See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225722805

Richard Dawkins, The God delusion

Article  in  Journal of Bioeconomics · April 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s10818-010-9100-y

CITATIONS READS
0 66,206

1 author:

Deby L. Cassill
University of South Florida St. Petersburg
46 PUBLICATIONS   701 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Evolution of the Family View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deby L. Cassill on 28 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dear Author,

Here are the proofs of your article.

• You can submit your corrections online, via e-mail or by fax.

• For online submission please insert your corrections in the online correction form. Always
indicate the line number to which the correction refers.

• You can also insert your corrections in the proof PDF and email the annotated PDF.

• For fax submission, please ensure that your corrections are clearly legible. Use a fine black
pen and write the correction in the margin, not too close to the edge of the page.

• Remember to note the journal title, article number, and your name when sending your
response via e-mail or fax.

• Check the metadata sheet to make sure that the header information, especially author names
and the corresponding affiliations are correctly shown.

• Check the questions that may have arisen during copy editing and insert your answers/
corrections.

• Check that the text is complete and that all figures, tables and their legends are included. Also
check the accuracy of special characters, equations, and electronic supplementary material if
applicable. If necessary refer to the Edited manuscript.

• The publication of inaccurate data such as dosages and units can have serious consequences.
Please take particular care that all such details are correct.

• Please do not make changes that involve only matters of style. We have generally introduced
forms that follow the journal’s style.
Substantial changes in content, e.g., new results, corrected values, title and authorship are not
allowed without the approval of the responsible editor. In such a case, please contact the
Editorial Office and return his/her consent together with the proof.

• If we do not receive your corrections within 48 hours, we will send you a reminder.

• Your article will be published Online First approximately one week after receipt of your
corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. Further changes
are, therefore, not possible.

• The printed version will follow in a forthcoming issue.

Please note
After online publication, subscribers (personal/institutional) to this journal will have access to the
complete article via the DOI using the URL: http://dx.doi.org/[DOI].
If you would like to know when your article has been published online, take advantage of our free
alert service. For registration and further information go to: http://www.springerlink.com.
Due to the electronic nature of the procedure, the manuscript and the original figures will only be
returned to you on special request. When you return your corrections, please inform us if you would
like to have these documents returned.
Metadata of the article that will be visualized in OnlineFirst
ArticleTitle Richard Dawkins, The God delusion
Article Sub-Title Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 2008, 463 pp, $15.95 (paper)
Article CopyRight Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
(This will be the copyright line in the final PDF)
Journal Name Journal of Bioeconomics
Corresponding Author Family Name Cassill
Particle
Given Name Deby
Suffix
Division Department of Biology
Organization University of South Florida
Address St. Petersburg, FL, 33701, USA
Email cassill@stpt.usf.edu

Received
Schedule Revised
Accepted

Footnote Information
Journal: 10818
Article: 9100

Author Query Form

Please ensure you fill out your response to the queries raised below
and return this form along with your corrections

Dear Author

During the process of typesetting your article, the following queries have arisen. Please
check your typeset proof carefully against the queries listed below and mark the
necessary changes either directly on the proof/online grid or in the ‘Author’s response’
area provided below

Section Details required Author’s response

Reference Please provide volume number and
page range for reference “Cassill and
Watkins (2009).
 J Bioecon
DOI 10.1007/s10818-010-9100-y

BOOK REVIEW

Richard Dawkins, The God delusion

Author Proof

of
Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 2008, 463 pp, $15.95
(paper)

Deby Cassill

pro
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

1 Throughout the animal kingdom, alpha males have been the ‘Gods’ that see the big pic-
ture and set the rules that the masses follow. Richard Dawkins’ is an alpha male. With
2

3
cted
his Godlike-powers, it is no surprise that he has written an ambitious, aggressive book
4 dispelling the God myth. The surprise is that Dawkins is toppling his own pedestal.
5 Why would a man who wrote about the immortal gene willingly destroy the allusion
6 of his own Godliness? That is a mystery he will have to reveal himself—hopefully in
7 a future autobiography.
8 Meanwhile, let us review this alpha male’s position on God. It is simple. Dawkins
9 does not believe. He is an atheist. The goal of his book is to build atheist pride. ‘Being
10 an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about.’ Dawkins writes. ‘On the contrary, it is
11 something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly
orre

