Analysis of 'The God Delusion' - Preface and Chapter 1

Just purchased Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion to examine his arguments for atheism. I strongly believe that God is "no shrinking violet" and therefore everyone's views (or your "map of the world") should be open to challenge, debate and discussion on these important subjects.

• Preface - Dawkins asserts that he will present "consciousness-raisers" like "atheism is a realistic aspiration", "the power of cranes such as natural selection", "proper understanding of the magnificence of the real world ... can fill the inspirational role that religion has historically - and inadequately - usurped", and "atheist pride."
  
  Atheists do not conform to authority :
  He states, "Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority." This is rather revealing in that it discloses that atheists believe in no objective authority other than themselves. It will be interesting to read his later chapter on how atheists can still be moral without believing in any objective, external authority. Of course, this "objective moral authority" is how C.S. Lewis begins "Mere Christianity". If humanity is the pinnacle, how do we avoid "might makes right" and the rise of "hitlers"? Would both of those not be the pinnacle of evolution? Would that not be prudent if "survival of the fittest" is the only driving principle behind all things? I wonder if Dawkins has not unwittingly exposed a fatal flaw in his "atheist pride" agenda -- Atheist cannot unite because there is no banner to unite under. Each is a ruler unto themselves and they must compete, adapt, and then compete again to overcome each other. Unity is impossible for a band of endlessly-competing, self-appointed monarchs.
  
• Chapter 1 - A Deeply Religious Non-Believer.
  I was disappointed in this chapter because Dawkins carefully narrows down his focus to exclude what he calls "Einsteinian Religion". Einstein believed in the God of Spinoza and not an intervening-God. Just because Einstein's God was not the God of the Old Testament does not diminish the fact that he is certainly NOT in Dawkins' camp. However, this subtle side-step implies that he is.
  This is disconcerting because Dawkins is not admitting that he is espousing an extreme position, one that Einstein did not share. Atheism is the polar opposite to fundamentalist theism. If we looked at this on a spectrum BOTH "one-way,our-way theism" and "no-way, only-us atheism" are both extreme positions at the very ends of the scale.
  
  Pg 14. Here Dawkins defines an atheist - "An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is sombeody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand."
  
  Clearly, Einstein thought differently for he did believe that a "supernatural intelligence" created the observable universe (as Spinoza did) but that this God as creator is not a personal, accessible God that intervenes. Dawkins calls this "Pantheism". My only assertions in this regard are two points:
  1. Einstein would not consider himself an atheist.
  2. Pantheism still holds a belief in the supernatural as that which "creates, guides, and dictates the natural". Think of it as the "DNA of the Universe". A master map, created by the master map-maker.
  
  Dawkins cop-out:
  "The God Delusion does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section." Why do I think this is a cop-out? Because, he does nothing to admit that atheism refutes these scientists beliefs too! Atheism is not open to "some belief in God". In fact, this could be Dawkins' entire point of this book to portray a "kinder, gentler atheist." Now, to be fair and look at this from Dawkins point of view - it is reasonable for him to paint a "main target". And as the Islamic Terrorists have so blatantly pointed out ... fundamentalist, "one-true-way, scientists-need-not-apply" religions can be psychologically, socially and physically dangerous.
  
  We agree - Priveledged status without good cause is wrong :
  He ends chapter 1 with a good discussion on how religions receive priveledged status in public discussions and with public institutions and this should not be the case. I agree with him. He brings up good examples and good arguments on illegal activities deemed legal because of "religious beliefs".