The God Delusion

Dawkins explores the role of scripture as a source of morals, arguing that the Bible, if followed literally, promotes a system of morals that any civilized person would find obnoxious. He acknowledges that much of the Bible is simply strange, given its composition over centuries by numerous authors, editors, and copyists, yet religious zealots regard it as an inerrant source of morals.

Dawkins critiques the morality of the Bible, starting with the Old Testament. He finds the story of Noah’s flood morally appalling due to the mass extermination it involves. The tale of Lot offering his daughters to a mob and later being seduced by them exemplifies blatant misogyny and disturbing moral lessons. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac portrays blind obedience and child abuse. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah highlights a lack of respect for women and a capricious deity. The Levite’s concubine being offered to a mob and raped to death further illustrates what he sees as deep-seated misogyny and brutality.

Dawkins also addresses Abraham passing off his wife Sarah as his sister, resulting in her being taken into Pharaoh’s harem, as another example of dubious morality. He criticizes the story of Moses and the golden calf, where Moses orders the slaughter of thousands, as excessive and violent punishment. The genocide of the Midianites, commanded by Moses, including the execution of all boys and non-virgin women, underscores for Dawkins the Bible’s endorsement of genocide and slavery.

In the New Testament, Dawkins acknowledges Jesus as a moral improvement over the Old Testament’s God but criticizes the concept of atonement for original sin as morally repugnant and sadomasochistic. He highlights inconsistencies in Jesus’s teachings, particularly regarding family values, which he claims encourage followers to abandon their families.

Dawkins argues that the morality most people follow today does not come from scripture but from a secular, evolving moral consensus. He asserts that the moral zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, has moved beyond what he considers the primitive and often barbaric morals of the Bible. This modern moral consensus, he suggests, is shaped by reason, empathy, and a shared human experience, rather than religious doctrines.

Dawkins addresses the frequently cited argument that Hitler and Stalin, both notorious for their atrocities, were atheists, thus linking atheism with moral depravity. Dawkins disputes this by delving into the historical and personal contexts of both figures. While Stalin was indeed an atheist, there is no evidence that his atheism motivated his brutality. Instead, Stalin’s actions were driven by his totalitarian ideology and political agenda. Stalin’s earlier religious training likely influenced his authoritarian style, but his atrocities were not committed in the name of atheism.

Regarding Hitler, Dawkins argues that the common belief that Hitler was an atheist is far from clear. Hitler was raised in a Catholic environment and never formally renounced his faith. Throughout his life, Hitler made numerous references to God and Providence, indicating a form of religious belief or at least a belief in a higher power guiding his actions. For example, Hitler often invoked God in his speeches, stating that he was fulfilling God’s will in his actions against the Jews.

Dawkins highlights that even if Hitler and Stalin were atheists, their actions cannot be attributed to atheism. He argues that individual atheists might do evil things, but they do not commit these acts in the name of atheism. In contrast, Dawkins argues, many atrocities have been committed explicitly in the name of religion, driven by religious convictions.

Furthermore, Dawkins criticizes the notion that atheism leads to immorality by arguing that moral actions are not dependent on religious belief. He argues that morality is a product of the human condition, shaped by empathy, social contracts, and the evolving moral zeitgeist.

Moreover, Dawkins addresses the concept of in-group morality promoted by the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. He cites John Hartung’s work, which argues that the moral teachings in the Bible were intended primarily for the in-group (Jews) and did not apply to out-groups (non-Jews). This in-group morality is evident in numerous biblical stories where atrocities against out-groups are sanctioned.

Dawkins uses various biblical stories to illustrate his point, including the conquest of the Promised Land by Joshua, which he equates with acts of genocide. He contends that such stories, whether historical or fictional, are presented in the Bible as moral lessons, yet they are at odds with modern moral standards.

In discussing the moral zeitgeist, Dawkins explains how societal morals have evolved independently of religious teachings. He notes that significant moral progress, such as the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and racial equality, has been achieved not through religious dogma but through secular humanism and the application of reason and empathy.

Dawkins starts with a quote from George Carlin, which implies the absurdity of believing in an omnipresent deity who punishes people eternally for breaking a set of rules. Dawkins admits he dislikes confrontational debates but has acquired a reputation for being pugnacious towards religion. He questions whether religion truly causes harm significant enough to warrant active opposition, contrasting his verbal hostility with the violent actions committed in the name of religion.

Dawkins refutes the accusation that his stance is akin to fundamentalist atheism by explaining that fundamentalists adhere to beliefs derived from holy books regardless of evidence, while scientists like himself base their beliefs on evidence and are open to changing their views when new evidence arises. He recounts the story of a respected Oxford zoologist who publicly admitted he was wrong about the Golgi Apparatus when presented with new evidence, contrasting this with the tragic story of Kurt Wise, a geologist whose promising career was derailed by his fundamentalist belief in a young Earth.

Dawkins argues that fundamentalist religion undermines the scientific enterprise by promoting the idea that evidence must be discarded if it contradicts religious texts. He provides the example of Wise, who, despite his extensive scientific training, ultimately rejected science in favor of his religious beliefs.

He then discusses the broader impact of religious absolutism, using examples of blasphemy laws and punishments in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. He criticizes the treatment of individuals like Dr. Younis Shaikh and Abdul Rahman, who faced severe penalties for expressing views contrary to religious dogma. Dawkins points out that such absolutism is not confined to Islam, citing historical and contemporary instances of blasphemy laws and religious intolerance in Christian contexts.

Dawkins explores the religious opposition to LGBTQ+ individuals, highlighting the associated cruel punishments and societal ostracism in various religious societies. He recounts the tragic story of Alan Turing, a brilliant mathematician who was driven to suicide after being persecuted for gay behavior. Dawkins criticizes prominent religious figures and politicians for their anti-gay statements and actions, arguing that religious faith often fuels such intolerance.

The chapter also delves into abortion. Dawkins contrasts the absolutist religious view that equates abortion with murder with the consequentialist approach that considers the suffering of all parties involved. He criticizes the anti-abortion rhetoric, including the “Great Beethoven Fallacy” (337), which suggests that aborting a fetus with potential disabilities is equivalent to killing a future genius like Beethoven. Dawkins emphasizes the inconsistency in the religious stance against abortion, particularly when it comes to issues like IVF and stem-cell research.

Dawkins argues that moderate religious beliefs create a climate that enables extremism. He discusses how religious indoctrination, especially in childhood, primes individuals for extremist actions, such as suicide bombings. He highlights the role of moderate religious teachings in fostering a mindset that values faith over reason, which he claims makes individuals susceptible to extremist ideologies. Dawkins concludes by advocating for the importance of teaching children to question and think critically, rather than instilling unquestioned faith, as a means to prevent the rise of religious extremism.