Re: [asa] Interesting review of "The Selfish Gene"

What this reviewer writes is actually full of hope, I think! He states that
Dawkins' arguments have rendered a God superfluous ... and accounts for the
nature of life all too well... And the the reviewer goes on to lament the
obvious shortcomings of such a point of view: that it apparently does NOT
account for the nature of life in any sense that he wants to call "well".

I was mildly shaken up on reading Dawkins, but like Lewis and Chesterton before
him, I think that in the end some of the best material to bring us to God is to
read and try out (desperately even) what atheists have to offer. People like
Dawkins pontificate about the stupidity of anything religious, but then -- as if
they have forgotten what they said in their last breath -- they spring on their
gullible readers a flood of religious assertions that are as far removed from
any possible scientific assessment as east is from the west. Life is
meaningless. Nature is all there is. There is no ultimate source of morality.
Etc. Once this is seen for the religious tripe that it is, his philosophies
(unlike his science) become easy to dismiss.

I remember almost laughing out loud when I came across one of Dawkins'
descriptions of the evolution of trees. I think it was in "River out of Eden"
-- where Dawkins described the fascinating (and convincing) process of plants by
natural selection having a competition of heights for sunlight. I.e. taller
plants or vines get the light & natural selection gradually gets us to towering
trees in the ever more difficult quest to get sunlight. And Dawkins called this
"WASTEFUL"! (Emphasis definately mine) In other words if all plants had
remained shorter to begin with (by what we would imagine as some sort of
cooperative "agreement") then they would all still have the same prospects for
sunlight but without the "wasteful" need of towering height. Now if I was a
creator who had fashioned a fruitful cosmos to take delight in what may come
forth, I would be delighted beyond words with the beauty resulting from such a
'competition' as it were. I was reasonably convinced by Dawkins' natural
explanations while seeing his religiously laden overlays ("wasteful" trees) for
the hogwash that it is. One might as well bemoan that flowers wastefully
reflect too much visible spectrum light.

People need to read more of Dawkins to be innoculated from his religious views.
 Yes I was shaken up a bit by some of it -- but what doesn't kill my faith
sharpens it. So why is it that so many religious type readings seem to
debilitate my faith more, and hostile atheist writings sometimes strengthen it?

--merv

Somebody asked me if I slept well last
night. I answered, 'no -- I made a couple mistakes.' --Steven Wright

Quoting Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>:

> I just came across this rather heart-rending review of "The Selfish Gene"
> from the Amazon.com web-site (the first review on the list), illustrating
> the devastating effect it had on one reader. He gave the book 5 stars (the
> best rating). Much of what he writes touches very closely with the
> science/faith interface - and the book has left this reader quite confused
> and depressed.
>
> I just hope this reader will read Francis Collins to get a different
> perspective! (Or Allister McGrath on Dawkins, for that matter).
>
> Iain
>
> ______
>
>
> *Fascinating, but at times I wish I could unread it.*, August 7, 1999
> I wish I could rate this book at 5 stars and 0 stars at the same time. It is
> a fascinating book, very well-written, and it conveys a real sense of how
> life works on the biological level, how all sorts of diverse factors
> interact with each other to create an incredibly complex system (the
> evolution of life, in this case); it also just as vividly conveys a sense of
> how scientists come to understand these processes.
>
> I started it many years ago at the suggestion of a friend, thinking I
> wouldn't find it very interesting, and not much liking the kind of
> philosophy of life that (on the basis of my friend's description) seemed to
> lie behind it. But only a chapter or two in, I was completely hooked, and
> wanted to read more Dawkins.
>
> On one level, I can share in the sense of wonder Dawkins so evidently sees
> in the workings-out of such complex processes, often made up of quite simple
> elemental mechanisms, but interacting so complexly to produce the incredibly
> complex world we live in.
>
> But at the same time, I largely blame "The Selfish Gene" for a series of
> bouts of depression I suffered from for more than a decade, and part of me
> wants to rate the book at zero stars for its effect on my life. Never sure
> of my spiritual outlook on life, but trying to find something deeper -
> trying to believe, but not quite being able to - I found that this book just
> about blew away any vague ideas I had along these lines, and prevented them
> from coalescing any further. This created quite a strong personal crisis for
> me some years ago.
>
> The book renders a God or supreme power of any sort quite superfluous for
> the purpose of accounting for the way the world is, and the way life is. It
> accounts for the nature of life, and for human nature, only too well,
> whereas most religions or spiritual outlooks raise problems that have to be
> got around. It presents an appallingly pessimistic view of human nature, and
> makes life seem utterly pointless; yet I cannot present any arguments to
> refute its point of view. I still try to have some kind of spiritual
> outlook, but it is definitely battered, and I have not yet overcome the
> effects of this book on me.
>
> Richard Dawkins seems to have the idea that religion and spirituality are
> not only false, but ultimately unable to give a real sense of meaning and
> purpose in life. Their satisfaction is hollow, empty, and unreal, in his
> apparent view, and only a scientific understanding of life can give a real,
> lasting sense of wonder and purpose.
>
> I would question this. While I am not sure what (if anything) there is
> spiritually, I know that a scientific view of life cannot offer the
> slightest hope of life after death, and since we're all going to die and
> most of us don't want to, this is a crippling drawback to the kind of
> scientific vision Dawkins wants us all to have. If there is nothing beyond
> death, no spiritual dimension to anything, and everything is just a blind
> dance of atoms, I fail to see how this by itself can give one a real sense
> of purpose, however fascinating the dance that Dawkins describes - and it
> *is* fascinating; let there be no mistake about that.
>
> Because of this, I have the curious feeling of dichotomy about Dawkins' book
> that it is certainly fascinating on one level, but that I cannot give even
> qualified emotional commitment to the outlook on life that seems to lie
> behind it. I would in the end rather have the hope of something wonderful
> and purposeful that only some spiritual outlook can offer, even though it
> may be a deluded fantasy, than the certainty of a scientific vision that
> eliminates any possibility of long-term hope, that condemns us to an empty,
> eternal death of nothingness in the end. This scientific view may be
> completely rational; but rationality is not the only important consideration
> to shape our outlook on life.
>
> Anyone who has a narrow religious view of life, who is absolutely sure their
> religion is completely right, would be best off avoiding this book like the
> plague - it probably won't change their views, but they will quite likely
> get very upset and outraged. And anyone with an open-minded spiritual view
> had better at least be prepared to do a lot of thinking, and perhaps be
> willing to change some of their views, because this book *will* challenge
> almost any spiritual or religious viewpoint I can think of - whether it is
> of the open-minded or dogmatic sort.
>
> Some critics of this book have found its reasoning unconvincing, its
> materialist reductionism too superficial and shallow. But, from my
> perspective, the problem does not lie here; the problem with the book is
> that it is *too* convincing, that it is *entirely* convincing. The book
> makes it very difficult to continue to believe in anything that contradicts
> its basic premise, but which might be more comforting, and might give a
> greater sense of hope and inspiration, and provide a real sense of purpose
> in life.
>
> Such have its effects on my life been that, in my more depressed moments, I
> have desperately wished I could unread the book, and continue life from
> where I left off.
> It has been said that each of us has a God-shaped hole inside, and that we
> spend most of our lives trying to fill it with the wrong things. I firmly
> believe that God-shaped hole is there, that we have inner longings of a
> wonderful sort almost impossible to describe in words. Whether a God exists
> to fill it, I do not yet know. But what I am sure of is that, as wonderful
> as Dawkins' view of nature and of life may be on its own level, it will not
> fill that God-shaped hole.
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 15 20:08:54 2006