12 always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind (p. 26).’
13 Although it is unlikely that Dawkins’ writings will immediately sway the masses to
14 a secular lifestyle, his book is well worth reading. Dawkins clearly defines the differ-
15 ences among theists, deists, pantheists and atheists. A theist believes in an invisible,
16 sentient, intelligent, God-parent who not only created the universe, but oversees and
17 influences the fates of his creatures. He answers prayers, performs miracles, knows
18 who has been bad or good and forgives or punishes accordingly. A deist believes in an
19 intelligent God who created the universe, but who does not answer prayers or intervene
20 in human affairs in any way, shape or form. A pantheist uses the term ‘God’ only as
unc

21 a metaphor for summarizing the physical ‘laws’ of nature or the universe. Einstein
22 was a pantheist. Atheists accept the uncertainty of life and the finality of death, and
23 avoid using the term, God, entirely. These definitions should provide clarity for those
24 searching for answers to what it means to be a theist or an atheist.

D. Cassill (B)
Department of Biology, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA
e-mail: cassill@stpt.usf.edu

123
Journal: 10818-JBIO Article No.: 9100 TYPESET DISK LE CP Disp.:2010/11/20 Pages: 2 Layout: Small-X
 D. Cassill

25 In one of the early chapters, Dawkins describes the Old Testament God as ‘…jealous
26 and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty
27 ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully (p. 59).’
Author Proof

28

of
29 Here, Dawkins is refreshingly bold and direct. His candid single-paragraph portrait of
30 the Old Testament God as a ‘psychotic delinquent’ (p. 59) elegantly illuminates the
31 difference between belief and reality, and thus, might set free the hearts and minds of
32 those who have been bullied by belief.
33 In the middle chapters, Dawkins vents his frustration with the masses who still

pro
34 believe in a supernatural God-parent. Because Dawkins is an alpha male, he views
35 life through an alpha’s lens; this is a problem as the lens of the masses is quite dif-
36 ferent from that of the alphas. For example, the masses rarely see the big picture and
37 they rarely set the rules. Their world is often one of fear and uncertainty. To them,
38 a God-parent offers the allusion of certainty. Do good deeds now. Give money now.
39 Suffer now. And when you die, you will live in God’s heavenly home, protected and
40 loved forever after. To the suffering masses, a belief in a heavenly home would be
41 irresistible when compared to a toxic reality.
42 In the final chapters, Dawkins asks the question: Do we need God to be good? His
43
cted
question is the Holy Grail of theoretical evolution and one that I have attempted to
44 address myself. Here is what I have found. Human behavior is a duality of competi-
45 tion and compassion (Cassill 2006). Competition helps us accumulate and stockpile
46 resources for the proverbial ‘rainy day’ so we can survive seasonal gaps in resources.
47 Compassionately sharing increments from our stockpiles with vulnerable individu-
48 als—typically the poor, young and elderly who would otherwise die of starvation,
49 disease or exposure—indemnifies us against aggression. How does sharing with vul-
50 nerable individuals indemnify donors against aggression? By way of the proverbial
51 ‘safety in numbers.’ If an aggressor lurks nearby, better to be one in twenty than one
alone. By competitive stockpiling and compassionate sharing, both donor and recipient
orre

52

53 live longer and happier compared to those who do not stockpile and share (Cassill and
54 Watkins 2009).
55 In a nutshell, competitive stockpiling indemnifies individuals against scarcity and
56 starvation; compassionate sharing indemnifies individuals against aggression. Thus,
57 even our most cherished moral behavior—helping those who cannot help themselves—
58 is often self-interested rather than self-sacrificing. Although he does not come right out
59 and say it, Dawkins’ hope is the same as mine—that humans will come to recognize
60 and appreciate our innate compassion rather than crediting our compassionate nature
61 to a distant, supernatural source.
unc

62 References

63 Cassill, D. L., & Watkins, A. (2009). The emergence of cooperative hierarchies through natural selection
64 processes. Journal of Bioeconomics (in press).
65 Cassill, D. L. (2006). Why skew selection, a model of parental exploitation, should replace kin selection.
66 Journal of Bioeconomics, 8, 101–119. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/63j12k7w561gr667).

123
Journal: 10818-JBIO Article No.: 9100 TYPESET DISK LE CP Disp.:2010/11/20 Pages: 2 Layout: Small-X
View publication stats