Last Post: "The God Delusion"

This is the last post for "The God Delusion." Richard Dawkins' most recent chapter (Chapter 9) deals with what he calls indoctrination of children into their parents' belief system, and he goes as far as calling it "mental abuse." There is a comparison about this type of "indoctrination" being like child sex abuse in its magnitude and ability to tarnish and damage a person for life. Several examples include adults who to this day cannot shake off the fear of hell. This hell, Dawkins describes, is a hell full of mythological elements that are simply too far fetched to be believed. Nevertheless, people do believe and when they do so they are simply "damaged" for life. I remember reading "The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" by James Joyce in graduate school, and being scared to bits by that "sermon" chapter on the pains and tortures of eternity in hell. It was so far reaching that I went to see a priest about it.... and this Jesuit priest told me that hell as the church describes it doesn't exist!

Should a child be taught his/her parents' belief system, or should they be allowed to grow up and mature and decide for their own. This, as I see it, is problematic. Dawkins assumes that a child would have enough guidance (religious or otherwise), say, between the ages of 1 to 12 to be able to make up their minds insofar as religion is concerned by the time they reach their teens. If a person is never taught one thing or the other, would they be informed enough to make a decision once they start "thinking for themselves?" That's a difficult question to answer. There is a video on YouTube that caught my attention. It's very short (46 secs) but it packs a punch about religion, atheism and just plain human behavior... check it out.

My object in posting this video is not to side with Dawkins. After reading this book I know for a fact that I will always know and believe in a God. It's as if, despite all the concrete evidence against it, I can't shake the idea of the existence of God in my life. That is not to say that I don't agree with Dawkins in all he says about the destructiveness of religion. But I believe that every killing, torture, or suicide attack in the name of God is not God's problem but humanity's instead. I would be remiss if I didn't show that side of extremism as it exists here in the U.S. (See, I am not just picking on Islam). This HERE is a website (very slow to load) for a fundamentalist Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas. Perhaps you've heard of them. Again, as I see it, this is the sort of thing that Richard Dawkins exposes in "The God Delusion." This form of extremism fueled by religion is about the only thing I agree about with Dawkins, but then again, like I said, that is not God's problem, that's a human problem.

The Case For Secular Morality...

It is simply taking me too long to finish "The God Delusion," but I believe that in the final pages of the book is where the most thought provoking ideas come into play. Now the book has received quite a deal of criticism from religious people. Perhaps the reason why it has taken me so long to finish this book is the fact that I have gone out my way to read much of that criticism posted on different websites (not all of them religious). Dawkins aims to answer the question: "Is a secular morality enough to live a productive and well-driven life?" His answer of course is "yes." He expurgate holy books (especially the Ten Commandments) and "unmasks" where the holy books go wrong when dealing with those who break the moral code. And part of this is true--Dawkins is not making this up. Adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, and others are/were causes for death in most holy books. Now, religious moderates point out that we don't read the scriptures literally anymore, and that is by far a fair enough claim. But what about the fundamentalists? Dawkins clearly aims his criticism at them, not so much the moderates. He writes of the Christian Fundamentalist movement in America being a sort of American Taliban. And this is where things go a bit lop-sided for me. Richard Dawkins claims that the reason why so much of his criticism is aimed at Christianity is because that is the religion that he feels most comfortable criticizing. Fair enough claim, but how can we really know for sure. Perhaps he is afraid of tackling the Muslim Fundamentalists for fear of enraging them and finding himself in a fatwa just like Salman Rushdie did after publishing "The Satanic Verses." For this reason, I think Dawkins' book is not entirely credible. I would have liked to see more criticism leveled at Islam and Judaism.

But back to the question, "Can we live a good life based on a secular, non-religious morality?" Dawkins an alternative atheist commandments list to rival that of the Old Testament:
* Do not do to other what you would not want them to do you.
* In all things, strive to cause no harm.
etc. etc.
When looking at it from an objective perspective it is absolutely probable that we could live a good life without the religious moral code. We can't, however, deny the fact that humanity's moral code has been shaped vastly by the religious traditions, and this is what Dawkins tries to refute.

I can't wait to go back to fiction... hopefully by Friday I will be reading "Amsterdam" by Ian McEwan.

