This week’s activity continues two themes from our activities. First, we are reading a primary source in his own words, rather than a neutral summary. Second, we are engaging with a belief system other than the tradition of the founders of St. Mary’s University. Although there are more atheists than Buddhists at St. Mary’s (not to say they all agree with Dawkins fully), for many of us this will be the most challenging alternative belief system we study. This will be an opportunity to explore the distinction between Pluralism and Principled Dialogue. If the nicest thing you can say after reading Dawkins is “I respect his right to say whatever he wants,” then you are prefer Pluralism. Principled Dialogue will require exploring agreements and respectfully identifying where and why there are divergences from our own beliefs.
The primary source is an excerpt from the most influential book of Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006). The complete ebook is available from the library. Dawkin’s has clear answers to the questions from the textbook: Does faith hold up to reason in the twentieth century? No, it does not and in particular is disproved by Darwin. Is Christianity useful? No, it is not and in particular it damages society with fanaticism and teaching children not to trust reason.
Here is some context to help you read the provided excerpts. Pages 58-59, particularly the quotation from Gore Vidal, illustrates that direct/provocative tone that Dawkins believes is necessary. He is not interested in compromises such as deism or agnosticism. Keep the textbook handy if you need reminders on the precise meaning of words like theist, atheist, agnostic, secular, deist, and Darwinism. Pages 60-68 make observations on the contrast between religiosity in the United States at the dawn of the twenty-first century and the secularism (sometimes deism and near-atheism) among the founding fathers. I chose this excerpt partly because it gives primary sources within the primary source from Jefferson, Washington, Gandhi, Nehru, and Goldwater. Pages 188-89 summarize the central argument of the book and preview the second half. The metaphor of “skyhook” and “crane” refers to different ideas about how a tall building must have been built. In the metaphor, Aquinas argues that there must be a hook in the sky that pulled the building up (there must be a perfect being who pulled the universe up toward complexity and perfection). Dawkins argues that a crane can be built up from below and gradually raise up taller and taller buildings (complexity can evolve on top of slightly lesser complexity).
As always when doing a close-read of a primary source, you will need to read at least twice and annotate the text with your own responses. You might use different colors of ink or highlighters, or distinguish underlining and circling, or some other symbol to code agreements and disagreements.