richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S EXIS T ENCF, 87And what a shame that we are deprived of Haydn's EvolutionOratorio - but that does not stop us from enjoying his Creation. Toapproach the argument from the other side, what if, as my wifechillingly suggests to me, Shakespeare had been obliged to work tocommissions from the Church? We'd surely have lost Hamlet, KingLear and Macbeth. And what would we have gained in return?Such stuff as dreams are made on? Dream on.If there is a logical argument linking the existence of great art tothe existence of God, it is not spelled out by its proponents. It issimply assumed to be self-evident, which it most certainly is not.Maybe it is to be seen as yet another version of the argument fromdesign: Schubert's musical brain is a wonder of improbability, evenmore so than the vertebrate's eye. Or, more ignobly, perhaps it'sa sort of jealousy of genius. How dare another human beingmake such beautiful music/poetry/art, when I can't? It must be Godthat did it.THE ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL'EXPERIENCE'One of the cleverer and more mature of my undergraduate contemporaries,who was deeply religious, went camping in theScottish isles. In the middle of the night he and his girlfriend werewoken in their tent by the voice of the devil - Satan himself; therecould be no possible doubt: the voice was in every sense diabolical.My friend would never forget this horrifying experience, and it wasone of the factors that later drove him to be ordained. My youthfulself was impressed by his story, and I recounted it to a gatheringof zoologists relaxing in the Rose and Crown Inn, Oxford. Two ofthem happened to be experienced ornithologists, and they roaredwith laughter. 'Manx Shearwater!' they shouted in delightedchorus. One of them added that the diabolical shrieks and cacklesof this species have earned it, in various parts of the world andvarious languages, the local nickname 'Devil Bird'.Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen
88 T H E G O D D E L U S 1 O Na vision of him - or of an angel or a virgin in blue - with their owneyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument frompersonal experience is the one that is most convincing to those whoclaim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else,and anyone knowledgeable about psychology.You say you have experienced God directly? Well, some peoplehave experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn'timpress you. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, distinctly heardthe voice of Jesus telling him to kill women, and he was locked upfor life. George W. Bush says that God told him to invade Iraq (apity God didn't vouchsafe him a revelation that there were noweapons of mass destruction). Individuals in asylums think they areNapoleon or Charlie Chaplin, or that the entire world is conspiringagainst them, or that they can broadcast their thoughts into otherpeople's heads. We humour them but don't take their internallyrevealed beliefs seriously, mostly because not many people sharethem. Religious experiences are different only in that the peoplewho claim them are numerous. Sam Harris was not being overlycynical when he wrote, in The End of Faith:We have names for people who have many beliefs forwhich there is no rational justification. When their beliefsare extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise,they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or'delusional' . . . Clearly there is sanity in numbers. Andyet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considerednormal in our society to believe that the Creator of theuniverse can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrativeof mental illness to believe that he is communicating withyou by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroomwindow. And so, while religious people are notgenerally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.I shall return to the subject of hallucinations in Chapter 10.The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyesdon't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is outthere, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Ourbrains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded
- Page 40 and 41: T II E G O D H Y P O T H E S 1 S 35
- Page 42 and 43: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 37M
- Page 44 and 45: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 39although it ha
- Page 46 and 47: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 41enterprise. Ri
- Page 48 and 49: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 43God; because,
- Page 50 and 51: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 45Anecdotes of s
- Page 52 and 53: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 47Carl Sagan was
- Page 54 and 55: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 49Huxley was not
- Page 56 and 57: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 51can
- Page 58 and 59: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 53in
- Page 60 and 61: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 55McGrath goes o
- Page 62 and 63: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 57the Cambridge
- Page 64 and 65: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 59unequivocally
- Page 66 and 67: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 61non-interventi
- Page 68 and 69: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 63s
- Page 70 and 71: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 65Another typica
- Page 72 and 73: T H E G O D H Y P O THESIS 67NOMA -
- Page 74 and 75: T H E G O D II Y P O T H E S I S 69
- Page 76 and 77: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 71longer based o
- Page 78 and 79: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 73advanced techn
- Page 80 and 81: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 82 and 83: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 84 and 85: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 86 and 87: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 88 and 89: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 92 and 93: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 94 and 95: A R G U M ENTS F O R G O D ' S E X
- Page 96 and 97: ARGUMENTS F O R GOD'S E X I S T E N
- Page 98 and 99: A R C U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 100 and 101: A R G U M E N T S FOR G O D ' S E X
- Page 102 and 103: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 104 and 105: ARGUMEN T S FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE 101
- Page 106 and 107: A R G U M E N T S F O R G OD'S E X
- Page 108 and 109: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 110 and 111: A R Ci U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S
- Page 112 and 113: ARGUMENTS F O R G OD'S E X I S T E
- Page 114 and 115: W H Y T II E R E A L M O S T C E R
- Page 116 and 117: W H Y T H E R E A I. M O S T C E R
- Page 118 and 119: W H Y T H ERE AL.MOS T C E R TAINL.
- Page 120 and 121: W H Y T H f ' R i . A L M O S T C 1
- Page 122 and 123: W H Y T l i l - I U ; A L M O S T C
- Page 124 and 125: W H Y r i-i r R r A I M O S T C t R
- Page 126 and 127: W H Y '11IKRK A L M O S T (.: F R T
- Page 128 and 129: no evidence of its own, but thrives
- Page 130 and 131: W H Y r H E RE A 1. M O S T C F.RTA
- Page 132 and 133: I ! T R t AI.M15S I' ('. I R !' A f
- Page 134 and 135: W H Y T H E R E A I . M O S T C H R
- Page 136 and 137: A I. M O S I C 1 R I'A I N M is X <
- Page 138 and 139: W i I Y 1 II F. R F A 1 Vi (.) S T
88 T H E G O D D E L U S 1 O N
a vision of him - or of an angel or a virgin in blue - with their own
eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from
personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who
claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else,
and anyone knowledgeable about psychology.
You say you have experienced God directly? Well, some people
have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn't
impress you. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, distinctly heard
the voice of Jesus telling him to kill women, and he was locked up
for life. George W. Bush says that God told him to invade Iraq (a
pity God didn't vouchsafe him a revelation that there were no
weapons of mass destruction). Individuals in asylums think they are
Napoleon or Charlie Chaplin, or that the entire world is conspiring
against them, or that they can broadcast their thoughts into other
people's heads. We humour them but don't take their internally
revealed beliefs seriously, mostly because not many people share
them. Religious experiences are different only in that the people
who claim them are numerous. Sam Harris was not being overly
cynical when he wrote, in The End of Faith:
We have names for people who have many beliefs for
which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs
are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise,
they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or
'delusional' . . . Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And
yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered
normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the
universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative
of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with
you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom
window. And so, while religious people are not
generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.
I shall return to the subject of hallucinations in Chapter 10.
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes
don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out
there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our
brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded
Change language