Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion first appeared in 2006, the paperback including corrections and clarifications in 2007. Dawkins starts from the fact that the world changed in the mid-19th century when Charles Darwin finally published his theory of evolution. He also reminds us that Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century caused a similar paradigm shift by postulating that the earth was not the center of the universe or even the solar system. It may also be relevant to remember that some of these facts had been known to ancient Greek philosophers (Aristarchus) and that the knowledge had subsequently been suppressed by various religions, contrary to the evidence, such as the appearance of ship masts on the horizon. at sea. It is this denial of evidence whenever it challenges dogma that is the central theme of The God Delusion.

Richard Dawkins traces the process by which scientific evidence has continually pushed back supernatural explanations of reality that previously held sway as we perceive it, thus calling into question the basis for continued allegiance to any form of religion. He even goes so far as to describe the indoctrination of a child into a faith by parents as a form of abuse. Arguments will not convince or convert the religious. They clearly never intended to do so.

There is a word that he uses many times and that is “evidence”. As a scientist, Richard Dawkins maintains a rational approach to the physical world. Science doesn’t explain anything, by the way. The question “why” is perhaps inadmissible, since it really represents an amalgamation of the answers to how, when, how much or what. And these questions must be answered before anything that presumes an explanation can be adopted. Dawkins’ position is little more than a restatement of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which is nearly three hundred years old. Dawkins’s opponents, however, apparently consider him a modern radical. He reminds us that science creates intellectual models that fit and relate to the physical world. Actually, whatever it is, an electron, for example, probably doesn’t look anything like what we imagine it to be. But does our model of what we understand an electron to be fit the phenomena of its effects, and if our expectations of its presence correspond to what we observe, then we have something that works, though ultimately we may never know if it is literally accurate.

And this is Richard Dawkins’s main problem with religion. Believing something simply because it is written in a book that someone else has previously labeled sacred is just as unscientific as denying gravity. It is, as Dawkins points out, irrational to the point of being false and insincerity, in most religions, would be damned.

An important argument used by Richard Dawkins is, of course, that these religious texts are only selectively interpreted or adopted. He cites numerous examples from the Bible of divinely dictated rules being broken in all self-proclaimed Christian societies. If particular aspects of these texts have been selected and others ignored, and if that selection is dictated by the cultural, moral, or intellectual mores of a particular place and time, then what is it that keeps these texts relevant? authoritative or divine, let alone literally right?

More than a decade after The God Dilemma appeared, it seems that its reading is more essential now than then. The political presence of the populist right, often associated with the same ideological blinders and rejection of evidence that characterize religious fundamentalists, had in 2006 only a fraction of its current influence. Thus, there is no more important time to remember Dawkins’ approach, even if we disagree with his ultimate fate, that the evidence is paramount and cannot be dismissed or denied. In an age where the powerful say one thing today and deny it tomorrow or insert a word like “no” after the event to change the whole meaning, then it is everyone’s responsibility to either respect the evidence or avoid anything that ignores it. .

Richard Dawkins also reminds us that human beings collectively still know very little about anything. The expanding universe, which is nothing like any universe described in any sacred text, raises perhaps the biggest question. Where is the issue that could drive such expansion? The question currently cannot be answered. And it would not be an answer, as Dawkins points out, to lump this question, along with all the others we currently find difficult, into one box, call it something supernatural, and then consider the matter resolved, much less explained. Such intellectual laziness would do nothing to increase our scarcity of knowledge. What The God Delusion also illustrates, however, is that those who embrace this intellectual laziness are often seemingly more confident than those who refuse to commit due to a lack of evidence.

The moral of all this, and it is more important now than in 2006, is to beware of any advice that comes without proof, without the ability to demonstrate or illustrate. And the only acceptable proof is a weight of evidence that cuts across opinion and is demonstrable. And, more importantly, be wary of anything that claims such authentication is not required.