The Writer

Who can claim the title "Writer?" It would be nice and easy and all-inclusive to use the title loosely and apply it to anyone who does some form of writing. That's the politically-correct way of going about it. But in reality, how many of us can claim the title of writer? I write a blog. I write an exceedingly large number of "observations" journals. I write personal essays that I post (notice the avoidance of the word "publish") on my personal website. I write fiction for personal enjoyment. Do all of these things make me a Writer? The key here is really between creative production and harsh reality. Perhaps making some distinctions would help. A published author/writer is someone who makes a living off their writing. An unpublished author/writer is someone who writes everyday and perhaps has a desire to see her/his work printed and bounded and mass marketed. Is there such a thing as the writer who has no desire to see himself/herself published? There's a lot to say about "Ars Gratia Artis," and I am sure there are plenty of people doing this out there. Nevertheless, this is all starting to sound a bit confusing. Let me clarify. There's a thin line between writing, publishing, and posing. I was at a bar once and I was eavesdropping on the conversation going on next to me. It was a young man trying to impress a young woman. "Sometimes I spend days on just one sentence," he said dramatically. I thought to myself, "wow, either this man is the next James Joyce, or he is a complete idiot and a poser." But it is not for me to judge. Posers know who they are, and there's no reason (nor is it my position) for me to try and remind them. As I said, my struggle and issues with this go back down a long and winding road. SEE HERE.

Potential writers, aspiring writers, or unpublished writers and the rest are simply another bracket of the economic market. The ever-widening publications on "how to write..." proves just that. Aspiring authors/writers are simply another market bracket. Go to Amazon and type a search for "how to write," or "writing fiction" and see how many hits you'll get. See HERE. And HERE. Troubling, isn't it? Published authors are writing books about how to write because there is a market out there of people who buy these books (myself included). Again, I apologize if I am sounding a bit over the top or condescending. I mainly bring this up because it is a personal struggle for me. I teach writing at an all-girl Catholic college preparatory academy. Teaching writing gives itself to assume that as a teacher of writing I should be a writer myself. Again, the answer proves incredibly problematic... at least to me.

"The God Delusion" is getting to that part where most of the harsh criticism I read about before purchasing the book takes place. Richard Dawkins can be a bully about his position. Funny, he really does sound like those tele-evangelists he seems to criticize so much. But I am postponing the inevitable, and I should finish the book in the next couple of days. It's going to be very nice to start writing about what I am reading again. The situation with my left knee is the same.

Without a computer...

During my 10 day holiday, I decided not to use the computer at all and see how much more I could read and write. Several things jumped at me immediately. I certainly could read more, have more time to spend with the books, etc. I could also write more using my Royal portable typewriter. I am not reverting back to pre-technology days, but it was a test of will not to turn on the computer for a week.

This is what happened:

1-I read "Rilke On Love and Other Difficulties"

2-I read "The Dream Life of Sukhanov" by Olga Grushin

3--I am in the middle of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

Of Rilke I can only say it was a worth while read but strictly on an academic level. There are some fine passages from his letters and other writings. This was the first time I read some of his poetry. I quote here in the original German in honor of my literary benefactor and friend:

Wir sollen nicht wissen, warum

dieses und jenes uns meistert;

wirkliches Leben ist stumm,

nur daB es uns begeistert,

macht uns mit ihm vertraut

"The Dream Life of Sukhanov" went by so fast that I finished the book in 24 hours. I couldn't put it down. The first five or six paragraphs are hard to swallow--it's difficult to make out what's going on. Once things are settled, it is an enjoyable read. Sukhanov is the editor in chief of the premier art publication in the Soviet Union. He has everything he could ask for. Things begin to unravel when a friend from his past chances upon him. The toss up judgment that the reader eventually has to take is that of whether it was right for Sukhanov to give up his dreams for a comfortable career. He begins to justify his life by claiming that he did it all for others, not for personal gain. But the equation is not that simple. He "sells" out to the Soviet apparatchik, and his dream of being a cutting edge (albeit highly against Soviet policy) surrealist painter vanishes. I think there are some interesting devices here too. For example, the narrator point of view changes from third person to first person and then back. I think this works, insofar it helps Sukahnov explain his dilemma. It does get confusing at times so the reader must be alert to the change as it happens. This story is easily comparable to "The Death of Ivan Ilych" by Tolstoy.

I am reading Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion," but I am not commenting on it.

I found this old quote by Kafka in a scrap piece of paper hidden between the pages of one of my old books.

I am nothing but literature and can and want

to be nothing else.... A writer's life actually

does depend on his desk; if he is to avoid going

mad, really he should never leave his desk, he

must cling to it like grim death.... I want to delve

into it with all my strength; when not writing I feel

myself being pushed out of life by unyielding hands. -- Franz Kafka.