Reflections on The God Delusion - Ch 1 - Deserved Respect

I must admit that this section really really confused me and despite reading it through 3 times, I still don't get the point of it! The chapter 'Deserved Respect' begins with the story of a boy lying on the grass who suddenly becomes aware of the wonder that we have around us. From the stems and roots to the ants, beetles and soil bacteria. How complex and wonderful our world is. The chapter goes on to say that this could be interpreted in a religious way or in a scientific way and that there is no explanation as to why people interpret these in different ways. Dawkins goes on to suggest that if people were to experience these explanations keeping in mind the scientific train of thought, that this might lead them towards Darwinism.

I would agree that when looking at the world with the scientific proof/findings you can see how various theories are at work. However I don't believe that evolution and creation theories have to be polar opposites. Darwinism is all about the evolution of our world 'produced by laws acting around us' and for me at least, these laws were created by a higher power. I believe that the reason there seems to be little intregration of the two theories is the failure of the Church to admit to not knowing everything and trying not to change. It is this that Dawkins addresses next. A qoute from Carl Sagan is used to explain that religions dont seem to take new knowledge and use it to expand their religions and concepts, but rather try and keep their beliefs in the same old box. For religion and faith to continue in a organised form, this must change.

The chapter then goes on to explain how the word 'God' is misused. Many people in particular non-believers use it to explain certain things however 'if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally undersood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is appropriate for us to worship'. I think many believers today would agree that  aspects of religious faith have become secular or 'mainstream' and that far too many people do things that have religious connections without realising that they are doing so.

Dawkins then goes on to explain that confusion is caused by 'Einstenian Religion' (when the word God is invoked in a scientific understanding) and Supernatural Religion (when the word God is invoked in praise, wonder, thanks and amazement). A list of scientists who are athiests but who are often mistaken as believers is then given including Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Ursula Goodenough. The chapter continues by acknowledging that many people 'believe in belief' as they feel it gives them a good life structure, rather than believeing in a supernatural power.

A number of pages is then spent making it quite clear that Einstein was not religious. It mentions several qoutes where he denies following God. And this is followed up the responses given by various Christian/Religious organisations at the time which are truly horrible. Most of the responses are direct and ask him to publically change his mind. This is the true crime as I see it , instead of respecting his decision and if they were truly worried for him speaking one on one, groups and individuals have contacted him telling him 'the truth' as they see it. The inability to respect individuals decisions still lies at the heart of all religious organisations problems.

The chapter ends with an explanation of Einsteinian Religion from Einstein himself ' To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty annd sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious'. A Carl Sagan qoute is also used '.. if by God, one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity'. I would agree that there is little or no point in praying to a God that is only physical in nature. However for me, my personal beliefs are that there is a God who not only established the physical laws but you can connect with in other ways as well.

I starting this post by explaining I didn't understand this chapter very well, and I still don't. I mean I understand that some people see religion and some people see science. And I also see that some quotes I have heard that have been attributed to scientific intellectuals are scientific not religious in their meaning. I would agree that people have the right to have the context and the true meaning of their communications known by all.

But what I don't understand is how this disproves a God. Is it because some smart people thought there wasn't a God that I too should believe one does not exist? Or is it that people who have been converted by being told that smart people think that God exists will now no longer believe having found out the truth? I do not believe anyone should believe or disbelieve based on just listening to someone smarter than you. To me, this chapter misses the point completely. Earlier in this post, I referred to how religions were slow to take up new scientific theories and knowledge and incorporate them into their faith to expand their views. I think a similar critisim could be used for non-believers who refuse to even enter into thought of a personal God. In both examples people are limiting their experiences. People who think and re-think again when prompted are in the clear whether they are religious or athiest. People who continue to stick to the same path and ignore everything are the ones truly missing out on the wonder of our world.