perhaps most offensively to Dawkins personally, explanations for the origins of life. As an evolutionary biologist, theories regarding the origin and possible evolution of life are of particular interest to Dawkins, as he is best situated to refute them and they are most likely to come into direct conflict with his own theories. This is also a more charitable explanation for his focus on refuting creationist beliefs in particular, rather than the “straw man” possibility I posit above. I imagine the theory that the planet we live on has only been in existence for six thousand years is as offensive to an evolutionary biologist as the suggestion that Buddhism is not a religion is to a philosopher of religion or theologian.
This focus on explanatory power makes sense when considered in the framework of Dawkins' possible intention of “muscling out” supernatural concepts as acceptable explanations for natural phenomena. Buddhism is not a religion if one defines religion as “a set of beliefs that offer some manner of explanation for the natural world that runs contrary to observed laws of nature”, which seems to be what Dawkins is doing. His oft-cited example refuting agnosticism - that of the teapot orbiting Mars - is telling. He has no real interest in the fairly ridiculous claim that there is a teapot orbiting the planet Mars, because he cannot disprove it; it has no meaningful impact whatsoever on reality as we experience it. Creationism, on the other hand, can be and has been disproved, time and time again. Any time the natural laws as determined by scientific observation come into conflict with spiritual attempts at explanation, Dawkins is on hand with a swift refutation. This is the assertion Dawkins is subtly making: if your beliefs don't offer any explanatory power, then they're not even worth discussing. If they do carry some kind of explanatory force, then they are inevitably inferior to a scientific approach, and thus unnecessary, if not outright harmful. This is what is commonly referred to as “framing the discourse”. This is an odd approach to take, as it essentially leaves science as the only acceptable religion; the other potentially acceptable religions which limit themselves to spiritual concerns are inaccurately labeled as mere “philosophies”. The labeling of science as a religion makes a reasonable amount of sense, if we consider the likes of Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking - indeed, Dawkins himself - and the awe they feel when faced with the unimaginable scale of the natural cosmos, or the transcendental wonder at the complexity of a single-celled organism, scientific endeavour could indeed begin to approach a kind of spiritually fulfilling experience. However, this would not be conducive to Dawkins' argument, which is to paint religion as being anything which is supernatural, nothing more than a deceptive and harmful fiction, directly in competition with the scientific method for the exclusive role of explanatory force for natural phenomena. Anything which seeks to explain spiritual phenomena, of course, is beneath the notice of science. Dawkins would probably add that it should be considered beneath the notice of everyone; after all, what need does one have of tawdry mysticism which can only mislead, when truths as revealed by science are so much more fulfilling? He may have a point there; even if one is to engage in harmless, non-explanatory, but ultimately fulfilling supernatural belief - such as that the consciousness of a loved one will proceed to a pleasant but otherwise unexplained location or experience upon dying - is one not then risking inevitable disappointment when further scientific research inevitably proves such a phenomenon to be impossible? If one accepts science as the only possible explanatory power, then it stands to reason that any method one uses to attain knowledge other than science is unforgivably susceptible to eventual debunking.
This is the inescapable flaw in any supernatural belief, no matter how little it attempts to explain the natural world: any psychological benefit one gains from it is fleeting, at risk of being at any moment blasted away by contrary empirical evidence, and any benefit beyond the purely psychological would require concrete, empirical effects, which is the exclusive realm of science. If one instead places their faith purely in the scientific method, and obtains their sense of wonder and spiritual fulfillment purely from what is certified as being a necessary part of the natural order, one is assured never to be disappointed by coming to odds with the evidence. Dawkins would argue that this should be sufficient for anyone, and is seemingly on a mission to prove his point, having already destroyed any opposing spiritual beliefs with The God Delusion, filled the explanatory vacuum left in their wake with The Greatest Show On Earth, and will sow the seeds of this particular belief among the youth with his next publication, aimed at children 10 to 12 years of age. The distinction between the natural and the supernatural, once merely little more than a difference in terminology, is now one of the most profound cultural and political issues we face as a society. To use an analogy, it is tantamount to the difference between viewing a microwave as a magic box which, when pressed in the correct ritual fashion, will turn uncooked meat into a delicious meal, versus viewing it as a device which bombards whatever is inside it with excited particles, causing the increased energy to heat any liquid water particles within it, cooking it in a very short time. For the purposes of the casual user, there is little difference between the two explanations - in fact, the former may even hold a more fulfilling sense of wonder and spiritual gratification. However, when it breaks in some way and needs repairing, only one of these explanations will allow any kind of understanding of what needs to be done to rectify the situation.
This may seem a ridiculous example, but when viewed as a kind of ham-fisted simile in which the microwave is the human race, and the button-pressing rituals become public policy decisions, the situation is slightly less comical, which is the kind of situation Dawkins is trying to address. Dawkins uses the broad-brush term “religion”, and it's synonym “supernaturalism”, as buzzwords for anything that is, in essence, counter-natural, or counter-empirical. For a philosopher of religion, this is an over-simplification of terms that already have very specific and useful meanings, the corruption of which for any purpose can only make detailed conversation about religious matters more confusing and easily misunderstood. resulting in a fundamental misunderstanding between two coherent schools of thought, tackling two very different problems. In short, to criticize The God Delusion from a philosophical standpoint is a fool's errand - as I spent the last several weeks discovering - and it is equally nonsensical to treat it as a work of philosophical critique in its own right. It is a work of social propaganda, an attempt to influence the zeitgeist away from what is, in the eyes of at least one Oxford professor, a very dangerous and counter-productive road. Time will tell whether Dawkins' conception of a Utopian society devoid of any need for supernatural beliefs is possible, or even desirable, but in the meantime those engaged in the search for a deeper understanding of religion's role in human consciousness and culture will have very little to gain from The God Delusion, and very little of philosophical use is implied about theism by Dawkins' crusade to replace it with his own brand of scientifically verifiable spiritualism.