comfortably dumb

Finished reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion this morning. I was surprisingly unmoved. I'm not sure what I was expecting — I think I wanted it to hand me irrefutable evidence that I could wave in the faces of any future religionists who wanted to argue the existence of a god or challenge the validity of evolution. I suppose it does that, to a certain degree. There are plenty of inflammatory quotes from boneheaded theologians that fly against common sense and are worthy of a firestorm of derision. There are plenty of logical arguments of why a religion-based approach to viewing the world makes no sense, and that the supposed benefits of wearing god-colored glasses are, empirically, untrue.

And yet, I didn't close the book with a satisfying thump and a smug feeling of "this'll show 'em!" Truth is, reading the book made me realize that it doesn't matter what you say — anyone who really wants to believe, will believe. Going through the book I played devil's advocate (or, well, god's advocate) and found plenty of wiggle room to refute Dawkin's rather perfunctorily constructed arguments with easy appeals to faith. ("That's why it's called faith. I feel it's true, regardless of what you say.")

Don't get me wrong: I pretty much agree with everything that Dawkin's is saying. I think religion as a force in the world has turned sour, if it ever was sweet, and we would be better off if more people would use reason to experience life, rather than faith. The use of faith as a person's primary source of light in the world dims that person's view of reality and the people he or she comes in contact with. I also believe that we are at a time in history when it is important for rationalists and atheists to stand up and raise their voices to counteract the ignorance promoted by faith-based "reasoning."

But reading this book it became clear to me how much thinking and piecing together of evidence and making connections and blah blah blah ... zzzz. It's not simple stuff. Understanding the theory of evolution is not intuitive. Quantum mechanics is not a walk in the park. Explaining why and how our brains can trick us into seeing and feeling things we want to see and feel can seem kind of mean, when you're bursting people's faith bubbles. Basically, the faith-based view of the world is easier and more enjoyable. God is the great, big, fluffy pillow to lay your head on when someone starts droning on and on about probability and the likelihood of a creator making something so complex.

I found myself looking forward to the book being over. Aside from the fact that many of the arguments were old and ones I already knew and agreed with, and that Dawkins' sloppy, casual writing style was dull at times (and some of the arguments not well supported—which is understandable, this being a "popular science" book and not a textbook), what I really craved was a story. I couldn't wait to finish so I could go back to something easier to read, something that was more enjoyable and would engage me more emotionally. This is not to say that my righteous indignation wasn't raised by reading his book, or that it didn't have me shaking my head at the quotes from those boneheaded xians, but that's not really satisfying, ultimately. I tend to alternate between fiction and non-fiction for this very reason: I want to be emotionally satisfied. And isn't that what religion does for people? It gives them a story to be part of. A safe, simple, easy-to-understand, comforting story to feel.